If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsOK)   Hobby Lobby to continue hobby of lobbying Appeals Court to allow their other hobby of lobbing their beliefs on their employees private lobby hobbies   (newsok.com) divider line 526
    More: Followup, sidelines, appeals court  
•       •       •

7701 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2012 at 4:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



526 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-28 01:47:23 PM
I really can't support a company with such a dishonest name. Who calls themselves Hobby Lobby but doesn't support the hobby of sex?
 
2012-12-28 01:48:06 PM
Maybe they should become a church if they want to have church rules.
 
2012-12-28 01:52:45 PM
Guess I'd better use my $50 Hobby Lobby gift card ASAP before they acquire interest on it.
 
2012-12-28 02:01:10 PM
The headline was basically doing alright until that apostrophe.
 
2012-12-28 02:04:21 PM

Relatively Obscure: The headline was basically doing alright until that apostrophe.


Thank you.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-28 02:25:50 PM
It's kind of a silly argument. Health care is part of the compensation package. You might as well argue that you should be able to pay with scrip so you can make sure that employees don't buy rubbers with money the company pays them.
 
2012-12-28 02:31:00 PM
mojoimage.com


Dobby approves of the headline
 
2012-12-28 02:54:22 PM

gopher321: [mojoimage.com image 500x333]


Dobby approves of the headline


www.hotflick.net

So does Robbie.
 
2012-12-28 03:03:12 PM
Hey, why not just follow your employees home to make sure they're not farking for fun?
 
2012-12-28 03:55:51 PM
If we had a single payer system were the federal or state governments offered the plans, this wouldn't be an issue.  Companies wouldn't have any direct part in healthcare compensation.  A lot of smaller companies would have preferred such a system so they don't have to be involved in the healthcare cluserfark.

Instead, we have our current mess.  Thanks Congress.
 
2012-12-28 04:04:24 PM
Submitter: you sir, are a mouthful.
 
2012-12-28 04:05:28 PM
I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.
 
2012-12-28 04:05:30 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: gopher321: [mojoimage.com image 500x333]


Dobby approves of the headline

[www.hotflick.net image 720x540]

So does Robbie.


userserve-ak.last.fm

So does Mr. Blobby?

/blobby blobby blobby blobby
 
2012-12-28 04:05:31 PM
Happy Holidays!
 
2012-12-28 04:05:50 PM
sylviagarza.files.wordpress.com

Bobby would love to hobby with you.
 
2012-12-28 04:06:14 PM
This will end well for them. Everyone knows the gays just abhor arts & crafts. No way this could possibly hurt their business more than covering birth control.
 
2012-12-28 04:06:16 PM
A well done headline subby
 
2012-12-28 04:07:03 PM
This should be on HOTY
 
2012-12-28 04:07:14 PM
Yes, the pill, morning-after pill, and IUDs are "abortion-causing devices". Whatta maroon.
 
2012-12-28 04:07:52 PM

Di Atribe: Hey, why not just follow your employees home to make sure they're not farking for fun?


Hey, don't put that past the Green family. They are, how shall we say, true holy rollers. Of course they live like billionaires, not humble servants of god (that would be their many minimum wage slaves), but you gotta draw the line somewhere, right?
 
2012-12-28 04:08:01 PM
www.hwdyk.com
Whoopiditty do!
 
2012-12-28 04:10:02 PM
I can't respect a company that is based in the leisure industry, yet is closed on a day when most people have leisure.
 
2012-12-28 04:10:23 PM

ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.


That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.
 
2012-12-28 04:10:36 PM

hemogoblin: I can't respect a company that is based in the leisure industry, yet is closed on a day when most people have leisure.


Amen...
 
2012-12-28 04:11:19 PM
I have a link in the queue with the same URL, and... whoever ganked my greenlight, you did better than I did.
 
2012-12-28 04:12:30 PM
Religious belief does not make you exempt from law that affects everyone.* You do not get to deny health benefits, hide your face for a driver's licence photo, beat your children for having a boyfriend, or smoke weed.


*(Unless your ancestors were here before the U.S. existed and peyote is a historically documented part of your religion.)
 
2012-12-28 04:12:57 PM
What makes fundies such awful pieces of shiat?
 
2012-12-28 04:13:53 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: This will end well for them. Everyone knows the gays just abhor arts & crafts. No way this could possibly hurt their business more than covering birth control.


I'd think gays would be ambivalent about birth control since they really don't need it to prevent pregnancy.
 
2012-12-28 04:14:05 PM
I don't like Hobby Lobby because the name is deceptive. I see "hobby lobby" and I think that it would be a pretty good place for a model kit builder and wargamer, but it is not. Too much arts and crafts, and perhaps useful for building scenery/gaming tables, but that's it.
 
2012-12-28 04:14:12 PM
I can't wait to see the first lawsuit from some female Hobby Lobby employee who gets knocked up on 1 January, 2013.

/whoreby lubey
 
2012-12-28 04:14:43 PM

you are a puppet: Submitter: you sir, are a mouthful.


hmms. That could almost be an insult
 
2012-12-28 04:14:56 PM
There is an easy solution that they'll probably take.

Just stop providing health insurance.

That'll make everyone happy , right?
 
2012-12-28 04:15:25 PM
On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.
 
2012-12-28 04:15:44 PM
Convenience abortions should be prosecuted as first degree murder.

Go ahead idiot liberals - open up this can of worms of pushing your beliefs on others through Obamacare and see what kind of a country we end up with. Because it won't take long for the ball to be in the other court, and I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi, and then you dumbasses will really have something to cry about.
 
2012-12-28 04:15:50 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Boycotting them is kind of counter productive.


So if you disagree with their policy, you should shop there even more? Well, that's a tacit that I had not thought of. "Hey, Green Family, I don't agree with your policies, here's more money for you."
 
2012-12-28 04:16:05 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Religious belief does not make you exempt from law that affects everyone.* You do not get to deny health benefits


Actually, you do if you're a church. Hobby Lobby is a business, so they can cry all they want about their beliefs; the law quite clearly applies to them.
 
2012-12-28 04:17:21 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.


That's assuming you've quit your hobby instead of taking your business elsewhere. Why would you quit your hobby?
 
2012-12-28 04:17:28 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.


You're absolutely right.  Continuing to shop there is the best possible way to send a message that their attempts to interfere with the private lives of their employees will not be tolerated.
 
2012-12-28 04:17:43 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
Do you see that? Its a modern reflector on an Amish buggy. The Amish did not want to put modern reflectors on their buggies, but the law says they have to.
 
2012-12-28 04:18:30 PM
Just pandering to those narrow-minded imbeciles that want to score some brownie points for heaven for their imaginary but insecure sky-wizard.  OH MY, GAWD doesn't like ABORTION or BIRTH CONTROL!  It sez right there in the BAHBULL!!!  Praise the LAWD!!!

Oh, and they just feel the rush of POWER they get for doing this. Doesn't matter how many lives of women they ruin with their little 'hobby' here.

Selfish, goddamn assholes. With money. Lots of goddamn money. Money that goddamn politicians just farkin' LOVE.
 
2012-12-28 04:18:39 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Maybe they should become a church if they want to have church rules.


Or maybe they should be a private company, one of those places where you can choose on your own whether or not to shop there or work there.
 
2012-12-28 04:18:39 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Religious belief does not make you exempt from law that affects everyone.* You do not get to deny health benefits, hide your face for a driver's licence photo, beat your children for having a boyfriend, or smoke weed.


*(Unless your ancestors were here before the U.S. existed and peyote is a historically documented part of your religion.)



We get to smoke weed in Colorado now.

And we don't even need religion to do it ;P
 
2012-12-28 04:18:48 PM
Your beliefs are not necessarily those of your employees. You don't get to claim religious prerogative when what you're being required to do has no effect on you personally and does not infringe upon your beliefs as they pertain to you. STFU and choke it down.

/Farking fundies.
 
2012-12-28 04:18:53 PM

cmb53208: What makes fundies such awful pieces of shiat?


Same kind of stuff that make non-fundies also pieces of shiat; nosing into other peoples business.
 
2012-12-28 04:19:33 PM
ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...
 
2012-12-28 04:20:26 PM
I'm quite enjoying the Hobby Lobby ads on this page as I read it.
 
2012-12-28 04:20:53 PM

NightOwl2255: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Boycotting them is kind of counter productive.

So if you disagree with their policy, you should shop there even more? Well, that's a tacit tactic that I had not thought of. "Hey, Green Family, I don't agree with your policies, here's more money for you."


FTFM
 
2012-12-28 04:21:01 PM

cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.


Too bad "Owner" doesn't work hard enough to afford what is legally required. Some job creator "Owner" is... he must not be very smart.
 
2012-12-28 04:21:27 PM
www.rockbandaide.com

Their lawyer.

/You should read his law blog
 
2012-12-28 04:21:39 PM
30.media.tumblr.com

Christian Science Pharmacist refuses to fill any prescription
 
2012-12-28 04:21:56 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Convenience abortions should be prosecuted as first degree murder.

Go ahead idiot liberals - open up this can of worms of pushing your beliefs on others through Obamacare and see what kind of a country we end up with. Because it won't take long for the ball to be in the other court, and I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi, and then you dumbasses will really have something to cry about.


Oh my god, you're a riot!
Can you do a bit about welfare now?
 
2012-12-28 04:22:12 PM
I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.
 
2012-12-28 04:23:22 PM

special20: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.

Too bad "Owner" doesn't work hard enough to afford what is legally required. Some job creator "Owner" is... he must not be very smart.


Maybe he has worthless employees who spend too much time on FARK instead of working hard and increasing productivity.
 
2012-12-28 04:23:28 PM

Great Janitor: They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs.


Actually, that's exactly what they're saying.
 
2012-12-28 04:23:52 PM

Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.


You're right; the government should be doing that all themselves for everyone
 
2012-12-28 04:23:56 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.


Agreed. Instead of just boycotting, why not print up some facts about Hobby Lobby and birth control and slip them onto shelves.
 
2012-12-28 04:24:02 PM

o5iiawah: The My Little Pony Killer: Maybe they should become a church if they want to have church rules.

Or maybe they should be a private company, one of those places where you can choose on your own whether or not to shop there or work there.


dafuq did I just read?
 
2012-12-28 04:24:18 PM

cmb53208: What makes fundies such awful pieces of shiat?


Religion.
 
2012-12-28 04:24:42 PM
Golly.
 
2012-12-28 04:25:46 PM

ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.


I sent money to Planned Parenthood and then posted a screenshot of my contribution receipt to Komen's Facebook page. It was deleted faster than you can say "Abortionplex".
 
2012-12-28 04:25:56 PM

SisterMaryElephant: We get to smoke weed in Colorado now.


Not because of religion though.

I included that because the rastafarians in Florida have been claiming the religious right to get stoned for decades now.
 
2012-12-28 04:26:20 PM

imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...


Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.
 
2012-12-28 04:27:14 PM

cmb53208: What makes fundies such awful pieces of shiat?


I think it goes the opposite direction... awful pieces of shiat are attracted to fundamentalism, which further encourages them to be complete and utter shaitheads.
 
2012-12-28 04:27:29 PM
They worse than Taliban.
 
2012-12-28 04:27:39 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.


Yeah, you couldn't, you know, become more efficient, or change your stupid policy, or reduce executives salaries or anything else, all you can do is lay off employees.

I'll boycott anyway. I suspect I'm not alone, you see.
 
2012-12-28 04:28:39 PM
FTA: "Our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful and supported our family and thousands of our employees and their families," Green said in September. "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate."

$10 says that this exact argument, or words to that affect, were used against the idea of making slavery illegal.
 
2012-12-28 04:29:17 PM

Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.


So, by that logic, a company owned by Christian Scientists should be allowed to deny coverage to their non-CS employees for blood transfusions. You're OK with that?
 
2012-12-28 04:29:47 PM

Bontesla: o5iiawah: The My Little Pony Killer: Maybe they should become a church if they want to have church rules.

Or maybe they should be a private company, one of those places where you can choose on your own whether or not to shop there or work there.

dafuq did I just read?


You read a smattering of the idiotic theory of "free market" logic as told by a slave.
 
2012-12-28 04:29:57 PM
Insurance is often a part of your remuneration. An employer should have as much choice over its content as they should over what you spend your wage on. Even the idea that they have any idea of its content is bizarre to me, as a non-American. If you have to have this weird system in the US where you healthcare is usually tied to your employment, at least have an iron curtain between them.
 
2012-12-28 04:30:19 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.

Agreed. Instead of just boycotting, why not print up some facts about Hobby Lobby and birth control and slip them onto shelves.


Because I don't care THAT much. But when I buy art supplies, there are alternatives to Hobby Lobby. So I'll shop at the other places. And I do buy a fair amount of art stuff.
 
2012-12-28 04:30:37 PM

Bhruic: $10 says that this exact argument, or words to that affect, were used against the idea of making slavery illegal.


You'd win that bet. The southern baptist church split off from the main baptist church specifically on the issue of biblical justification/endorsement of slavery.
 
2012-12-28 04:30:39 PM

cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.


I sell health insurance. Took a few classes on Obamacare. The company I work for works with five different health insurance companies. Some are well known, others aren't. When it comes to health insurance, they pretty much all cost about the same. I offer my clients two health insurance packages. The Obamacare package and the non-Obamacare package. I also explain "For a married couple, the Obamacare package is going to run you about $8,000/year. The non-Obamacare package is half that. But you also have to pay the fine for not having it. If you rarely go to the doctor and are generally healthy, take the non-Obamacare package, it is the cheaper way to go."

Of course, I we've already been told that we're going to take a cut in commissions due Health Care reform and that we'd be better off focusing more on the Life Insurance for 2013.
 
2012-12-28 04:31:16 PM
"Our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful and supported our family and thousands of our employees and their families," Green said in September. "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate."

Well pilgrim, get to pilgrimming.
 
2012-12-28 04:32:08 PM

Bontesla:
Oh my god, you're a riot!
Can you do a bit about welfare now?


No
 
2012-12-28 04:32:37 PM
My religion says hard hats and steel toed boots are the mark of Satan, therefore my employees are exempt from OSHA regulations.
 
2012-12-28 04:33:08 PM
Fact that businesses are forced to provide health insurance in the first place is just awful.
 
2012-12-28 04:33:16 PM

Great Janitor: I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.


Why should your employer's religious preferences be imposed on the standard of insurance you can receive?

Other than offering insurance - the business has no business in my medical business.
 
2012-12-28 04:33:18 PM

Bontesla: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.

That's assuming you've quit your hobby instead of taking your business elsewhere. Why would you quit your hobby?


Wal*Martization. I don't know exactly how big these guys are as a chain, but I could imagine a scenario where the big guy rolls into town, puts the small hobby shop(s) out of business and becomes the only game within 50 mi.
 
2012-12-28 04:33:30 PM

ElwoodCuse: Actually, you do if you're a church.


If you are referring to taxes, that exemption is based on being a non-profit organization. it applies to secular organizations also. So it isn't an exemption based on religious belief.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you might be referring to.
 
2012-12-28 04:34:31 PM
The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.
 
2012-12-28 04:35:25 PM

ProfessorOhki: Bontesla: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.

That's assuming you've quit your hobby instead of taking your business elsewhere. Why would you quit your hobby?

Wal*Martization. I don't know exactly how big these guys are as a chain, but I could imagine a scenario where the big guy rolls into town, puts the small hobby shop(s) out of business and becomes the only game within 50 mi.


There's this thing called "the intarwebs." You can order stuff from it. I rarely have an emergency need to have art supplies RIGHT NOW.
 
2012-12-28 04:36:33 PM
When I was a kid and saw a store with the name "Hobby" in it I knew that it sold, model planes, trains, Estes rockets etc. You know...fun stuff.
That meaning of that word has been faded by Hobby Lobby. Scrap booking? A hobby?

I much more enjoyed the "Hobbiest" term used in the Suzy Favor Hamilton story.
 
2012-12-28 04:36:34 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: ElwoodCuse: Actually, you do if you're a church.

If you are referring to taxes, that exemption is based on being a non-profit organization. it applies to secular organizations also. So it isn't an exemption based on religious belief.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you might be referring to.


The law Hobby Lobby is biatching about has an exemption for religious organizations. Religious organizations gets similar exemptions from discrimination laws (like when a Catholic school is allowed to fire a teacher because she got pregnant but is unmarried). Hobby Lobby sued because they claimed they should get an exemption because of their religious beliefs. However, the exemption isn't for businesses, and they are a business.
 
2012-12-28 04:36:52 PM
What's funny is how the more liberal among us think this doesn't affect them.

cmb53208: What makes fundies such awful pieces of shiat?


Is that what CNN and John Stewart told you to think?
 
2012-12-28 04:37:09 PM
Why don't fundamentalists have sex while standing up? They don't want anyone to think they are dancing.
 
2012-12-28 04:38:26 PM
Whatever. Let the fines begin.
 
2012-12-28 04:38:31 PM
i123.photobucket.com

How am I the first?
 
2012-12-28 04:38:59 PM

Romeo_Santana: What's funny is how the more liberal among us think this doesn't affect them. cmb53208: What makes fundies such awful pieces of shiat?

Is that what CNN and John Stewart told you to think?


Exactly what point is it you're trying to make? I mean, I know your point is "HURR DURRR LIBS SO STUPID!" but what logical statement are you trying to make? That libs aren't going to like a law that they like once they find out it does things they like?
 
2012-12-28 04:38:59 PM

Thunderpipes: Fact that businesses are forced to provide health insurance in the first place is just awful.


American blood was spilled to get health insurance by employers, ya know. I would guess that you're only interested in the blood that some foreign-born Jewish carpenter spilled a couple thousand years ago... allegedly.
 
2012-12-28 04:39:40 PM

ProfessorOhki: Bontesla: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.

That's assuming you've quit your hobby instead of taking your business elsewhere. Why would you quit your hobby?

Wal*Martization. I don't know exactly how big these guys are as a chain, but I could imagine a scenario where the big guy rolls into town, puts the small hobby shop(s) out of business and becomes the only game within 50 mi.


I agree that the Hobby Lobby may be the only place near you - especially for smaller towns. I'd buy online. Hell, enough local residents buy online and another retailer may see an opportunity?
 
2012-12-28 04:40:06 PM

ElwoodCuse: The law Hobby Lobby is biatching about has an exemption for religious organizations.


Is it an exemption for non-profits? Or an exemption based on religious beliefs?

I'm having a difficult time accepting your statement at face value. Though dumber things have happened, I suppose.
 
2012-12-28 04:40:34 PM

NightOwl2255: Di Atribe: Hey, why not just follow your employees home to make sure they're not farking for fun?

Hey, don't put that past the Green family. They are, how shall we say, true holy rollers. Of course they live like billionaires, not humble servants of god (that would be their many minimum wage slaves), but you gotta draw the line somewhere, right?


I grew up in what could be deemed a "holy roller" household. I never once heard contraception demonized or called un-holy. It seems to me that business owners who pull this sort of shiat are basically trying to show off how Christian they are.

Whatever. My religion dictates that I sleep until 10am every morning. Now I'm going to make everyone do it because to me, it's the only moral thing to do.
 
2012-12-28 04:40:47 PM

Thunderpipes: Fact that businesses are forced to provide health insurance in the first place is just awful.


If you have insurance through your job, you're a damned hypocrite.

If you think it's horrible that they are forced to provide it, show your principles by refusing to accept it.

Then maybe you have some ground to stand on.
 
2012-12-28 04:41:03 PM

Dinjiin: If we had a single payer system were the federal or state governments offered the plans, this wouldn't be an issue.  Companies wouldn't have any direct part in healthcare compensation.  A lot of smaller companies would have preferred such a system so they don't have to be involved in the healthcare cluserfark.

Instead, we have our current mess.  Thanks Congress.


Why does Congress insist on keeping this job-killing health care tax on our job-creating companies?
 
2012-12-28 04:41:38 PM

Nabb1: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: This will end well for them. Everyone knows the gays just abhor arts & crafts. No way this could possibly hurt their business more than covering birth control.

I'd think gays would be ambivalent about birth control since they really don't need it to prevent pregnancy.


Ambivalent about birth control maybe, not about evangelicals using religion as an excuse to involve themselves in the private lives of their employees. As it turns out, they have personal experience dealing with similar situations and are capable of empathy.
 
2012-12-28 04:41:46 PM

Romeo_Santana: Is that what CNN and John Stewart told you to think?


It's Jon, you farkin dumb ass. I guess it's not important in the bubble you live in.
 
2012-12-28 04:41:51 PM
If they want to operate as a business, then they need to follow the rules for businesses not a private membership church.

I don't think a company owned by Jehovah' s Witnesses can require that their employer sponsored insurance denies a patient a kidney transplant.

It's f*cked up that health insurance comes from your employer anyway. Aside from damage sustained on the job, it's none of your boss's business what you need from your doctor.
 
2012-12-28 04:42:09 PM
I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.
 
2012-12-28 04:42:46 PM

Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.


don't really think they're "punishing" anyone...employees are welcome to get their own insurance wherever they please...

My logic:
1) You don't agree with a business or their ethics or even their stance on any issue.
2) Don't work there and don't shop there.
3) Problem solved.
 
2012-12-28 04:43:02 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Convenience abortions should be prosecuted as first degree murder.

Go ahead idiot liberals - open up this can of worms of pushing your beliefs on others through Obamacare and see what kind of a country we end up with. Because it won't take long for the ball to be in the other court, and I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi, and then you dumbasses will really have something to cry about.


lh3.ggpht.com

Retards are so cute.
 
2012-12-28 04:43:18 PM
Nabb1 [TotalFark]

Maybe he has worthless employees who spend too much time on FARK instead of working hard and increasing productivity.


If I ever work there I'm sure I'll be considered one of them. I'm happy with the insurance the payroll company I work for provides.
 
2012-12-28 04:44:09 PM

Nabb1: I'd think gays would be ambivalent about birth control since they really don't need it to prevent pregnancy.


Really?

As Sandra "Slut" Fluke testified, many women need birth control pills for medical reasons that have nothing to do with having sex or preventing pregnancy. There's also a big benefit to gay men and lesbians in using contraceptives such as condoms or dental dams. They prevent the spread of STDs and HIV, even among same-sex couples who aren't worried about pregnancy.
 
2012-12-28 04:44:22 PM

KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.


Oh GREAT Idea! No one should have to pay any tax to support anything they don't agree with! Man, I am going to save a TON this year!
 
2012-12-28 04:44:27 PM

cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.


I believe the only part of this story that isn't completely made up is the word "with".
 
2012-12-28 04:44:47 PM

ghare: ProfessorOhki: Bontesla: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.

That's assuming you've quit your hobby instead of taking your business elsewhere. Why would you quit your hobby?

Wal*Martization. I don't know exactly how big these guys are as a chain, but I could imagine a scenario where the big guy rolls into town, puts the small hobby shop(s) out of business and becomes the only game within 50 mi.

There's this thing called "the intarwebs." You can order stuff from it. I rarely have an emergency need to have art supplies RIGHT NOW.


Look at what I was replying to; I was referring to the [regional] loss of jobs and sales, not some unavailability of hobby supplies.
 
2012-12-28 04:45:03 PM

vpb: It's kind of a silly argument. Health care is part of the compensation package. You might as well argue that you should be able to pay with scrip so you can make sure that employees don't buy rubbers with money the company pays them.


Even sillier -- prescription birth control tends to cost less than most people's prescription drug copay.
 
2012-12-28 04:45:10 PM

KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.


Contraceptives are cheaper then babies
 
2012-12-28 04:45:32 PM

Bonzo_1116: If they want to operate as a business, then they need to follow the rules for businesses not a private membership church.


This is the root of the problem right here. The first amendment protects a religion's right to practice religion. Things get stickier when religion attempts to do more than just practice religion. Who owns it and who runs it should be irrelevant. All businesses should be run the same and should follow the same rules.
 
2012-12-28 04:45:46 PM

Bontesla: Great Janitor: I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Why should your employer's religious preferences be imposed on the standard of insurance you can receive?

Other than offering insurance - the business has no business in my medical business.


Because they are paying for it.
 
2012-12-28 04:45:53 PM
www.containsmoderateperil.com
Knows a thing or two about hobbies.
 
2012-12-28 04:46:44 PM

ProfessorOhki: ghare: ProfessorOhki: Bontesla: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.

That's assuming you've quit your hobby instead of taking your business elsewhere. Why would you quit your hobby?

Wal*Martization. I don't know exactly how big these guys are as a chain, but I could imagine a scenario where the big guy rolls into town, puts the small hobby shop(s) out of business and becomes the only game within 50 mi.

There's this thing called "the intarwebs." You can order stuff from it. I rarely have an emergency need to have art supplies RIGHT NOW.

Look at what I was replying to; I was referring to the [regional] loss of jobs and sales, not some unavailability of hobby supplies.


Hobby Lobby doesn't make a hobby of opening stores in towns of 2000. In regions where Hobby Lobby operates, big box stores do not create jobs. Rather, they cannibalize existing jobs from existing businesses. Boycotting Hobby Lobby will not affect net employment in a region, at all.
 
2012-12-28 04:46:49 PM

Di Atribe: My religion dictates that I sleep until 10am every morning.


They make you get up that early? Shiat, do you have to whip yourself like in that movie, too?
 
2012-12-28 04:46:55 PM
Thanks for letting us know where you stand on this, Hobby Lobby.

In the court of my opinion, you've been found guilty trying to force your religious beliefs on others and therefore are no longer a consideration when I need anything you sell. I will buy my supplies from someone else.
 
2012-12-28 04:47:28 PM

KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.


Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?
 
2012-12-28 04:47:29 PM

Great Janitor: Bontesla: Great Janitor: I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Why should your employer's religious preferences be imposed on the standard of insurance you can receive?

Other than offering insurance - the business has no business in my medical business.

Because they are paying for it.


Well, then, they obviously have the right to restrict what employees do with their paychecks too.
 
2012-12-28 04:47:40 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Nabb1: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: This will end well for them. Everyone knows the gays just abhor arts & crafts. No way this could possibly hurt their business more than covering birth control.

I'd think gays would be ambivalent about birth control since they really don't need it to prevent pregnancy.

Ambivalent about birth control maybe, not about evangelicals using religion as an excuse to involve themselves in the private lives of their employees. As it turns out, they have personal experience dealing with similar situations and are capable of empathy.


Perhaps that joke was a bit too dry to be effective.
 
2012-12-28 04:47:55 PM
As usual, fundies get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are the literal words of God which may not ever be disobeyed and which are just filler between all the begatting and stoning of adulterous whores.

Romans 13:1-14 (New International Version)

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Seems pretty clear to me. But then, I tend to take these sorts of things literally.
 
2012-12-28 04:48:56 PM
Eh, if the employees have a problem with this, they should quit. It's just that simple.
 
2012-12-28 04:49:14 PM

The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I'd think gays would be ambivalent about birth control since they really don't need it to prevent pregnancy.

Really?

As Sandra "Slut" Fluke testified, many women need birth control pills for medical reasons that have nothing to do with having sex or preventing pregnancy. There's also a big benefit to gay men and lesbians in using contraceptives such as condoms or dental dams. They prevent the spread of STDs and HIV, even among same-sex couples who aren't worried about pregnancy.


Failed attempt at dry humor.  Disregard.
 
2012-12-28 04:49:16 PM
To oppose abortions (and the welfare system in general) as much as they do, it always surprised me how adamant they also are against contraceptives.

Just like the Republicans they voted for, 'compromise' must no longer be a part of their vocabulary.
 
2012-12-28 04:49:19 PM

the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies


Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days
 
2012-12-28 04:49:21 PM
What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.
 
2012-12-28 04:49:41 PM

NewWorldDan: Eh, if the employees have a problem with this, they should quit. It's just that simple.


Eh, if the employer has a problem with following federal laws regarding businesses, they should just close up shop. It's that simple.
 
2012-12-28 04:50:02 PM

ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.


It's their business, they should be allowed to run it how they want. It was formed from their own biblical beliefs. If they choose to pay the fines instead of complying with the law, good on them.
 
2012-12-28 04:50:14 PM

vernonFL: Do you see that? Its a modern reflector on an Amish buggy. The Amish did not want to put modern reflectors on their buggies, but the law says they have to.


Only if they use the same roads that everyone else does. On private land, they don't have to.
 
2012-12-28 04:50:45 PM
I

poot_rootbeer: cwolf20


If it is false. Man what was I not drinking on December 27, 2012 night at a holiday inn business seminar
 
2012-12-28 04:50:49 PM

Romeo_Santana: What's funny is how the more liberal among us think this doesn't affect them. cmb53208: What makes fundies such awful pieces of shiat?

Is that what CNN and John Stewart told you to think?


I do my own thinking asswipe. Now tell me what fundies are good for since they're anti-freedom, anti-choice, anti-knowledge, and anti-fun? These people are scum.
 
2012-12-28 04:50:54 PM

Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?


Uhm, the doctor/hospital, not the insurance company.
 
2012-12-28 04:51:28 PM
HOTY winner!
 
2012-12-28 04:51:46 PM

imtheonlylp: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

don't really think they're "punishing" anyone...employees are welcome to get their own insurance wherever they please...

My logic:
1) You don't agree with a business or their ethics or even their stance on any issue.
2) Don't work there and don't shop there.
3) Problem solved.


That's not actual logic. Your conclusion isn't a deduction made from your premises. It's not even inductive logic.

And if you don't think that the loss of work isn't a punishment for employees at the Hobby Lobby then you might just pass as a Romney son.
 
2012-12-28 04:52:16 PM

ghare: ProfessorOhki: ghare: ProfessorOhki: Bontesla: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.

That's assuming you've quit your hobby instead of taking your business elsewhere. Why would you quit your hobby?

Wal*Martization. I don't know exactly how big these guys are as a chain, but I could imagine a scenario where the big guy rolls into town, puts the small hobby shop(s) out of business and becomes the only game within 50 mi.

There's this thing called "the intarwebs." You can order stuff from it. I rarely have an emergency need to have art supplies RIGHT NOW.

Look at what I was replying to; I was referring to the [regional] loss of jobs and sales, not some unavailability of hobby supplies.

Hobby Lobby doesn't make a hobby of opening stores in towns of 2000. In regions where Hobby Lobby operates, big box stores do not create jobs. Rather, they cannibalize existing jobs from existing businesses. Boycotting Hobby Lobby will not affect net employment in a region, at all.


Creating jobs or not is irrelevant to the question. It's what would happen to those employees if they left that is the question. If the businesses they drew them from were cannibalized, you would have people and no matching job openings. Also, if an overall decrease in local spending, local sales tax and all that would have any economic impact. I really doubt it would be an issue, but that's what we were examining.
 
2012-12-28 04:53:31 PM

KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days


?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.
 
2012-12-28 04:54:13 PM

NewWorldDan: Eh, if the employees have a problem with this, they should quit. It's just that simple.


It's law, though. Not opinion.

They can voice their opinion against the law. They can lobby against the law. They can vote for representatives who promise to get rid of the law. But they can't unilaterally consider themselves exempt from the law , without serious consequences.
 
2012-12-28 04:54:21 PM

Great Janitor: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.

I sell health insurance. Took a few classes on Obamacare. The company I work for works with five different health insurance companies. Some are well known, others aren't. When it comes to health insurance, they pretty much all cost about the same. I offer my clients two health insurance packages. The Obamacare package and the non-Obamacare package. I also explain "For a married couple, the Obamacare package is going to run you about $8,000/year. The non-Obamacare package is half that. But you also have to pay the fine for not having it. If you rarely go to the doctor and are generally healthy, take the non-Obamacare package, it is the cheaper way to go."

Of course, I we've already been told that we're going to take a cut in commissions due Health Care reform and that we'd be better off focusing more on the Life Insurance for 2013.


You sell insurance and yet have no idea what Obamacare is, or how underwriting works. You're a hoot.
 
2012-12-28 04:55:43 PM
I an curious. Do these companies that are complaining about health insurance covering birth control have special exemptions for the pill in their current policy, or do they just not provide health insurance to their employees?
 
2012-12-28 04:55:50 PM

Great Janitor: Bontesla: Great Janitor: I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Why should your employer's religious preferences be imposed on the standard of insurance you can receive?

Other than offering insurance - the business has no business in my medical business.

Because they are paying for it.


As they're paying wages. It's part of your compensation. Your employer cannot tell you how to use your compensation.
 
2012-12-28 04:57:03 PM

ghare: Great Janitor: Bontesla: Great Janitor: I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Why should your employer's religious preferences be imposed on the standard of insurance you can receive?

Other than offering insurance - the business has no business in my medical business.

Because they are paying for it.

Well, then, they obviously have the right to restrict what employees do with their paychecks too.


Wrong. Employers have no rights to tell employees what to do with the paychecks. Since that's payment for time spent making the company money. The part about health insurance is different because it's not payment for services.
 
2012-12-28 04:57:11 PM

Great Janitor: The non-Obamacare package is half that. But you also have to pay the fine for not having it. If you rarely go to the doctor and are generally healthy, take the non-Obamacare package, it is the cheaper way to go."


The implication there seems to be that the non-Obamacare package doesn't do much.
 
2012-12-28 04:57:34 PM

Beavz0r: To oppose abortions (and the welfare system in general) as much as they do, it always surprised me how adamant they also are against contraceptives.

Just like the Republicans they voted for, 'compromise' must no longer be a part of their vocabulary.


They are against sex in just about any form except between a man and a woman who are together married and only for the purpose of procreation.
 
2012-12-28 04:58:01 PM

ProfessorOhki: ghare: ProfessorOhki: ghare: ProfessorOhki: Bontesla: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.

That's assuming you've quit your hobby instead of taking your business elsewhere. Why would you quit your hobby?

Wal*Martization. I don't know exactly how big these guys are as a chain, but I could imagine a scenario where the big guy rolls into town, puts the small hobby shop(s) out of business and becomes the only game within 50 mi.

There's this thing called "the intarwebs." You can order stuff from it. I rarely have an emergency need to have art supplies RIGHT NOW.

Look at what I was replying to; I was referring to the [regional] loss of jobs and sales, not some unavailability of hobby supplies.

Hobby Lobby doesn't make a hobby of opening stores in towns of 2000. In regions where Hobby Lobby operates, big box stores do not create jobs. Rather, they cannibalize existing jobs from existing businesses. Boycotting Hobby Lobby will not affect net employment in a region, at all.

Creating jobs or not is irrelevant to the question. It's what would happen to those employees if they left that is the question. If the businesses they drew them from were cannibalized, you would have people and no matching job openings. Also, if an overall decrease in local spending, local sales tax and all that would have any economic impact. I really doubt it would be an issue, but that's what we were examining.


If they leave the position, they will find another job, one would assume. If Hobby Lobby closes due to a drop in sales, due to them being perceived by the public as douchebags, then another art store will move in to take their place, and they will hire basically the same number of employees as Hobby Lobby did.
 
2012-12-28 04:58:28 PM

Internet Meme Rogers: Great Janitor: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.

I sell health insurance. Took a few classes on Obamacare. The company I work for works with five different health insurance companies. Some are well known, others aren't. When it comes to health insurance, they pretty much all cost about the same. I offer my clients two health insurance packages. The Obamacare package and the non-Obamacare package. I also explain "For a married couple, the Obamacare package is going to run you about $8,000/year. The non-Obamacare package is half that. But you also have to pay the fine for not having it. If you rarely go to the doctor and are generally healthy, take the non-Obamacare package, it is the cheaper way to go."

Of course, I we've already been told that we're going to take a cut in commissions due Health Care reform and that we'd be better off focusing more on the Life Insurance for 2013.

You sell insurance and yet have no idea what Obamacare is, or how underwriting works. You're a hoot.


Okay, tell me the error
 
2012-12-28 04:58:30 PM

NewWorldDan: Eh, if the employees have a problem with this, they should quit. It's just that simple.


If employers have a problem following constituonal law then they should be prevented from operating until they can operate their business in accordance with our laws.
It's just that simple.
 
2012-12-28 04:58:35 PM

ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.


Employer interfered?

What, they stopped Sally from going out and buying stuff?

Employers should not be obligated to provide any health care. What is next, employers have to provide housing?
 
2012-12-28 04:58:43 PM
So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?
 
2012-12-28 04:59:30 PM

NewWorldDan: Eh, if the employees have a problem with this, they should quit. It's just that simple.


So I'm going to have to grill all my future employers on their religious beliefs to make sure their healthcare plan isn't filled with stupid? That will be fun.
 
2012-12-28 04:59:46 PM

clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.


Are you saying that being pregnant is a sickness?

/the only cure is more cowbell.
 
2012-12-28 04:59:59 PM
The Japanese live much longer than we do and have a much better health care system. Need to see a doctor? Walk into any doctor's office, pay a small fee. No insurance, no employer hassles, nothing.
 
2012-12-28 05:00:09 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: They can voice their opinion against the law. They can lobby against the law. They can vote for representatives who promise to get rid of the law. But they can't unilaterally consider themselves exempt from the law , without serious consequences.


I seriously hope the DOJ sticks it to Hobby Lobby if they do. A large part of me thinks they won't though, so as not to rile up the right wing. But I seriously hope they stick it to Hobby Lobby, to make an example out of them.
 
2012-12-28 05:00:38 PM

WhoopAssWayne: I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi


What, long dead? W isn't that old. Seems you don't have faith that the party can expect any electoral success in the next 20-30 years?
 
2012-12-28 05:00:43 PM

pciszek: Great Janitor: The non-Obamacare package is half that. But you also have to pay the fine for not having it. If you rarely go to the doctor and are generally healthy, take the non-Obamacare package, it is the cheaper way to go."

The implication there seems to be that the non-Obamacare package doesn't do much.


higher deductibles, larger co-pays, not as much is covered, more out of pocket if you get hurt or sick.
 
2012-12-28 05:00:58 PM

Beavz0r: To oppose abortions (and the welfare system in general) as much as they do, it always surprised me how adamant they also are against contraceptives.

Just like the Republicans they voted for, 'compromise' must no longer be a part of their vocabulary.


Ok, I'll bite. What compromise to you propose in this situation?
 
2012-12-28 05:01:25 PM

Whole Wheat: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

It's their business, they should be allowed to run it how they want. It was formed from their own biblical beliefs. If they choose to pay the fines instead of complying with the law, good on them.


Lol Except there's a reason why women aren't allowed to be paid less than their male counterparts for the same job. Even if your religion thinks women are poo-poo heads.
 
2012-12-28 05:01:27 PM

the_end_is_rear: When I was a kid and saw a store with the name "Hobby" in it I knew that it sold, model planes, trains, Estes rockets etc. You know...fun stuff.
That meaning of that word has been faded by Hobby Lobby. Scrap booking? A hobby?

I much more enjoyed the "Hobbiest" term used in the Suzy Favor Hamilton story.


They do carry some model kits and estes rockets. But the artsy-crafty crap is by far the bulk of the place.
 
2012-12-28 05:02:20 PM

KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.


Insurance that pays for contraception is cheaper than insurance that doesn't, and has to pay to deliver an unwanted baby, then maintain it's health for years, and years.  How do you not understand this.  A rubber costs a couple of bucks.  How much does it cost to bring a baby to term, you dolt?
 
2012-12-28 05:02:33 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Convenience abortions should be prosecuted as first degree murder.

Go ahead idiot liberals - open up this can of worms of pushing your beliefs on others through Obamacare and see what kind of a country we end up with. Because it won't take long for the ball to be in the other court, and I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi, and then you dumbasses will really have something to cry about.


I don't think the United States is the right country for you. Look into Nicaragua or El Salvador. They may be more to your liking.
 
2012-12-28 05:02:48 PM

Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.


You mean "benefits" like minimum wage, a healthy & safe workplace, overtime pay, child labor laws, etc? Yeah, who needs big bad gubmint telling employers what to do, right?
 
2012-12-28 05:03:10 PM

KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

Uhm, the doctor/hospital, not the insurance company.


Wait - you think doctors and hospitals are giving out free medical care? With no compensation? Just for free because... They're notoriously nice?
 
2012-12-28 05:03:44 PM
It's against my religious beliefs to be held liable for my recklessness or negligence; ergo, you can't force me to violate my religious beliefs by compelling me to pay legal judgments.
 
2012-12-28 05:06:48 PM
Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby to defy federal law requiring contraception coverage for employees, attorney says

/its bad enough that all your crap is made in china, and i have yet to find one, even ONE, item that is made in the USA on your shelves. And i know, my wife shops for things there for her crafts. I've looked. If that wasn't bad enough..now you're telling people how to live and control their sex lives.

/eat a bag of dicks you non USA supporting derp slinging assholes.
 
2012-12-28 05:07:06 PM

o5iiawah: The My Little Pony Killer: Maybe they should become a church if they want to have church rules.

Or maybe they should be a private company, one of those places where you can choose on your own whether or not to shop there or work there.


Maybe they should go be a company in some other country that doesn't have any farking standards. If they can't deal with making money in a first-world nation, maybe the Central African Republic would suit them better. Or maybe Iran.

Ooh, there's probably a lot of unused land they could set up shop in Afghanistan. That seems like its right up their alley.
 
2012-12-28 05:07:15 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Maybe they should become a church if they want to have church rules.


ummm....everyone has freedom of religion...not just churches....
 
2012-12-28 05:07:24 PM

KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.


Your insurance would go up a lot more if they had the babies, what are you complaining about again? How about people who stuff their face with fast food and sugary soda all the time? It's cool with me, but don't make my insurance go up for all the blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, insulin and diabetes testing supplies needed by people who make poor decisions. Also, I'm sick of paying for these stupid farking scooters they are giving old people who break their ankles, crutches work just fine you slackers! And don't even get me started on the motorized chairs for fat people.
 
2012-12-28 05:07:33 PM

Great Janitor: ghare: Great Janitor: Bontesla: Great Janitor: I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Why should your employer's religious preferences be imposed on the standard of insurance you can receive?

Other than offering insurance - the business has no business in my medical business.

Because they are paying for it.

Well, then, they obviously have the right to restrict what employees do with their paychecks too.

Wrong. Employers have no rights to tell employees what to do with the paychecks. Since that's payment for time spent making the company money. The part about health insurance is different because it's not payment for services.


Health care is part of your payment. Employers aren't bestowing you with good health care because of your killer dimples.
 
2012-12-28 05:07:50 PM

you are a puppet: Submitter: you sir, are a mouthful.


That's what she said.
 
2012-12-28 05:07:56 PM

Great Janitor: I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.


Stick with custodial work, thinking isn't your strong suit.

Using your logic christian scientists could offer coverage that only consisted of prayer.
 
2012-12-28 05:08:21 PM
I think there is a point that many here are missing. They have the option to not provide

Bontesla:
Why should your employer's religious preferences be imposed on the standard of insurance you can receive?

Other than offering insurance - the business has no business in my medical business.


I think a point that is being missed here is that they can avoid the fines and the requirements completely by simply not offering insurance at all. Well, the $1.3 million a day non-compliance fees anyway. They will still have to pay the not offering any coverage fees but I'm thinking that might be cheaper than $1.3 million a day.

So, if they want to spend the extra $$$ on a lesser fine by not offering insurance and satisfy their god they can.

It may be a d!ck move but they are a huge corporation what do you expect?
 
2012-12-28 05:08:26 PM

dr_blasto: WhoopAssWayne: I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi

What, long dead?


No. Short, and bald with a huge honkin' nose.
 
2012-12-28 05:09:19 PM

NightOwl2255: Di Atribe: Hey, why not just follow your employees home to make sure they're not farking for fun?

Hey, don't put that past the Green family. They are, how shall we say, true holy rollers. Of course they live like billionaires, not humble servants of god (that would be their many minimum wage slaves), but you gotta draw the line somewhere, right?


Their starting wages are not minimum wage, they are a few dollars more.
 
2012-12-28 05:09:27 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Insurance that pays for contraception is cheaper than insurance that doesn't, and has to pay to deliver an unwanted baby, then maintain it's health for years, and years. How do you not understand this. A rubber costs a couple of bucks. How much does it cost to bring a baby to term, you dolt?


Well when you pop the kid out, $3-5000 will cover the room depending on if you're there two or three nights. As for the doctors/nurses, procedures/meds, etc well those are gonna be extra. And don't get me started on the pregnant lady checkups.

So instead of paying $3,000 for the room for two nights, you could just pay for 60 months of birth control if you have no insurance.

/One of these days I'm gonna do all of the math out to see how many months of non insured BC you can get for a single kid, starting from maternal care to popping it out.
 
2012-12-28 05:10:36 PM

illannoyin: I think a point that is being missed here is that they can avoid the fines and the requirements completely by simply not offering insurance at all.


I don't think they can. IIRC, in Obamacare all businesses above a certain size (full time employees) are required to provide insurance to them. Thus the whole Papa Johns biatching.
 
2012-12-28 05:10:45 PM

Bonzo_1116: If they want to operate as a business, then they need to follow the rules for businesses not a private membership church.

I don't think a company owned by Jehovah' s Witnesses can require that their employer sponsored insurance denies a patient a kidney transplant.

It's f*cked up that health insurance comes from your employer anyway. Aside from damage sustained on the job, it's none of your boss's business what you need from your doctor.


THIS.

Several good points here! The part about Jehovah's Witnesses is the only thing any judge should need to think about when they consider the Hobby Lobby stance. If a JW owns a business, they can't remove kidney transplants from an employee's coverage. If a hardcore pagan owns a business, they can't choose to only cover holistic treatments, and if a Christian owns a business, they can't choose to omit birth control from the insurance.

However, the final point is what rings true with me. It's STUPID that our country has employers providing health insurance. We should either have insurance/health care because we pay taxes (like every sane country in the world) or we should have a mandatory higher minimum wage and mandatory lower insurance premiums so that everyone can afford to buy decent insurance and still pay for rent, food, and utilities, among other things.

The insurance companies have this country by the balls, and they know it. That's why I don't really believe in the political process-- The corporations make the laws, not the people. If we had any major influence on our laws, then prohibition wouldn't have happened, marijuana would have been legalized ages ago, and laws would exist to make it impossible for pharmaceutical companies to patent medications that improve or preserve human life.

Medicine is not the secret formula to Kentucky Fried Chicken. It's for the benefit of humanity. We should not be making medicine to gain obscene profits from it. We should be making medicine to improve the human condition and make our workforce better, stronger and healthier. THAT'S where the money comes in.

The world is f♥cked up, anyway. The plutocrats are in charge. The corporations own your ass, and at least half of this country will defend them while they screw us. It makes me ill.
 
2012-12-28 05:11:24 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Religious belief does not make you exempt from law that affects everyone.* You do not get to deny health benefits, hide your face for a driver's licence photo, beat your children for having a boyfriend, or smoke weed.


*(Unless your ancestors were here before the U.S. existed and peyote is a historically documented part of your religion.)


false equivalence.   Nobody is forcing people to work for Hobby Lobby.  If they don't like the health benefits offered by HL, they can apply for a job elsewhere.
 
2012-12-28 05:12:21 PM
Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Oh, but they can tell me who I can or cannot marry, and prevent me from adopting a child?

Conservatives. Bless their hearts. Please.
 
2012-12-28 05:12:33 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Go ahead idiot liberals - open up this can of worms of pushing your beliefs on others through Obamacare and see what kind of a country we end up with. Because it won't take long for the ball to be in the other court, and I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi, and then you dumbasses will really have something to cry about.


You're certainly a typical Republican... salivating at prospect of screwing over your fellow Americans.
 
2012-12-28 05:13:23 PM

ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.


I never said they're not allowed to have them. I never said anything about not paying for a doctor visit. I never said i was even AGAINST contraceptives.

I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

Ahh, the Modern Presumptuous Douchebag: Clueless, insistently entitled, and proud of it.

/I'm a Libertarian. Some conservative views without all the bullshiat worrying about who sleeps with who or who prays to whatever they call god
 
2012-12-28 05:14:19 PM

Thunderpipes: ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.

Employer interfered?

What, they stopped Sally from going out and buying stuff?

Employers should not be obligated to provide any health care. What is next, employers have to provide housing?


This guy gets what I'm saying.
 
2012-12-28 05:14:34 PM

The Why Not Guy: Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Oh, but they can tell me who I can or cannot marry, and prevent me from adopting a child?

Conservatives. Bless their hearts. Please.


I don't think they should tell you who you can or cannot marry, prevent you from adopting a child, or be forced to provide certain fringe benefits.  I don't know where that puts me.
 
2012-12-28 05:14:40 PM
Golf clap subby. That was a great headline.
 
2012-12-28 05:15:00 PM

KidneyStone: ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.

I never said they're not allowed to have them. I never said anything about not paying for a doctor visit. I never said i was even AGAINST contraceptives.

I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

Ahh, the Modern Presumptuous Douchebag: Clueless, insistently entitled, and proud of it.

/I'm a Libertarian. Some conservative views without all the bullshiat worrying about who sleeps with who or who prays to whatever they call god


Your health care costs will go up regardless, kitten.

And they go up - often - because uninsured are seeking medical treatment.
 
2012-12-28 05:15:32 PM
FYI re: Hobby Lobby's CEO, David Green, from Forbes.com: (estimated net worth $4.5 billion)

"Hobby Lobby founder David Green runs one of the biggest Christian companies in the U.S. A preacher's son from a poor background, Green started his business with a $600 loan in 1970; he then opened his first Hobby Lobby arts and crafts stores in Oklahoma City in 1972. The chain now has 520 locations across the country, all of which are closed on Sunday.

Green is a big contributor to evangelical education, with a $10.5 million gift to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in 2004 and $70 million to bail out Oral Roberts University in 2007. He has also put nearly 1.4 billion copies of gospel literature in homes in more than 100 countries, mostly in Africa and Asia. He joined the Giving Pledge in 2010."

From his letter om the Giving Pledge website: "We honor the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles. From helping orphanages in faraway lands to helping ministries in America, Hobby Lobby has always been a tool for the Lord's work."

See, the guy admits he's a tool who feeds starving orphans tasty, tasty bibles. What's not to love?
 
2012-12-28 05:15:39 PM

Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.


Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....
 
2012-12-28 05:16:04 PM
I just sent a message to them via their website.  I asked why Hobby Lobby is so un-American.  Why they don't sell American-made merchandise, why they want to impose their religious views on their staff, and if they'd get bent out of shape if a Muslim-owned company did the same thing.  I don't expect to hear back from them...
 
2012-12-28 05:18:08 PM

KidneyStone: I never said they're not allowed to have them. I never said anything about not paying for a doctor visit. I never said i was even AGAINST contraceptives.

I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

Ahh, the Modern Presumptuous Douchebag: Clueless, insistently entitled, and proud of it.

/I'm a Libertarian. Some conservative views without all the bullshiat worrying about who sleeps with who or who prays to whatever they call


Healthcare costs go down with free contraceptives. Insurance agencies know this. The pill is cheaper than abortion or giving birth.

Even if that wasn't the case the pill and abortions have needs besides "birth control". For a employer to say they can't be part of their plan is no different than saying a type of heart surgery or cancer medication can't be allowed because it is against their beliefs.
 
2012-12-28 05:18:10 PM

KidneyStone: Thunderpipes: ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.

Employer interfered?

What, they stopped Sally from going out and buying stuff?

Employers should not be obligated to provide any health care. What is next, employers have to provide housing?

This guy gets what I'm saying.


Is housing part of the employee's compensation package? Then the employer must provide housing that meets the safety standards.
 
2012-12-28 05:18:46 PM

Bontesla: KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

Uhm, the doctor/hospital, not the insurance company.

Wait - you think doctors and hospitals are giving out free medical care? With no compensation? Just for free because... They're notoriously nice?


Are you that naive or are you that stupid? If an uninsured mother is giving birth then where does she go? Doctor? Hospital? You pick one of those and tell us which one will turn away a woman in labor. If she is uninsured then how do the insurance companies get stuck with the bill? Do you suppose there's some general "uninsured mothers fund" where they all chip in or is it more of a round-robin thing where State Farm pays one week and then it's up to UHC and the next week it's someone else?

And they call ME stupid here.
 
2012-12-28 05:18:52 PM

KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.


It's comments like this that make me wish Fark had a moran button as well as a smart and funny button.
 
2012-12-28 05:19:27 PM
Once again...

Government: You must do this! It's the law because we say so!

Private Company: We don't want to do that, it violates our personal religious beliefs.

Liberals: Private company! Stop "forcing" your beliefs on your employees!

The only group here using force is the government because its the only thing in this scenario that can even use force but in the twisted and deranged mind of a liberal, somehow it becomes the company forcing things on people that they don't want instead of the government.
 
2012-12-28 05:20:30 PM

KidneyStone: I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.


You idiot.  Contraceptives cost LESS than a baby.  The BABY makes the cost go up.  Contraceptives prevent the expensive baby-making, thus costing LESS.  How do you not understand this?
 
2012-12-28 05:20:48 PM

Di Atribe: Whatever. My religion dictates that I sleep until 10am every morning. Now I'm going to make everyone do it because to me, it's the only moral thing to do.


Heathen! You have to sleep until AT LEAST noon!
 
2012-12-28 05:21:20 PM
My religion requires me to smoke large amounts of marijuana, maintain a harem of sex slaves and sacrifice live babies every morning to ensure the sun comes up.

And you're trying to tell me the government can't make me obey laws that conflict with my religious beliefs?

What planet do you live on, anyway?
 
2012-12-28 05:21:46 PM

clyph: My religion says hard hats and steel toed boots are the mark of Satan, therefore my employees are exempt from OSHA regulations.


False equivalence.

OSHA protects workers from hurting themselves and dying.

A morning after pill does nothing to protect a woman's life.
 
2012-12-28 05:22:46 PM

giftedmadness: NightOwl2255: Di Atribe: Hey, why not just follow your employees home to make sure they're not farking for fun?

Hey, don't put that past the Green family. They are, how shall we say, true holy rollers. Of course they live like billionaires, not humble servants of god (that would be their many minimum wage slaves), but you gotta draw the line somewhere, right?

Their starting wages are not minimum wage, they are a few dollars more.


Not true. I interviewed there once, a few years back, and they made it clear they were going to start me out at minimum if I got the job.
 
2012-12-28 05:23:04 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: dr_blasto: WhoopAssWayne: I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi

What, long dead?

No. Short, and bald with a huge honkin' nose.


Wearing little round glasses?
 
2012-12-28 05:23:54 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: KidneyStone: I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

You idiot.  Contraceptives cost LESS than a baby.  The BABY makes the cost go up.  Contraceptives prevent the expensive baby-making, thus costing LESS.  How do you not understand this?


Kidney stones, like babies, are entirely preventable. I resent paying for other peoples' failure to drink enough water.
 
2012-12-28 05:24:27 PM

Bontesla: Great Janitor: I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Why should your employer's religious preferences be imposed on the standard of insurance you can receive?

Other than offering insurance - the business has no business in my medical business.


Ummm. because they are the ones paying for it......

If you don't like the healthcare they offer, find another job.  What's so hard about that for you to understand?
 
2012-12-28 05:24:38 PM

KidneyStone: I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.


So you're against paying for other peoples contraceptives. Fine.

Would you be alright if insurance provided those contraceptives for free at no additional cost to you or others?

What if insurance provided contraceptives to everyone for free and also sent you a check with some extra money every year?

This last one is closest reality. Providing contraceptives reduces insurance costs and insurance providers are required to send you a check every year of the money they did not use. You're the dickhead demanding I pay higher insurance premiums because you want to drive some moral narrative on women. Who the fark are you to drive my insurance costs up?
 
2012-12-28 05:24:44 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?


Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.
 
2012-12-28 05:24:52 PM

giftedmadness: ThrobblefootSpectre: Religious belief does not make you exempt from law that affects everyone.* You do not get to deny health benefits, hide your face for a driver's licence photo, beat your children for having a boyfriend, or smoke weed.


*(Unless your ancestors were here before the U.S. existed and peyote is a historically documented part of your religion.)

false equivalence.   Nobody is forcing people to work for Hobby Lobby.  If they don't like the health benefits offered by HL, they can apply for a job elsewhere.


Nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby to sell their shiat in the United States. If Hobby Lobby doesn't like the US, they can go run their business elsewhere.
 
2012-12-28 05:25:51 PM

cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.

False economy... it might be a tiny bit cheaper in the short term, but in terms of running a good long term business paying a few bucks a month per employee will pay back in spades. If he only had the sense.
 
2012-12-28 05:26:01 PM

The Why Not Guy: Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Oh, but they can tell me who I can or cannot marry, and prevent me from adopting a child?

Conservatives. Bless their hearts. Please.


Interestingly enough, I don't think they should have the ability to tell you who to marry or if you can or can not adopt a child.

The role of the government should be small. Making sure we have infrastructure, clean water, a military and police and fire. That's about where it should end. Telling your employer how much you should be paid and what benefits you should or should not get shouldn't be the government's concern. If you work for Company ABC and you think you should make more money and get certain benefits, it shouldn't be the government who forces Company ABC to make those changes. It should be up to you to make the change to get the benefits and pay that you believe that you deserve. If that means changing jobs or acquiring a new job skills set, then make those changes.
 
2012-12-28 05:26:09 PM

KidneyStone: I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

How do you feel about your health care costs going up due to unplanned or unwanted pregnancies?

Birth control costs much much less than prenatal care, delivery with potential complications, postpartum care of the mother and then years of pediatric care.
 
2012-12-28 05:26:24 PM
As for the potential fines, Duncan said, "We're just going to have to cross that bridge when we come to it."
That's gonna be some fine mother farkin' green bridge.

I see this turning into George Wallace vs the Federal Government in the school integration issue.
 
2012-12-28 05:27:37 PM

special20: Romeo_Santana: Is that what CNN and John Stewart told you to think?

It's Jon, you farkin dumb ass. I guess it's not important in the bubble you live in.


;::notsureifserious.jpg:::::
 
2012-12-28 05:27:40 PM

KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

Uhm, the doctor/hospital, not the insurance company.

Wait - you think doctors and hospitals are giving out free medical care? With no compensation? Just for free because... They're notoriously nice?

Are you that naive or are you that stupid? If an uninsured mother is giving birth then where does she go? Doctor? Hospital? You pick one of those and tell us which one will turn away a woman in labor. If she is uninsured then how do the insurance companies get stuck with the bill? Do you suppose there's some general "uninsured mothers fund" where they all chip in or is it more of a round-robin thing where State Farm pays one week and then it's up to UHC and the next week it's someone else?

And they call ME stupid here.


LOL.

Insurance companies pay inflated prices that, when spread out, cover for the uninsured. Hospitals don't just eat those costs, they charge $900 for a friggin aspirin.
 
2012-12-28 05:28:05 PM

giftedmadness: Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion.


BS.

No religion I have ever heard of says you can't partake in insurance.

If religions were to argue that any insurance they pay for has to follow their beliefs then what would stop people from claiming that they are christian scientists, and can pay for no procedures?

The fact is insurance, like OSHA standards are requirements if you want to employ people in the US. Saying they can't support insurance that allows BC is no different than saying they don't want their employees to wear respirators in a toxic environment.
 
2012-12-28 05:28:14 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?


Care to quote the section of the bible that says you can't pay for someone else's abortion?
 
2012-12-28 05:28:22 PM

Great Janitor: If you work for Company ABC and you think you should make more money and get certain benefits, it shouldn't be the government who forces Company ABC to make those changes. It should be up to you to make the change to get the benefits and pay that you believe that you deserve. If that means changing jobs or acquiring a new job skills set, then make those changes.


Because that worked out so well before the government got involved...
 
2012-12-28 05:28:31 PM

giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....


...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.
 
2012-12-28 05:30:03 PM

KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

Uhm, the doctor/hospital, not the insurance company.

Wait - you think doctors and hospitals are giving out free medical care? With no compensation? Just for free because... They're notoriously nice?

Are you that naive or are you that stupid? If an uninsured mother is giving birth then where does she go? Doctor? Hospital? You pick one of those and tell us which one will turn away a woman in labor. If she is uninsured then how do the insurance companies get stuck with the bill? Do you suppose there's some general "uninsured mothers fund" where they all chip in or is it more of a round-robin thing where State Farm pays one week and then it's up to UHC and the next week it's someone else?

And they call ME stupid here.


You ARE stupid.! All that money has to get made back by billing INSURED patients more to cover the loss. That is why there is a 500% markup on gauze and aspirin and other basics. That is how insurance companies and insured patients get stuck with the bill. How dense are you not to be able to follow this simple concept?
 
2012-12-28 05:30:43 PM

mmagdalene: Sin_City_Superhero: KidneyStone: I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

You idiot.  Contraceptives cost LESS than a baby.  The BABY makes the cost go up.  Contraceptives prevent the expensive baby-making, thus costing LESS.  How do you not understand this?

Kidney stones, like babies, are entirely preventable. I resent paying for other peoples' failure to drink enough water.


And if insurance covering bottled water was cheaper than the cost of all kidney stone treatments, that would be a good idea too...
 
2012-12-28 05:31:25 PM

ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.


I dunno. Someone upthread mentioned they interviewed with them and was informed they start at minimum wage, so it sounds like Hobby Lobby does like farking its employees.
 
2012-12-28 05:33:11 PM
It seems Hobby Lobby has already gone over the contraceptive cliff.
 
2012-12-28 05:33:13 PM

Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?


You're assuming that the only way people can access contraceptives is if their health insurance pays for it.....that's a stupid assumption.
 
2012-12-28 05:33:37 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

Uhm, the doctor/hospital, not the insurance company.

Wait - you think doctors and hospitals are giving out free medical care? With no compensation? Just for free because... They're notoriously nice?

Are you that naive or are you that stupid? If an uninsured mother is giving birth then where does she go? Doctor? Hospital? You pick one of those and tell us which one will turn away a woman in labor. If she is uninsured then how do the insurance companies get stuck with the bill? Do you suppose there's some general "uninsured mothers fund" where they all chip in or is it more of a round-robin thing where State Farm pays one week and then it's up to UHC and the next week it's someone else?

And they call ME stupid here.

You ARE stupid.! All that money has to get made back by billing INSURED patients more to cover the loss. That is why there is a 500% markup on gauze and aspirin and other basics. That is how insurance companies and insured patients get stuck with the bill. How dense are you not to be able to follow this simple concept?


The hospital has several places where they can make up the shortfall: they can pay staff less, they can understaff, they jack up the insured patients' bills, they can put off building maintenance. You're both right, stupids.

/The only thing they can't do is cut admin salaries
//I mean, obviously
 
2012-12-28 05:34:03 PM

randomjsa: Once again...

Government: You must do this! It's the law because we say so!

Private Company: We don't want to do that, it violates our personal religious beliefs.

Liberals: Private company! Stop "forcing" your beliefs on your employees!

The only group here using force is the government because its the only thing in this scenario that can even use force but in the twisted and deranged mind of a liberal, somehow it becomes the company forcing things on people that they don't want instead of the government.


The Establishment clause exists for a reason. I'm sorry this bothers you.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled flamewar.
 
2012-12-28 05:34:20 PM

Great Janitor: Interestingly enough, I don't think they should have the ability to tell you who to marry or if you can or can not adopt a child.


So what? If you vote Republican, you're helping elect people who do think they should have the ability to tell me just that.
 
2012-12-28 05:35:09 PM

ghare: If Hobby Lobby closes due to a drop in sales, due to them being perceived by the public left as douchebags, then another art store will move in to take their place, and they will hire basically the same number of employees as Hobby Lobby did.


FTFY.... Let's see how bad it was for business last time.....

www.frugal-cafe.com
 
2012-12-28 05:35:20 PM

gaspode: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.
False economy... it might be a tiny bit cheaper in the short term, but in terms of running a good long term business paying a few bucks a month per employee will pay back in spades. If he only had the sense.


It has nothing to do with its long-term viability, but everything to do with sticking it to the left at the expense of his employees.
 
2012-12-28 05:36:26 PM

randomjsa: Once again...

Government: You must do this! It's the law because we say so! -Must? Nobody said they need to hire people or pay for insurance, but if they do there are rules. If they don't want to pay insurance,they are can choose not too.

Private Company: We don't want to do that, it violates our personal religious beliefs. -No religion I have ever heard of has said paying into an insurance plan is against their religion. If we were to allow religions to opt out of labor rules on newly discovered whims (because unless you can point me to some religion using this argument before Obamacare, that is what this is) then any employee can just claim they don't believe in th emost expensive treatments, thus reducing their cost of doing business.



The rest of your derp falls apart once you understand the above bolded parts.
 
2012-12-28 05:36:44 PM

ghare: Great Janitor: Bontesla: Great Janitor: I really can't hate them for saying that they don't want to offer coverage that goes against their beliefs. They aren't saying that they don't want their female employees not to be on the pill or whatever, just that they don't want to offer those programs. If their employees don't like it, they can find work else where. It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Why should your employer's religious preferences be imposed on the standard of insurance you can receive?

Other than offering insurance - the business has no business in my medical business.

Because they are paying for it.

Well, then, they obviously have the right to restrict what employees do with their paychecks too.


Your logic is awful, typical female emotional logic.  If I trade money for your work, I'm not paying you anything.  You are free to do with that money whatever you please.   Before Obamacare, I wasn't required to give you any healthcare, let alone something that goes against my religion.
 
2012-12-28 05:36:53 PM

Great Janitor: The Why Not Guy: Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Oh, but they can tell me who I can or cannot marry, and prevent me from adopting a child?

Conservatives. Bless their hearts. Please.

Interestingly enough, I don't think they should have the ability to tell you who to marry or if you can or can not adopt a child.

The role of the government should be small. Making sure we have infrastructure, clean water, a military and police and fire. That's about where it should end. Telling your employer how much you should be paid and what benefits you should or should not get shouldn't be the government's concern. If you work for Company ABC and you think you should make more money and get certain benefits, it shouldn't be the government who forces Company ABC to make those changes. It should be up to you to make the change to get the benefits and pay that you believe that you deserve. If that means changing jobs or acquiring a new job skills set, then make those changes.


GENERAL STRIKE!! GENERAL STRIKE!!
 
2012-12-28 05:37:30 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: ghare: If Hobby Lobby closes due to a drop in sales, due to them being perceived by the public left as douchebags, then another art store will move in to take their place, and they will hire basically the same number of employees as Hobby Lobby did.

FTFY.... Let's see how bad it was for business last time.....

[www.frugal-cafe.com image 709x413]


That was ONE day.  It's not like those lines were there the next day...
 
2012-12-28 05:39:30 PM

giftedmadness: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

You're assuming that the only way people can access contraceptives is if their health insurance pays for it.....that's a stupid assumption.


You're assuming that someone making minimum wage can afford to pay for a visit to the OBGYN to get a prescription for contraceptives out-of pocket as well as pay for the actual drugs.... that> is the stupid assumption. Why should a minimum wage employee take on such a huge health related cost out-of-pocket when they supposedly have health insurance? Family planning is a requirement for adults by because of natural processes. Type 2 diabetes is not, yet we are not debating covering the costs of that entirely avoidable condition. So really, WTF is your problem anyway?
 
2012-12-28 05:39:54 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: ghare: If Hobby Lobby closes due to a drop in sales, due to them being perceived by the public left as douchebags, then another art store will move in to take their place, and they will hire basically the same number of employees as Hobby Lobby did.

FTFY.... Let's see how bad it was for business last time.....

[www.frugal-cafe.com image 709x413]

That was ONE day.  It's not like those lines were there the next day...


They had fiscal quarter increases, but yeah the picture was more to show that point.
 
2012-12-28 05:40:45 PM

giftedmadness: let alone something that goes against my religion.


It's funny (both funny "ha ha" and funny "strange") to see the Conservatives who cheered our invasion of Iraq clutching their pearls over things that go against their religion.

War? Tens of thousands dead or injured? USA! USA! USA!
Birth control pills? Gasp!
 
2012-12-28 05:41:05 PM

clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.


um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?
 
2012-12-28 05:42:35 PM

giftedmadness: Before Obamacare, I wasn't required to give you any healthcare, let alone something that goes against my religion


You aren't required to now either.

You can choose not to and pay a fine.

I don't think it is an ideal solution, but aside from universal healthcare I don't see how else to get people covered. It is prohibitively expensive for an individual to get it on his own.
 
2012-12-28 05:45:18 PM

giftedmadness: um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else. Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?


I think that person was highlighting the trend of "conservative Christians" doing everything in their power to stop any action that would help poor get better access to healthcare.
 
2012-12-28 05:45:34 PM

giftedmadness: clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.

um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor build megachurches than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?


FTFY
 
2012-12-28 05:46:57 PM

liam76: giftedmadness: Before Obamacare, I wasn't required to give you any healthcare, let alone something that goes against my religion

You aren't required to now either.

You can choose not to and pay a fine.

I don't think it is an ideal solution, but aside from universal healthcare I don't see how else to get people covered. It is prohibitively expensive for an individual to get it on his own.


The definition of a "fine" is "A sum of money required to be paid as a penalty for an offense." So it sort of is required, you can just choose to break the law and suffer the consequences, which is in the form of a fine.
 
2012-12-28 05:48:15 PM

ProfessorOhki:

The hospital has several places where they can make up the shortfall: they can pay staff less, they can understaff, they jack up the insured patients' bills, they can put off building maintenance. You're both right, stupids.

/The only thing they can't do is cut admin salaries
//I mean, obviously


Hospitals do not have several places where they can make up the shortfall. They can increase revenue, or decrease expenses. The former is billing the paying patients more which I mentioned, the latter involves shorting the quality of care that is provided. No one in their right mind would argue that providing lower quality care to insured patients is a viable solution, not while malpractice liability exists.

You honestly believe skipping annual (monthly) HVAC maintenance or not replacing burned out florescent light bulbs right-away is how hospitals cover their losses from treating uninsured patients?
 
2012-12-28 05:48:31 PM
Its a christianly good store. If not for their occasional 40% off coupon, I wouldnt go near that farking place.
 
2012-12-28 05:50:00 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The definition of a "fine" is "A sum of money required to be paid as a penalty for an offense." So it sort of is required, you can just choose to break the law and suffer the consequences, which is in the form of a fine.


The claim was that you were forced to do it.

If the fine increased every time, or you would eventually lose your business license if you didn't have healthcare, I would accept that claim. But since you can pay a "tax" "penalty" or "fine" to get out of it then it isn't required.
 
2012-12-28 05:50:31 PM
i2.squidoocdn.com

Holly Hobbie frowns on your shenanigans.

/I assume
 
2012-12-28 05:50:37 PM

giftedmadness: .conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else


How much of that is non-required tithing?
 
2012-12-28 05:52:40 PM

KidneyStone: ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.

I never said they're not allowed to have them. I never said anything about not paying for a doctor visit. I never said i was even AGAINST contraceptives.

I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

Ahh, the Modern Presumptuous Douchebag: Clueless, insistently entitled, and proud of it.

/I'm a Libertarian. Some conservative views without all the bullshiat worrying about who sleeps with who or who prays to whatever they call god


Um, you are NOT a libertarian.  If you were one, you would allow a company to provide whatever benefits they damn well pleased.
 
2012-12-28 05:53:14 PM

ElwoodCuse: Yes, the pill, morning-after pill, and IUDs are "abortion-causing devices". Whatta maroon.


Seriously...if that's the angle they use, then half of the products on their shelves (various chemicals, glues, xacto blades, wiring, hand tools) are abortion-causing devices.

/doesn't shop at HL
//Petco of Hobby stores
///prefers specialty shops that actually know their farking products
 
2012-12-28 05:53:49 PM

giftedmadness: um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.


Donating to a church counts as donating to charity, but it doesn't necessarily equal donating to the poor. Many churches do wonderful work for the poor. Many churches do not.
 
2012-12-28 05:55:07 PM

giftedmadness: clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.

um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?


[citation needed]

Difficulty: Don't count tithes, political lobbying, or contributions to megachurch leader's pockets as "donations."

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The definition of a "fine" is "A sum of money required to be paid as a penalty for an offense." So it sort of is required, you can just choose to break the law and suffer the consequences, which is in the form of a fine.


That's true, but the supreme court already ruled that it is a tax, not a fine penalty, so the semantics of "fine" don't matter here.
 
2012-12-28 05:55:25 PM

fanbladesaresharp: ElwoodCuse: Yes, the pill, morning-after pill, and IUDs are "abortion-causing devices". Whatta maroon.

Seriously...if that's the angle they use, then half of the products on their shelves (various chemicals, glues, xacto blades, wiring, hand tools) are abortion-causing devices.

/doesn't shop at HL
//Petco of Hobby stores
///prefers specialty shops that actually know their farking products


COMPLETELY off-topic, but curious. What's the story with Petco? I actually prefer them to PetSmart but that has more to do with selection than anything else. Judging by the slashies I would guess you take issue with the knowledge level of their staff?
 
2012-12-28 05:55:53 PM

giftedmadness: Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....


Learn the difference between "practicing your religion" and "imposing your religion on other people".

Your right to practice YOUR religion ENDS where my right to practice MY religion BEGINS. That's the distinction you teabagging fundie assholes never seem to understand. Practicing your religion means "I must wear magic underwear". That's fine. What we have a problem with is when you say "My employees must wear magic underwear".

Practice your own farking religion to your heart's content. Wear funny hats and magic underwear, eat special food, abstain from sex and dancing, whatever you think makes your invisible sky wizard happy -- all perfectly fine with us. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

If you're right, we're going to hell anyway. That's actually fine with us, as long as our afterlife doesn't mean spending an eternity surrounded by self-righteous douchebags like you.
 
2012-12-28 05:57:14 PM

randomjsa: Once again...

Government: You must do this! It's the law because we say so!

Private Company: We don't want to do that, it violates our personal religious beliefs.

Liberals: Private company! Stop "forcing" your beliefs on your employees!

The only group here using force is the government because its the only thing in this scenario that can even use force but in the twisted and deranged mind of a liberal, somehow it becomes the company forcing things on people that they don't want instead of the government.


Very very well put.  Bravo.
 
2012-12-28 05:57:59 PM
I feel like I do a good job of boycotting companies that like to refuse basic rights because of religion or flying spaghetti monsters or whatever. I'm just not sure I can live without Hobby Lobby in my life. Their sales are all sorts of amazing.
 
2012-12-28 05:58:26 PM

Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.


or who they have to sell to or if they have to have handicap access. you and rand paul would fit right in at the sit ins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in

btw are you against minimum wage also?
 
2012-12-28 05:58:46 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: ProfessorOhki:

The hospital has several places where they can make up the shortfall: they can pay staff less, they can understaff, they jack up the insured patients' bills, they can put off building maintenance. You're both right, stupids.

/The only thing they can't do is cut admin salaries
//I mean, obviously

Hospitals do not have several places where they can make up the shortfall. They can increase revenue, or decrease expenses. The former is billing the paying patients more which I mentioned, the latter involves shorting the quality of care that is provided. No one in their right mind would argue that providing lower quality care to insured patients is a viable solution, not while malpractice liability exists.

You honestly believe skipping annual (monthly) HVAC maintenance or not replacing burned out florescent light bulbs right-away is how hospitals cover their losses from treating uninsured patients?


No, but working staff long hours without enough pay to make up for it is a form of decreasing expenses and you better believe it happens. So, go ahead and tell me again how doctors bear none of the burden.
 
2012-12-28 05:59:39 PM

Bontesla: KidneyStone: ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.

I never said they're not allowed to have them. I never said anything about not paying for a doctor visit. I never said i was even AGAINST contraceptives.

I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

Ahh, the Modern Presumptuous Douchebag: Clueless, insistently entitled, and proud of it.

/I'm a Libertarian. Some conservative views without all the bullshiat worrying about who sleeps with who or who prays to whatever they call god

Your health care costs will go up regardless, kitten.

And they go up - often - because uninsured are seeking medical treatment.


Switching to a different debate point, nancy?

Gotcha!
 
2012-12-28 06:00:38 PM

dr_blasto: giftedmadness: ThrobblefootSpectre: Religious belief does not make you exempt from law that affects everyone.* You do not get to deny health benefits, hide your face for a driver's licence photo, beat your children for having a boyfriend, or smoke weed.


*(Unless your ancestors were here before the U.S. existed and peyote is a historically documented part of your religion.)

false equivalence.   Nobody is forcing people to work for Hobby Lobby.  If they don't like the health benefits offered by HL, they can apply for a job elsewhere.

Nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby to sell their shiat in the United States. If Hobby Lobby doesn't like the US, they can go run their business elsewhere.


wtf....I don't even.....have the words....wtf......lol
 
2012-12-28 06:00:48 PM
I would be wondering what the underlying condition of the company is at this time. This would give them a way to shut it down without taking any of the blame. If this company is privately held, their next step will be to shutter it and blame it on the government. I hope they don't expect to see the kind of faux support that Chik Fillet got. They were in the much better situation of having supporters who were hungry every day. You can only stockpile so much of the artsy crafty merch.
 
2012-12-28 06:02:15 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
 
2012-12-28 06:02:17 PM

giftedmadness: dr_blasto: giftedmadness: ThrobblefootSpectre: Religious belief does not make you exempt from law that affects everyone.* You do not get to deny health benefits, hide your face for a driver's licence photo, beat your children for having a boyfriend, or smoke weed.


*(Unless your ancestors were here before the U.S. existed and peyote is a historically documented part of your religion.)

false equivalence.   Nobody is forcing people to work for Hobby Lobby.  If they don't like the health benefits offered by HL, they can apply for a job elsewhere.

Nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby to sell their shiat in the United States. If Hobby Lobby doesn't like the US, they can go run their business elsewhere.

wtf....I don't even.....have the words....wtf......lol


What? What's wrong?
 
2012-12-28 06:02:34 PM

giftedmadness: conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else


They give more to their churches, maybe.

How much of that actually HELPS the poor versus how much lines the pockets of the church leadership, and how much goes towards proselyting, is another question altogether.

FYI, telling the poor that they're going to burn in hell unless they join your church isn't "helping" them.
 
2012-12-28 06:03:03 PM
Now I don't feel so bad about all the shiat I broke there.
 
2012-12-28 06:04:28 PM

Bontesla: imtheonlylp: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

don't really think they're "punishing" anyone...employees are welcome to get their own insurance wherever they please...

My logic:
1) You don't agree with a business or their ethics or even their stance on any issue.
2) Don't work there and don't shop there.
3) Problem solved.

That's not actual logic. Your conclusion isn't a deduction made from your premises. It's not even inductive logic.

And if you don't think that the loss of work isn't a punishment for employees at the Hobby Lobby then you might just pass as a Romney son.


meh, whatever...i still say if ya dont like it, gtfo and go flip burgers or something...and stay off my lawn... but stop biatching about it...

"their freedom to express themselves religiously is oppressing my freedom to work wherever i choose"

pretty useless argument the way i see it...

/yep, blind republican...my bad
 
2012-12-28 06:06:34 PM
Cruisng the local Chick-a-Fillet for fresh, ready-to-emerge-from-the-closet poultry eaters.

www.frugal-cafe.com
 
2012-12-28 06:06:56 PM
Who here honestly believes that it is perfectly OK for the owners of a business to impose their religious beliefs on employees?

We're talking about employees of a business here, not the clergy of a religious institution.
 
2012-12-28 06:06:59 PM

liam76: giftedmadness: Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion.

BS.

No religion I have ever heard of says you can't partake in insurance.

If religions were to argue that any insurance they pay for has to follow their beliefs then what would stop people from claiming that they are christian scientists, and can pay for no procedures?

The fact is insurance, like OSHA standards are requirements if you want to employ people in the US. Saying they can't support insurance that allows BC is no different than saying they don't want their employees to wear respirators in a toxic environment.


Providing insurance to employees was a law before Obamacare?
 
2012-12-28 06:07:59 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Your insurance would go up a lot more if they had the babies, what are you complaining about again? How about people who stuff their face with fast food and sugary soda all the time? It's cool with me, but don't make my insurance go up for all the blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, insulin and diabetes testing supplies needed by people who make poor decisions. Also, I'm sick of paying for these stupid farking scooters they are giving old people who break their ankles, crutches work just fine you slackers! And don't even get me started on the motorized chairs for fat people.


Yet another ding dong enters the arena.

Y'all are missing a huge concept: Personal responsibility! That's where people are held responsible for their actions and have to handle the results of their decisions!

I'm not saying they can't HAVE contraceptives. I don't think anyone should pay for it unless you're one of the folks getting laid. Simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you cannot afford contraceptives then you can't afford a child. Therefore you shouldn't be screwing! Or use a different hole. I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
 
2012-12-28 06:08:36 PM

dr_blasto: KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

Uhm, the doctor/hospital, not the insurance company.

Wait - you think doctors and hospitals are giving out free medical care? With no compensation? Just for free because... They're notoriously nice?

Are you that naive or are you that stupid? If an uninsured mother is giving birth then where does she go? Doctor? Hospital? You pick one of those and tell us which one will turn away a woman in labor. If she is uninsured then how do the insurance companies get stuck with the bill? Do you suppose there's some general "uninsured mothers fund" where they all chip in or is it more of a round-robin thing where State Farm pays one week and then it's up to UHC and the next week it's someone else?

And they call ME stupid here.

LOL.

Insurance companies pay inflated prices that, when spread out, cover for the uninsured. Hospitals don't just eat those costs, they charge $900 for a friggin aspirin.


Thanks for covering. I was finishing up work.
 
2012-12-28 06:10:50 PM

ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.


They aren't PREVENTING them from using contraception.  If one of their employees uses a contraceptive that the employee pays for herself, she will not be fired.  No freedom is abridged.
 
2012-12-28 06:12:21 PM

lennavan: Sin_City_Superhero: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Insurance that pays for contraception is cheaper than insurance that doesn't, and has to pay to deliver an unwanted baby, then maintain it's health for years, and years. How do you not understand this. A rubber costs a couple of bucks. How much does it cost to bring a baby to term, you dolt?

Well when you pop the kid out, $3-5000 will cover the room depending on if you're there two or three nights. As for the doctors/nurses, procedures/meds, etc well those are gonna be extra. And don't get me started on the pregnant lady checkups.

So instead of paying $3,000 for the room for two nights, you could just pay for 60 months of birth control if you have no insurance.

/One of these days I'm gonna do all of the math out to see how many months of non insured BC you can get for a single kid, starting from maternal care to popping it out.


Another genius missing my point.

Imma try again a different way:
Where does the law say that if health insurance doesn't cover contraceptives then people are not allowed to buy their own?

The arguments here are all "if the health insurance doesn't cover birth control then a babby will be formed"
 
2012-12-28 06:12:39 PM

ProfessorOhki: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: ProfessorOhki:

The hospital has several places where they can make up the shortfall: they can pay staff less, they can understaff, they jack up the insured patients' bills, they can put off building maintenance. You're both right, stupids.

/The only thing they can't do is cut admin salaries
//I mean, obviously

Hospitals do not have several places where they can make up the shortfall. They can increase revenue, or decrease expenses. The former is billing the paying patients more which I mentioned, the latter involves shorting the quality of care that is provided. No one in their right mind would argue that providing lower quality care to insured patients is a viable solution, not while malpractice liability exists.

You honestly believe skipping annual (monthly) HVAC maintenance or not replacing burned out florescent light bulbs right-away is how hospitals cover their losses from treating uninsured patients?

No, but working staff long hours without enough pay to make up for it is a form of decreasing expenses and you better believe it happens. So, go ahead and tell me again how doctors bear none of the burden.


I can't tell you that again because I never told you the first time. What I can tell you again is that it is standard practice to bill over cost by 500% or more on basic items and procedures. This is no secret.

Also, I personally know too many ICU nurses to pretend for a second that hospitals aren't willing to exploit their employees passion for helping people when it benefits them financially. I just wouldn't argue that the exploitation makes up much of the ~$49B cost of treating the uninsured. Just like any other business, hospitals pass their costs on to the consumer.
 
2012-12-28 06:13:00 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: ghare: If Hobby Lobby closes due to a drop in sales, due to them being perceived by the public left as douchebags, then another art store will move in to take their place, and they will hire basically the same number of employees as Hobby Lobby did.

FTFY.... Let's see how bad it was for business last time.....

[www.frugal-cafe.com image 709x413]


Yup. Boycotts and protests don't work.

i651.photobucket.com

i651.photobucket.com

i651.photobucket.com

Thank god our privately-owned lunch counters can decide who they want to serve based upon the color of their skin, without the Federal government coming in with their "laws" impinging on our frrrrrrdoooommssss!!1
 
2012-12-28 06:14:02 PM

mcmiller: KidneyStone: I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

How do you feel about your health care costs going up due to unplanned or unwanted pregnancies?

Birth control costs much much less than prenatal care, delivery with potential complications, postpartum care of the mother and then years of pediatric care.


Point missed. Look up personal responsibility
 
2012-12-28 06:14:35 PM
This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.
 
2012-12-28 06:16:18 PM

giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.

They aren't PREVENTING them from using contraception.  If one of their employees uses a contraceptive that the employee pays for herself, she will not be fired.  No freedom is abridged.


You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with it being contraception or insurance. The employer should not be applying their religion to their employees in any way, shape, or form.
 
2012-12-28 06:17:16 PM

garron: This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.


They also believe that contraception (regardless of its use) is abortion. They also believe all sorts of other crazy sh*t.
 
2012-12-28 06:18:50 PM

Soymilk: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

I sent money to Planned Parenthood and then posted a screenshot of my contribution receipt to Komen's Facebook page. It was deleted faster than you can say "Abortionplex".


Pic or it didn't happen :P
 
2012-12-28 06:19:09 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: I can't tell you that again because I never told you the first time. What I can tell you again is that it is standard practice to bill over cost by 500% or more on basic items and procedures. This is no secret.


I suppose you didn't. I was getting your posts interlaced with someone else who was arguing with KidneyStone and seemed to imply that 100% of the additional cost was pushed to insurance w/o any impact on the doctors/hospital operations.
 
2012-12-28 06:20:15 PM

pxlboy: garron: This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.

They also believe that contraception (regardless of its use) is abortion. They also believe all sorts of other crazy sh*t.


So what. One of the great parts of our formerly "free" country was that an employee could choose where they work. If you don't like a company's policies - don't work there, don't shop there and talk bad about them all you want - but don't force them to believe your "crazy sh*t".
 
2012-12-28 06:20:28 PM

imtheonlylp: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

don't really think they're "punishing" anyone...employees are welcome to get their own insurance wherever they please...

My logic:
1) You don't agree with a business or their ethics or even their stance on any issue.
2) Don't work there and don't shop there.
3) Problem solved.


Your logic is detrimental to residents of small towns (small being under say 15,000k people with no larger population around) that have one large employer that half the city works for. Think lumber towns of old that when that industry started to die, the municipalities had to replace that loss with another industry or the whole economy goes to shiat. I know. I've lived in and out of one for most of my life. Now say that single large employer wants to impress their particular beliefs on the other corporation that handles their insurance portfolio and they decide to cancel the policies.

Now apply your "just don't shop or work there then, problem solved" logic. Now you have a city full of people that are out of a job, with little prospects as the "local" jobs all have 600 applicants from people not even remotely qualified to do picture framing or sell custom shoes. The large employer simply closes up shop, absorbs the loss and focuses on profitable stores in some other county or state. The residents are stuck with a gaping hole in damn near everything from the tax revenues (even at steep discounts for the employer) for the city, higher tax burdens later, cutbacks across the board, loss job opportunities, less money in circulation and discretionary income......and......and......I guess the point is your logic doesn't really work except on a piece of paper and Hobby Lobby needs to get with the times and realize they are a public company, not a church. I could care less if they are all Hindus, Muslims, Jews or whatever in your personal life, but if you provide for all your employees, then you should do just that.
 
2012-12-28 06:20:55 PM

pxlboy: randomjsa: Once again...

Government: You must do this! It's the law because we say so!

Private Company: We don't want to do that, it violates our personal religious beliefs.

Liberals: Private company! Stop "forcing" your beliefs on your employees!

The only group here using force is the government because its the only thing in this scenario that can even use force but in the twisted and deranged mind of a liberal, somehow it becomes the company forcing things on people that they don't want instead of the government.

The Establishment clause exists for a reason. I'm sorry this bothers you.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled flamewar.


cdn.chud.com
 
2012-12-28 06:21:09 PM

KidneyStone: Look up personal responsibility


Sure thing! Let's see, P... Peanut... Ah, here we go.

Personal Responsiblity n.
1. What conservatives constantly preach but rarely, if ever, actually practice.

Hey, there's a picture of Craig T. Nelson next to the definition!

garron: If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.


So you're OK if Cindy Sheehan and death penalty opposers also sued the government because they too have a moral responsibility not to pay for murder?
 
2012-12-28 06:21:33 PM
The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.
 
2012-12-28 06:22:23 PM

KidneyStone: lennavan: Sin_City_Superhero: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Insurance that pays for contraception is cheaper than insurance that doesn't, and has to pay to deliver an unwanted baby, then maintain it's health for years, and years. How do you not understand this. A rubber costs a couple of bucks. How much does it cost to bring a baby to term, you dolt?

Well when you pop the kid out, $3-5000 will cover the room depending on if you're there two or three nights. As for the doctors/nurses, procedures/meds, etc well those are gonna be extra. And don't get me started on the pregnant lady checkups.

So instead of paying $3,000 for the room for two nights, you could just pay for 60 months of birth control if you have no insurance.

/One of these days I'm gonna do all of the math out to see how many months of non insured BC you can get for a single kid, starting from maternal care to popping it out.

Another genius missing my point.

Imma try again a different way:
Where does the law say that if health insurance doesn't cover contraceptives then people are not allowed to buy their own?

The arguments here are all "if the health insurance doesn't cover birth control then a babby will be formed"


Nobody is missing your point, your point is just stupid. We don't get to pick and choose pet causes to kick out of health care plans. Family planning and reproductive health are covered. End of story. This thread is only playing out from their because the rest of us are fascinated with your fixation on punishing people who want sex and not children. People who don't use contraception (have kids), people with poor diets who don't exercise, and smokers will cost you more in the long run. Where is the outrage for that? Why this fixation on people who are getting laid and don't want kids or more kids?
 
2012-12-28 06:24:11 PM

vernonFL: Christian Science Pharmacist refuses to fill any prescription


WTF? Don't they believe in faith healing? Be like an Amish robotics engineer.
 
2012-12-28 06:24:17 PM

mwfark: I believe in freedom


Yep, the freedom to do what our corporate and religious masters tell us to do. Now STFU, GBTW, and remember prayer is at 7am sharp if you want to keep your job, you good for nothing layabout.
 
2012-12-28 06:25:00 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Why this fixation on people who are getting laid and don't want kids or more kids?


Jealousy?
 
2012-12-28 06:25:13 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: KidneyStone: Look up personal responsibility

Sure thing! Let's see, P... Peanut... Ah, here we go.

Personal Responsiblity n.
1. What conservatives constantly preach but rarely, if ever, actually practice.

Hey, there's a picture of Craig T. Nelson next to the definition!

garron: If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

So you're OK if Cindy Sheehan and death penalty opposers also sued the government because they too have a moral responsibility not to pay for murder?


Absolutely. I don't agree with Sheehan politically or her motivations, but I do know that slavery would not have ended if people did not exercise their moral responsibility to do everything in their power to put an end to it. If that's what she believes, she needs to make her case. If she's right, people will listen.
 
2012-12-28 06:25:43 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: fanbladesaresharp: ElwoodCuse: Yes, the pill, morning-after pill, and IUDs are "abortion-causing devices". Whatta maroon.

Seriously...if that's the angle they use, then half of the products on their shelves (various chemicals, glues, xacto blades, wiring, hand tools) are abortion-causing devices.

/doesn't shop at HL
//Petco of Hobby stores
///prefers specialty shops that actually know their farking products

COMPLETELY off-topic, but curious. What's the story with Petco? I actually prefer them to PetSmart but that has more to do with selection than anything else. Judging by the slashies I would guess you take issue with the knowledge level of their staff?


Yes actually. I'd like to talk to someone that has more than 6 months experience selling X-hobby tools and components while chewing gum or still learning how to count back change. It's annoying. And I've been in a lot of PetCos in several states and it seems company wide.
 
2012-12-28 06:27:10 PM
As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.
 
2012-12-28 06:27:20 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: giftedmadness: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

You're assuming that the only way people can access contraceptives is if their health insurance pays for it.....that's a stupid assumption.

You're assuming that someone making minimum wage can afford to pay for a visit to the OBGYN to get a prescription for contraceptives out-of pocket as well as pay for the actual drugs.... that> is the stupid assumption. Why should a minimum wage employee take on such a huge health related cost out-of-pocket when they supposedly have health insurance? Family planning is a requirement for adults by because of natural processes. Type 2 diabetes is not, yet we are not debating covering the costs of that entirely avoidable condition. So really, WTF is your problem anyway?


Hobby Lobby isn't against people visting the obgyn.....please cite me where they are against this.
 
2012-12-28 06:27:36 PM

garron: Absolutely. I don't agree with Sheehan politically or her motivations, but I do know that slavery would not have ended if people did not exercise their moral responsibility to do everything in their power to put an end to it. If that's what she believes, she needs to make her case. If she's right, people will listen.


I can't argue with honesty like that.

www.souvenirsaustralia.com
 
2012-12-28 06:28:40 PM

pxlboy:

It has nothing to do with its long-term viability, but everything to do with sticking it to the left at the expense of his employees.


Yeah that was kind of my point. any business owner making a rational decision for his business will go with offering the cover. Anyone saying they wont is basically a liar and an asshole.
 
2012-12-28 06:29:54 PM

The Why Not Guy: giftedmadness: let alone something that goes against my religion.

It's funny (both funny "ha ha" and funny "strange") to see the Conservatives who cheered our invasion of Iraq clutching their pearls over things that go against their religion.

War? Tens of thousands dead or injured? USA! USA! USA!
Birth control pills? Gasp!


I am against the Iraq and Afghan war.
 
2012-12-28 06:30:27 PM

garron: pxlboy: garron: This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.

They also believe that contraception (regardless of its use) is abortion. They also believe all sorts of other crazy sh*t.

So what. One of the great parts of our formerly "free" country was that an employee could choose where they work. If you don't like a company's policies - don't work there, don't shop there and talk bad about them all you want - but don't force them to believe your "crazy sh*t".


I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or if you're really that dense.

When companies can just arbitrarily follow labor and insurance laws, the employees suffer. I know this goes against your Randroid programming, but such arbitrary legal adherence can put someone else's health at risk.

Take the HPV vaccine, for instance; the fundies were screaming as though there were dildos being handed out at a primary school. Their myopic view only saw it as tacit permission for girls to slut around, not that their future partners could be carriers and could give them cancer.

This is just one example. So yeah, keep your religion out of your employees' healthcare.
 
2012-12-28 06:30:43 PM

fanbladesaresharp: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: fanbladesaresharp: ElwoodCuse: Yes, the pill, morning-after pill, and IUDs are "abortion-causing devices". Whatta maroon.

Seriously...if that's the angle they use, then half of the products on their shelves (various chemicals, glues, xacto blades, wiring, hand tools) are abortion-causing devices.

/doesn't shop at HL
//Petco of Hobby stores
///prefers specialty shops that actually know their farking products

COMPLETELY off-topic, but curious. What's the story with Petco? I actually prefer them to PetSmart but that has more to do with selection than anything else. Judging by the slashies I would guess you take issue with the knowledge level of their staff?

Yes actually. I'd like to talk to someone that has more than 6 months experience selling X-hobby tools and components while chewing gum or still learning how to count back change. It's annoying. And I've been in a lot of PetCos in several states and it seems company wide.


See, you have to find a hobby shop with, "the guy." He'll usually be in his 50's or 60's, grey hair, likely bearded. He will be an expert on everything related to the store. Unfortunately, his co-workers will be dumber than average to make up for this. See: a Radio Shack where "the guy" can critique an amplifier schematic, but the cashier isn't sure if the store "has resistors or not."
 
2012-12-28 06:31:01 PM
Benefits, paid for by companies, were created back in the early days to entice you to work for them.
It is so ingrained now, we expect that every company provide the perks with little or no cost to the employee.
What would happen if the companies decided to drop all medical / dental / eye care / drug benefits and just paid the fine for Obamacare? We would all be in lines for state run clinics. Maybe if the company gave you an extra few bucks an hour, and it would be mandatory for you to purchase you own health insurance, the company could get out from under this.
I see nothing good for the future of healthcare in America
 
2012-12-28 06:31:58 PM
*future partners or husbands
 
2012-12-28 06:32:14 PM

giftedmadness: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: giftedmadness: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

You're assuming that the only way people can access contraceptives is if their health insurance pays for it.....that's a stupid assumption.

You're assuming that someone making minimum wage can afford to pay for a visit to the OBGYN to get a prescription for contraceptives out-of pocket as well as pay for the actual drugs.... that> is the stupid assumption. Why should a minimum wage employee take on such a huge health related cost out-of-pocket when they supposedly have health insurance? Family planning is a requirement for adults by because of natural processes. Type 2 diabetes is not, yet we are not debating covering the costs of that entirely avoidable condition. So really, WTF is your problem anyway?

Hobby Lobby isn't against people visting the obgyn.....please cite me where they are against this.


OK, so it's a complete waste of time to attempt to communicate with you. Now I know better for next time.

Oral contraceptives require a prescription, and thus, doctor visits (typically the OBGYN). My point being that yes, there are cases in which an employee of hobby lobby would only be able to get access to contraceptives if their insurance covered it. So it was not a stupid assumption.

Why exactly would I provide a citation for a claim I never made?

>.
 
2012-12-28 06:33:29 PM

cig-mkr: Benefits, paid for by companies, were created back in the early days to entice you to work for them.
It is so ingrained now, we expect that every company provide the perks with little or no cost to the employee.
What would happen if the companies decided to drop all medical / dental / eye care / drug benefits and just paid the fine for Obamacare? We would all be in lines for state run clinics. Maybe if the company gave you an extra few bucks an hour, and it would be mandatory for you to purchase you own health insurance, the company could get out from under this.
I see nothing good for the future of healthcare in America


Having large organizations use their numbers as leverage to purchase bulk plans is much better for the overall health of the company when compared to individual (and more expensive) plans.
 
2012-12-28 06:34:21 PM
Sounds like he's chosen between his beliefs or the country he 'loves'.
.
Get out, then.
 
2012-12-28 06:35:07 PM

clyph: giftedmadness: Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

Learn the difference between "practicing your religion" and "imposing your religion on other people".

Your right to practice YOUR religion ENDS where my right to practice MY religion BEGINS. That's the distinction you teabagging fundie assholes never seem to understand. Practicing your religion means "I must wear magic underwear". That's fine. What we have a problem with is when you say "My employees must wear magic underwear".

Practice your own farking religion to your heart's content. Wear funny hats and magic underwear, eat special food, abstain from sex and dancing, whatever you think makes your invisible sky wizard happy -- all perfectly fine with us. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

If you're right, we're going to hell anyway. That's actually fine with us, as long as our afterlife doesn't mean spending an eternity surrounded by self-righteous douchebags like you.


Umm...you really fail to understand the debate.  Hobby Lobby owners are not preventing anyone from using contraceptives......are they?  No......  They just don't want to pay for it.  Pretty simple, not that hard to understand.
 
2012-12-28 06:36:00 PM

Colin O'Scopy: Sounds like he's chosen between his beliefs or the country he 'loves'.
.
Get out, then.


And that which beliefs are strictly adhered to and which ones are not is entirely arbitrary. That, and they often seem to choose the ones that align the most with their sociopathic views.
 
2012-12-28 06:36:43 PM

giftedmadness: clyph: giftedmadness: Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

Learn the difference between "practicing your religion" and "imposing your religion on other people".

Your right to practice YOUR religion ENDS where my right to practice MY religion BEGINS. That's the distinction you teabagging fundie assholes never seem to understand. Practicing your religion means "I must wear magic underwear". That's fine. What we have a problem with is when you say "My employees must wear magic underwear".

Practice your own farking religion to your heart's content. Wear funny hats and magic underwear, eat special food, abstain from sex and dancing, whatever you think makes your invisible sky wizard happy -- all perfectly fine with us. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

If you're right, we're going to hell anyway. That's actually fine with us, as long as our afterlife doesn't mean spending an eternity surrounded by self-righteous douchebags like you.

Umm...you really fail to understand the debate.  Hobby Lobby owners are not preventing anyone from using contraceptives......are they?  No......  They just don't want to pay for it.  Pretty simple, not that hard to understand.


But why stop there? Contraceptives are used for more than just birth control, smart guy.
 
2012-12-28 06:41:01 PM

giftedmadness: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

You're assuming that the only way people can access contraceptives is if their health insurance pays for it.....that's a stupid assumption.


That wasn't part of my argument at all.

Stone said he didn't want his insurance to increase because he's suddenly covering contraceptive. I responded that he's already covering services rendered to uninsured mothers.
 
2012-12-28 06:45:14 PM

PanicMan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says you can't pay for someone else's abortion?


Care to quote the section of the bible that says that magic mushrooms and licked frog skins are sacred sacraments? It's religious belief, douchbag. Doesn't matter whose religion, or what support it has or doesn't have.

/Go ahead, make some more assumptions about me.
 
2012-12-28 06:45:42 PM

giftedmadness: clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.

um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?


Oh my god you're trolling. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that. I thought you were genuinely stupid.

Well done!
 
2012-12-28 06:46:09 PM

ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.

They aren't PREVENTING them from using contraception.  If one of their employees uses a contraceptive that the employee pays for herself, she will not be fired.  No freedom is abridged.

You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with it being contraception or insurance. The employer should not be applying their religion to their employees in any way, shape, or form.


They aren't imposing any religion on their employees.  The employee is free to do what he chooses with his own money.  Before Obamacare, there wasn't a mandate to provide an employee with any health benefits.  The employer had the right to offer whatever plan they saw fit to the employee.
 
2012-12-28 06:49:19 PM

giftedmadness: I am against the Iraq and Afghan war.


Yeah, now you are.
 
2012-12-28 06:50:42 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.


Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....
 
2012-12-28 06:52:10 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: PanicMan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says you can't pay for someone else's abortion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says that magic mushrooms and licked frog skins are sacred sacraments? It's religious belief, douchbag. Doesn't matter whose religion, or what support it has or doesn't have.

/Go ahead, make some more assumptions about me.


The state doesn't force anyone to pay for someone else's abortion. In fact, there's a law, called the Hyde Amendment, that says no federal tax dollars can go to abortion.

Care to be wrong about anything else?
 
2012-12-28 06:53:18 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.


The state doesn't force anyone to own a corporation.
 
2012-12-28 06:53:35 PM

KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.

I never said they're not allowed to have them. I never said anything about not paying for a doctor visit. I never said i was even AGAINST contraceptives.

I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

Ahh, the Modern Presumptuous Douchebag: Clueless, insistently entitled, and proud of it.

/I'm a Libertarian. Some conservative views without all the bullshiat worrying about who sleeps with who or who prays to whatever they call god

Your health care costs will go up regardless, kitten.

And they go up - often - because uninsured are seeking medical treatment.

Switching to a different debate point, nancy?

Gotcha!


Please state where I switched debate points.
 
2012-12-28 06:54:02 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: You're assuming that someone making minimum wage can afford to pay for a visit to the OBGYN


Kitten, you never claimed that Hobby Lobby wouldn't pay for a trip to the obgyn? Okay then........it's amazing you forget what you write so quickly.
 
2012-12-28 06:56:03 PM

special20: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.

Too bad "Owner" doesn't work hard enough to afford what is legally required. Some job creator "Owner" is... he must not be very smart.


Sorry....I missed where he said the owner couldn't afford it....I believe he said the owner chose the less costly option.....
 
2012-12-28 06:57:36 PM

Bontesla: giftedmadness: clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.

um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?

Oh my god you're trolling. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that. I thought you were genuinely stupid.

Well done!


stating facts is trolling?
 
2012-12-28 06:58:16 PM

KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.


Why not? It already pays for the viagra for your e.d.
 
2012-12-28 06:58:24 PM

giftedmadness: Bontesla: giftedmadness: clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.

um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?

Oh my god you're trolling. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that. I thought you were genuinely stupid.

Well done!

stating facts is trolling?


Asking a question isn't stating a fact, genius.
 
2012-12-28 07:01:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: giftedmadness: Bontesla: giftedmadness: clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.

um....conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else.  Also, how does providing a morning after pill "cure" someone?

Oh my god you're trolling. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that. I thought you were genuinely stupid.

Well done!

stating facts is trolling?

Asking a question isn't stating a fact, genius.


"conservative Christians donate more to help the poor than anyone else :"

Looks like a statement of fact to me.
 
2012-12-28 07:02:55 PM

ProfessorOhki: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: I can't tell you that again because I never told you the first time. What I can tell you again is that it is standard practice to bill over cost by 500% or more on basic items and procedures. This is no secret.

I suppose you didn't. I was getting your posts interlaced with someone else who was arguing with KidneyStone and seemed to imply that 100% of the additional cost was pushed to insurance w/o any impact on the doctors/hospital operations.


The conversation Stone and I were having was centered around whether or not insurance rates go up because of health services rendered to uninsured patients. At no point did I imply or address what you're suggesting.
 
2012-12-28 07:02:56 PM

giftedmadness: They aren't imposing any religion on their employees.


The exact opposite of truth.

giftedmadness: The employee is free to do what he chooses with his own money.  Before Obamacare, there wasn't a mandate to provide an employee with any health benefits.  The employer had the right to offer whatever plan they saw fit to the employee.


Health insurance, if offered, is part of the employee's earned compensation. Minimum coverages are mandated by law. An employer should have just as much say in which of mandated minimum covered services are used by employees as they have in which brand of toilet paper employees buy with their earned pay: None.
 
2012-12-28 07:04:30 PM

fanbladesaresharp: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: fanbladesaresharp: ElwoodCuse: Yes, the pill, morning-after pill, and IUDs are "abortion-causing devices". Whatta maroon.

Seriously...if that's the angle they use, then half of the products on their shelves (various chemicals, glues, xacto blades, wiring, hand tools) are abortion-causing devices.

/doesn't shop at HL
//Petco of Hobby stores
///prefers specialty shops that actually know their farking products

COMPLETELY off-topic, but curious. What's the story with Petco? I actually prefer them to PetSmart but that has more to do with selection than anything else. Judging by the slashies I would guess you take issue with the knowledge level of their staff?

Yes actually. I'd like to talk to someone that has more than 6 months experience selling X-hobby tools and components while chewing gum or still learning how to count back change. It's annoying. And I've been in a lot of PetCos in several states and it seems company wide.


I have the opposite problem. I work for one of Hobby Lobby's competitors, and I'm the guy that gets called when a customer has a hobby/craft question. It isn't my job description, I'm just a hobby guy myself. So instead of fumbling around, they call me and I answer the questions. I will take customers around, show them their options, find ways for them to save money or time even if it means looking for crazy off the wall idea to turn on thing into another thing or sending them to other stores. and I try to make sure they understand what to do to get the result they want. After all that I get "That sounds hard", "Isn't there a kit?", "I have to do it myself?", "Can't I use this cheaper tacky glue to hold the load bearing bit of wood together, I think it will be fine." Or my favorite, the one who walks around with me, makes their choices, goes home, obviously didn't listen to a word I said, and comes back to complain when it doesn't come out. Just remember, there are lots of dumb employees, and every one of them is a dumb customer. Add up how many dumb employees you have to deal with, and that is how many dumb customers I get.
 
2012-12-28 07:05:12 PM

garron: pxlboy: garron: This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.

They also believe that contraception (regardless of its use) is abortion. They also believe all sorts of other crazy sh*t.

So what. One of the great parts of our formerly "free" country was that an employee could choose where they work. If you don't like a company's policies - don't work there, don't shop there and talk bad about them all you want - but don't force them to believe your "crazy sh*t".


You must define choice as being something only businesses have as Obamacare offers people choices they originally didn't have.
 
2012-12-28 07:07:38 PM

Bontesla: You must define choice as being something only businesses have as Obamacare offers people choices they originally didn't have.


Corporations are people, my friend, with rights.
Employees are just pee-ons.
 
2012-12-28 07:08:09 PM

giftedmadness: stating facts is trolling?


Try stating a fact and find out.
 
2012-12-28 07:08:57 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.


Your problem is that you are foolish enough to believe that this is the case.
 
2012-12-28 07:10:54 PM

giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.

They aren't PREVENTING them from using contraception.  If one of their employees uses a contraceptive that the employee pays for herself, she will not be fired.  No freedom is abridged.

You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with it being contraception or insurance. The employer should not be applying their religion to their employees in any way, shape, or form.

They aren't imposing any religion on their employees.  The employee is free to do what he chooses with his own money.  Before Obamacare, there wasn't a mandate to provide an employee with any health benefits.  The employer had the right to offer whatever plan they saw fit to the employee.


Yes, laws can change.
 
2012-12-28 07:10:56 PM

giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.

They aren't PREVENTING them from using contraception.  If one of their employees uses a contraceptive that the employee pays for herself, she will not be fired.  No freedom is abridged.

You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with it being contraception or insurance. The employer should not be applying their religion to their employees in any way, shape, or form.

They aren't imposing any religion on their employees.  The employee is free to do what he chooses with his own money.  Before Obamacare, there wasn't a mandate to provide an employee with any health benefits.  The employer had the right to offer whatever plan they saw fit to the employee.


And therein lies the problem- the health plans being chosen by the employers have been incomplete and sub-par and exclusionary, and have led to a major health care crisis in this country. Obamacare is the first step in trying to mitigate that problem. If things were perfect the way they were, why is health care/insurance even being talked about?
 
2012-12-28 07:12:55 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....


If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,
 
2012-12-28 07:14:57 PM

ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: ProfessorOhki: giftedmadness: Bontesla: imtheonlylp: ok, here goes..

if you don't like it, then find another job...it's not mandatory that you believe what they do nor is it mandatory that you are employed there...

Your logic:
1). Law is created to protect employees.
2). Employer violates law.
3). Punish employee.

Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

...and forcing the employee to adhere to their employer's religion doesn't interfere with their right to not be subject to their employer's religion? Hobby Lobby's owners are more than free to not use contraception - they don't get to make the choice for their employees. Well, I suppose unless sex and/or procreation are part of their duties as employees, but I'm thinking it isn't that sort of place.

They aren't PREVENTING them from using contraception.  If one of their employees uses a contraceptive that the employee pays for herself, she will not be fired.  No freedom is abridged.

You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with it being contraception or insurance. The employer should not be applying their religion to their employees in any way, shape, or form.

They aren't imposing any religion on their employees.  The employee is free to do what he chooses with his own money.  Before Obamacare, there wasn't a mandate to provide an employee with any health benefits.  The employer had the right to offer whatever plan they saw fit to the employee.

Yes, laws can change.


lol, no kidding? We are debating the NEW LAW! lol, you don't say.....?
 
2012-12-28 07:15:01 PM

Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,


And therein lies the problem; the pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!
 
2012-12-28 07:16:26 PM

Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,


So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?
 
2012-12-28 07:17:33 PM

garron: This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.


What on the holy fark does this have to do with abortion?

Do we have to accommodate every stupid and wrong thing people think because every viewpoint deserves the same consideration no matter how completely and demonstrably wrong it is?
 
2012-12-28 07:17:52 PM
"You got it, mon! Severely reduced pay all around!"
 
2012-12-28 07:18:41 PM

giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?


Apples and oranges, strawman...
 
2012-12-28 07:18:57 PM

KidneyStone: mcmiller: KidneyStone: I'm against my healthcare costs going up to pay for contraceptives. And that includes what I use.

How do you feel about your health care costs going up due to unplanned or unwanted pregnancies?

Birth control costs much much less than prenatal care, delivery with potential complications, postpartum care of the mother and then years of pediatric care.

Point missed. Look up personal responsibility


Getting all morally outraged and self-righteous doesn't solve problems, but that's not really what you want, is it? You just do it to feel good about yourself, because you aren't getting pregnant like those people. Some people don't need that kind of validation, and prefer to use things like statistics to determine what course of action leads to the best outcome. Statistics. Look that up. It just so happens that offering birth control is less expensive than caring for all those extra unwanted pregnancies that would otherwise happen.

Go ahead and scream "sluts!" all you want, but leave the health care decisions to the doctors who... *gasp* ...actually know what they're doing. See if you can still get that addictive rush of extreme self-righteousness, without it actually ruining people's lives.
 
2012-12-28 07:19:31 PM

dr_blasto: garron: This is a simple concept people. If the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that abortion is murder, they have a moral responsibility to not pay for said murders.

But - I know there is no way but the liberal way and liberals have the right to dictate to people what they must believe and how they must spend their money. The Russians and Chinese communists use forced labor camps, jail and sometimes murder to enforce their ideologies on people. You liberals should look into it. I hear its very effective.

What on the holy fark does this have to do with abortion?

Do we have to accommodate every stupid and wrong thing people think because every viewpoint deserves the same consideration no matter how completely and demonstrably wrong it is?


This. It's almost as if the churches and their practitioners think they are special and should be exempted from the rules that keep them from pushing religion on others.

Shocking, I tell you.
 
2012-12-28 07:19:53 PM

giftedmadness: So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?


This isn't a religious or atheist organization; it's a business. That argument doesn't fly. Nice try though.
 
2012-12-28 07:21:13 PM

mwfark: The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.


They aren't paying for shiat directly. Their insurance company is. Their employees pay for that insurance. Your argument is insane.
 
2012-12-28 07:22:55 PM

dr_blasto: mwfark: The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.

They aren't paying for shiat directly. Their insurance company is. Their employees pay for that insurance. Your argument is insane.


They can't let pesky things logic interfere with their god-given right to sh*t on other people.
 
2012-12-28 07:23:05 PM

Wally007: giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

Apples and oranges, strawman...


it's a yes or no question
 
2012-12-28 07:24:20 PM

giftedmadness: Wally007: giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

Apples and oranges, strawman...

it's a yes or no question


No, it's a stupid question.
 
2012-12-28 07:24:53 PM

dr_blasto: mwfark: The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.

They aren't paying for shiat directly. Their insurance company is. Their employees pay for that insurance. Your argument is insane.


um..no....the employer pays for the insurance.....
 
2012-12-28 07:26:24 PM
The default setting for government involvement in religion should be set to "secular". No playing favorites on any side allowed.

It seems to be the Abrahamic religions that take the most issue with this. They see anything less than total adoption of their beliefs and practices as persecution.
 
2012-12-28 07:27:26 PM

giftedmadness: dr_blasto: mwfark: The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.

They aren't paying for shiat directly. Their insurance company is. Their employees pay for that insurance. Your argument is insane.

um..no....the employer pays for the insurance.....


The insurance is part of the compensation to the worker. Since that money can go to non-employer sponsored health plans as well, the money's closer to being under the control of the employee. They then pay into an insurance pool that was organized by the employer. They're really just middlemen in the process.
 
2012-12-28 07:27:52 PM
Not gonna happen Hobby Lobby.
Religious rights do not give carte-balance to discriminate.
There IS legal precedence.
 
2012-12-28 07:28:17 PM

giftedmadness: So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?


,
If an Atheist company was attempting to claim an exemption because some of the money paid out as claims under their insurance policy went to religious organizations that provided medical services, I would be equally fine with telling them to STFU and pay for the damned insurance.
 
2012-12-28 07:28:34 PM

pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!


Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion
 
2012-12-28 07:28:44 PM

pxlboy: giftedmadness: Wally007: giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

Apples and oranges, strawman...

it's a yes or no question

No, it's a stupid question.


how is it stupid?
 
2012-12-28 07:29:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

The state doesn't force anyone to own a corporation.


Corporations aren't in the constitution.
 
2012-12-28 07:30:21 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion


Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/understanding-the-post-offi ce -s-benefits-mess.html
 
2012-12-28 07:30:33 PM

giftedmadness: t's a yes or no question


An atheist organization isn't necessarily a business. So it's still a strawman.
 
2012-12-28 07:30:44 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Just pandering to those narrow-minded imbeciles that want to score some brownie points for heaven for their imaginary but insecure sky-wizard.  OH MY, GAWD doesn't like ABORTION or BIRTH CONTROL!  It sez right there in the BAHBULL!!!  Praise the LAWD!!!

Oh, and they just feel the rush of POWER they get for doing this. Doesn't matter how many lives of women they ruin with their little 'hobby' here.

Selfish, goddamn assholes. With money. Lots of goddamn money. Money that goddamn politicians just farkin' LOVE.


Unless there's something in the new testament about it, I don't think the Bible says anything negative about abortion per se. In fact the official Jewish stance is that a baby isn't a baby until it's halfway out of its mommy and that the mother's life is more important 100% of the time before that--this can also extend to the mother's mental health (how much depends on the individual rabbi). The Talmud even says (hypothetically) that delivering the baby in pieces is preferable to losing the life of the mother. Just, you know, FYI since I see a lot of "Abrahamic religions" nonsense flying around, as if they're all the same.
 
2012-12-28 07:30:53 PM
Special 20:

"American blood was spilled to get health insurance by employers, ya know."

I don't have a source for you, but I don't believe that was the case. The way I remember reading it, FDR put in price controls as a response to the effects of the great depression. He also instituted salary caps in private industry. Almost immediately employers realized that to get top talent, they needed to follow the law but still recruit as effectively as possible. So the pitch was: "Look, Roosevelt says we can't give you but so many thousand dollars a year, so how does that cash, plus a paid vacation, plus a dandy ADD and health insurance policy package strike you?". Of course, the employers took the tax write-down for the insurance as a business expense. Entirely legal.

The federal government, as nimble then as now, took years to figure out what was going on and by that time, it was politically untenable to extend the wage controls to non-cash compensation. The best they could do was prohibit private citizens from taking the same tax deduction for health insurance that the corporations did. This was, of course, done.

And that is the primary reason our health care cost system is as it is now. It is about to change substantially, and frankly I'm more than a little concerned. It's 2700 pages of rules, passed without a single opposition vote. If nothing else, it raised the stakes on our politics by a huge degree and I don't think that is advisable. No party stays in the driver's seat forever.

I could be completely wrong about everything I just wrote except the 2700 page part. That's recent history. I don't think I have misstated facts, but if I did, I offer my sincere apologies.

We will see what happens, but I'm uneasy. Very uneasy.
 
2012-12-28 07:31:21 PM

giftedmadness: pxlboy: giftedmadness: Wally007: giftedmadness: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

Apples and oranges, strawman...

it's a yes or no question

No, it's a stupid question.

how is it stupid?


Because the government and religion should have nothing to do with one another. To that end, the churches should have their tax exempt statuses pulled.
 
2012-12-28 07:31:59 PM

Bontesla: KidneyStone: Thunderpipes: ghare: KidneyStone: the_end_is_rear: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Contraceptives are cheaper then babies

Personal responsibility is free

/and may as well be a unicorn these days

?? People want contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they try to go to their doctor to get them (acting responsibly) but find their EMPLOYER has interfered with them trying to act responsibly, and you think this is good?

Ahh, the Modern Republican: willfully, insistently stupid, and proud of it.

Employer interfered?

What, they stopped Sally from going out and buying stuff?

Employers should not be obligated to provide any health care. What is next, employers have to provide housing?

This guy gets what I'm saying.

Is housing part of the employee's compensation package? Then the employer must provide housing that meets the safety standards.


Dumb argument. you realize, health insurance through work is a relatively new thing. It is a benefit, because employers voluntarily offered it to entice employees. Now it is a mandated, economy crushing law. Sorry, a screw up who works in retail should not be offered a golden health care plan for free, damaging the business. What is the goddamned incentive now to ever get a real job?

Fiscal cliff or not, just because of Obamacare, we have crushing taxes starting to take effect in 2013, and it won't do a damn thing to solve the real problem with health care.
 
2012-12-28 07:33:04 PM

giftedmadness: clyph: giftedmadness: Um...#1 violates the employers right to practice their religion....

Learn the difference between "practicing your religion" and "imposing your religion on other people".

Your right to practice YOUR religion ENDS where my right to practice MY religion BEGINS. That's the distinction you teabagging fundie assholes never seem to understand. Practicing your religion means "I must wear magic underwear". That's fine. What we have a problem with is when you say "My employees must wear magic underwear".

Practice your own farking religion to your heart's content. Wear funny hats and magic underwear, eat special food, abstain from sex and dancing, whatever you think makes your invisible sky wizard happy -- all perfectly fine with us. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

If you're right, we're going to hell anyway. That's actually fine with us, as long as our afterlife doesn't mean spending an eternity surrounded by self-righteous douchebags like you.

Umm...you really fail to understand the debate.  Hobby Lobby owners are not preventing anyone from using contraceptives......are they?  No......  They just don't want to pay for it.  Pretty simple, not that hard to understand.


Except "they" are not paying for "it".
"They" are forcing "their" religeon on the employees.
While this is just fine with some few specific fundies, it is not fine with the general population, many of whom hold other religeous beliefs, OMG!
Pretty simple to understand that you have been hoodwinked, it is pretty easy to do to sycophants.
If you demand your religeous freedom, it ends right where it bumps it's nose against another's religeon.
 
2012-12-28 07:33:06 PM

Thunderpipes: Sorry, a screw up who works in retail should not be offered a golden health care plan for free, damaging the business


Good thing that businesses aren't required to offer heath insurance for free then, right?
 
2012-12-28 07:35:05 PM
*cue clapping*?

If subby's name is Bobbie, heads *aspload*
 
2012-12-28 07:36:01 PM

pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.


You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?
 
2012-12-28 07:36:55 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?


Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.
 
2012-12-28 07:40:55 PM

cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.


I'd welcome him paying down the deficit at $350 per, but it's a strange thing for him to do considering that businesses with less than 50 employees do not incur any penalty under PPACA for not offering health insurance.
 
2012-12-28 07:41:05 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: giftedmadness: So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

,
If an Atheist company was attempting to claim an exemption because some of the money paid out as claims under their insurance policy went to religious organizations that provided medical services, I would be equally fine with telling them to STFU and pay for the damned insurance.


You know, I'll agree with that one. If the owner of a company said, "you can't stay at a hospital with 'saint' in the name, because it goes against my atheism," my reaction would be the same as it is to these Hobby Lobby folks.
 
2012-12-28 07:43:08 PM

pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.


More like stealing the USPS. Privatise to a frat bro is stealing!
And deliberately breaking it's financial back to make this happen is TREASON!
 
2012-12-28 07:43:36 PM

ProfessorOhki: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: giftedmadness: So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?

,
If an Atheist company was attempting to claim an exemption because some of the money paid out as claims under their insurance policy went to religious organizations that provided medical services, I would be equally fine with telling them to STFU and pay for the damned insurance.

You know, I'll agree with that one. If the owner of a company said, "you can't stay at a hospital with 'saint' in the name, because it goes against my atheism," my reaction would be the same as it is to these Hobby Lobby folks.


Exactly. But it's preposterous to suggest that an atheist would do that. Unlike the religious folks, most of us are content to live and let live.
 
2012-12-28 07:43:42 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?


Yeah, the weird thing is they were put in place by Republicans. I thought they were supposed to be anti-regulation?
 
2012-12-28 07:44:30 PM

PsychoTherapist: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.

I'd welcome him paying down the deficit at $350 per, but it's a strange thing for him to do considering that businesses with less than 50 employees do not incur any penalty under PPACA for not offering health insurance.


Isn't it funny that the people who are most against Obamacare have no idea what it actually IS?
 
2012-12-28 07:45:21 PM
The $1.3 mil per day fine works out to $60 per employee at 21k employees. That's more than minimum wage.
 
2012-12-28 07:45:48 PM

snocone: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

More like stealing the USPS. Privatise to a frat bro is stealing!
And deliberately breaking it's financial back to make this happen is TREASON!


More or less. The onerous funding requirements imposed upon the USPS were designed to break it so some Congresscritter's buddy/donor/benefactor can swoop in an offer a "free market solution".

I'm sure all of those folks living in rural areas would be pleased to see the results of a privatised postal service.
 
2012-12-28 07:46:51 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.


Then those people get jobs at Sam Flax. What's your point?
 
2012-12-28 07:47:06 PM

pxlboy: Exactly. But it's preposterous to suggest that an atheist would do that. Unlike the religious folks, most of us are content to live and let live.


Most of "the religious folks" probably feel the same. The religious nutjobs are the ones ruining it.
 
2012-12-28 07:47:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Yeah, the weird thing is they were put in place by Republicans. I thought they were supposed to be anti-regulation?


Follow the money and see who proposed and co-sponsored the bill requiring the 75 years of pension funding. See who donates the most to the aforementioned and you'll see who has a vested interest in wresting control of the postal system from the government.
 
2012-12-28 07:48:43 PM

pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.


It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?
 
2012-12-28 07:49:16 PM

you are a puppet: Submitter: you sir, are a mouthful.


That's what she said.
 
2012-12-28 07:53:32 PM

moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?


Because we are spread out all over the country here. Though most of us live in concentrations around the coasts and major cities, we still provide certain infrastructural services and benefits even to those living in near isolation.

So I guess we can tell all the folks in the rural areas to suck it up and cope with cost increases of receiving even basic postal services?

As much of a relic as you think the USPS is, it still serves a functional purpose to this country.
 
2012-12-28 07:54:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: PsychoTherapist: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.

I'd welcome him paying down the deficit at $350 per, but it's a strange thing for him to do considering that businesses with less than 50 employees do not incur any penalty under PPACA for not offering health insurance.

Isn't it funny that the people who are most against Obamacare have no idea what it actually IS?


Well, even I didn't know, until I looked it up just now, that "very small" businesses can get subsidies for purchasing insurance through the Exchanges. Oh, and that the penalty is actually going to be $2000 per. So I kinda call bullshiat on that entire post ... and I'm not the first one to do that.
 
2012-12-28 07:54:04 PM

moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Exactly. But it's preposterous to suggest that an atheist would do that. Unlike the religious folks, most of us are content to live and let live.

Most of "the religious folks" probably feel the same. The religious nutjobs are the ones ruining it.


"...religious nutjobs..."

Let's unpack this flavored noun.

First, religious: seriously? Get over dogma, man.

Second, nutjobs: seriously? NSS, you have to be a nutjob to believe any religious text literally anymore. Have you seen science? It's fricking amazing, man, and I suspect that science can/could explode your understanding of your religious world, if you only had the resources to  look it up. Words and Peaces.
 
2012-12-28 07:54:49 PM

pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.


Well, I didn't come on here to defend Republicans, but let's see if I have your logic correct.... The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?
 
2012-12-28 07:55:05 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion


I'll be nice, but only because the ashtrays have all retired. Fundamentally the USPS is constantly played as the rope in a political war in congress. They are forced to fund 75 years of pension and have no ability to close underperforming offices nor can they change their role to be competitive without congressional approval. Since congress can only agree to sign off on laws that reduce the fourth amendment, the USPS is well and truly farked.
 
2012-12-28 07:56:54 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?


Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.
 
2012-12-28 07:56:54 PM

dr_blasto: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

I'll be nice, but only because the ashtrays have all retired. Fundamentally the USPS is constantly played as the rope in a political war in congress. They are forced to fund 75 years of pension and have no ability to close underperforming offices nor can they change their role to be competitive without congressional approval. Since congress can only agree to sign off on laws that reduce the fourth amendment, the USPS is well and truly farked.


Exactly as planned.

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

Well, I didn't come on here to defend Republicans, but let's see if I have your logic correct.... The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?


Nice try. That was shoehorned in by the Republicans the preceding year.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-u-s-postal-serv ic e/11433/
 
2012-12-28 07:57:36 PM

dr_blasto: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

I'll be nice, but only because the ashtrays have all retired. Fundamentally the USPS is constantly played as the rope in a political war in congress. They are forced to fund 75 years of pension and have no ability to close underperforming offices nor can they change their role to be competitive without congressional approval. Since congress can only agree to sign off on laws that reduce the fourth amendment, the USPS is well and truly farked.


So, change the model.
 
2012-12-28 07:58:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.


Government bloat is ok as long as it's military spending or crapping on the poor. If it's doing anything to bridge the inequality gap, it's evil socialism..
 
2012-12-28 07:59:47 PM

dr_blasto: Maybe they should go be a company in some other country that doesn't have any farking standards. If they can't deal with making money in a first-world nation, maybe the Central African Republic would suit them better. Or maybe Iran.

Ooh, there's probably a lot of unused land they could set up shop in Afghanistan. That seems like its right up their alley.


We were a civil and stable country long before the days of employers providing health insurance so your whole tired argument is crap. The whole reason why we look to our employers for health insurance is because it is (so far) and untaxed benefit which companies use to attract talent. Like every other tax, the income tax affects the behavior of individuals and employers. Why we dont have insurance companies competing for business, lowering prices and offering attractive services like wellness and fitness to keep their costs low, giving consumers the ability to shop for a plan that fits their health needs with the freedom to take the plan across jobs and state lines is beyond me.
 
2012-12-28 08:00:38 PM

Indubitably: dr_blasto: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

I'll be nice, but only because the ashtrays have all retired. Fundamentally the USPS is constantly played as the rope in a political war in congress. They are forced to fund 75 years of pension and have no ability to close underperforming offices nor can they change their role to be competitive without congressional approval. Since congress can only agree to sign off on laws that reduce the fourth amendment, the USPS is well and truly farked.

So, change the model.


Implying that any changes made will benefit the proles.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-28 08:01:00 PM

giftedmadness:

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?


ummm tell me again how a business is either religious or atheist?
 
2012-12-28 08:03:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.


....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.
 
2012-12-28 08:03:48 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

Well, I didn't come on here to defend Republicans, but let's see if I have your logic correct.... The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?


So... the moment the Democrats came in, they passed laws, which took effect immediately, and showed drastic changes within the year? If the control switch was in 2007 and the failure was in 2007, that almost guarantees whatever got farked up happened on the Republican's majority watch, wouldn't it?

I'm just glad they got their name disassociated with the Tour de France team before all the doping shiat really hit the fan. The media would have had a farking field day with that one.
 
2012-12-28 08:04:07 PM
Some interesting reading on Hobby Lobby's employment practices and financial expression of the CEO's Dominion Theology. As an example, CEO David Green's son Mart (what is he - a Palin?) is CEO of EthnoGraphic Media (formerly Bearing Fruit Communications) which appears to operate as a 501(c)(3) corporation, despite the fact that its sole purpose is to generate Dominionist propaganda films such as The End of the Spear.

Mart Green bailed out Oral Roberts University with a $70 million donation in 2007 after its former president (Oral's son) was embroiled in a criminal investigation regarding misappropriation of funds which left it deeply in debt. Mart then became Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the university.

In short, the entire family lives the so-called prosperity gospel, along with the likes of Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, and Pat Robertson.They have accumulated enormous wealth by shuffling money among various "charities" operated by family members and paying themselves salaries (and expensing their lifestyles) from each of these organizations. If I had to venture a guess, I'd call this move by Hobby Lobby a calculated attempt to energize a base of evangelical Christians, the ultimate goal being a Congressional )and perhaps one day a Presidential) bid by Mart Green.
 
2012-12-28 08:06:48 PM

clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.


Organized religion functions much like the government: selective enforcement.
 
2012-12-28 08:07:11 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.


And assholes in office sabotaging the government so they can point an accusing finger to say, "See!? It *doesn't* work!"

Trying to play the "both sides" card when it was clearly a Republican Congress in at the end of the 2006 session that put in place requirements for 75 years of pensions. No other company or government service is run that way.

It is patently obvious that the regulation was designed to make the Postal Service fail. Set it up for failure until it does so you can crow on about how government doesn't work.
 
2012-12-28 08:08:01 PM
Oh, and GET THE MONEY!
 
2012-12-28 08:08:53 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.


The regs require the pension to be funded out for 75 years. Tell me any private company that has that requirement?

And don't tell me "both sides are bad" because under Democrats unemployment and the national debt are better than under Republicans. It's a proven fact.
 
2012-12-28 08:08:58 PM

Whole Wheat: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

It's their business, they should be allowed to run it how they want. It was formed from their own biblical beliefs. If they choose to pay the fines instead of complying with the law, good on them.


I'm starting a new company soon. I just thought of an awesome rule ... employees are not allowed to donate any of their salaries to churches or other right wing causes, nor to buy guns. My company, my rules.
 
2012-12-28 08:11:02 PM

KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

Uhm, the doctor/hospital, not the insurance company.


And who pays the hospital?

/ we know logic and reasoning is hard for you lot
 
2012-12-28 08:17:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: PanicMan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says you can't pay for someone else's abortion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says that magic mushrooms and licked frog skins are sacred sacraments? It's religious belief, douchbag. Doesn't matter whose religion, or what support it has or doesn't have.

/Go ahead, make some more assumptions about me.

The state doesn't force anyone to pay for someone else's abortion. In fact, there's a law, called the Hyde Amendment, that says no federal tax dollars can go to abortion.

Care to be wrong about anything else?


Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion.

That, in my book, is interference in the religion.

BTW, just in case you are naive enough to believe in unicorn farts, yes, the "State" operates on force. Period. Defy government and the ultimate response is a bullet.
 
2012-12-28 08:18:36 PM
This thread is further proof that calling oneself a Libertarian is the simplest, most elegant IQ test ever devised--along with support for Ron Paul or the gold standard. Might as well just wear a helmet at all times, because you lack the sense that the FSM gave dirt.
 
2012-12-28 08:19:16 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

The state doesn't force anyone to own a corporation.


Good lord, you're as stupid as your picture suggests you are.
 
2012-12-28 08:20:05 PM

Great Janitor: The Why Not Guy: Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Oh, but they can tell me who I can or cannot marry, and prevent me from adopting a child?

Conservatives. Bless their hearts. Please.

Interestingly enough, I don't think they should have the ability to tell you who to marry or if you can or can not adopt a child.

The role of the government should be small. Making sure we have infrastructure, clean water, a military and police and fire. That's about where it should end. Telling your employer how much you should be paid and what benefits you should or should not get shouldn't be the government's concern. If you work for Company ABC and you think you should make more money and get certain benefits, it shouldn't be the government who forces Company ABC to make those changes. It should be up to you to make the change to get the benefits and pay that you believe that you deserve. If that means changing jobs or acquiring a new job skills set, then make those changes.


Is it the lack of history that makes you so naive?

Http://lmgtfy.com/?q=working+conditions+industrial+revolution
 
2012-12-28 08:20:42 PM

give me doughnuts: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Your problem is that you are foolish enough to believe that this is the case.



So.... you don't think separation of Church and State is a good thing?
 
2012-12-28 08:22:07 PM

Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,


So, in theory, there is no difference (except in degree) between the United States and Nazi Germany?
 
2012-12-28 08:22:51 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: PanicMan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says you can't pay for someone else's abortion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says that magic mushrooms and licked frog skins are sacred sacraments? It's religious belief, douchbag. Doesn't matter whose religion, or what support it has or doesn't have.

/Go ahead, make some more assumptions about me.

The state doesn't force anyone to pay for someone else's abortion. In fact, there's a law, called the Hyde Amendment, that says no federal tax dollars can go to abortion.

Care to be wrong about anything else?

Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion.

That, in my book, is interference in the religion.

BTW, just in case you are naive enough to believe in unicorn farts, yes, the "State" operates on force. Period. Defy government and the ultimate response is a bullet.


The government is not there to enforce your religion or anyone else's, for that matter. It it enforcing a secular state. I'm sorry that you think birth control and the morning-after pill are as bad as partial-birth abortion and that life begins at conception, but you don't get to impose your religion on me.

We have enough of that already.
 
2012-12-28 08:23:28 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So, in theory, there is no difference (except in degree) between the United States and Nazi Germany?


It took this many comments for someone to Godwin the conversation?
 
2012-12-28 08:23:51 PM

Great Janitor: The role of the government should be small. Making sure we have infrastructure, clean water, a military and police and fire. That's about where it should end. Telling your employer how much you should be paid and what benefits you should or should not get shouldn't be the government's concern.


Yes, because that worked out splendidly in the late 1800's...
 
2012-12-28 08:25:29 PM

pxlboy: moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?

Because we are spread out all over the country here. Though most of us live in concentrations around the coasts and major cities, we still provide certain infrastructural services and benefits even to those living in near isolation.

So I guess we can tell all the folks in the rural areas to suck it up and cope with cost increases of receiving even basic postal services?

As much of a relic as you think the USPS is, it still serves a functional purpose to this country.


And just how will the explosion of delivery of Internet Purchasing going to be PROFITIZED?
Just seems to me that if we had a publicly owned service keeping it real, the sheep would get shorn less.
Oh, secret GOP agenda? Well, hush my mouth and call me suprised.

Once upon a time the GOP was a happening and righteous dealeo.
But, then they were hijacked by sociopathic religious nutbirds and fratboys with no morals and a bank full of MEMEME.
 
2012-12-28 08:25:50 PM

Beavz0r: Great Janitor: The role of the government should be small. Making sure we have infrastructure, clean water, a military and police and fire. That's about where it should end. Telling your employer how much you should be paid and what benefits you should or should not get shouldn't be the government's concern.

Yes, because that worked out splendidly in the late 1800's...


The Republicans, their corporate sponsors, and their Randroid followers won't be happy until we're on wage parity with Southeast Asia. They believe we should be pushing for first place in this race to the bottom. Anything less is socialism and welfare.
 
2012-12-28 08:28:22 PM

snocone: pxlboy: moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?

Because we are spread out all over the country here. Though most of us live in concentrations around the coasts and major cities, we still provide certain infrastructural services and benefits even to those living in near isolation.

So I guess we can tell all the folks in the rural areas to suck it up and cope with cost increases of receiving even basic postal services?

As much of a relic as you think the USPS is, it still serves a functional purpose to this country.

And just how will the explosion of delivery of Internet Purchasing going to be PROFITIZED?
Just seems to me that if we had a publicly owned service keeping it real, the sheep would get shorn less.
Oh, secret GOP agenda? Well, hush my mouth and call me suprised.

Once upon a time the GOP was a happening and righteous dealeo.
But, then they were hijacked by sociopathic religious nutbirds and fratboys with no morals and a bank full of MEMEME.


Not saying it's some kind of secret agenda. It's easy target to hit to score points with the "government never works ever ever ever and only private companies can produce anything of value" crowd.
 
2012-12-28 08:30:45 PM
Drop the insurance and let obama care take over. Done.
 
2012-12-28 08:31:59 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion


No you're not, because it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says. And science says you're still wrong.

Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!
 
2012-12-28 08:34:48 PM

letrole: As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.


Balls. Tell me where on Mazlo's hierarchy guns are.
 
2012-12-28 08:38:32 PM

ParaHandy: letrole: As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.

Balls. Tell me where on Mazlo's hierarchy guns are.


You're assuming he even knows what Mazlo's hierarchy is.
 
2012-12-28 08:45:51 PM

pxlboy: ParaHandy: letrole: As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.

Balls. Tell me where on Mazlo's hierarchy guns are.

You're assuming he even knows what Mazlo's hierarchy is.


It's  Maslo's
 
2012-12-28 08:47:14 PM

Thunderpipes: just because of Obamacare, we have crushing taxes starting to take effect in 2013,


This is complete and utter bullshiat. You should feel bad for typing such nonsense in public.
 
2012-12-28 08:51:32 PM

Indubitably: pxlboy: ParaHandy: letrole: As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.

Balls. Tell me where on Mazlo's hierarchy guns are.

You're assuming he even knows what Mazlo's hierarchy is.

It's  Maslo's


Forgive my spelling mistake. I am aware of what it is without having to Google it. That said, the original point still stands.

Greed, avarice, and xenophobia have become staples of the right wing belief system. To the those conservatives who aren't a bunch of angry godbotherers and the Libertarians who aren't mindless Randroids, form a party. There were once some sensible ideas and principled individuals in the GOP that seem to have been pushed out by loonies.

I would love to see some actual, viable, electable third parties in this country. But getting elected means either using your own money (assuming you can afford an election) or someone else's -- usually at a great moral cost.
 
2012-12-28 08:54:43 PM
I don't understand why you teabaggers have a problem with this.
The only people who will take advantage of birth control and abortion are liberals and brown people, right? You pay for enough of it and surely within a few generations this country will turn into a glorious white Jesusland.
Pay a little now, live in a glorious Fatherland later. It seems like a good investment. Call it a solution to your problems. Carry it out far enough and it might even turn into a, how to say it, final solution?
 
2012-12-28 08:55:09 PM

moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?


It does fulfill constitutional obligations.
 
2012-12-28 08:58:23 PM

PepperFreak: I don't understand why you teabaggers have a problem with this.
The only people who will take advantage of birth control and abortion are liberals and brown people, right? You pay for enough of it and surely within a few generations this country will turn into a glorious white Jesusland.
Pay a little now, live in a glorious Fatherland later. It seems like a good investment. Call it a solution to your problems. Carry it out far enough and it might even turn into a, how to say it, final solution?


And how gay sex doesn't result in abortions because no conception is taking place? You'd think that it would be obvious to any logical, thinking person. Then again, if they were logical, thinking people, they probably wouldn't hold such idiotic beliefs in the first place.
 
2012-12-28 08:58:44 PM
Cool HL story time: Few years back I was in my local Hobby Lobby in Cowtown and was doing some shopping but also considering applying there since they offered a decent starting wage. What stopped me from applying was a young lady in one of the home decor aisles speaking to a customer about how she was a member of a Bible study group and that they met on Wednesdays and how delighted she and her brethren/sisteren would be if said customer would but consent to join them. Sorry, Hobby Lobby, you're a business. Either run it as such or STFU and if you don't hush it, hope you get sued to kingdom come and may your sanctimonious asses be handed to you as was the head of John the Baptist delivered to Salome on a silver platter. Sadly, HL does have the best selection of dollhouse kits I've found in a brick and mortar store and have put it off, as one of my reasons is shipping of delicate parts and returning items from an online retailer. They have received no further business from me except for the one time I took an out of town houseguest at her request there and chose not to delve into why I boycotted the company. Amazon, who has a better return policy than I would've imagined, should have the same dollhouse kits for cheaper, so HL and all of their nonsense may go fly a kite and hopefully go down in flames for their neglect of the health and consideration of their employees and their families. I will not shed a tear to see them all close shop permanently and GTFU of my state.  I pray it is soon.
 
2012-12-28 09:00:22 PM

o5iiawah: dr_blasto: Maybe they should go be a company in some other country that doesn't have any farking standards. If they can't deal with making money in a first-world nation, maybe the Central African Republic would suit them better. Or maybe Iran.

Ooh, there's probably a lot of unused land they could set up shop in Afghanistan. That seems like its right up their alley.

We were a civil and stable country long before the days of employers providing health insurance so your whole tired argument is crap. The whole reason why we look to our employers for health insurance is because it is (so far) and untaxed benefit which companies use to attract talent. Like every other tax, the income tax affects the behavior of individuals and employers. Why we dont have insurance companies competing for business, lowering prices and offering attractive services like wellness and fitness to keep their costs low, giving consumers the ability to shop for a plan that fits their health needs with the freedom to take the plan across jobs and state lines is beyond me.


You mean, why didn't we implement Obamacare sooner? Because that's exactly what you post is implying. Those things you long for? In there. Cross-state markets, echanges, allow for competitive services. Wellness and preventative medicine? Now required.
 
2012-12-28 09:04:37 PM

dr_blasto: o5iiawah: dr_blasto: Maybe they should go be a company in some other country that doesn't have any farking standards. If they can't deal with making money in a first-world nation, maybe the Central African Republic would suit them better. Or maybe Iran.

Ooh, there's probably a lot of unused land they could set up shop in Afghanistan. That seems like its right up their alley.

We were a civil and stable country long before the days of employers providing health insurance so your whole tired argument is crap. The whole reason why we look to our employers for health insurance is because it is (so far) and untaxed benefit which companies use to attract talent. Like every other tax, the income tax affects the behavior of individuals and employers. Why we dont have insurance companies competing for business, lowering prices and offering attractive services like wellness and fitness to keep their costs low, giving consumers the ability to shop for a plan that fits their health needs with the freedom to take the plan across jobs and state lines is beyond me.

You mean, why didn't we implement Obamacare sooner? Because that's exactly what you post is implying. Those things you long for? In there. Cross-state markets, echanges, allow for competitive services. Wellness and preventative medicine? Now required.


Preventative medicine can go a long way towards reducing healthcare costs. People shouldn't have to wait until they're having a stroke or the cancer becomes so painful they go to the ER. At that point, whatever is necessary is going to have to be done immediately and at great expense.
 
2012-12-28 09:08:27 PM

pxlboy: Exactly as planned.


No doubt. It is absurd and criminal. I'm not even certain who the original problem child was and even less certain if they're still in Congress, but, today, the problem is Rep. Issa. He thinks it should be privatised, somehow FedEx will deliver letters for $.50 to rural bumfark Nebraska. Issa is either a complete evil criminal or an absolutly stupid tool. Or both, they're not mutually exclusive.
 
2012-12-28 09:12:11 PM

dr_blasto: pxlboy: Exactly as planned.

No doubt. It is absurd and criminal. I'm not even certain who the original problem child was and even less certain if they're still in Congress, but, today, the problem is Rep. Issa. He thinks it should be privatised, somehow FedEx will deliver letters for $.50 to rural bumfark Nebraska. Issa is either a complete evil criminal or an absolutly stupid tool. Or both, they're not mutually exclusive.


I would think both as well. He's kind of a jerkbag.
 
2012-12-28 09:12:19 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.


Do you listen only to Rush Limbaugh, a man with the IQ of a fencepost, to get all your information on success and failure rates of government programs?
 
2012-12-28 09:18:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion

No you're not, because it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says. And science says you're still wrong.

Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!


He's already godwinned his arguments.
 
2012-12-28 09:19:49 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.


He said, on the internet, without feeling even the slightest twinge of irony.
 
2012-12-28 09:20:09 PM

dr_blasto: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion

No you're not, because it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says. And science says you're still wrong.

Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!

He's already godwinned his arguments.


Pretty much a dead giveaway that he's a moron or a troll.
 
2012-12-28 09:20:32 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Beavz0r: To oppose abortions (and the welfare system in general) as much as they do, it always surprised me how adamant they also are against contraceptives.

Just like the Republicans they voted for, 'compromise' must no longer be a part of their vocabulary.

Ok, I'll bite. What compromise to you propose in this situation?


Well, let me clarify -- I wasn't referring to a compromise regarding the subject matter in and of itself, but instead the jihad on contraceptives altogether.

From my perspective, contraceptives should not be an enemy to those of Christian faith, but instead a weapon to help curb a threat of significantly greater importance. When you consider that increasing accessibility to contraceptives has been known to dramatically lower abortion rates, and that even the short-term expenses of unplanned pregnancies ends up costing our government billions of dollars annually, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify such extreme negativity. Although you're not exactly addressing the underlining problem in the eyes of the church (specifically the inability of the masses to keep it in their pants), you're at least curbing a large portion of the damage that results from it.
 
2012-12-28 09:27:13 PM
Here's my thoughts on the Catholic Church and Contraception:

The man telling you that contraception is wrong and counter to God's Will is the same man that rides in an armored car so that he won't get shot.

I would think God would have a greater interest in the safety of his Legate on Earth (if he is what he claims to be) than whether or not any random woman has a baby when she has sex. If the Pope should be assassinated, it must be God's Will. Therefore his position on Contraception is HYPOCRICY, as he is actively using means to prevent God's Will, while denying such means to others.
 
2012-12-28 09:28:23 PM

Thrag: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.

He said, on the internet, without feeling even the slightest twinge of irony.


Touché.... even a blind squirrel....
 
2012-12-28 09:31:17 PM

pxlboy: dr_blasto: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion

No you're not, because it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says. And science says you're still wrong.

Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!

He's already godwinned his arguments.

Pretty much a dead giveaway that he's a moron or a troll.


Like Issa, he's probably both.
 
2012-12-28 09:32:48 PM

Beavz0r: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Beavz0r: To oppose abortions (and the welfare system in general) as much as they do, it always surprised me how adamant they also are against contraceptives.

Just like the Republicans they voted for, 'compromise' must no longer be a part of their vocabulary.

Ok, I'll bite. What compromise to you propose in this situation?

Well, let me clarify -- I wasn't referring to a compromise regarding the subject matter in and of itself, but instead the jihad on contraceptives altogether.

From my perspective, contraceptives should not be an enemy to those of Christian faith, but instead a weapon to help curb a threat of significantly greater importance. When you consider that increasing accessibility to contraceptives has been known to dramatically lower abortion rates, and that even the short-term expenses of unplanned pregnancies ends up costing our government billions of dollars annually, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify such extreme negativity. Although you're not exactly addressing the underlining problem in the eyes of the church (specifically the inability of the masses to keep it in their pants), you're at least curbing a large portion of the damage that results from it.


They're torn between reducing abortions and prolonging the cycle of poverty and the righteous indignation they get from slut-shaming. What to do...what to do
 
2012-12-28 09:33:45 PM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: Thrag: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.

He said, on the internet, without feeling even the slightest twinge of irony.

Touché.... even a blind squirrel....


How about the FDA? Or OSHA? Or the EPA? Or the FAA?
 
2012-12-28 09:37:12 PM

ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.


I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.
 
2012-12-28 09:37:35 PM

cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: Thrag: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.

He said, on the internet, without feeling even the slightest twinge of irony.

Touché.... even a blind squirrel....

How about the FDA? Or OSHA? Or the EPA? Or the FAA?


Silly rabbit, corporations can be trusted to regulate themselves and totes work on the honor system.
 
2012-12-28 09:37:50 PM

pxlboy: Indubitably: pxlboy: ParaHandy: letrole: As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.

Balls. Tell me where on Mazlo's hierarchy guns are.

You're assuming he even knows what Mazlo's hierarchy is.

It's  Maslo's

Forgive my spelling mistake. I am aware of what it is without having to Google it. That said, the original point still stands.

Greed, avarice, and xenophobia have become staples of the right wing belief system. To the those conservatives who aren't a bunch of angry godbotherers and the Libertarians who aren't mindless Randroids, form a party. There were once some sensible ideas and principled individuals in the GOP that seem to have been pushed out by loonies.

I would love to see some actual, viable, electable third parties in this country. But getting elected means either using your own money (assuming you can afford an election) or someone else's -- usually at a great moral cost.


Me too, friend.

Peace.
 
2012-12-28 09:38:45 PM

TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.


Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.
 
2012-12-28 09:39:47 PM

gaspode: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.
False economy... it might be a tiny bit cheaper in the short term, but in terms of running a good long term business paying a few bucks a month per employee will pay back in spades. If he only had the sense.


You've been trolled.  Firms with fewer than 50 employees are not subject to the employer mandate.
 
2012-12-28 09:42:06 PM

vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 230x219]
Do you see that? Its a modern reflector on an Amish buggy. The Amish did not want to put modern reflectors on their buggies, but the law says they have to.


I've heard the Amish treat their animals very poorly; like machines rather than living creatures.
 
2012-12-28 09:43:35 PM
img15.imageshack.us

let the free market decide whether or not people will patronize businesses, especially restaurants, who prefer sick employees hacking up their disgusting low-skilled germs on our food/goods
 
2012-12-28 09:44:39 PM

Omahawg: [img15.imageshack.us image 418x237]

let the free market decide whether or not people will patronize businesses, especially restaurants, who prefer sick employees hacking up their disgusting low-skilled germs on our food/goods


We tried that. Didn't work. That's why we fixed it over 100 years ago.
 
2012-12-28 09:44:44 PM

dr_blasto: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: Thrag: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.

He said, on the internet, without feeling even the slightest twinge of irony.

Touché.... even a blind squirrel....

How about the FDA? Or OSHA? Or the EPA? Or the FAA?

Silly rabbit, corporations can be trusted to regulate themselves and totes work on the honor system.


What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-12-28 09:45:46 PM

Spartacus Outlaw: vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 230x219]
Do you see that? Its a modern reflector on an Amish buggy. The Amish did not want to put modern reflectors on their buggies, but the law says they have to.

I've heard the Amish treat their animals very poorly; like machines rather than living creatures.


i4.ytimg.com

Ye know too much!
 
2012-12-28 09:47:19 PM
Saw a few adds by these people. Thought they were little odd. Now makes sense.
 
2012-12-28 09:47:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Omahawg: [img15.imageshack.us image 418x237]

let the free market decide whether or not people will patronize businesses, especially restaurants, who prefer sick employees hacking up their disgusting low-skilled germs on our food/goods

We tried that. Didn't work. That's why we fixed it over 100 years ago.


100 years ago? I had to either show up at mcdonald's sick in 1991 or find my own replacement. Same with a nursing home in 1994 and the most disgusting Perkin's ever in 1995. Yes, I'll do your scheduling for minimum wage while I'm running a fever with the chills. yes, yes I will

/easier to show up to work and spread the love like special sauce on a big mac
 
2012-12-28 09:50:35 PM

pxlboy: dr_blasto: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: Thrag: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.

He said, on the internet, without feeling even the slightest twinge of irony.

Touché.... even a blind squirrel....

How about the FDA? Or OSHA? Or the EPA? Or the FAA?

Silly rabbit, corporations can be trusted to regulate themselves and totes work on the honor system.

What could possibly go wrong?


To Warren, like rabbits do.  *)
 
2012-12-28 10:00:12 PM

dr_blasto: You mean, why didn't we implement Obamacare sooner? Because that's exactly what you post is implying. Those things you long for? In there. Cross-state markets, echanges, allow for competitive services. Wellness and preventative medicine? Now required.


No, Obamacare links the employer to the individual. and mandates what should be covered. As a healthy 28 year old who doesn't smoke and runs and needs a plan with a high deductible that covers catastrophic illnesses, I'm lumped into the same plan as the guy who works down the hall who carries an oxygen machine around with him because he smoked for 40 years. - just because we work for the same company who purchases the same policy. Granted, i still get good coverage but my employer WAY overpays for my healthcare.

Thanks to the high income tax rates of the 50's, employers had to lump extra untaxed benefits into compensation packages. I want for employers to be able to return healthcare costs to their employees and allow employees to purchase their own plans based on what is best for them. I'm sure that there are insurance companies out there who will see a benefit to offering contraceptive coverage to their employees and will build such coverage into healthcare plans. Then it really isn't really any employer's business what an employee does with their private health decisions so long as they show up to work on time and do their job.
 
2012-12-28 10:02:13 PM

o5iiawah: As a healthy 28 year old who doesn't smoke and runs and needs a plan with a high deductible that covers catastrophic illnesses


Yeah, because you'll ALWAYS be healthy.
 
2012-12-28 10:02:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.


I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.
 
2012-12-28 10:05:42 PM

TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.

I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.


butthurt*
 
2012-12-28 10:09:10 PM

TanHamster: I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off


So? A private company isn't a religious entity either.
 
2012-12-28 10:09:54 PM

TanHamster: TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.

I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.

butthurt*


Butthutt.

I just got an idea for a new business: topless mini golf. You'd go around the little golf area and topless chick would fetch the balls, serve drinks and on top of some of the sillier mini-golf things, you'd have topless dancers. It would be called the ButtHutt.
 
2012-12-28 10:15:08 PM

dr_blasto: TanHamster: TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.

I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.

butthurt*

Butthutt.

I just got an idea for a new business: topless mini golf. You'd go around the little golf area and topless chick would fetch the balls, serve drinks and on top of some of the sillier mini-golf things, you'd have topless dancers. It would be called the ButtHutt.


This was better in yer head.
 
2012-12-28 10:20:58 PM

Indubitably: dr_blasto: TanHamster: TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.

I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.

butthurt*

Butthutt.

I just got an idea for a new business: topless mini golf. You'd go around the little golf area and topless chick would fetch the balls, serve drinks and on top of some of the sillier mini-golf things, you'd have topless dancers. It would be called the ButtHutt.

This was better in yer head.


No no no. Still good.

Wanna get really rich? Strip club chain in airport concourses.
 
2012-12-28 10:22:28 PM

dr_blasto: Indubitably: dr_blasto: TanHamster: TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.

I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.

butthurt*

Butthutt.

I just got an idea for a new business: topless mini golf. You'd go around the little golf area and topless chick would fetch the balls, serve drinks and on top of some of the sillier mini-golf things, you'd have topless dancers. It would be called the ButtHutt.

This was better in yer head.

No no no. Still good.

Wanna get really rich? Strip club chain in airport concourses.


To airstrip?

*)
 
2012-12-28 10:26:57 PM

Indubitably: dr_blasto: Indubitably: dr_blasto: TanHamster: TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.

I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.

butthurt*

Butthutt.

I just got an idea for a new business: topless mini golf. You'd go around the little golf area and topless chick would fetch the balls, serve drinks and on top of some of the sillier mini-golf things, you'd have topless dancers. It would be called the ButtHutt.

This was better in yer head.

No no no. Still good.

Wanna get really rich? Strip club chain in airport concourses.

To airstrip?

*)


See, now you're on the same page as me.
 
2012-12-28 10:28:12 PM
So they looked Fartbongo square in the eye and said "Suck my fat one, you cheap, dime-store hood".

Well done Hobby Lobby 'ers.
 
2012-12-28 10:45:56 PM

dr_blasto: Indubitably: dr_blasto: Indubitably: dr_blasto: TanHamster: TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.

I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.

butthurt*

Butthutt.

I just got an idea for a new business: topless mini golf. You'd go around the little golf area and topless chick would fetch the balls, serve drinks and on top of some of the sillier mini-golf things, you'd have topless dancers. It would be called the ButtHutt.

This was better in yer head.

No no no. Still good.

Wanna get really rich? Strip club chain in airport concourses.

To airstrip?

*)

See, now you're on the same page as me.


Apologies.
 
2012-12-28 10:48:42 PM

Indubitably: dr_blasto: Indubitably: dr_blasto: Indubitably: dr_blasto: TanHamster: TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.

I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.

butthurt*

Butthutt.

I just got an idea for a new business: topless mini golf. You'd go around the little golf area and topless chick would fetch the balls, serve drinks and on top of some of the sillier mini-golf things, you'd have topless dancers. It would be called the ButtHutt.

This was better in yer head.

No no no. Still good.

Wanna get really rich? Strip club chain in airport concourses.

To airstrip?

*)

See, now you're on the same page as me.

Apologies.


Fret not, the name alone is worth at least some corporate shares man, you're covered.
 
2012-12-28 10:57:27 PM

dr_blasto: Indubitably: dr_blasto: Indubitably: dr_blasto: Indubitably: dr_blasto: TanHamster: TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

I'm sick of douchebags like you taking shots at people who actually employ other people. You sound like a student.

Oh god yes, we should treat job creators like gods because otherwise they might not rain employment like mana from heaven.

I could understand all of the butthutt, if Hobby Lobby were a publically-traded company. But it's privately held, so fark off.

butthurt*

Butthutt.

I just got an idea for a new business: topless mini golf. You'd go around the little golf area and topless chick would fetch the balls, serve drinks and on top of some of the sillier mini-golf things, you'd have topless dancers. It would be called the ButtHutt.

This was better in yer head.

No no no. Still good.

Wanna get really rich? Strip club chain in airport concourses.

To airstrip?

*)

See, now you're on the same page as me.

Apologies.

Fret not, the name alone is worth at least some corporate shares man, you're covered.


I am?
 
2012-12-28 11:00:40 PM
o5iiawah (farkied: Right-wing wharrgarbler with a wharrgarbl name): The My Little Pony Killer: Maybe they should become a church if they want to have church rules.

Or maybe they should be a private company, one of those places where you can choose on your own whether or not to shop there or work there.


This applies, it seems, to companies run by Bible thumpers, but not to companies with union contracts in states without a Right to Freeload on the UnionWork law.
 
2012-12-28 11:01:57 PM

pxlboy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: PanicMan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says you can't pay for someone else's abortion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says that magic mushrooms and licked frog skins are sacred sacraments? It's religious belief, douchbag. Doesn't matter whose religion, or what support it has or doesn't have.

/Go ahead, make some more assumptions about me.

The state doesn't force anyone to pay for someone else's abortion. In fact, there's a law, called the Hyde Amendment, that says no federal tax dollars can go to abortion.

Care to be wrong about anything else?

Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion.

That, in my book, is interference in the religion.

BTW, just in case you are naive enough to believe in unicorn farts, yes, the "State" operates on force. Period. Defy government and the ultimate response is a bullet.

The government is not there to enforce your religion or anyone else's, for that matter. It it enforcing a secular state. I'm sorry that you think birth control and the morning-after pill are as bad as partial-birth abortion and that life begins at conception, but you don't get to impose your religion on me.

We have enough of that already.


fark. There sure are a lot of Mind Reading Wizards on this thread. FYI, that is NOT my religion, and it's scientifically ridiculous to equate birth control and the morning-after pill with partial-birth abortions. (As for life beginning at conception, OK Mr. Wizard, you tell me where it begins.) But I will defend those whose religious beliefs do hold with that.

You're on a huge slippery slope there, stud. The Unintended Consequences of this ruling will be really something, and you kn ow what? I suspect you libs will be the first ones to whine about them.
 
2012-12-28 11:07:26 PM

pxlboy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So, in theory, there is no difference (except in degree) between the United States and Nazi Germany?

It took this many comments for someone to Godwin the conversation?


That's not a Godwin, Runaway Boy. It's a valid comparison. When the Nazis (National Socialists) took control in Germany they nationalized some industries, but left most in private hands - but throttled a huge number of them with on-premises oversight by a National Socialist political officer. The rest haqd to do what they were told, when they were told, and how they were told. Look it up; it's called History. YOU said: "If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes," So: in principle, what's the difference? Give me a straight answer or STFU.
 
2012-12-28 11:19:04 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When the Nazis (National Socialists) took control in Germany they nationalized some industries,


Okay you have a valid comparison. What industries has Obama nationalized, again?
 
2012-12-28 11:22:24 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes," So: in principle, what's the difference? Give me a straight answer or STFU.


It's called "the law", or are you claiming that businesses are above the law?
 
2012-12-28 11:22:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion

No you're not, because it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says. And science says you're still wrong.

Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!


Sigh.

>>>>"...it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says." Yeah, and the science is always 100% right, right? There were a whole bunch of scientists in Nazi Germany who declared that Jews were subhuman and needed to be exterminated. There were a whole bunch of scientists in the Soviet Union who toed the Party line against Darwinian evolution, Virtually the whole Geological scientific establishment had to be dragged screaming into accepting plate tectonics. There are endless examples. Oh, you say the "science is settled"? Really? That's a profoundly unscientific statement. Science by it's very nature is never settled.

>>>>>"Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!"

No, but that corporation is closely held, maybe even by one person, and that group or individual is religious, it is a violation of their/his religious freedom to dictate (Seig Heil) that they must violate their religious principles in order to remain in business.

Fascism is alive and well in America. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! ......
 
2012-12-28 11:26:10 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Fascism is alive and well in America.


i80.photobucket.com

Nice that the wingnuts are finally noticing.
 
2012-12-28 11:28:15 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Yeah, and the science is always 100% right, right? There were a whole bunch of scientists in Nazi Germany who declared that Jews were subhuman and needed to be exterminated.


No, there were a bunch of crazy people. Are you really comparing American scientists to Nazis?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: No, but that corporation is closely held, maybe even by one person, and that group or individual is religious, it is a violation of their/his religious freedom to dictate (Seig Heil) that they must violate their religious principles in order to remain in business.


Again, no it isn't. Corporations don't get special rights because the owner "really" believes something. Sorry, it's just not part of US law.
 
2012-12-28 11:30:10 PM

The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I'd think gays would be ambivalent about birth control since they really don't need it to prevent pregnancy.

Really?

As Sandra "Slut" Fluke testified, many women need birth control pills for medical reasons that have nothing to do with having sex or preventing pregnancy. There's also a big benefit to gay men and lesbians in using contraceptives such as condoms or dental dams. They prevent the spread of STDs and HIV, even among same-sex couples who aren't worried about pregnancy.


In that case it's a drug that fix some medical condition that has a side effect of preventing birth
 
2012-12-28 11:45:22 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion

No you're not, because it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says. And science says you're still wrong.

Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!

Sigh.

>>>>"...it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says." Yeah, and the science is always 100% right, right? There were a whole bunch of scientists in Nazi Germany who declared that Jews were subhuman and needed to be exterminated. There were a whole bunch of scientists in the Soviet Union who toed the Party line against Darwinian evolution, Virtually the whole Geological scientific establishment had to be dragged screaming into accepting plate tectonics. There are endless examples. Oh, you say the "science is settled"? Really? That's a profoundly unscientific statement. Science by it's very nature is never settled.

>>>>>"Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!"

No, but that corporation is closely held, maybe even by one person, and that group or individual is religious, it is a violation of their/his religious freedom to dictate (Seig Heil) that they must violate their religious principles in order to remain in business.

Fascism is alive and well in America. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! ......


Lol, what are you on? Fascism? Nazi scientists?

Your godwin got all over the wall and stained the carpet. I hope your happy.
 
2012-12-28 11:48:47 PM
Fun fact: there's no space on the business registration form for "Religion of Business/Owner"

I wonder why that would be.
 
2012-12-28 11:57:24 PM
So I'm working for these christian scientists, right? Funny folks but it was a plump gig juggling chainsaws as part of a kiddie birthday clown act.

One day I'm hungover (well, most days) and I slipped by a half-second on the catch and, damnit, there goes my left hand with the kids all screaming and me screaming and my bloody stump squirting all over the crowd of kids who then started to cry, scream, and vomit up sickly sweet birthday cake with too much frosting all over everywhere. it looked like it was marble cake but now all gooey and with many red streaks from the bloody stump I was still waving all over while screaming. 'cause it hurt, ya know?

"Take me to a doctor! Oh god, they can save my hand if you throw it in the freezer! A doctor!"

"But we don't believe in doctors," my boss said. "We can pray about it."

"Pray about it? what? I don't even - no sutures or nothing? Just prayer?"

My boss nodded.

And that's why i had to tell all you good people that story while typing with my nose. it took longer than I expected.

with much love,
Stumpy
 
2012-12-29 12:19:43 AM

vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 230x219]
Do you see that? Its a modern reflector on an Amish buggy. The Amish did not want to put modern reflectors on their buggies, but the law says they have to.


That probably doesn't violate any of the Amish beliefs.

Methinks you don't understand Amish folk.
 
2012-12-29 12:25:57 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: This applies, it seems, to companies run by Bible thumpers, but not to companies with union contracts in states without a Right to Freeload on the UnionWork law.


If unions offered value for membership, people would join voluntarily. The ACLU and NRA will spend millions of dollars fighting for the rights of non-paying members and rely on voluntary contributions to sustain their activities. What are unions so afraid of that they need compulsory membership in order to survive? The NRA and ACLU dont seem to have a problem with freeloaders

cameroncrazy1984: Okay you have a valid comparison. What industries has Obama nationalized, again?


automotive, banking, housing, student loans, healthcare.

Some are more nationalized than others but public/private partnerships, aka cronyism are alive and well. There's still other options in the marketplace but eventually, UAW Ford workers will tire of seeing their income taxes go to the guys across town who are getting paid to produce cars that nobody wants to buy. Government is the only entity that has a monopoly of force and eventually, businesses will fold since they cant levy taxes or pass laws to force people to buy their stuff.
 
2012-12-29 12:30:35 AM

you are a puppet: Submitter: you sir, are a mouthful.


I go to the same gym as subby. Half a mouthful at best.
 
2012-12-29 12:32:01 AM

o5iiawah: automotive, banking, housing, student loans, healthcare.

Some are more nationalized than others


Uh, you don't understand the meaning of the word "nationalized"

Here, let me help you out:

Nationalize:to bring under the ownership or control of a nation.Now please explain to me which of these industries is owned by the government.Automotive isn't. the US doesn't even own a majority of GM, much less literally any other automotive company in the USStudent loans: Nope, you can still get a private student loan from Citi or Nelnet or othersHousing: Nope you can still buy and sell houses from private companies.Healthcare: Nope, you can still get healthcare wholly from a private company or insurer.Now please, can you find even  ONE industry that has been nationalized in the US? Oil? Anything?
 
2012-12-29 12:34:29 AM

gopher321: [mojoimage.com image 500x333]


Dobby approves of the headline


It was a bad headline.  I was so saddened by it that I got rather sobby.
 
2012-12-29 12:37:58 AM

WhoopAssWayne: Convenience abortions should be prosecuted as first degree murder.

Go ahead idiot liberals - open up this can of worms of pushing your beliefs on others through Obamacare and see what kind of a country we end up with. Because it won't take long for the ball to be in the other court, and I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi, and then you dumbasses will really have something to cry about.


Well, keep enjoying that feeling.
 
2012-12-29 12:55:40 AM

specialkae: Cool HL story time: Few years back I was in my local Hobby Lobby in Cowtown and was doing some shopping but also considering applying there since they offered a decent starting wage. What stopped me from applying was a young lady in one of the home decor aisles speaking to a customer about how she was a member of a Bible study group and that they met on Wednesdays and how delighted she and her brethren/sisteren would be if said customer would but consent to join them. Sorry, Hobby Lobby, you're a business. Either run it as such or STFU and if you don't hush it, hope you get sued to kingdom come and may your sanctimonious asses be handed to you as was the head of John the Baptist delivered to Salome on a silver platter. Sadly, HL does have the best selection of dollhouse kits I've found in a brick and mortar store and have put it off, as one of my reasons is shipping of delicate parts and returning items from an online retailer. They have received no further business from me except for the one time I took an out of town houseguest at her request there and chose not to delve into why I boycotted the company. Amazon, who has a better return policy than I would've imagined, should have the same dollhouse kits for cheaper, so HL and all of their nonsense may go fly a kite and hopefully go down in flames for their neglect of the health and consideration of their employees and their families. I will not shed a tear to see them all close shop permanently and GTFU of my state.  I pray it is soon.


wow. go fark yourself.

i've been a farker for longer than most of the anti-hobby lobby farkers in this thread, and this thread has made me realize that Fark now belongs to a younger generation of utter douchebags.

I stopped using facebook once I realized it's basically just self-aggrandizement and Farmville updates. Pretty sure Fark has now become a wing of the Obama administration. That's too bad, because this site was awesome.
 
2012-12-29 12:58:04 AM

PepperFreak: I don't understand why you teabaggers have a problem with this.
The only people who will take advantage of birth control and abortion are liberals and brown people, right? You pay for enough of it and surely within a few generations this country will turn into a glorious white Jesusland.
Pay a little now, live in a glorious Fatherland later. It seems like a good investment. Call it a solution to your problems. Carry it out far enough and it might even turn into a, how to say it, final solution?


You're a tool.
 
2012-12-29 01:00:57 AM
cbathrob

This thread is further proof that calling oneself a Libertarian is the simplest, most elegant IQ test ever devised--along with support for Ron Paul or the gold standard. Might as well just wear a helmet at all times, because you lack the sense that the FSM gave dirt.


So, why did Ron Paul run on the republican ticket this election?
 
2012-12-29 01:06:48 AM
BarkingUnicorn [TotalFark]

You've been trolled. Firms with fewer than 50 employees are not subject to the employer mandate.

Trolled, schmolled. It doesn't change what the guy said on Thursday night. And on that note who gives a rats ass.
 
2012-12-29 01:07:27 AM
That was annoying.. the whole thing went into quotes
 
2012-12-29 01:13:48 AM

mwfark: The govt is forcing Hobby Lobby to act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs, so I'm proud of this private enterprise for standing its ground against an aggressively coercive government. I believe in freedom, and Hobby Lobby should be free to run it's business as the owners see fit, and the employees are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.


ct.fra.bz
 
2012-12-29 01:17:53 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
No, but that corporation is closely held, maybe even by one person, and that group or individual is religious, it is a violation of their/his religious freedom to dictate (Seig Heil) that they must violate their religious principles in order to remain in business.

Fascism is alive and well in America. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! ......


But on the flip-side, it's apparently perfectly acceptable for a business owner to be the one dictating.
 
2012-12-29 01:21:29 AM

TanHamster: That's too bad, because this site was awesome.


Well, bye.
 
2012-12-29 01:26:53 AM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: Well, I didn't come on here to defend Republicans, but let's see if I have your logic correct.... The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?


The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 was passed by the Republican Congress.  It mandated $5.5 billion per year to be paid into an account to pre-fund retiree health-care, 75 years into the future, a requirement unique to the USPS.  The purpose of this bill was to force the USPS into a budgetary crisis which Darrel Issa then used to try and pass a union busting bill to remedy the crisis they created.  Without the PAEA, the USPS would have a $1.5 billion surplus.  This was nothing more than another GOP attempt to intentionally break a government agency in order to prove that government doesn't work.
 
2012-12-29 01:31:40 AM

cmb53208: What makes fundies such awful pieces of shiat?


Actually the nastiest name calling unpleasant crybabies in this thread are on the government's side. Count them.
 
2012-12-29 01:35:17 AM

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: ghare: If Hobby Lobby closes due to a drop in sales, due to them being perceived by the public left as douchebags, then another art store will move in to take their place, and they will hire basically the same number of employees as Hobby Lobby did.

FTFY.... Let's see how bad it was for business last time.....

[www.frugal-cafe.com image 709x413]


How cute.  That was the one day bump in sales that they had.  Their sales for the entire quarter dropped.  Lol.
 
2012-12-29 01:38:10 AM

STRYPERSWINE: cmb53208: What makes fundies such awful pieces of shiat?

Actually the nastiest name calling unpleasant crybabies in this thread are on the government's side. Count them.


Okay: 1

You.
 
2012-12-29 01:41:12 AM

cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: That's too bad, because this site was awesome.

Well, bye.


hey, douchebag, by any chance do you play a lot of video games? not married? no kids? still live in an apartment? in your 30s?

i'm all for ad hominem attacks, because it greatly simplifies the process of arguing with some 35 yr old who plays call of duty, and still thinks he knows jack shiat about being an adult
 
2012-12-29 01:45:56 AM

TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: That's too bad, because this site was awesome.

Well, bye.

hey, douchebag, by any chance do you play a lot of video games? not married? no kids? still live in an apartment? in your 30s?

i'm all for ad hominem attacks, because it greatly simplifies the process of arguing with some 35 yr old who plays call of duty, and still thinks he knows jack shiat about being an adult


I'm still in my twenties, and by the time I get to be whatever age you are, I hope I'm not nearly as irrationally angry about my life as you appear to be about yours. Because wow do you fly off the handle way too easily. Calm down. It's the Internet, gramps.
 
2012-12-29 02:19:34 AM
"They're not going to comply with the mandate," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the company. "They're not going to offer coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in the insurance plan."

then the courts will fine them a couple million for every day they refuse to comply with the court order.  which should put them out of business within about a week.
 
2012-12-29 02:22:16 AM
wait, what's wrong with being in your 30s and still enjoying video games? :-(
 
2012-12-29 02:24:16 AM

TanHamster: . Pretty sure Fark has now become a wing of the Obama administration. That's too bad, because this site was awesome.


this site is STILL awesome.  look, I know you have to actually confront libruls here on fark and sometimes they'll actually be smarter than you, or more articulate.  hey, it happens.  no matter HOW good you are, someone is always better than you.  Try not to think of fark as being overrun with 'libruls'. instead, try to think of fark as a collection of random ideas.  some good, some bad, and most of 'em batshiat insane.

Just a thought.
 
2012-12-29 02:26:56 AM

Uniquely Common: wait, what's wrong with being in your 30s and still enjoying video games? :-(


got me.  I've worked nights and weekends for over 15 years.  which means I don't usually get home till after midnight.  only thing you can do at 1am is drink or log into an online game and play games with folks in another time zone.  And drinking alone gets boring real fast. video games + rum shooters are a bit less pathetic than just the rum.
 
2012-12-29 02:31:57 AM

TanHamster: specialkae: Cool HL story time: Few years back I was in my local Hobby Lobby in Cowtown and was doing some shopping but also considering applying there since they offered a decent starting wage. What stopped me from applying was a young lady in one of the home decor aisles speaking to a customer about how she was a member of a Bible study group and that they met on Wednesdays and how delighted she and her brethren/sisteren would be if said customer would but consent to join them. Sorry, Hobby Lobby, you're a business. Either run it as such or STFU and if you don't hush it, hope you get sued to kingdom come and may your sanctimonious asses be handed to you as was the head of John the Baptist delivered to Salome on a silver platter. Sadly, HL does have the best selection of dollhouse kits I've found in a brick and mortar store and have put it off, as one of my reasons is shipping of delicate parts and returning items from an online retailer. They have received no further business from me except for the one time I took an out of town houseguest at her request there and chose not to delve into why I boycotted the company. Amazon, who has a better return policy than I would've imagined, should have the same dollhouse kits for cheaper, so HL and all of their nonsense may go fly a kite and hopefully go down in flames for their neglect of the health and consideration of their employees and their families. I will not shed a tear to see them all close shop permanently and GTFU of my state.  I pray it is soon.

wow. go fark yourself.

i've been a farker for longer than most of the anti-hobby lobby farkers in this thread, and this thread has made me realize that Fark now belongs to a younger generation of utter douchebags.

I stopped using facebook once I realized it's basically just self-aggrandizement and Farmville updates. Pretty sure Fark has now become a wing of the Obama administration. That's too bad, because this site was awesome.


So you want those damned kids to get off your Fark? :-)

I agree about specialkae .  She reminds me of Adam M. Smith, the guy who thought he was so clever while berating a Chick-Fil-A girl.   He got fired the next day.

Seriously, specialkae, you should have stopped at, "I decided not to apply for a job there because I didn't want to be proselytized."  But redhead rage is hard to stop, isn't it?
 
2012-12-29 02:48:45 AM
bottled redhead rage or natural redhead rage? One is just being witchy the other is being feisty.

/feisty
 
2012-12-29 03:07:10 AM
I have to admire Hobby Lobby's owners.  They won't compromise their religious beliefs.  They also won't throw their employees under the bus by dropping health insurance, even though that would be much cheaper.

Seems odd that Obamacare's penalty structure strongly encourages employers to drop health insurance entirely.  That costs $2000 per employee per year.  The daily fine for non-compliant plans like HL's is $100, or $36,500 per employee per year.  What message is that supposed to send?
 
2012-12-29 03:10:31 AM

Uniquely Common: bottled redhead rage or natural redhead rage? One is just being witchy the other is being feisty.

/feisty


Well, her profile says she's "currently" red with blonde streaks.  Also tattooed and "pagan."  I'd put my money on bottled hair coloring and natural rage.
 
2012-12-29 03:16:15 AM
specialkae:

Specialkae, can you email me? (EIP) I want to ask you a question, nothing to do with this thread.

/sorry for threadjack
 
2012-12-29 08:36:27 AM

Weaver95: Uniquely Common: wait, what's wrong with being in your 30s and still enjoying video games? :-(

got me.  I've worked nights and weekends for over 15 years.  which means I don't usually get home till after midnight.  only thing you can do at 1am is drink or log into an online game and play games with folks in another time zone.  And drinking alone gets boring real fast. video games + rum shooters are a bit less pathetic than just the rum.


FWIW, I'm 32, so apparently that makes me geriatric on Fark. I'm an engineer with a wife and son, and I work with "bros" my age who are doing the exact same thing they've been doing since graduating from college: playing video games, microwaving pizza shooters, and banging different chicks every few weeks.

Said bros then login to Fark and start firing full broadsides against people with values who don't necessarily believe that the gubmint should force employers to pay the costs associated with recreational sex.

My priority is the health and safety of my fambly, so health insurance to me means something that averts personal bankruptcy when someone is seriously sick or injured. It doesn't mean having the gubmint force my employer to pay for contraception and convenience abortions.
 
2012-12-29 09:21:50 AM

o5iiawah: Lee Jackson Beauregard: This applies, it seems, to companies run by Bible thumpers, but not to companies with union contracts in states without a Right to Freeload on the UnionWork law.

If unions offered value for membership, people would join voluntarily.


One, people do join voluntarily. Two, negotiating for contracts and resolving grievances cost money. I'd be all for "right to work" if it didn't mean "right to freeload on the union" -- if the union didn't have to go to bat for those who don't support it. The Chamber of Commerce doesn't go to bat for businesses who don't support it. Aren't you right wingers supposed to be against freeloaders?

cameroncrazy1984: Okay you have a valid comparison. What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

automotive,


Ford has no government ownership and GM is planning to buy its shares back from the Treasury.

banking, housing,

If only. Given what a fine job the banks have done.

student loans,

Bullschitt.

healthcare.

One, if only. Two, It seems perfectly OK to nationalize healthcare when it's the NRA talking.
 
2012-12-29 09:25:28 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When the Nazis (National Socialists) took control in Germany they nationalized some industries,

Okay you have a valid comparison. What industries has Obama nationalized, again?


Sigh.

>>>>What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

Mention of nationalization was a context/history lesson, dumbass, as you (hopefully) well know (re-read my post). If you really don't, then rational discussion with you is hopeless.
 
2012-12-29 09:31:07 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: ghare: I just spent $40 at Sam Flax instead of Hobby Lobby because of this. Tried to email them a pic of my receipt, but for some reason there doesn't appear o be a link to email them with comments on their website.

That 40 bucks is going to push them right over the edge.

Boycotting them is kind of counter productive. If enough people did that (they won't), it would have more of a negative impact on the employees, then it would the company. Sales are down, you lay off people.


Boycott them, shop at other hobby stores. HL sees decrease in business and lays people off. Other hobby stores see increase and hire more people. I'm really tired of this "think of the minimum-wage slaves" argument when it comes to boycotting. Sure, as a minimum-wage slave myself, I empathize. But just how else is society supposed to show displeasure toward a company behaving badly? Send strongly-worded letters?
 
2012-12-29 09:51:35 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes," So: in principle, what's the difference? Give me a straight answer or STFU.

It's called "the law", or are you claiming that businesses are above the law?


Ah yes, "the law." Hmmmm... there are so many ways I could answer this.....

But I suggest you read a fun little book by a gentleman named Frederic Bastiat Link (pick your edition).

Ummm.... which law are we talking about, again? The Constitutional provision that Negros were to be counted as 3/5ths of a human being? Or was it the various laws that Negros could not own firearms? Or maybe the law that required Jews to sew yellow stars on their clothing? Or is it the current law that women cannot leave their homes without having an escort of a male relative? Or the one where a rape is considered the fault of the woman and the penalty is death by stoning?

The point is this: the above were/are all laws that were passed by lawful governing authority - i.e.: the legal government of the time and place concerned. So to re-ask your own question: It's called "the law", or are you claiming that people are above the law?

I'm really not evading answering your question, I'm trying to make this a learning experience. Please think about: what IS law; what is it's purpose? Who can legitimately make it? And beyond: what is government? What makes a government legitimate? How is a "legitimate" government different from a bandit warlord who exercises a monopoly of force over his domain, extracts supplies and provisions from the peasants in that area, impresses them into the gang, and protects them from the other warlords who want to do the same thing? (Warning, this is a trick question.)
 
2012-12-29 09:55:38 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Fascism is alive and well in America.

[i80.photobucket.com image 300x470]

Nice that the wingnuts are finally noticing.


That list needs a little work. Actually a lot of work. Unless, of course, it's vying for the Best Fiction of the Year award. Oh, and nice of you elevate it's dismal status by throwing in some ad hominem.
 
2012-12-29 09:57:52 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Yeah, and the science is always 100% right, right? There were a whole bunch of scientists in Nazi Germany who declared that Jews were subhuman and needed to be exterminated.

No, there were a bunch of crazy people. Are you really comparing American scientists to Nazis?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: No, but that corporation is closely held, maybe even by one person, and that group or individual is religious, it is a violation of their/his religious freedom to dictate (Seig Heil) that they must violate their religious principles in order to remain in business.

Again, no it isn't. Corporations don't get special rights because the owner "really" believes something. Sorry, it's just not part of US law.


Are you aware of the fact that individuals can become corporations? so... where would you draw the line? Also, under US law, corporations are considered to be individuals in most ways?
 
2012-12-29 10:10:05 AM

dr_blasto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion

No you're not, because it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says. And science says you're still wrong.

Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!

Sigh.

>>>>"...it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says." Yeah, and the science is always 100% right, right? There were a whole bunch of scientists in Nazi Germany who declared that Jews were subhuman and needed to be exterminated. There were a whole bunch of scientists in the Soviet Union who toed the Party line against Darwinian evolution, Virtually the whole Geological scientific establishment had to be dragged screaming into accepting plate tectonics. There are endless examples. Oh, you say the "science is settled"? Really? That's a profoundly unscientific statement. Science by it's very nature is never settled.

>>>>>"Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!"

No, but that corporation is closely held, maybe even by one person, and that group or individual is religious, it is a violation of their/his religious freedom to dictate (Seig Heil) that they must violate their religious principles in order to remain in business.

Fascism is alive and well in America. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! ......

Lol, what are you on? Fascism? Nazi scientists?

Your godwin got all over the wall and stained the carpet. I hope your happy.


LOL! The history of godwining is interesting. Yes, it's been used (correctly) when someone, for example, has gone full retard with "But Nazis" when having an argument over a chess game. But it's also often used incorrectly, as a rhetorical (i.e.: cowardly) deflection from having to respond to someone who has made a valid point (as in: "Ha ha! You mentioned Nazi's so you lose!".

This present case is of the 2nd sort.

>>>>Lol, what are you on? Fascism? Nazi scientists?

So... what exactly is your point? Do you disagree that the United States exhibits some characteristics of Fascism? Do you disagree that the Nazi's had scientists? What? Please be specific. Try not to commit an ad hominem.
 
2012-12-29 10:13:39 AM

Beavz0r: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
No, but that corporation is closely held, maybe even by one person, and that group or individual is religious, it is a violation of their/his religious freedom to dictate (Seig Heil) that they must violate their religious principles in order to remain in business.

Fascism is alive and well in America. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! ......

But on the flip-side, it's apparently perfectly acceptable for a business owner to be the one dictating.


Sigh.

Yes, particularly when he is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to work, and you are chained to the desk and cannot quit your job at any farking time.

Seriously, are you THAT context-challenged that you don't understand the difference between a LAW (enforced with guns) and a VOLUNTARY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP? Seriously?
 
2012-12-29 10:52:53 AM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Just pandering to those narrow-minded imbeciles that want to score some brownie points for heaven for their imaginary but insecure sky-wizard.  OH MY, GAWD doesn't like ABORTION or BIRTH CONTROL!  It sez right there in the BAHBULL!!!  Praise the LAWD!!!

Oh, and they just feel the rush of POWER they get for doing this. Doesn't matter how many lives of women they ruin with their little 'hobby' here.

Selfish, goddamn assholes. With money. Lots of goddamn money. Money that goddamn politicians just farkin' LOVE.


Hey, don't think all of us Christens are like these morons. That's just plain stupid.
 
2012-12-29 10:53:34 AM

WhoopAssWayne: Convenience abortions should be prosecuted as first degree murder.

Go ahead idiot liberals - open up this can of worms of pushing your beliefs on others through Obamacare and see what kind of a country we end up with. Because it won't take long for the ball to be in the other court, and I have a feeling the next republican president will make G W Bush look like Mahatma Gandhi, and then you dumbasses will really have something to cry about.


Just a troll, nothing to see here.
 
2012-12-29 11:01:07 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When the Nazis (National Socialists) took control in Germany they nationalized some industries,

Okay you have a valid comparison. What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

Sigh.

>>>>What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

Mention of nationalization was a context/history lesson, dumbass, as you (hopefully) well know (re-read my post). If you really don't, then rational discussion with you is hopeless.


Well then how can you compare us to the Nazis if you can't actually compare us to anything the Nazis have done? You could just as easily compare us to the UK, Germany or France. But then that wouldn't have gotten you as much attention, and anyway those countries do just fine (or better) with more industrial regulation than we have.
 
2012-12-29 11:11:48 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOL! The history of godwining is interesting. Yes, it's been used (correctly) when someone, for example, has gone full retard with "But Nazis" when having an argument over a chess game. But it's also often used incorrectly, as a rhetorical (i.e.: cowardly) deflection from having to respond to someone who has made a valid point (as in: "Ha ha! You mentioned Nazi's so you lose!".

This present case is of the 2nd sort.

>>>>Lol, what are you on? Fascism? Nazi scientists?

So... what exactly is your point? Do you disagree that the United States exhibits some characteristics of Fascism? Do you disagree that the Nazi's had scientists? What? Please be specific. Try not to commit an ad hominem.


Your hyperbole is overboard. If you think this is remotely close to Nazi-ism or Fascism, there's no point in discussing anything further. I don't think you really believe that, I've seen you write non-insane comments before.

Now, to the godwinning bit, you've resorted to comparing the actions to Nazis without providing any remotely plausible link. It is a specious argument on your part, similar to the crazy here:
i233.photobucket.com
It isn't an argument. You want to discuss this? Make an argument. Wanna scream at clouds? Carry on with the same tack you've been following so far.
 
2012-12-29 12:16:40 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes," So: in principle, what's the difference? Give me a straight answer or STFU.

It's called "the law", or are you claiming that businesses are above the law?

Ah yes, "the law." Hmmmm... there are so many ways I could answer this.....

But I suggest you read a fun little book by a gentleman named Frederic Bastiat Link (pick your edition).

Ummm.... which law are we talking about, again? The Constitutional provision that Negros were to be counted as 3/5ths of a human being? Or was it the various laws that Negros could not own firearms? Or maybe the law that required Jews to sew yellow stars on their clothing? Or is it the current law that women cannot leave their homes without having an escort of a male relative? Or the one where a rape is considered the fault of the woman and the penalty is death by stoning?


Roight, guv. Because all those things are just like requiring insurance to cover contraception.

Or how 'bout these gems: There are laws limiting pollution of the air, water and soil. Should businesses be above such laws because they're businesses?

I'm really not evading answering your question,

i112.photobucket.com

How is a "legitimate" government different from a bandit warlord who exercises a monopoly of force over his domain, extracts supplies and provisions from the peasants in that area, impresses them into the gang, and protects them from the other warlords who want to do the same thing? (Warning, this is a trick question.)

The consent of the governed, dumbass.

Now, if you're advocating an anarchist position, answer me this (you're probably going to dodge it, and claim while doing so that you're not dodging it, just like you did above, but what the hey): How do you expect to avoid the rise of "bandit warlords" in an anarchist society?
 
2012-12-29 01:31:32 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh.

Yes, particularly when he is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to work, and you are chained to the desk and cannot quit your job at any farking time.

Seriously, are you THAT context-challenged that you don't understand the difference between a LAW (enforced with guns) and a VOLUNTARY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP? Seriously?


Well by that logic, then no one is forcing the business owner to keep their business open (or even in the country for that matter). If you're going to continue to maintain that it's as easy as 1, 2, 3 for the average American to simply get up and find another job with health coverage options of equal or greater magnitude -- and in this economic climate, no less -- then there's no reason the business owner can't do the same.

At the end of the day, the employee is the one who feels the ramifications -- not the employer. Whether Hobby Lobby decides to provide the healthcare coverage or pay the fine, nothing will change in the daily lives of the company's owners. They can continue to not use contraceptives or not have abortions as before, and read their favorite scripture right before bed. It's the same smoke and mirrors argument they've always used against gay marriage -- there's this something that doesn't actually affect me, but I'm going to make damn sure I ruin it for all the people it impacts directly (because of MY religion).
 
2012-12-29 04:13:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When the Nazis (National Socialists) took control in Germany they nationalized some industries,

Okay you have a valid comparison. What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

Sigh.

>>>>What industries has Obama nationalized, again?

Mention of nationalization was a context/history lesson, dumbass, as you (hopefully) well know (re-read my post). If you really don't, then rational discussion with you is hopeless.

Well then how can you compare us to the Nazis if you can't actually compare us to anything the Nazis have done? You could just as easily compare us to the UK, Germany or France. But then that wouldn't have gotten you as much attention, and anyway those countries do just fine (or better) with more industrial regulation than we have.


Now I know your trolling. Or your reading comprehension and international affairs/economics knowledge is zip.

Or both.

Go away. Shoo.
 
2012-12-29 04:46:32 PM

dr_blasto: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LOL! The history of godwining is interesting. Yes, it's been used (correctly) when someone, for example, has gone full retard with "But Nazis" when having an argument over a chess game. But it's also often used incorrectly, as a rhetorical (i.e.: cowardly) deflection from having to respond to someone who has made a valid point (as in: "Ha ha! You mentioned Nazi's so you lose!".

This present case is of the 2nd sort.

>>>>Lol, what are you on? Fascism? Nazi scientists?

So... what exactly is your point? Do you disagree that the United States exhibits some characteristics of Fascism? Do you disagree that the Nazi's had scientists? What? Please be specific. Try not to commit an ad hominem.

Your hyperbole is overboard. If you think this is remotely close to Nazi-ism or Fascism, there's no point in discussing anything further. I don't think you really believe that, I've seen you write non-insane comments before.

Now, to the godwinning bit, you've resorted to comparing the actions to Nazis without providing any remotely plausible link. It is a specious argument on your part, similar to the crazy here:
[i233.photobucket.com image 450x337]
It isn't an argument. You want to discuss this? Make an argument. Wanna scream at clouds? Carry on with the same tack you've been following so far.


>>>>>you've resorted to comparing the actions to Nazis without providing any remotely plausible link.

Your reading comprehension and retention sucks. Remember I said; "So, in theory, there is no difference (except in degree) between the United States and Nazi Germany?"

Key words: except in degree.

Now for Real World Politics 101. Fascism, socialism and capitalism are primarily economic terms. They really don't have a lot to do with the system of government (democracy / authoritarian / totalitarian) except by accident. (The overlays of "nationalism", "racism" etc. that are used to describe fascism are mostly bullshiat - accidents of history that are not central to the core definition.)

Most everyone should be aware of the well-documented tendency of authoritarian and (particularly) totalitarian systems to closely regulate economic activity. But there are numerous examples in history of authoritarian systems (generally the old monarchies) which were fairly hands-off on economic activity. There are also examples of democratic systems that experiment with socialism (state ownership of capital property); Sweden is perhaps the best known example of this. Also, there are differing degrees (ranges) and mixes of fascism, socialism and what is laughingly known as free-market capitalism.

Most national economic systems are mixes of, generally, fascism and capitalism (the US system is essentially a dominant fascistic "corporate socialist" system layered on top of a still-vibrant small-business sector that is still largely free market, with some broad restrictions.

There are - and never have been - no "pure" systems. Even the Soviet Union allowed a small free market segment to operate in agriculture. I forget the exact numbers, but 10% or 15% of the land, privately owned, grew 80% of the food.

Defining characteristics.

Socialism: State owns the majority of the "means of production" (i.e.: capital goods production).

Fascism: State CONTROLS the majority of the "means of production" (i.e.: capital goods production) which generally remain in private hands.

(Note that Socialism and Fascism are closely related. Both are on the "economic control" end of the Economic Scale and (generally, with exceptions noted above) on the authoritarian/totalitarian end of the Liberty Scale. Fascism is, essentially, "Socialism Light.")

Capitalism: State activity is restricted to building/maintaining "commons" infrastructure, "defining the rules of the game," enforcing a level playing field, and protecting citizens from domestic and foreign aggression.

The U.S. has NEVER been a capitalist system. It started out, perhaps, 95% free market (consider things like the Whiskey Rebellion), but has gradually over the decades adopted greater and greater fascistic methods of organizing economic activity (this is a normal progression of any culture).
 
2012-12-29 05:08:48 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes," So: in principle, what's the difference? Give me a straight answer or STFU.

It's called "the law", or are you claiming that businesses are above the law?

Ah yes, "the law." Hmmmm... there are so many ways I could answer this.....

But I suggest you read a fun little book by a gentleman named Frederic Bastiat Link (pick your edition).

Ummm.... which law are we talking about, again? The Constitutional provision that Negros were to be counted as 3/5ths of a human being? Or was it the various laws that Negros could not own firearms? Or maybe the law that required Jews to sew yellow stars on their clothing? Or is it the current law that women cannot leave their homes without having an escort of a male relative? Or the one where a rape is considered the fault of the woman and the penalty is death by stoning?

Roight, guv. Because all those things are just like requiring insurance to cover contraception.

Or how 'bout these gems: There are laws limiting pollution of the air, water and soil. Should businesses be above such laws because they're businesses?

I'm really not evading answering your question,

[i112.photobucket.com image 180x180]

How is a "legitimate" government different from a bandit warlord who exercises a monopoly of force over his domain, extracts supplies and provisions from the peasants in that area, impresses them into the gang, and protects them from the other warlords who want to do the same thing? (Warning, this is a trick question.)

The consent of the governed, dumbass.

Now, if you're advocating an anarchist position, answer me this (you're probably going to dodge it, and claim while doing so that you're not dodging it, just like you did above, but what the hey): How do you expect to avoid the rise of "bandit warlords" in an anarchist society?


>>>>>Roight, guv. Because all those things are just like requiring insurance to cover contraception.

They are just the same in the fact that they are LAWS. Whether they are just or unjust laws - why THAT'S what we are discussing, isn't it? You are ASSUMING that the law requiring insurance to cover contraception is just. Logical fallacy.

>>>>>Or how 'bout these gems: There are laws limiting pollution of the air, water and soil. Should businesses be above such laws because they're businesses?

Air, water and soil are "commons" items that the government SHOULD have been holding businesses accountable for polluting from the very start. But - as I pointed out in another post in this thread - the U.S. has had a peculiar form of private property violation I call "corporate socialism" for most of it's life. Private profit combined with public cost. A true free enterprise system would have privatized those costs. (This is one area where the U.S. is moving towards private property rights - the private property rights of the citizens who have to breath and use the polluted air, water and soil.) This, IMHO, is right and proper.

>>>>>[i112.photobucket.com image 180x180]

Whups! more ad hominem. Bad habit there. People might not take you seriously.

I said: How is a "legitimate" government different from a bandit warlord who exercises a monopoly of force over his domain, extracts supplies and provisions from the peasants in that area, impresses them into the gang, and protects them from the other warlords who want to do the same thing? (Warning, this is a trick question.)

>>>>>The consent of the governed, dumbass.

Hmmm.... consent? As in.... democracy? As in.... majority rule? (Careful, now!)

>>>>>Now, if you're advocating an anarchist position, answer me this (you're probably going to dodge it, and claim while doing so that you're not dodging it, just like you did above, but what the hey): How do you expect to avoid the rise of "bandit warlords" in an anarchist society?

I'm not an anarchist. As a stable system, it is an impossibility, just like communism. Neither has ever or ever will exist for longer than a couple of months, or perhaps years. You are correct: since it only takes one side to create a war/slaughter, there would be nothing to prevent the rise of bandit warlords.
 
2012-12-29 05:09:14 PM

Uniquely Common: wait, what's wrong with being in your 30s and still enjoying video games? :-(


Or your 60's?

/keeps me off the streets, a good thing
 
2012-12-29 05:19:09 PM

TanHamster: cameroncrazy1984: TanHamster: That's too bad, because this site was awesome.

Well, bye.

hey, douchebag, by any chance do you play a lot of video games? not married? no kids? still live in an apartment? in your 30s?

i'm all for ad hominem attacks, because it greatly simplifies the process of arguing with some 35 yr old who plays call of duty, and still thinks he knows jack shiat about being an adult


Lol, you think people are using ad hominem attacks against you.
 
2012-12-29 05:21:36 PM

Beavz0r: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh.

Yes, particularly when he is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to work, and you are chained to the desk and cannot quit your job at any farking time.

Seriously, are you THAT context-challenged that you don't understand the difference between a LAW (enforced with guns) and a VOLUNTARY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP? Seriously?

Well by that logic, then no one is forcing the business owner to keep their business open (or even in the country for that matter). If you're going to continue to maintain that it's as easy as 1, 2, 3 for the average American to simply get up and find another job with health coverage options of equal or greater magnitude -- and in this economic climate, no less -- then there's no reason the business owner can't do the same.

At the end of the day, the employee is the one who feels the ramifications -- not the employer. Whether Hobby Lobby decides to provide the healthcare coverage or pay the fine, nothing will change in the daily lives of the company's owners. They can continue to not use contraceptives or not have abortions as before, and read their favorite scripture right before bed. It's the same smoke and mirrors argument they've always used against gay marriage -- there's this something that doesn't actually affect me, but I'm going to make damn sure I ruin it for all the people it impacts directly (because of MY religion).


>>>>>Well by that logic, then no one is forcing the business owner to keep their business open (or even in the country for that matter).

Yeah, and the Jews should have left Europe in 1925.

Actually, the Unintended Consequence of this may be that the owner will say "fark it" and end all insurance for his employees. I'm sure, in this economy, that he can find new ones when/if the old ones quit or get fired. Perhaps we need another law preventing that. Maybe something like a federal Jobs Equalization Board that all employers must petition if they want to fire an employee or want to change the compensation or benefits of their employees. Yeah, that's the ticket.

>>>At the end of the day, the employee is the one who feels the ramifications -- not the employer. Whether Hobby Lobby decides to provide the healthcare coverage or pay the fine, nothing will change in the daily lives of the company's owners. They can continue to not use contraceptives or not have abortions as before, and read their favorite scripture right before bed. It's the same smoke and mirrors argument they've always used against gay marriage -- there's this something that doesn't actually affect me, but I'm going to make damn sure I ruin it for all the people it impacts directly (because of MY religion).

The point is is that it is THEIR religion, and YOU sh