Washington (CNN)– Craft store giant Hobby Lobby is bracing for a $1.3 million a day fine beginning January 1 for noncompliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare.
The company opposes providing some contraceptives to employees through its company health care plan on religious grounds, saying some contraceptive products, like the morning after pill, equate to abortion.
After failing to receive temporary relief from the fines from the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby announced late Thursday through its attorneys that it "will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs."
In September, Hobby Lobby and affiliate Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain, sued the federal government for violating their owners' religious freedom and ability to freely exercise their religion. . . .
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/27/hobby-lobby-faces-millions-in-fines-for-bucking-obamacare/?hpt=hp_t3 (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/27/hobby-lobby-faces-millions-in-fines-for-bucking-obamacare/?hpt=hp_t3)
Here we go with yet another "corporation" claiming to hold "religious beliefs". (How does a soulless faceless corporation hold any kind of belief what-so-ever?)
THIS is the very kind of bullshit that SCOTUS decision granting corporations constitutional rights feeds. And THIS is the very kind of bullshit that frustrates the hell out of me.
If these soulless/faceless corporations are going to start claiming constitutional protection / violation of religious freedom, then those sumbitches need to be held accountable for operating their friggin businesses in a manner that does NOT violate the individual constitutional rights of their damn employees! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Those soulless faceless corps have owners and it is the owners who object not the corp itself. It should be up to the company to choose what coverage they carry anyway not the governments. They probably don't carry that type now so why should they be forced to carry it under Obama care?
Because it's the law.
a very bad law.........
In your opinion; the vast majority of Americans support it. :biggrin:
Sales in Hobby Lobby will go through the roof over the next few days.............
Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays. There is a sign on their door stating the closure and implying it is due to the owner's religious beliefs. If they provide adequate insurance per the health care act except for birth control I don't have a problem with them not furnishing it. Birth control is cheap, having sex is a choice, personal responsibility is a good thing.
Quote from: Anne on December 28, 2012, 09:54:23 AM
Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays. There is a sign on their door stating the closure and implying it is due to the owner's religious beliefs. If they provide adequate insurance per the health care act except for birth control I don't have a problem with them not furnishing it. Birth control is cheap, having sex is a choice, personal responsibility is a good thing.
Spot on Anne! :yes:
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion but the law is still the law.
This one will end up in court.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 11:33:27 AM
This one will end up in court.
Obviously you didn't read the story. It has already been there and they lost. They, like some here, refuse to get over it and comply with the law.
Quote from: me on December 28, 2012, 05:26:59 AM
Those soulless faceless corps have owners and it is the owners who object not the corp itself. . . .
And those owners ALREADY have individual constitutional rights. So because they own a corporation they now get to double-dip? Horse Hockey!
Why should they be able to force their religious beliefs upon their employees? How would you feel if the owners were of a religious sect that required all employees to cover their faces, or banned women from working there?
Quote from: Palehorse on December 28, 2012, 12:13:27 PM
And those owners ALREADY have individual constitutional rights. So because they own a corporation they now get to double-dip? Horse Hockey!
Why should they be able to force their religious beliefs upon their employees? How would you feel if the owners were of a religious sect that required all employees to cover their faces, or banned women from working there?
They are not forcing any religious beliefs on any employee........they just refuse to BUY them the "morning-after pill" as part of their HC coverage. All employees KNOW this before they go to work for them.
You are making MORE out of this than what it is.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 12:25:28 PM
They are not forcing any religious beliefs on any employee........they just refuse to BUY them the "morning-after pill" as part of their HC coverage. All employees KNOW this before they go to work for them.
You are making MORE out of this than what it is.
They seek to restrict medical coverage based upon a personal religious belief. That is not only against the law of the land, it is an insidiously anti-constitutional violation.
As for your comment surrounding the inferred knowledge of this being present pre-employment; it is blatantly clear your personal knowledge base surrounding the hiring process falls appallingly short. Moreover, you certainly have no personal knowledge surrounding the status of the job market today with which to base your opinion.
The fact is today as a potential candidate, one is forced to accept not only lower wages, but appallingly abusive "benefit packages" that fail to hit the mark in most employees judgment. As an example of this I would present the increasingly popular (with employers) "high deductible" health plans most are using to skirt the law. Employees are given no choice but to accept said plans, as they are the only option offered, and endure paying 6k in premiums annually, and 3500 dollar deductibles per person covered, before they will even think about starting to pay for even a band aid. (And even then it is at the 80% rate). Instead of being a "healthcare plan" these plans are nothing more than "healthcare disaster insurance" policies that place the burden upon the employees for their diagnostic testing, prescriptions, ER visits, etc.
And now they want to impose their religious beliefs upon their employees too, and are attempting to invoke a constitutional right to do so? Come on man! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 28, 2012, 12:49:50 PM
They seek to restrict medical coverage based upon a personal religious belief. That is not only against the law of the land, it is an insidiously anti-constitutional violation.
As for your comment surrounding the inferred knowledge of this being present pre-employment; it is blatantly clear your personal knowledge base surrounding the hiring process falls appallingly short. Moreover, you certainly have no personal knowledge surrounding the status of the job market today with which to base your opinion.
The fact is today as a potential candidate, one is forced to accept not only lower wages, but appallingly abusive "benefit packages" that fail to hit the mark in most employees judgment. As an example of this I would present the increasingly popular (with employers) "high deductible" health plans most are using to skirt the law. Employees are given no choice but to accept said plans, as they are the only option offered, and endure paying 6k in premiums annually, and 3500 dollar deductibles per person covered, before they will even think about starting to pay for even a band aid. (And even then it is at the 80% rate). Instead of being a "healthcare plan" these plans are nothing more than "healthcare disaster insurance" policies that place the burden upon the employees for their diagnostic testing, prescriptions, ER visits, etc.
And now they want to impose their religious beliefs upon their employees too, and are attempting to invoke a constitutional right to do so? Come on man! :mad: :mad: :mad:
all they want to do is NOT pay for the morning-after pill....other than that, they are complying.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 01:00:07 PM
all they want to do is NOT pay for the morning-after pill....other than that, they are complying.
Answered previously. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on December 28, 2012, 12:49:50 PM
They seek to restrict medical coverage based upon a personal religious belief. That is not only against the law of the land, it is an insidiously anti-constitutional violation. . . .
In for a penny, in for a pound.
and they are willing to challange the regulations in the lower courts....as Justice Sotomayor suggested that they could do.
The alternative is they could close up shop and lay-off 18,000 people.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 01:13:13 PM
The alternative is they could close up shop and lay-off 18,000 people.
If they refuse to comply with the law, they are a criminal enterprise. Since when do we worry about how many people stop getting paid when a criminal enterprise is interrupted?
Quote from: Exterminator on December 28, 2012, 01:15:56 PM
. . .Since when do we worry about how many people stop getting paid when a criminal enterprise is interrupted?
Republican party.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 01:13:13 PM
and they are willing to challange the regulations in the lower courts....as Justice Sotomayor suggested that they could do.
And that will cost them 1.3 million dollars a day until it is adjudicated (again) in the lower courts.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 01:13:13 PM
The alternative is they could close up shop and lay-off 18,000 people.
They can and will do so when they find that 1.3 million dollar a day in new "overhead" costs digging into their profits.
Pretty simple really. Just cover them and they will save 1.3 million a day. :yes: It is after all the law of the land and will make paying the lawyers easier on their business plan.
Just sayin.....and for the record, I am not against the morning after pill, but think a company, has the right to NOT be forced into PAYING for something that is against thier religious beleifs.
How many people is this REALLY going to effect? How many would it effect if they closed shop?
I think some common sense is being missed here.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 01:26:06 PM
I think some common sense is being missed here.
Indeed it is. Companies don't have religious beliefs; people do.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 01:26:06 PM
Just sayin.....and for the record, I am not against the morning after pill, but think a company, has the right to NOT be forced into PAYING for something that is against thier religious beleifs.
At the risk of being redundant I will say again; A corporation has no soul and so can hold no religious belief. It is the humans who comprise the organizational structure of said corporation that hold religious beliefs, and thus they are attempting to utilize an ill-concieved notion that corporation constitutional rights provide them with a platform with which to impose their personal beliefs upon the employees of said corporation(s).
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 01:26:06 PM
How many people is this REALLY going to effect? How many would it effect if they closed shop?
By your count, 18,000. (If said information has any credibility at all). And that's the short-sighted answer.
Corporate Amerika is watching this one, and if an exception is legally obtained they will flood the courts nation-wide for exceptions of their own. THAT is ONE of the real dangers in this.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 01:26:06 PM
I think some common sense is being missed here.
Indeed. Cover them and save 1.3 million dollars a day seems to be a no brainer.
Quote from: Palehorse on December 28, 2012, 12:10:14 PM
Obviously you didn't read the story. It has already been there and they lost. They, like some here, refuse to get over it and comply with the law.
It should not be a law is the thing you're overlooking. They obviously do not cover it now and the employees are ok with it so why should they be forced to cover it under Obama care? Now you could always boycott the store and shut them down and put all those people out of work so they could go elsewhere to work where it is covered. Ya, that's a great idea. :rolleyes:
btw, the law also says that Corporations DO HAVE RIGHTS....
Quote from: me on December 28, 2012, 03:47:58 PM
It should not be a law is the thing you're overlooking.
Why; because you don't agree with it?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 03:59:54 PM
btw, the law also says that Corporations DO HAVE RIGHTS....
And one of them appears to be the right to abuse the individual constitutional rights of their employees without fear of recrimination.
Quote from: me on December 28, 2012, 03:47:58 PM
It should not be a law is the thing you're overlooking. They obviously do not cover it now and the employees are ok with it so why should they be forced to cover it under Obama care? Now you could always boycott the store and shut them down and put all those people out of work so they could go elsewhere to work where it is covered. Ya, that's a great idea. :rolleyes:
Sorry. Hank already tried this angle and it doesn't work any different just because you are trying it.
Quote from: Palehorse on December 28, 2012, 04:48:58 PM
And one of them appears to be the right to abuse the individual constitutional rights of their employees without fear of recrimination.
the just don't want to pay for the morning after pill..............that' it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 04:59:44 PM
the just don't want to pay for the morning after pill..............that' it.
You should put that on the God Sucks thread because that's where it belongs.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 28, 2012, 01:13:13 PM
and they are willing to challange the regulations in the lower courts....as Justice Sotomayor suggested that they could do.
The alternative is they could close up shop and lay-off 18,000 people.
Am I to take this that you actually agree with the opinion of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor? Isn't she someone who you claimed shouldn't be on the court to begin with back when she was nominated?
Quote from: Palehorse on December 28, 2012, 04:48:58 PM
And one of them appears to be the right to abuse the individual constitutional rights of their employees without fear of recrimination.
Where in the constitution does it say a person has a right to the abortion pill?
Quote from: me on December 28, 2012, 06:00:27 PM
Where in the constitution does it say a person has a right to the abortion pill?
Just where does it say that you don't have the right to an abortion pill. Don't you know that these men who wrote the Constitution didn't know what compound medicine was, didn't know about anything about medicine. Hell George Washington was kill because they drew too much blood from him. Because they thought letting out bad blood would cure some diseases. :yes:
So what's your point Doctor No. :finger2:
Quote from: The Troll on December 28, 2012, 09:02:12 PM
Just where does it say that you don't have the right to an abortion pill. Don't you know that these men who wrote the Constitution didn't know what compound medicine was, didn't know about anything about medicine. Hell George Washington was kill because they drew too much blood from him. Because they thought letting out bad blood would cure some diseases. :yes:
So what's your point Doctor No. :finger2:
Ok let me rephrase that. Where in the constitution does it say people have a right to any kind of government care? Point it out.
Quote from: me on December 28, 2012, 09:11:49 PM
Ok let me rephrase that. Where in the constitution does it say people have a right to any kind of government care? Point it out.
Where in the HCRA is health insurance converted to government healthcare for all? Point that out. Where in this topic has anyone outside of you and Hank-sheep even advocated goverment healthcare?
Stay on topic why don't you? The fact is people who HAVE healthcare are paying dearly for less coverage each year. These idiots at hobby lobby would rather pay 1.3 million a day than pay for a 50 dollar morning after pill, and flaunt it in defiance of the law.
If 2% of their 18000 employees bought a morning after pill, (360), that would equal 18000 dollars in expenditures for it. Going against an estimated $69,120,000 in premiums.
They're forcing their religious beliefs upon their employees at a time when their employees have no choice in who they work for, and little to no opportunity to change it.
Quote from: Palehorse on December 28, 2012, 09:30:15 PM
Where in the HCRA is health insurance converted to government healthcare for all? Point that out. Where in this topic has anyone outside of you and Hank-sheep even advocated goverment healthcare?
Stay on topic why don't you? The fact is people who HAVE healthcare are paying dearly for less coverage each year. These idiots at hobby lobby would rather pay 1.3 million a day than pay for a 50 dollar morning after pill, and flaunt it in defiance of the law.
If 2% of their 18000 employees bought a morning after pill, (360), that would equal 18000 dollars in expenditures for it. Going against an estimated $69,120,000 in premiums.
They're forcing their religious beliefs upon their employees at a time when their employees have no choice in who they work for, and little to no opportunity to change it.
Then why aren't they complaining? There was a choice before unemployment got so high and people still chose to work there without the coverage so why should it change now?
Quote from: me on December 28, 2012, 09:34:07 PM
Then why aren't they complaining? There was a choice before unemployment got so high and people still chose to work there without the coverage so why should it change now?
Jobs started getting scarce back in the early 2000's, so get that straw man out of here before I set a match to it!
Quote from: Palehorse on December 28, 2012, 09:43:04 PM
Jobs started getting scarce back in the early 2000's, so get that straw man out of here before I set a match to it!
And there was a Hobby Lobby then and people worked there so they must not have had too much trouble getting employees since they're still as big as they are. Call it a straw man all you want it is a valid point. This is not a college debate it is a conversation so get rid of that straw man crap.
< Locutus watches Palehorse light his matches. >
:biggrin:
Quote from: Locutus on December 28, 2012, 10:21:17 PM
< Locutus watches Palehorse light his matches. >
:biggrin:
Hope he lights enough to warm it up a little. :biggrin:
You people are arguing with morons.
Quote from: me on December 28, 2012, 11:07:42 PM
They can't help it Ex.
Because you won't go away.
Quote from: Exterminator on December 28, 2012, 11:31:56 PM
Because you won't go away.
But the morons need someone too ya know so I stick around to keep them company. :razz:
(http://www.thepresentfinder.co.uk/images-db/product/13666/zoom.0s617l7g594a5n4k.jpg)
(http://www.contraststudio.co.za/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Match-on-fire1.jpg)
(http://agoldoffish.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/burning_man_effigy_black_city_nevada.jpeg)
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/StrawManI.jpg)
Good, now we can get on with conversations. :razz:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 29, 2012, 01:02:24 AM
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/StrawManI.jpg)
Quote from: me on December 29, 2012, 01:05:32 AM
Good, now we can get on with conversations. :razz:
Not until you go to church and repent for sacrificing the Strawman to the Fire-God of Truth. You must do penance to atone for your sins!
Quote from: Palehorse on December 29, 2012, 01:07:36 AM
Not until you go to church and repent for sacrificing the Strawman to the Fire-God of Truth. You must do penance to atone for your sins!
If it means having to go to church it ain't gonna happen. :no: :no: :no: :no:
Quote from: me on December 29, 2012, 01:09:13 AM
If it means having to go to church it ain't gonna happen. :no: :no: :no: :no:
Then you must burn!
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/StrawManI.jpg)
Quote from: Palehorse on December 29, 2012, 12:57:35 AM
(http://agoldoffish.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/burning_man_effigy_black_city_nevada.jpeg)
Quote from: Palehorse on December 29, 2012, 01:17:48 AM
Then you must burn!
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/StrawManI.jpg)
Oh well, dodo occurs....
Boycott Hobby Lobby!
Quote from: me on December 28, 2012, 09:34:07 PM
Then why aren't they complaining? There was a choice before unemployment got so high and people still chose to work there without the coverage so why should it change now?
It must be real nice for a big rich red head sitting on her big fat ass in her brand new home. Thinking it's not right for poor working people to bitch about not getting any benefits from the company that receive the benefits of their labor. Because all they get from large corporations is crumbs from the rich people's table. :azz:
Quote from: The Troll on December 29, 2012, 10:40:25 AM
It must be real nice for a big rich red head sitting on her big fat ass in her brand new home. Thinking it's not right for poor working people to bitch about not getting any benefits from the company that receive the benefits of their labor. Because all they get from large corporations is crumbs from the rich people's table. :azz:
Yer so funny Troll. :kazz:
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/Slide1.jpg)
And some defend to the death their right to be abjectly and depressingly stupid.
"That's my date. He's a French model."
Quote from: followsthewolf on December 29, 2012, 01:32:28 PM
And some defend to the death their right to be abjectly and depressingly stupid.
"That's my date. He's a French model."
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 28, 2012, 09:30:15 PM
They're forcing their religious beliefs upon their employees at a time when their employees have no choice in who they work for, and little to no opportunity to change it.
they are NOT forcing any religious beliefs on anyone.......
The damn thing about this in my opinion, why should ANYONE have to pay to OTHERS to screw safely? why can't people TRY to be an ounce accountable for their OWN actions? Why? that just blows me away! NO, lets have our government FORCE business' to pay for it............it is mind boggling to think our goverment is THIS powerful and so many people are okay with it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 29, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
they are NOT forcing any religious beliefs on anyone.......
The damn thing about this in my opinion, why should ANYONE have to pay to OTHERS to screw safely? why can't people TRY to be an ounce accountable for their OWN actions? Why? that just blows me away! NO, lets have our government FORCE business' to pay for it............it is mind boggling to think our goverment is THIS powerful and so many people are okay with it.
69,000,000 + in premiums less 18,000 to pay for 360 morning after pills. . . Yeah, who is paying for it again? :rolleyes:
What gets me is some dumbass who has screwed himself poor with 5 kids don't want anyone to get some from of birth control. To hell with the children born out of these conditions. And why is he against it, HE DOESN'T WANT SOME BIG RICH COMPANY TO PAY TO HAVE IT IN THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE. :azz:
Some people just make me sick. :puke:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 29, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
they are NOT forcing any religious beliefs on anyone.......
. . .
No?
Then explain just why it is that they do not want to pay for it then. . . (This should be good)
The story clearly states, (and within the portion of the story I quoted), that they do not want to pay for this because it is against the owners religious beliefs.
QuoteThe company opposes providing some contraceptives to employees through its company health care plan on religious grounds, saying some contraceptive products, like the morning after pill, equate to abortion. . .
So that is his/her religious belief, and more power to him. S/he can hold that belief all they want, but NO ONE else has to unless they make the personal decision to do so. Taking away that decision is imposing one's belief upon another, and constitutionally a violation as well as a violation of the HCRA; the law of the land.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 29, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
in my opinion, why should ANYONE (a bussiness owner) have to pay to OTHERS to screw safely?
Lets get to the blunt of this issue...........and this says it all for me.
For the same reasons you have to pay taxes. It's the law.
None of us enjoys paying taxes, but we have no choice in the matter.
"blunt"?
Are you referring to a marijuana cigarette, or did you mean to say "brunt," meaning the main thrust of the argument?
Quote from: followsthewolf on December 29, 2012, 09:21:28 PM
"blunt"?
Are you referring to a marijuana cigarette, or did you mean to say "brunt," meaning the main thrust of the argument?
;D
Quote from: followsthewolf on December 29, 2012, 09:21:28 PM
"blunt"?
Are you referring to a marijuana cigarette, or did you mean to say "brunt," meaning the main thrust of the argument?
Given the sentence structure of the post you replied to I'd say that was, again, a Freudian slip! :icon_twisted:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 29, 2012, 09:13:45 PM
Lets get to the blunt of this issue...........and this says it all for me.
Sentence structure and spelling / vocabulary notwithstanding. . . I already answered that one myself.
Quote from: Palehorse on December 29, 2012, 07:47:07 PM
No?
Then explain just why it is that they do not want to pay for it then. . . (This should be good)
The story clearly states, (and within the portion of the story I quoted), that they do not want to pay for this because it is against the owners religious beliefs.
So that is his/her religious belief, and more power to him. S/he can hold that belief all they want, but NO ONE else has to unless they make the personal decision to do so. Taking away that decision is imposing one's belief upon another, and constitutionally a violation as well as a violation of the HCRA; the law of the land.