Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think both d-USA and Jasper have valid points about some Christian moral imperative in this instance (even if I disagree), as well.

Just to make my position clear, I did not make this point (perhaps d-USA did). I believe Hobby Lobby should have (and should, today, right now) hired this woman back on the basis of modern morality. If that coincides with aspects of Christian morality, it is purely coincidence as far as my argument goes. While I acknowledge Christianity has contributed to our modern moral zeitgeist, I believe the Christian worldview on the whole is fundamentally immoral.

I only say that the Christian view applies in this situation because the Greens argued in court, in interview, and in marketing, that they and Hobby Lobby are driven by nothing other than pure Christian morals and Biblical values.

Not because I think employers should act Christian, but because they argue that they would never do anything unchristian.

OK, I agree with you I think. It certainly calls into question whether they sincerely believe in their own religion, which is part of the new ill-advised litmus test Scalia and company have laid down for the federal government.

 d-usa wrote:
, I believe the Christian worldview on the whole is fundamentally immoral.

I'd love to hear you elaborate on this. Probably best to do in PMs.

I only say that the Christian view applies in this situation because the Greens argued in court, in interview, and in marketing, that they and Hobby Lobby are driven by nothing other than pure Christian morals and Biblical values.

Not because I think employers should act Christian, but because they argue that they would never do anything unchristian.

Right with you here. That's what I understood you to mean, so if I misrepresented it it was unintentional.

Which again begs the question for instances like this: "How Christian is Christian enough?"

Again, my viewpoint is that employers shouldn't be forced to provide anything they don't want to, especially now with the ACA in place.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
, I believe the Christian worldview on the whole is fundamentally immoral.

I'd love to hear you elaborate on this. Probably best to do in PMs.

I'm sure its the usual suspects: original sin, inherited guilt, children born evil, human sacrifice, vicarious redemption, judgment without appeal, torture without reprieve, slavery given the thumbs up, faith as the measure of a human's worth, anti-female, anti-sex, anti-homosexuality, splitting up families, the culling of non-believers, banevolent dictatorship, malevolent dictatorship....just off the top of my head.

None of these things would pass muster in the modern Western moral zeitgeist, and many of them have been rejected by most Christians because they really just cannot be defended.

I think your quote are a little bit messed up there.

I think this case is a good example of the problem you create when you lose the distinction between people and corporations and pretend that corporations have religions. I would be perfectly fine if the Greens preached their personal values from the mountain tops and ran their corporation like a secular business that can't go to heaven. Then you wouldn't end up with situations where a corporation argues "I can't because the Bible tells me not do" and them turns around and refuses to do something despite it being the "Christian" thing to do.

When you attach religion to a business you will always compromise either your religion, your capitalism, or both.

If the Greens are the Christians, but Hobby Lobby isn't, then I wouldn't hold the business to Christian standards and values.

 cincydooley wrote:

Which again begs the question for instances like this: "How Christian is Christian enough?"

Scalia and those who signed off on his decision have just placed the answer to this question squarely in the hands of the federal government. This is where this stuff really scares me. Now some bureaucrat will have to decide which religions are valid, and which ones are BS. Of the valid religions, this bureaucrat will then have to decide if the adherent in question is a "sincere" or "insincere" believer.

This is like 1984 stuff, and should scare the gak out of anyone who values religious freedom.

 cincydooley wrote:


Which again begs the question for instances like this: "How Christian is Christian enough?"
.

there is also the issue that Christianity has many different sects, so while one might think it "the epitome of Christianity" to love all and welcome gays, another might think the epitome of Christianity is to hate them 200% more then everyone else.

same with most religions, political groups, any group with enough people really.

 Cheesecat wrote:
@cincy my point was that "schmuck" isn't much of an insult as far as I'm aware, although maybe it has a lot worse connotations than I'm aware of.

The origins are a yiddish word for "penis" and is considered a very vulgar version, not to be said in polite company and really bad if you call someone one. It is considered by many to be like calling a woman a 'C-word' which stands for vagina.

The issue is Americans heard this funny-sounding word being thrown around and began using it to be a silly word for 'idiot' because they saw people doing it. So yes, it is a silly word for idiot, but to many people it is a super vulgar word.

"Dinner for Schmucks" actually got censored lots of places due to the word being to vulgar to display.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Which again begs the question for instances like this: "How Christian is Christian enough?"

Scalia and those who signed off on his decision have just placed the answer to this question squarely in the hands of the federal government. This is where this stuff really scares me. Now some bureaucrat will have to decide which religions are valid, and which ones are BS. Of the valid religions, this bureaucrat will then have to decide if the adherent in question is a "sincere" or "insincere" believer.

This is like 1984 stuff, and should scare the gak out of anyone who values religious freedom.

And to add to this... I don't actually know what sect of Christianity Hobby Lobby is claiming to be. They are so drastically different, and then you have the religious which claim to be off-shoots of Christianity because they have a JESUS but are by no means Christianity... Remember ISLAM has Jesus too but I wouldn't consider Islam a sect of Christianity.

 jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Which again begs the question for instances like this: "How Christian is Christian enough?"

Scalia and those who signed off on his decision have just placed the answer to this question squarely in the hands of the federal government. This is where this stuff really scares me. Now some bureaucrat will have to decide which religions are valid, and which ones are BS. Of the valid religions, this bureaucrat will then have to decide if the adherent in question is a "sincere" or "insincere" believer.

This is like 1984 stuff, and should scare the gak out of anyone who values religious freedom.

Actually, the SCOTUS simply stated that "closely held" corporations can argue for Religious exemptions under the RFRA act, in the same way as individuals.

And to reiterate, the government has ALWAYS had the power to determine if a claimed religion is valid. IE, it took years for the Scientology to have the IRS classify them as a Religion.

Yeah. You're right, and I am getting to drinkered up to type. Cheers!

 cincydooley wrote:

And FYI, the thread is a waste of time becase she wasn't enti

I'm just going to stop you right there, before it's too late. She might be... that word to her job, or at least, have been led to believe that she was. We don't know. She might not be able to prove it even if she was.

There is something very sick about this world that we can say that simply because something isn't a legal mandate means that there is zero percentage of it happening, even if it would be "good" or even "right". I mean, have you never received anything from anyone you weren't entitled to? It would explain many of your posts here if you have not, or more likely, have decided that you believe you have not.

I hate that word, because it's grossly overused, and often in such a mind-numbingly "technically right" sense. It's the kind of way that makes me think people see corporations as role models to emulate rather than people.

Also, restricting people to what they're legally ENTITLED is patently un-Christian. I mean, God gave his SON to die for OUR sins, and a massive corporation can't give a job to help save this woman? Not Christian at all. Consider Acts: "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Tsk.

I certainly have never met a Christian that I'd consider devout that would turn this woman away on the basis of needing leave , paid or unpaid, to birth a child and recover.

Having said that I do recognize these are allegations. If I ever see a response to this story from Hobby Lobby, I'll provide an update. Hopefully they will handle this situation in the morally correct way, and, if you like, the Christian way, because on this issue we are in happy agreement.

At the very least I hope the article might help her land a job. Sometimes these types of articles help people get in contact with others who can help locally.

 daedalus wrote:

I'm just going to stop you right there, before it's too late. She might be... that word to her job, or at least, have been led to believe that she was. We don't know. She might not be able to prove it even if she was.

Doesn't matter what she thinks she was led to believe. The law says she wasn't entitled to her job being kept while she went on leave based on her amount of time with the company. The article admits that she knew this.

There is something very sick about this world that we can say that simply because something isn't a legal mandate means that there is zero percentage of it happening, even if it would be "good" or even "right". I mean, have you never received anything from anyone you weren't entitled to? It would explain many of your posts here if you have not, or more likely, have decided that you believe you have not.

And having only one side of the story, we have no idea if she deserved her job back. I'd wager if she was an exemplary employee they'd have found a way to make it work. Personally, I don't think I'm entitled to anything. And that certainly pertains to my job.

I hate that word, because it's grossly overused, and often in such a mind-numbingly "technically right" sense. It's the kind of way that makes me think people see corporations as role models to emulate rather than people.

Simply put, I disagree. We just had the Urban League convention in Cincinnati. The motto this year was "one nation underemployed". The slogan made me want to puke in my mouth.

Also, restricting people to what they're legally ENTITLED is patently un-Christian. I mean, God gave his SON to die for OUR sins, and a massive corporation can't give a job to help save this woman? Not Christian at all. Consider Acts: "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Tsk.

So there's one deduction of how how Christian one must be. They must go above and beyond what the law mandates. Glad we can start laying some ground work here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
.

At the very least I hope the article might help her land a job. Sometimes these types of articles help people get in contact with others who can help locally.

Or money. The timing of the "article," as I've said, seems suspect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I certainly have never met a Christian that I'd consider devout that would turn this woman away on the basis of needing leave , paid or unpaid, to birth a child and recover.

.

The notion that someone that identifies as Christian should give more than others is an interesting one to me.

Why does the timing confuse you or seem suspect. Hobby Lobby jumps up, shines the spotlight on itself as an anti-birth control champion, and suddenly journalists in the reproductive rights realm start scrutinizing them, and you find this unusual or suspect?

If you go out looking for special treatment, simply don't be surprised when you find it.

I never said Christians should give more than others. In the quote, replace "Christian that I'd consider devout" with "citizen with a respectable moral compass" and it would still hold true as a statement about myself.

 cincydooley wrote:

Doesn't matter what she thinks she was led to believe. The law says she wasn't entitled to her job being kept while she went on leave based on her amount of time with the company. The article admits that she knew this.

I can't argue with that last part. If your immediate supervisor indicates something to you that's a falsehood about your employment, there should still be consequences. We'll have to stick a pin in that one and come back to it when there's something more to the story than us speculating.

And having only one side of the story, we have no idea if she deserved her job back. I'd wager if she was an exemplary employee they'd have found a way to make it work. Personally, I don't think I'm entitled to anything. And that certainly pertains to my job.

Fair enough, and I understand that. "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results" is a phrase I've long since tried to live to. I just can't get myself to hold others to my own standards.

Simply put, I disagree. We just had the Urban League convention in Cincinnati. The motto this year was "one nation underemployed". The slogan made me want to puke in my mouth.

Honestly, I don't know what that is. I'll have to look into it and consider for myself.

So there's one deduction of how how Christian one must be. They must go above and beyond what the law mandates. Glad we can start laying some ground work here.

I feel weird speaking on behalf of the Christians, for many reasons, but yeah, I'd say that's a start. I mean, if we're talking about being good Christians (or really good ANYTHING, not just Christians) we need to consider what the average is. I think by definition in order to be GOOD at anything, you need to do it above and beyond whatever the minimum is. You're not a good student when you're just barely making the grades to pass, right? You're not a good employee if you're only working hard enough to not get fired. Why on earth would you be a good Christian if you were only assisting your employees at the bare minimum of what was strictly legal?

I mean, feth it, they're not public so I don't have access to any information about them, but rehiring this lady surely can't hurt them even as much as a speeding ticket could hurt me, and that would be an annoyance at best. If they really had to get SOMETHING out of this, anything at all, they could put the PR spin on it. "Sure, we prohibit some forms of birth control in our health plans, but at least we have your back when you are pregnant!" I mean, bragging about charity is still a nono in the bible, but you're at least still doing everyone involved good. Save face for the company, help the lady, everyone gets the warm fuzzies and goes back to looking at cat pictures.

I promise I will never ever mention Hobby Lobby again if they do the right thing and give this lady a job, if for nothing else than for her child's sake.

You know, I'm gonna man up and shoot them a "do the right thing" email.