PSA: Hobby Lobby is awesome!

JunkieBrewster · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:

@drpayne, I'm not terribly concerned with the companies investments, because it's actually not a court of law's job (regardless) to determine how sincerely held a belief is. The ruling rests on the fact that the corporation says it has a sincerely held belief - that's good enough for the court. Which is good, because we really don't want the courts in the business of determining how sincerely or not we hold our beliefs. What i'd like a response to is my MUCH longer post previous to that one - I think as a conservative catholic you would be very concerned about the precedent regarding religious freedom that this case sets. I'd love to see you set aside your religious beliefs and make a legal argument as to why this is a good case, outcome, and law for the nation. Remember, not everyone has the same religious beliefs as you do, and if you want other ppl to respect your religion, you're under obligation to respect theirs - the law works reciprocally. What can apply to catholics, can also apply to satanists (and the satanists have already filed a lawsuit based on this scotus ruling).

(edit for clarification)

EXACTLY.

If a Muslim held corporation filed a lawsuit demanding their employees were held to their beliefs, we would have a shitstorm on our hands.

JunkieBrewster · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:

______________ Edit: major quote box fail___________________

Again though, under the law, all that matters is that a person (or apparently, corporation) says that they have a closely held belief - we really don't need to be debating whether or not hobby lobby really does or doesn't sincerely believe that abortion is evil, because that isn't what a court of law really cares about. The problems in the ruling lie in the fact that a corporation CAN have a closely held belief at all, because legally a corporation has been separated from the individuals who own it. Then there's the question of why religious beliefs about abortion are somehow legally different from religious beliefs about blood transfusions.

Legally, all this discussion of 401ks is entierly tangental to the actual hobby lobby ruling. (I had a hugely long discussion with one of my lawyer friends on this subject the other day).

Yes, but it DOES go to the original discussion of this post and how awful HL is as a corporation, and is just another reason I, myself won't shop there.

For me, it's not so much that they may or may not believe its evil, but the very blatant hypocrisy they show while forcing their "religous" beliefs on others.

So, I was saying eve aside from the 401k talk, they're still awful

drpayne · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:

drpayne said:

dtremel said:

sarasarat said:

You can believe that everyone has a right to a piping hot Egg McMuffin delivered to your door every morning, it doesn't make it the case.

Except for Health Insurance is part of your compensation as an employee and in addition to that you pay for it....so what right does an employer have to tell me what types of bc I can or can't use? Shouldn't that be between me and ohhh idk my Doctor?

I am a doctor. And I can tell you insurance companies don't cover shit right now. I end up prescribing meds that are 15 years old because anything newer than that costs $200. I get call backs from pharmacists daily because patients want something cheaper. So, insurance doesn't not guarantee that everything your doctor prescribes is covered. Not even close.

@drpayne Again, even if you're a doctor, you're missing the point. Birth control coverage is mandated by the ACA. Hobby lobby sued the federal government for an exemption - meaning that the $$ that hobby lobby pays toward their employees benefits will not go toward certain types of birth control coverage. However, the way the ACA is written, birth control will still be covered for individuals who work at hobby lobby and other involved corporations - however, the government (ie tax payers) will technically pay for that coverage instead of hobby lobby. This was an exemption previously only granted to some non profits and religious organizations (any organization with a 501c3 tax code).

This is a political and legal question, as much as it is a coverage question.

Edit: words are hard. Also, I feel like @drpayne is ignoring me...

JunkieBrewster said:

drpayne said:

gradschoolmom1234 said:

drpayne said:

JunkieBrewster said:

Also, you can't say "We oppose birth control which we wrongly think causes abortions, but we will invest into our employee's 401K's including companies that... bankroll abortion drugs."

It was NEVER about their religious freedom.

You have absolutely no idea how mutual funds work. 401ks are directed and invested by employees, not employers.

@drpayne because hobby lobby is a "closely held" corporation, they (i believe) choose which company their employees 401ks will be with (for instance, Washington mutual, or whatever). While I see what you're saying that mutual funds and 401ks are generally diversified and companies rarely pay attention to specifically which companies their 401ks are specifically invested in, if a company did feel passionately enough they could certainly avoid investing in particular companies. This happened, for instance, across the US when, in the 1980s many universities and companies divested from South Africa. Hobby Lobby, or at least it's owners, could have chosen to divest from companies that make those products they so strenuously object to.

Regardless, I would love to hear any response you have to my (perhaps too long) post regarding the legal principals contained in the case. It seems like you're responding to the easiest things, and arguing on technicalities, rather than addressing the heart of the matter.

Lol, no... I'm at work, actually. I've already spent too much time here. I kick myself for getting into it to begin with because I do know arguments are not won on the internet. I am a conservative Catholic who supports Hobby Lobby... that makes me pretty different from a lot of the ladies on here and I've learned that I'm not going to change minds (just like I'm not going to change mine.) I looked into the 401K issue because it truly bothered me.

I thought this was a decent explanation from Forbes.
--------
Those who choose the investment options can be held personally liable for ensuring that the investment options on the 401(k) menu are selected in the exclusive best interest of the participant. Although the owners of Hobby Lobby do have the ultimate responsibility to select investment options for their plan, they must select options based solely on a set of criteria that are related to the retirement outcomes of the participants. They may not sacrifice returns or take on more risk, for example, just to pursue their personal religious preferences. Although plan sponsors are permitted to include some investment options that “negatively screen” companies with certain characteristics, it would be nearly impossible to construct an entire plan menu in this way. The Department of Labor, which is charged with policing compliance with fiduciary obligations of plan sponsors, ruled that: “The plan’s fiduciaries may not simply consider investments solely in green companies. They must consider all investments that meet the plan’s prudent financial criteria.” Attorney Fred Reish, a national recognized expert on fiduciary law, has noted that, in practice, a plan can restrict investment choices based on social screens, but only after an investment has first met the criteria that “an investment alternative is prudent for participant direction based on an analysis of only the investment considerations.” Richard Wilberg, Vice President of Benefit Planning Consultants, notes that “in theory, one might be able to construct a limited investment menu that meets social goals and does not violate fiduciary standards, but I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to ever do it in practice.” Because adding additional filters to the investment menu could negatively affect returns, Wilberg says that “doing so could be a recipe for disaster.” Envision 401(k) Advisors suggests on their website that “best practice” for firms that want to screen investments based on social or other factors is to offer a non-restricted choice in each asset class for which the plan is offering a restricted choice. In short, even if Hobby Lobby were to offer employees the option to invest in mutual funds that did not include contraceptive companies, it seems nearly impossible for them to avoid offering at least some funds that include them.
Summary:
Regardless of your personal views about the outcome of this week’s SCOTUS case, we should all at least acknowledge that the Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) plan does not reflect hypocrisy so much as it reflects the company’s efforts to comply with U.S. pension law.
------

Let's be clear here - that guy has a skewed idea of how retirement plans work.

Aside from that - Hobby Lobby does not have to offer 401k. They can decide not to since it's against their "moral" code.
They do.
They do not have to match.
They do

Why?
They profit.

Now, lets forget the entire 401k thing.

They get many of their supplies and product from China who forces thousands of women to have abortions every year.
Do they have to?
No. But they do.
Why?
They profit.

This fight was never about their religious beliefs.

This fight was a corporate temper tantrum because they're pissed off about the ACA,

But see, this could go on forever.

And I do believe their motivation was religious. So, we aren't going to agree.

drpayne · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:

@drpayne, I'm not terribly concerned with the companies investments, because it's actually not a court of law's job (regardless) to determine how sincerely held a belief is. The ruling rests on the fact that the corporation says it has a sincerely held belief - that's good enough for the court. Which is good, because we really don't want the courts in the business of determining how sincerely or not we hold our beliefs. What i'd like a response to is my MUCH longer post previous to that one - I think as a conservative catholic you would be very concerned about the precedent regarding religious freedom that this case sets. I'd love to see you set aside your religious beliefs and make a legal argument as to why this is a good case, outcome, and law for the nation. Remember, not everyone has the same religious beliefs as you do, and if you want other ppl to respect your religion, you're under obligation to respect theirs - the law works reciprocally. What can apply to catholics, can also apply to satanists (and the satanists have already filed a lawsuit based on this scotus ruling).

(edit for clarification)

What was your question? Sorry... too much scrolling.

I believe that in general, Christians are sort of shit on on a daily basis. I think the whole nation bends over backwards to accommodate every "group" out there, promoting "tolerance" etc. Except when it's Christian beliefs in question. While I DO understand the argument that a corporation is not a person and cannot have beliefs, I also sympathize with business owners being told they have to pay for something that goes against their beliefs because I would feel the same way. Maybe to people who don't hold those beliefs they seem so far-fetched that they are convinced that cannot truly be their motivation. In a way, I do understand how one can argue that this is me forcing my beliefs on someone. However, I think there is an enormous difference between me trying to keep someone from purchasing something vs wanting to buy it for them. No one is saying they can't have something, just that they need to buy it with their own money. That's the difference. I have a hard time seeing it as a "rights" issue because I don't consider BC to be something every woman is entitled to free of charge.

drpayne · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:

@drpayne‌ LEGALLY THEIR MOTIVATION DOESNT MATTER. for the sake of education and the world please go back and read my very long comment on about page 2 of this thread.

I get what you're saying. But @JunkieBrewster stated she thinks they are lying about it being religiously motivated. Whether it matters legally or not isn't what I was trying to address.

JunkieBrewster · August 2014

drpayne said:

gradschoolmom1234 said:

@drpayne‌ LEGALLY THEIR MOTIVATION DOESNT MATTER. for the sake of education and the world please go back and read my very long comment on about page 2 of this thread.

I get what you're saying. But @JunkieBrewster stated she thinks they are lying about it being religiously motivated. Whether it matters legally or not isn't what I was trying to address.

Yes. Legality aside, I think they're shady as fuck.

perfectlove09 · August 2014

Eora3 said:
Yep, I used to be a regular. Now I won't go near the place. I would rather spend more money to buy the same thing elsewhere.

Ditto

mightymango · August 2014

Oh dont forget, they also do not cover fertility treatments on top of birth control. How many of us wouldnt be here to enjoy our forum if we worked for hobby lobby and depended on their 'health' insurance?!

mightymango · August 2014

JunkieBrewster said:

Now that's pushing it!

I have gone far out of my way and paid way too much for things in order to avoid setting foot in Walmart. Blech.
Ha. Walmart is across the street from HL and the closest Joanns is 30 minutes each way WITHOUT mall traffic. So, if i need ribbon, thread etc, i will go to Walmart instead of driving to Joanns. Atlanta traffic is that awful. My travel system will have to come from there too, theyre the only people who carry the Urbini Omni.

Our Hobby Lobby opened directly next door to Joanne's. The balls on them.

irish2014 · August 2014

They could refuse 1 type or 100 types and the arguments wouldn't actually be any different. If SCOTUS hadn't broken with decades of precedent to call corporations people in Citizens United we'd be on better footing.

If you want some good reading, check out Ginsberg's dissent in the Hobby Lobby decision. I want her on the court forever...

ColeyCannoli · August 2014

danisgossipgirl said: Christians are shit on in the U.S.?Really?? Christians are the majority, and there's privilege to be had when you're a member of the biggest group. Christians are essentially in charge, and have had a hand in probably every single law that's been passed in this country. Try being part of a minority group and seeing what discrimination is really like. I'm fine with different politics and different religions, but being anti-tolerance? That's sad.
*****************
I was raised deep southern evangelical and let me tell you there is no other group in this country that is more powerful or that has a bigger victim complex. It's part of the religion itself. If you don't feel shit on, you aren't doing it right. The world HAS to be against you or you are not Christian enough.

2 Timothy 3:12 Yes, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Matthews 5:11: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." (me = Jesus here)

The biggest problem here in my opinion, is the same one you see in white people when faced with racial equality issues or straight people when faced with gay rights issues - they confuse criticism with cruelty. They are such a huge, powerful force that stands directly in the spot light so they get rebuked and critiqued often. And too many see this as "persecution" or "abuse" even though it causes them no real damage except maybe a bruised ego from time to time. .

Edit: I'm speaking of the people I was raised with and those with strong political powers right now - not every Christian individual or group or those outside of the states.

soulcupcake · August 2014

drpayne said:

What was your question? Sorry... too much scrolling.

I believe that in general, Christians are sort of shit on on a daily basis. I think the whole nation bends over backwards to accommodate every "group" out there, promoting "tolerance" etc. Except when it's Christian beliefs in question. While I DO understand the argument that a corporation is not a person and cannot have beliefs, I also sympathize with business owners being told they have to pay for something that goes against their beliefs because I would feel the same way. Maybe to people who don't hold those beliefs they seem so far-fetched that they are convinced that cannot truly be their motivation. In a way, I do understand how one can argue that this is me forcing my beliefs on someone. However, I think there is an enormous difference between me trying to keep someone from purchasing something vs wanting to buy it for them. No one is saying they can't have something, just that they need to buy it with their own money. That's the difference. I have a hard time seeing it as a "rights" issue because I don't consider BC to be something every woman is entitled to free of charge.

This reminds me of typical evangelical and conservative Christian rhetoric. There is no persecution of Christians, and what you're seeing in the media is a result of various groups believing their doctrine or ideology should be legislated. There is no "war on Christians." Such is a fantasy. There is, however, intolerance for, well, intolerance based on religious dogma and moral superiority and these attitudes being favored (special treatment) or adopted as policy. There are many different, thousands, of brands of theology within Christendom. Not all Christians agree on many of the oft-touted policies of the right wing.

If Hobby Lobby didn't want to be scrutinized then they shouldn't have made this into a religious matter, and one largely based on their own misconceptions about the mechanism of birth control. On the outside, they garner support from their customers and supporters of "family values," it's about a corporation wanting to be exempt from providing coverage for certain medications because it's against their morals. If that is what they're claiming it's about then they should at least be consistent with their own theology and doctrine. But they aren't.

Oh, and the vast majority of women simply can't afford, say, $500 for the IUD. Since I do not tolerate hormonal birth control well while on antidepressants and other psych meds it makes the ParaGard one of the better options.

soulcupcake · August 2014

mightymango said:

Oh dont forget, they also do not cover fertility treatments on top of birth control. How many of us wouldnt be here to enjoy our forum if we worked for hobby lobby and depended on their 'health' insurance?!

But they do cover Viagra. I certainly hope they verify whether these gentlemen are fornicating, because that's apparently a no-no.

rshamos · August 2014

First of all, I have a super crush on Jon Stewart, so thank you @ColeyCannoli‌ for posting that. Second, please don't turn a political and human right debate into a "War on Christmas" debacle. I have seen, from personal experience, how different it is to be Christian vs. Non-Christian in the U.S. The whole "people are out to get Christians" is a made up piece of bullshit and has tarnished this lively debate, which I was enjoying until that comment. *lurks back to the shadows*

rshamos · August 2014

BTW, Christmas decorations are 40% off at Hobby Lobby right now.

soulcupcake · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:

In response to the above posts... This is a whole spin-off discussion, and might not be well suited to a baby-board. But, as someone who IS Christian as was raised that way, I am incredibly troubled by the trend of Christians seeking to institutionalize the religion. I believe firmly that when church and state join, both are in big big trouble. For one, Christianity may not always be the dominant religion (in fact, it probably won't be) - and those laws made to privilege Christians can easily be turned around and used to oppress Christians and elevate other religions. If we don't want a government that privileges other religions over our own, we can't be asking that the government privileges our religion over others. Further, when governments have become involved in religion, the religions has nearly always become corrupted. Those are my objections from a religious perspective. From a governmental perspective, it's troubling because governments often become unstable, even dangerous when they join with religion. Spinoza (and many other philosophers) advocated strongly against government enforcing religion for exactly these reasons - even though he was extremely religious himself (Jewish), he promoted tolerance for other religions, particularly from the government.

I agree, and I have a soft spot for Spinoza.

drpayne · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:
@drpayne‌ here's the thing. Whether or not you think Christians get "shit on" in this country, hobby lobby isn't a Christian organization, it's a for profit corporation. Therefore it should not be able to have religious beliefs. But, behind that, here's what I posted earlier regarding the legal problems with the case, since you seemed to have missed it:

"@drpayne and @sarasarat - at risk of starting a political debate on poor OPs thread about her cute frame find, I think it's worth noting that the hobby lobby case is about much more than birth control coverage. If you read Ginsberg's dissent, or even articles about it, you'll see that there is a much larger legal principal at question - the question of whether or not "religious freedom" supersedes the rights of other individuals, and the question of whether or not "religious freedom" applies to all religions equally. First of all, while hobby lobby does cover other methods of birth control that they do not consider abortifacients, there were over 70 other corporations included in the lawsuit, some of whom want exemption from covering ANY kind of birth control - the ruling clearly indicates that the religious freedom of closely held companies supersedes the right of women to health care, even care that they may need (for instance, birth control is often essential to the health of women who have PCOS).

The second major legal principal here is whether or not all religions should be treated equally under the law. The SCOTUS ruling specifically says that it applies ONLY to birth control, and should NOT be applied to other medical procedures such as blood transfusions. There are religions that believe very, very strictly that blood transfusions prevent you from entering heaven - so much so that in Texas there was a case where one child who was taken away from the parents to receive a blood transfusion, after receiving the blood transfusion which saved his life, the state tried to return him to his parents, who would not take him back because they believed that his soul was condemned and that he was no longer their child. It is impossible to say that individuals of that religion don't have a "closely held belief" prohibited blood transfusions - yet under the ruling, they are not given the same "freedom of religion" to refuse to cover a medical procedure that they vehemently object to.

Now, you might roll your eyes and say "well birth control and blood transfusions are different, one is a necessity and one permits promiscuity" - which is certainly the thought process of many conservative christians. BUT - you have to divorce yourself from your personal feelings on the matter and consider the legal principals that this lawsuit and ruling established - that corporate freedom supersedes individual freedom, and that some religions are essentially more equal under the law than others.

Finally, this ruling brings up a major question regarding how we consider corporations under the law. Becoming incorporated allows individuals (who hold religious beliefs) to separate themselves from their company legally, meaning that they cannot be held personally responsible if their corporation goes bankrupt, is negligent of workers, etc. By that logic, because their personhood is legally separate from their corporation, and a corporation cannot hold religious beliefs, only individuals can, then a corporation should have no need of religious freedom. This ruling treats corporations as if they are the SAME as the individuals who hold them... this blurs the line between personhood and corporate beings....

In short, the hobby lobby ruling was very questionable, and has "opened the floodgates" of legal ambiguity. Satanists have now sued to be exempt from abortion counseling, based on religious freedom - i can't imagine that's what hobby lobby would have wanted when pursing this outcome, yet that is the legal principal that was established."

I really do get most of these arguments I and feel like I've addressed a lot of them in previous posts. The corporations not being individuals with beliefs, the slippery slope, etc. I guess what I'm sort of tired of is hearing that hobby lobby is trying to take away women's rights to birth control. No one is trying to stop them from buying it. They just have to pay for it. I feel like those are very differnt things. And it still comes down to only fours types of birth control.

ColeyCannoli · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:

In response to the above posts... This is a whole spin-off discussion, and might not be well suited to a baby-board. But, as someone who IS Christian as was raised that way, I am incredibly troubled by the trend of Christians seeking to institutionalize the religion. I believe firmly that when church and state join, both are in big big trouble. For one, Christianity may not always be the dominant religion (in fact, it probably won't be) - and those laws made to privilege Christians can easily be turned around and used to oppress Christians and elevate other religions. If we don't want a government that privileges other religions over our own, we can't be asking that the government privileges our religion over others. Further, when governments have become involved in religion, the religions has nearly always become corrupted. Those are my objections from a religious perspective. From a governmental perspective, it's troubling because governments often become unstable, even dangerous when they join with religion. Spinoza (and many other philosophers) advocated strongly against government enforcing religion for exactly these reasons - even though he was extremely religious himself (Jewish), he promoted tolerance for other religions, particularly from the government.

Well said. I'm still a Christian, though a liberal one now (so an atheist to my family and friends from back home).

I will back off though because I know I'm taking this on a not-fun tangent. It's just hard for me to ignore that one because I totally used to be that guy. I distinctly remember telling a black girl in my class that the most persecuted people in America were straight, middle-class, white, Christian men. Now I try to make a point whenever that comes up. I think of it as an attempt to fix my shitty karma for my complete teenage idiocy

allonsyalonso · August 2014

Ainslie325 said:

allonsyalonso said:

ashtonkitty1 said:

Can those who mentioned that HL denies FMLA or maternity leave elaborate? If you're eligible for FMLA, it's between your doctor and your HR dept (at least where I work).

I'm not jumping in to defend HL. Just curious about this particular point. @gradschoolmom1234 has pretty much covered the rest I'm so grateful your hormones haven't inhibited your ability to be eloquent and thorough.

I was under the impression that they ONLY abide by FMLA and do not offer any other maternity leave package.

Though, to be fair, I don't think a lot of companies do offer any kind of paid maternity leave. I only got paid using accrued PTO and short term disability with my son.

Hobby Lobby is in very good company on this front. I work for a very well-funded (well, ignoring our state's colossal failure to meet its obligations to ANY schools in recent years) suburban school district in a major metro area, and this is all I'm entitled to. We can deplete accrued sick time as a means of covering the cost of our six-week disability, but after that, FMLA is all we get. I'm not getting in line to beat up Hobby Lobby on this front. It's a much bigger problem than them. Plenty of CEOs, corporations, and other employers--those who don't have a political, social, or religious agenda contrary to my own--are just as invested in doing as little as possible for pregnant women as families as Hobby Lobby. This is about cost-- nothing more. I am generally very, very hands-off when it comes to the role of government in regulating the practices of private business. However, the voodoo science that Hobby Lobby has applied in their exclusion of these four birth-control methods in order to use religion as their justification really irks my intellectual side. As an aside, did anyone actually click on this three-page post with "Hobby Lobby" in its title thinking it would remain about a picture frame?

They're definitely not alone here, which is exactly what I was trying to get at. Regardless of how anybody feels about Hobby Lobby (I also completely agree with everything else you said), this is not something that should be a part of the argument unless you're going to drag the majority of companies (at least in the US) into it as well.

drpayne · August 2014

Also, thanks @gradschoolmom1234‌ for being civil even though we disagree. I don't appreciate, however, being told by others that something which is a real issue to me that the issue is a "fantasy" or a "made up piece of bullshit." If you can't make an argument respectfully, I have no interest in talking. Of course you can think and say what you want. There is just not much point in me responding. I also need to get my kids to bed. Y'all take care.

perfectlove09 · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:
@drpayne - but the thing is, it's still a bad ruling, and hobby lobby made a BAD legal argument. It's (i believe) unarguably bad for all religions that some are being privileged over others. It's bad for Christianity to be more privileged under the law than Jehova's Witness.

It doesn't matter if hobby lobby isn't trying to "take away women's rights to birth control," they're trying to get out of their legally mandated responsibilities as a corporation. That's unethical and it's very bad for the US government. If Hobby Lobby wanted a religious exemption, they should have been a nonprofit instead of a corporation.

Hobby Lobby by bringing this suit and arguing the way it did, and the Robert's court, are both leading us to an America where corporations have stronger rights than individuals. Is this really what you, or anyone, wants?

Edit: I guess the one i felt like you missed, and the one I actually think is most important - is the fact that this ruling treats some religions as "more equal" than others.

Totally random...lol...but Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. "Followers of Christ" is the definition of a Christian. I'm guessing the law you're referring to is the blood transfusions. Was the case you talked about de Texas a JW family? If so that's an extreme case as far as the parents refusing to take the child back. And that certainly isn't part of their religion. They in fact only believe that 144,000 will go to heaven anyway. And those have already been selected.

Like I said. Totally random. And not here for a religious debate, believe me. I was just hoping to clarify.

JCM285 · August 2014

I just want to apologize to anyone who thought I might be defending the corporations actions against women's healthcare. I was educated about it by my mom today when I showed her the frame (this was after I posted here of course). I might have heard the debate on the news but it never stuck in my head because I was not familiar with the company since this is the first one in my area. I also want to thank you ladies for educating me on the case because my mom didn't know many of the details that you mentioned. Although I didn't expect the number of replies to my thread, I hope you don't think I was trying to endorse anything. I really just liked the frame :-)

leoandethansmom · August 2014

I saw hobby lobby in the thread title and then saw the amount of comments and thought I missed out on another gif/bsc thread. This was the most civil and educated thread I've ever seen in this board. I'm jealous of your brains, I'm gonna go back to my vampire/witch fiction novel now that I just got schooled.

mightymango · August 2014

@leosmom25 Ooooooh, whatcha reading?

JunkieBrewster · August 2014

gradschoolmom1234 said:

@drpayne‌ LEGALLY THEIR MOTIVATION DOESNT MATTER. for the sake of education and the world please go back and read my very long comment on about page 2 of this thread.

I want to clear I wasn't trying to distract from your argument, you were taking care of that part. I just hold that whether they are right in their motivation/opening a legal precedent for other cases, etc, that religious or not, it takes a blind person to ignore that hypocrisy.

aksue22 · August 2014

But Hobby Lobby isn't paying for it. The money paid towards the insurance plan by Hobby Lobby is part of their employees' compensation, therefore it's technically the employees' money.

JRod13 · August 2014

That frame is cute OP

And side note - Joann and Michael's honor HL coupons here (including that nice 40% off one). Worth a shot to see if your's will too.

leoandethansmom · August 2014

@mightymango I'm reading the book of life by Deborah Harkness, it's the third in a trilogy and it is phenomenal!

bowlwoman · August 2014

leosmom25 said: @mightymango I'm reading the book of life by Deborah Harkness, it's the third in a trilogy and it is phenomenal!

----QUOTE BOX FAIL---

I had it downloaded to my Kindle at midnight the day it released and finished it in about a day and a half. I really liked how it tied everything up, but I do have to say of the three, A Discovery of Witches is still my favorite.

This is coming from a woman with a BA in French and a Master's in Tudor history who did a summer program in Oxford and studied in the Bodelian researching my thesis...this book series felt like it was written for me.

kelsire · August 2014

I love Hobby Lobby and everything they stand for. It is a great store with the largest selection of Christian Christmas items! Companies all decide what you can and can't get covered under their insurance plans, this is nothing new. My insurance doesn't cover both glasses and contacts, I have to choose. Should I sue because they are not giving me everything I need. If you don't like Hobby Lobby get off the post about loving it.

soulcupcake · August 2014

bowlwoman said: leosmom25 said: @mightymango I'm reading the book of life by Deborah Harkness, it's the third in a trilogy and it is phenomenal!

----QUOTE BOX FAIL---

I had it downloaded to my Kindle at midnight the day it released and finished it in about a day and a half. I really liked how it tied everything up, but I do have to say of the three, A Discovery of Witches is still my favorite.
This is coming from a woman with a BA in French and a Master's in Tudor history who did a summer program in Oxford and studied in the Bodelian researching my thesis...this book series felt like it was written for me.

@bowlwoman I currently picked up reading A Discovery of Witches. In between school work it's nice to delve into the world of fantasy. I read some great reviews, and the story/theme is right up my alley.

gimmeyronionrings · August 2014

kelsire said:
I love Hobby Lobby and everything they stand for. It is a great store with the largest selection of Christian Christmas items! Companies all decide what you can and can't get covered under their insurance plans, this is nothing new. My insurance doesn't cover both glasses and contacts, I have to choose. Should I sue because they are not giving me everything I need. If you don't like Hobby Lobby get off the post about loving it.

JRod13 · August 2014

kelsire said:

I love Hobby Lobby and everything they stand for. It is a great store with the largest selection of Christian Christmas items! Companies all decide what you can and can't get covered under their insurance plans, this is nothing new. My insurance doesn't cover both glasses and contacts, I have to choose. Should I sue because they are not giving me everything I need. If you don't like Hobby Lobby get off the post about loving it.

whomp whomp whomp....way to respond to the most civilized debate ever. Good Lord. Here's some news- you can't dictate how folks respond in a public forum

ColeyCannoli · August 2014

I love Hobby Lobby and everything they stand for. It is a great store with the largest selection of Christian Christmas items! Companies all decide what you can and can't get covered under their insurance plans, this is nothing new. My insurance doesn't cover both glasses and contacts, I have to choose. Should I sue because they are not giving me everything I need. If you don't like Hobby Lobby get off the post about loving it.

Hey, watch out. You're getting MUD all over our nice civilized discussion.

mcclan03 · August 2014

October14 lurker creeping on your board. Awesome discussion…seriously impressed with the independent thinking and thoughtful debating going on here! And thanks for the schooling -- felt like I was a college classroom again, except I'm in my underwear, so it's even better.

BankerBSN · August 2014

I am totally late to the party but can I say it is way harder for this liberal non-Christian to keep driving past chick fil a then stop shopping at a craft store. I just want a little meat without your bible.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw

leoandethansmom · August 2014

aeonlux said:

bowlwoman said:

leosmom25 said:

@mightymango I'm reading the book of life by Deborah Harkness, it's the third in a trilogy and it is phenomenal!

----QUOTE BOX FAIL---

I had it downloaded to my Kindle at midnight the day it released and finished it in about a day and a half. I really liked how it tied everything up, but I do have to say of the three, A Discovery of Witches is still my favorite.

This is coming from a woman with a BA in French and a Master's in Tudor history who did a summer program in Oxford and studied in the Bodelian researching my thesis...this book series felt like it was written for me.

@bowlwoman I currently picked up reading A Discovery of Witches. In between school work it's nice to delve into the world of fantasy. I read some great reviews, and the story/theme is right up my alley.

the story is really well written too. I haven't finished the third yet but I love every bit I've read so far!

2JEL · August 2014

Sigh. I read through this whole thread hoping that someone else with law degree and sophisticated understanding of Constitutional law would jump in and straighten out @gradschoolmom1234's popular but incorrect analysis of the law and legal decision. I graduated from the same law school as Justice Ginsberg (Columbia) and am constantly embarrassed by her sloppy (and often nakedly political) legal reasoning. I'm guessing those of you championing it (a) don't have constitutional law training and (b) did not bother to read the majority opinion. So I will try to truncate the argument for religious liberty and the free exercise of religion (actual real 1st Amendment rights, btw) off the top of my head from what I recall reading several weeks ago:

Historically, Americans believed in individual liberty, limited government and the freedom to practice your religion. In fact, most of us learned this when covering colonization during US Social Studies. Over time, government became increasingly expansive and started infringing on the rights of people to practice (live out) their religion with laws of "general applicability" -- basically the rights of some groups and individuals were overruled by preferences of government and majority. Eventually, this reached the Supreme Court when a tribe of Native North Americans were prosecuted for using peyote in a religious ceremony and the majority of the Supreme Court held (more or less, reaching back to law school memories a decade ago) that government laws of general applicability with a rational basis could overrule religious freedom. This was less than 3 decades ago, but back then people realized that an important element of freedom in our country was allowing people with honest and sincere beliefs to hold to the religious practices and traditions of generations so nearly all of Congress (95%+) and Bill Clinton signed the bill called the Religious Freedom Reformation Act, making the following principle the law of the land: Government cannot make laws/regulations that force individuals into conflict with their religious beliefs without a compelling reason AND such laws/regulations must be narrowly tailored so that they are as the least burdensome they can possibly be while still reaching their goals. Before progressives became a dominant force in American politics, the ideas behind RFRA were widely popular as evidenced by the consensus in Congress and, without the screeching of the Ginsberg's and the women's angry left, I suspect most people would have agreed in the abstract today that religious liberty is a first amendment right and if the government is going to curb it, it should only be for a critical cause and done in a way to avoid forcing people to choose between their religion and following the law as much as humanly possible.

I think the reason many people do not understand Hobby Lobby is because they do not understand sincerely held religion is not checking a box or showing up to worship on Friday/Saturday/Sunday, it is living your entire life in respect and deference for a set of principles and values. For people who have certain religious beliefs, free exercise requires abstaining from a variety of behaviors both in and out of the place of worship. For Quakers this includes pacifism, and so even in the midst of WWII we did not make them go to war, because simply saying "you get to be a pacifist so long as you gun down the Japanese or die" is not actually allowing them free exercise. For Muslims, it may require allowing women to go in public places with their heads covered. For Christians, it means not sacrificing their own children or facilitating other's taking of innocent lives. Therefore, a Catholic doctor doesn't stop being Catholic after leaving mass and if compelled to perform abortions by their employer would have to quit their job rather than terminate a human life (I think, I'm not Catholic).

While I know many people on this board would likely favor firing women who won't perform abortions (or, as is now increasingly popular in leftist circles, attempting to require doctors to perform abortions before they can even get medical degrees...), try very hard to imagine that one day a group will come to power requiring compliance to a law that violates your deeply held moral principles. Should you be prevented from serving in the military because you refuse to eat meat in military rations? Should you be prevented from operating a pre-school because you don't want to equip your teachers with firearms? What I'm getting at is it's not enough to allow religious liberty and rights of conscience to say "you can follow your beliefs when you are at church but you lose them as soon as you try to participate in society."

The ACA was intended as a direct attack on the rights and conscience of conservative (mostly evangelical but evidently also Catholic) individuals and employers and many people in Congress objected to it because of this at the time. Several compromises were made to accommodate some religious non-profits, thus leaving individual and small company employers to fend for themselves. Say you are a person who doesn't believe in birth control (for the record, I happen to be in favor of birth control). You start selling cookies on Etsy. They are very popular so eventually you lease a bakery and hire a clerk to help sell your cookies. You provide them a generous health package but do not pay for birth control-- should you have to? If you believe that, you're essentially saying that anybody who wants to build a living for themselves (and others) must violate their rights of conscience so long as they need any assistance. Note that under the current law, it would be perfectly fine for said conservative cookie titan to hire a bunch of part-time workers and not give them insurance at all-- is that the more reasonable outcome? If so, why? If you say one employee is ok, but 5/10/50/100 is not, why? The Supreme Court addressed the issue by limiting the religious rights of individuals in commerce to the point where they control the corporations and they must be closely held. I would limit it further such that as soon as there is any owner who does not share or live by the religious belief they use to receive exemptions then they are no longer entitled to said exemptions-- but I didn't write the law.

The court (correctly) decided that RFRA applied to individuals even as they participated in the marketplace and helped build larger companies that employed thousands of people and offered those people full time jobs and health care. From there, they determined that the government did have a compelling interest in providing birth control options to women but that they did not follow the law insofar as they did not structure it in such a way as to limit its burdens on religious employers (such as they had already done for some institutions like the Catholic Church).

For all of you who feel that all contraception coverage is a basic human right I completely support your decision to boycott all stores and organizations that put the sanctity of human life over choice/reproductivejustice/IUDs/what-have-you. I think that's what makes America great, we generally have the right to follow our conscience. I do think Hobby Lobby's willingness to stand-up to the government's attempt to force it to subsidize procedures/products that have demonstrably led to loss of human life (on these very boards we've seen heartbreaking stories of women who's IUDs failed to prevent pregnancy only to lead to a loss or serious health damage of the by-then-wanted child) makes a stronger impact for rights of conscience than the company takes away from "women's choice." I ask everyone to think about the issues on which they are not in the majority today or might not be tomorrow and ask what sort of precedent really makes the most sense for balancing freedom of religion/conscience with laws of general applicability.

As an aside, because it's nearly 11 and I want to go cuddle with DH instead of reorganize this increasingly long essay, (1) there is a long case history discussing that certain established religions should and do get greater deference than the ones that spring up for the sake of avoiding laws, taxes, etc. (2) the bulk of Ginsberg's dissent was "slippery slope" and "women's rights" but the former is not a legitimate argument, it is a logical fallacy and as to the latter, well, we were at worst set back to the dark ages of 2008 (or anybody without a full time job, which there are fewer and fewer of in 2014, today) and (3) I personally think that if a Satanist wants to set-up shop selling widgets and requires his workers to deny G-d that he probably has the right to and people like me have the right to not work for him or buy from him-- same goes for the Scientologists and the Christian Scientists-- however, I think a reasonable compromise is that (a) you can't "find religion" and change your policies after establishing a business and (b) you must clearly inform employees during the interview of any religious beliefs you hold and with which you will expect them to otherwise organize their life in accordance with. As an armchair constitutional law scholar and libertarian, I think this is the best solution that allows Americans to live their lives in accordance with their religion and allows employees and consumers to avoid being part of organizations they dislike.

Separately, apart from the legal issues, I can't believe there are women on this board claiming (with a straight face) that Hobby Lobby doesn't sincerely hold their beliefs and they are only looking out for profit. Each one of their employees having more kids will cost them more money in insurance coverage, as y'all should know, a pregnancy is WAY more expensive than an abortifacient-- that's the nuanced argument. Way more obvious is the fact that THEY ARE A CRAFT STORE THAT STAYS CLOSED ON SUNDAY-- in fact a PP mentioned that they don't shop there because of this. Can you even begin to imagine the lost profits from closing on one of the two weekend days vs. the marginal cost (or possibly even savings) of covering a few additional drugs?

Finally, there seems to be a lot of confusion about economics and subsidizes and how insurance coverage works. When employers provide insurance coverage, unless they literally do not contribute towards the premium at all (which is rare) they are putting money towards the insurance premiums of individuals, which the individuals use to buy goods and services. That money comes from corporate profits and also less directly from the contributions of other employees, who also pool into the system to keep costs down. Putting something on an insurance plan (theoretically) brings costs down (though the system is broken) and encourages more of it. So if I am Hobby Lobby Employee A ("HLEA") and I have a choice of buying 10 kinds of birth control, but not IUDs which can (in rare occasions) cause miscarriages or chemical pregnancies, I am much less likely to buy the IUD out of pocket with my own money (though I have ever freedom to)... However, if the IUD or Plan B is covered HLEA and others like her are more likely to make that choice and part of it will be paid for with the employers money and money that other employees pay into the insurance premium pool. I am curious for those who cry employers are trying to control employees lives by not paying for things, why they feel employees have more rights to control their employer's morality and life decisions? I think it will be truly impossible for those people who believe that life starts at some arbitrary point after conception to understand that being pro-life (or refusing certain kinds of BC) is not a matter of trying to force your beliefs on others but feeling absolutely forbidden from directly facilitating the termination/murder of an innocent life.

Ok, kicking myself for opening this thread and really hoping that the bump doesn't have a character limit for posts. Good night all and thanks for sticking with this until the end.

aksue22 · August 2014

@2JEL‌ I am a lawyer, and my studies included a concentration in ConLaw (both the US Constitution and that of other countries). I respectfully disagree.
@gradschoolmom1234‌ I think your analysis is excellent and compelling. I also question HL's sincerity, given that they provided the coverage in question before the ACA, they stock goods made in China and invest in the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the BC in question.

soulcupcake · August 2014

@aksue22 - I agree. I absolutely question their sincerity and the basis of this act/front they're putting on for the "moral" right when their values are inconsistently applied. We all know their "sanctity of life" stance is what garners attention and press, and makes up a good portion of the Christian right platform.

@gradschoolmom1234 - Precisely. The issue isn't that people are claiming the owners shouldn't possess whatever personal beliefs they hold, and practice as such. People are questioning and challenging the concept or decision that a corporation is a "person" and can hold religious beliefs that a citizen holds. Also, this decision reeks of favoring one religious practice, ideology, over others. If the situation were involving a Muslim corporation wanting to be regarded as a person able to hold religious beliefs, and in doing so they decide to exercise their "rights" to refuse coverage for a treatment or medication they don't "believe" in, the same Christian right would be in an uproar.

Also, just because some individuals share a dissenting opinion with the Hobby Lobby ruling doesn't mean they're doing so without critically examining the situation. Not everyone is unable or unwilling to divorce themselves from their own presuppositions and biases. Having been a fundamentalist Christian who leaned so far right that I'm surprised I didn't tip over, I know evangelical doctrine, theology and rhetoric very intimately. And yet, I still see right through it, and how loosely various "moral values" are being applied within a corporation. (e.g., the issues aksue22 brought up)

Want a personalized experience?

PSA: Hobby Lobby is awesome!

Re: PSA: Hobby Lobby is awesome!

Choose Another Board

Search Boards