Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Raw Story)   George Takei: What if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims imposing Sharia law on workers?   (rawstory.com) divider line 537
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

3651 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2014 at 2:09 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-02 10:15:56 AM  
My bet is that this will get revisited soon - probably someone invoking religious rights to not hire women.
 
2014-07-02 10:17:28 AM  
Then SCOTUS would reject it because Jesus.
 
2014-07-02 10:18:06 AM  
The funniest spoof of this (at least conceptually) was that piece that talked about the Supreme Court ruling upholding Little Ceasar's  right to feed its Christian employees to the lions.
 
2014-07-02 10:19:16 AM  
Once again, a perfect example of why picking and choosing faith-based winners and losers vis-a-vis the legal system only leads to double standards and a platform of hypocrisy.

which is exactly why the framers left religion out of government entirely.
 
2014-07-02 10:26:07 AM  
This is exactly why we need laws in this country that explicitly make Sharia Law illegal.

CHECKMATE, LIBS
 
2014-07-02 10:32:24 AM  
Anyone happen to have a list handy of all the things that are not halal?
 
2014-07-02 10:32:50 AM  
Yes, but think of the many ways to accessorize and kick up that drab old Hijab!
 
2014-07-02 10:33:36 AM  
What if Hobby Lobby wasn't imposing any  religious law  on workers?
 
2014-07-02 10:36:27 AM  
Waste of time to talk about it.  Have to wait for someone to actually do it.
 
2014-07-02 10:38:48 AM  
Poor George will probably end up pregnant now.
 
2014-07-02 10:40:40 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: What if Hobby Lobby wasn't imposing any  religious law  on workers?


Oh, this is gonna be a good one today.

*grabs popcorn*
 
2014-07-02 10:48:44 AM  
George Takei is an Islamophobe
 
2014-07-02 10:48:48 AM  
I really like George Takei.  Been a fan of TOS since a wee lad, but he's just plain *WRONG* here.

Hobby Lobby isn't imposing anything upon its workers.  They just don't want to have to pay for things they find personally abhorrent.  Maybe they are right about the issue, and maybe they are wrong, but they aren't forcing their workers to do anything.  They were the ones being forced to do something they claim was against their religious beliefs.

This would be more akin to a government regulation requiring a halal butcher or orthodox Jewish delicatessen to sell bacon.  Maybe some of their customers would want it, maybe not, but they shouldn't have to do it if it violates a tenet of their religion, and no government that has a "wall between church and state" would force them to do so.

Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.  Just the 4 methods they consider to be akin to abortion (morning after pills and IUDs that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg).  They didn't object to paying for conventional birth control pills, barrier methods, condoms, or hormone implants.

So please, can we actually have a sensible conversation about this without hyperbolic homosexual spacemen?
 
2014-07-02 10:54:34 AM  

dittybopper: Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.


Just so you know, this really hasn't been missed.  I've seen it a LOT, and I'm not paying an unusual amount of attention.
 
2014-07-02 10:55:12 AM  

dittybopper: Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.


It's not "often missed," because someone brings it up in every thread. It's just irrelevant.
 
2014-07-02 10:57:56 AM  

Relatively Obscure: dittybopper: Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.

Just so you know, this really hasn't been missed.  I've seen it a LOT, and I'm not paying an unusual amount of attention.


Muslims are allowed to eat 80% of animals, just not pork. Same diff, yeah?
 
2014-07-02 10:59:57 AM  

dittybopper: I really like George Takei.  Been a fan of TOS since a wee lad, but he's just plain *WRONG* here.

Hobby Lobby isn't imposing anything upon its workers.  They just don't want to have to pay for things they find personally abhorrent.  Maybe they are right about the issue, and maybe they are wrong, but they aren't forcing their workers to do anything.  They were the ones being forced to do something they claim was against their religious beliefs.

This would be more akin to a government regulation requiring a halal butcher or orthodox Jewish delicatessen to sell bacon.  Maybe some of their customers would want it, maybe not, but they shouldn't have to do it if it violates a tenet of their religion, and no government that has a "wall between church and state" would force them to do so.

Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.  Just the 4 methods they consider to be akin to abortion (morning after pills and IUDs that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg).  They didn't object to paying for conventional birth control pills, barrier methods, condoms, or hormone implants.

So please, can we actually have a sensible conversation about this without hyperbolic homosexual spacemen?


Absolutely incorrect.

You miss the biggest part of the issue here. Hobby Lobby is  not a single person who is being forced to do something. Hobby Lobby is a corporation, a legal fiction created by the government to allow businesses to reduce liability. Therefore, a more  accurate example would be a government law that forces  all corporate grocery stores with more than 50 employees to sell pork products, and does not single out anyone.

Becoming a corporation opens you to laws of general application that may conflict with your personal religious beliefs. But that's how society works. Being part of society may occasionally cause you to conflict with the government. The Supreme Court has held before that the Amish may not refuse to pay taxes, even though it conflicts with their religion. Similarly, Jews are at a disadvantage in places with blue laws that keep businesses closed on Sunday, because by their religion, they  also have to close on Saturday. Yet they do not get any special exception, because part of going into business is compromising your religious faith with your secular business. A fundamentalist reading of  Christianity has a requirement that women be subservient to men (1 Timothy 2:11-12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet"), but it would be absurd to say that a corporation should be allowed to get an exception to Title VII allowing it to deny manager positions to women, simply because of the deeply-held religious beliefs of its CEO.
 
2014-07-02 11:00:27 AM  

dittybopper: I really like George Takei.  Been a fan of TOS since a wee lad, but he's just plain *WRONG* here.

Hobby Lobby isn't imposing anything upon its workers.  They just don't want to have to pay for things they find personally abhorrent.  Maybe they are right about the issue, and maybe they are wrong, but they aren't forcing their workers to do anything.  They were the ones being forced to do something they claim was against their religious beliefs.

This would be more akin to a government regulation requiring a halal butcher or orthodox Jewish delicatessen to sell bacon.  Maybe some of their customers would want it, maybe not, but they shouldn't have to do it if it violates a tenet of their religion, and no government that has a "wall between church and state" would force them to do so.

Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.  Just the 4 methods they consider to be akin to abortion (morning after pills and IUDs that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg).  They didn't object to paying for conventional birth control pills, barrier methods, condoms, or hormone implants.

So please, can we actually have a sensible conversation about this without hyperbolic homosexual spacemen?


I would have much more sympathy for their argument if they were not set up as a corporation.  Yes, they are a closely held corporation and not a publicly traded corporation.  But they have elected a corporate form sanctioned by the state that allows them certain protections.  In exchange, they are supposed to accept certain regulation, which should include certain obligations mandated by government.  If they had been formed as a partnership, forgoing the protections provided by the corporate form, I'd probably side with them, or at least give them more of the benefit of the doubt.  The corporate form was supposed to be a give-and-take entity.  It has become merely a take entity.
 
2014-07-02 11:01:00 AM  

kronicfeld: dittybopper: Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.

It's not "often missed," because someone brings it up in every thread. It's just irrelevant.


Especially because Hobby Lobby's owners ignore the science on the issue and just say "Well,  my interpretation of Christianity says this is already a fertile egg, but I don't trust those scientists who say it's not, so  my interpretation should win."
 
2014-07-02 11:02:51 AM  

unlikely: My bet is that this will get revisited soon - probably someone invoking religious rights to not hire women.


John Fugelsang suggested on twitter that Rastafarians should try using this ruling to THEIR advantage,
 
2014-07-02 11:04:01 AM  
I think if we all pound the keyboards hard enough, the Court will reverse itself. Especially with well-reasoned amicus arguments provided by minor celebrities.
 
2014-07-02 11:04:19 AM  

One Bad Apple: George Takei is an Islamophobe


Well, he's gay.  Some Islamic countries still carry the death penalty for homosexual activity.

Then again, some still have the death penalty for being a Christian, too.
 
2014-07-02 11:07:07 AM  
Nice try libtardo.

Islam isn't a religion, it's a political movement.

Chessmate! King Me!11!
 
2014-07-02 11:08:52 AM  

Nabb1: I think if we all pound the keyboards hard enough, the Court will reverse itself. Especially with well-reasoned amicus arguments provided by minor celebrities.


Yes, we should never criticize the Court. All hail to  stare decisis and Congressional refusal to ever deal with Court decisions!
 
2014-07-02 11:10:23 AM  

SilentStrider: unlikely: My bet is that this will get revisited soon - probably someone invoking religious rights to not hire women.

John Fugelsang suggested on twitter that Rastafarians should try using this ruling to THEIR advantage,


Probably won't get the decision they want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
 
2014-07-02 11:12:37 AM  

dittybopper: They just don't want to have to pay for things they find personally abhorrent.


Unless it's in a 401(k) fund, or covered by health insurance before Obamacare.

Their "objection" is opportunistic, petty, hypocritical, and wrong-headed, and yesterday's ruling was complete garbage crafted by conservative Catholic justices who conveniently broadened the ruling to apply to all objections regarding birth control while limiting it from any objections outside of birth control.

It's part of worker compensation. If an employee takes the money they've earned and pays for an abortion, the company is no more or less complacent than paying for a health insurance policy.
 
2014-07-02 11:13:57 AM  

Rincewind53: kronicfeld: dittybopper: Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.

It's not "often missed," because someone brings it up in every thread. It's just irrelevant.

Especially because Hobby Lobby's owners ignore the science on the issue and just say "Well,  my interpretation of Christianity says this is already a fertile egg, but I don't trust those scientists who say it's not, so  my interpretation should win."


They're arguing their religious beliefs.  The science, in this case, is largely irrelevant, even though you and I and every reproductive specialist agree that their beliefs are wrong.

They have the right to hold incorrect religious beliefs, and neither you nor I have the right to force them to do something that is against their incorrect religious beliefs if there are adequate alternatives, which in this case, there are.
 
2014-07-02 11:14:59 AM  
dittybopper:  This would be more akin to a government regulation requiring a halal butcher or orthodox Jewish delicatessen to sell bacon.  Maybe some of their customers would want it, maybe not, but they shouldn't have to do it if it violates a tenet of their religion, and no government that has a "wall between church and state" would force them to do so.


That would be a more apt comparison if Hobby Lobby was made to sell IUDs.

If the employees of said places wished to partake of bacon, they're free to do so.

If the employer was forced to buy bacon for their employees, I could see that as an appropriate comparison as well, but unless bacon becomes part of the ACA (and, really, it should), then that's not likely to be a scenario we bump into.

Ruth Badger-Ginsberg's arguments against were more in line with what a comparative argument should be.

Will it stay limited to these particular methods of birth control?  One would hope that that would be the case, but do we know that it will be?  Does this ruling give Hobby Lobby the mandate to pick and choose which things they will cover?  God intended for this to happen to you, therefore we're not going to pay for it to be fixed.  I'm not saying the "owners" of Hobby Lobby would do that, but could they?
 
2014-07-02 11:17:09 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: SilentStrider: unlikely: My bet is that this will get revisited soon - probably someone invoking religious rights to not hire women.

John Fugelsang suggested on twitter that Rastafarians should try using this ruling to THEIR advantage,

Probably won't get the decision they want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith


You missed everything that followed that. Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (which was the reason for Monday's decision) in response to  Employment Division v. Smith.This was a direct rebuke of the Court's decision, and made it easier for people to claim religious exemptions. Since then in 2006 the Supreme Court has affirmed that the government has to give an exception to people who use peyote and other Native American drugs for religious ceremonies (seeGonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal).

So yes, right now, people in the U.S. are using peyote 100% legally, even though it's a Schedule 1 controlled substance.
 
2014-07-02 11:17:50 AM  

dittybopper: neither you nor I have the right to force them to do something that is against their incorrect religious beliefs


So if their incorrect religious belief said that wages above $1/hour were wrong, we'd have no right to force them to pay a minimum wage then?
 
2014-07-02 11:18:57 AM  

Rincewind53: Nabb1: I think if we all pound the keyboards hard enough, the Court will reverse itself. Especially with well-reasoned amicus arguments provided by minor celebrities.

Yes, we should never criticize the Court. All hail to  stare decisis and Congressional refusal to ever deal with Court decisions!


Oh, no, criticize all you want. But not all criticisms are equal in substance or in persuasiveness. Just having an opinion and internet access doesn't make someone a Constitutional law scholar. I may have Tang in my pantry, but that doesn't make me a farking astronaut. I like George Takei, follow him on Facebook, admire what he has done to raise awareness on a number of issues. But this is kind of derpy.
 
2014-07-02 11:19:04 AM  

kronicfeld: dittybopper: Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.

It's not "often missed," because someone brings it up in every thread. It's just irrelevant.


Especially because other companies did object to  all contraceptive methods.
 
2014-07-02 11:20:16 AM  

Bloody William: dittybopper: They just don't want to have to pay for things they find personally abhorrent.

Unless it's in a 401(k) fund, or covered by health insurance before Obamacare.

Their "objection" is opportunistic, petty, hypocritical, and wrong-headed, and yesterday's ruling was complete garbage crafted by conservative Catholic justices who conveniently broadened the ruling to apply to all objections regarding birth control while limiting it from any objections outside of birth control.

It's part of worker compensation. If an employee takes the money they've earned and pays for an abortion, the company is no more or less complacent than paying for a health insurance policy.


Company doesn't have the right to control what an employee does with the money *AFTER* they've paid the employee.  That money has changed hands already.

They do have the right to object to directly paying for benefits that they find personally abhorrent.  There isn't an intermediary step there.  They can't claim a moral distance from the act.
 
2014-07-02 11:21:14 AM  

dittybopper: They have the right to hold incorrect religious beliefs, and neither you nor I have the right to force them to do something that is against their incorrect religious beliefs if there are adequate alternatives, which in this case, there are.


I have absolutely no doubt that there will be ear-shredding outrage as soon as Obama, seeing no action from Congress to implement those adequate alternatives, does so himself through executive order.

This isn't about religion. This isn't about faith. It's about control, pure and simple. They didn't care the insurance policies they voluntarily paid for included birth control. They don't care that their 401(k) funds pay for birth control. They only started caring when Obamacare made what they were doing optionally, mandatory.
 
2014-07-02 11:22:59 AM  

dittybopper: Company doesn't have the right to control what an employee does with the money *AFTER* they've paid the employee.  That money has changed hands already.


That money has changed hands to the insurance company already, along with the employee's own money as their contribution to the premium.  It is part of the employee's compensation, and out of the employer's hands as soon as the contract is signed and the check is cut. The option to use that compensation for birth control as part of an insurance package is no different than the option to use that compensation for birth control as hard cash.
 
2014-07-02 11:24:03 AM  

gamergirl23: kronicfeld: dittybopper: Often missed in the conversation is that they didn't object to paying for 80% of the contraceptive methods they were required under ACA to cover.

It's not "often missed," because someone brings it up in every thread. It's just irrelevant.

Especially because other companies did object to  all contraceptive methods.


And because the ruling is "limited" (broadened) just enough to apply to all contraceptive methods if challenged in future cases. Again, convenient since it was written by conservative Catholic Supreme Court justices who fundamentally oppose birth control.
 
2014-07-02 11:24:54 AM  
Wait...what is Sharia Law's position on 16/20 birth control methods being provided by the health insurance being provided by the company for their employees?
 
2014-07-02 11:29:16 AM  

dittybopper: They can't claim a moral distance from the act.


Sure they can, for the same reason they can claim a moral distance from what their employees spend their money on. It's up to the employee whether the employee gets the insurance company to pay for its health coverage. Hobby Lobby pays the same amount in premiums whether the employee gets 1,000 IUDs or 0 IUDs.
 
2014-07-02 11:30:02 AM  

dittybopper: Bloody William: dittybopper: They just don't want to have to pay for things they find personally abhorrent.

Unless it's in a 401(k) fund, or covered by health insurance before Obamacare.

Their "objection" is opportunistic, petty, hypocritical, and wrong-headed, and yesterday's ruling was complete garbage crafted by conservative Catholic justices who conveniently broadened the ruling to apply to all objections regarding birth control while limiting it from any objections outside of birth control.

It's part of worker compensation. If an employee takes the money they've earned and pays for an abortion, the company is no more or less complacent than paying for a health insurance policy.

Company doesn't have the right to control what an employee does with the money *AFTER* they've paid the employee.  That money has changed hands already.

They do have the right to object to directly paying for benefits that they find personally abhorrent.  There isn't an intermediary step there.  They can't claim a moral distance from the act.


So it's OK if I spend my paycheck on hookers and blow, but not if the company pays for it directly. That explains a lot of rejected expense account items I was planning to resubmit. Thanks.
 
2014-07-02 11:31:31 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Will it stay limited to these particular methods of birth control?  One would hope that that would be the case, but do we know that it will be?  Does this ruling give Hobby Lobby the mandate to pick and choose which things they will cover?  God intended for this to happen to you, therefore we're not going to pay for it to be fixed.  I'm not saying the "owners" of Hobby Lobby would do that, but could they?


See, this is exactly the kind of problem that ACA causes.

Prior to ACA, Hobby Lobby could choose coverage plans that suited the ideology of their owners.  If an employee didn't like the coverage offered, they weren't completely without options:  They could look for a different employer, or get their own insurance, or just self-cover if they wanted the birth control that Hobby Lobby didn't offer in their plan.

Probably 99.9% of their employees were fine with it.  Those that weren't would have almost certainly sought out alternatives.  I mean, when the company work for opens the store you work at every day with a prayer, if you aren't at least somewhat in line with their belief system, you're going to look for alternative employment pretty quickly.

Personally, I know that I couldn't work at a place like that for very long.  It would bug the livin' dogshiat out of me.  I'd be droppin' resumes and doing interviews at other companies on my days off.

If you don't like their philosophy, though, you don't have to work there, and you don't have to shop there either.
 
2014-07-02 11:31:37 AM  

kronicfeld: dittybopper: They can't claim a moral distance from the act.

Sure they can, for the same reason they can claim a moral distance from what their employees spend their money on. It's up to the employee whether the employee gets the insurance company to pay for its health coverage. Hobby Lobby pays the same amount in premiums whether the employee gets 1,000 IUDs or 0 IUDs.


As soon as it becomes the employee's choice as part of their compensation, the moral distance is there. The employee at that point can say "I choose to use this compensation for birth control," or "I choose not to use this compensation for birth control." Why is it right for the employer to have any say of the employee's choice at that point?
 
2014-07-02 11:32:33 AM  

dittybopper: Prior to ACA, Hobby Lobby could choose coverage plans that suited the ideology of their owners.


Of course... they didn't. The coverage plans they CHOSE included the coverage they find abhorrent. It didn't matter to them until Obamacare.

It's hypocritical, opportunistic, and thoroughly wrong-headed. It is un-Christian.
 
2014-07-02 11:32:42 AM  

dittybopper: They do have the right to object to directly paying for benefits that they find personally abhorrent


It's not like the boss receives an itemized bill.

$200 for birth control pills for that whore in Logistics
 
2014-07-02 11:33:51 AM  
I love how we're still discussing this as if the fact that your health care is tied to your employment is at all a rational system
 
2014-07-02 11:36:13 AM  

dittybopper: Company doesn't have the right to control what an employee does with the money *AFTER* they've paid the employee.  That money has changed hands already.

They do have the right to object to directly paying for benefits that they find personally abhorrent.  There isn't an intermediary step there.  They can't claim a moral distance from the act.


There  is an intermediate step.

Here's how an employee buys an IUD with her paycheck.
1. Company cuts a check to the employee
2. Employee decides to get an IUD
3. Employee uses money earned from company to buy IUD

Here's how an employee buys an IUD with her insurance
1. Company cuts a check to the insurance
2. Employee decides to get an IUD
3. Employee uses money from the insurance company to buy IUD.

In both situations, the key secondary factor is the employee's decision about how to use a resource given to her by the company she works for. Insurance and paychecks both involve a company providing financial resources for the employee to use as she wants. In both examples, the company's connection to the purchase of the IUD finishes at step One.
 
2014-07-02 11:38:23 AM  

Bloody William: kronicfeld: dittybopper: They can't claim a moral distance from the act.

Sure they can, for the same reason they can claim a moral distance from what their employees spend their money on. It's up to the employee whether the employee gets the insurance company to pay for its health coverage. Hobby Lobby pays the same amount in premiums whether the employee gets 1,000 IUDs or 0 IUDs.

As soon as it becomes the employee's choice as part of their compensation, the moral distance is there. The employee at that point can say "I choose to use this compensation for birth control," or "I choose not to use this compensation for birth control." Why is it right for the employer to have any say of the employee's choice at that point?


Technically, the employer is choosing what insurance will be the compensation provided.  And this compensation is more like a discretionary bonus (or was prior to ACA) as it was something that could be discontinued or altered at any time by the employer.  Every year our insurance coverage is different...based on the choice of the employer...usually due to price, but I'm sure it would have been fine prior to the ACA for them to say..."Not the one that murders unborn babies.  Maybe the one that gives us the blue pill though."  It was a discretionary compensation...over and above the negotiated salary.
 
2014-07-02 11:39:06 AM  
Look, I'd like to stay in this thread to debate the ins and outs of the Hobby Lobby decision, but I've been neglecting the Godzilla thread.  Sorry.
 
2014-07-02 11:39:53 AM  

dittybopper: Look, I'd like to stay in this thread to debate the ins and outs of the Hobby Lobby decision, but I've been neglecting the Godzilla thread. Sorry.


Oh no! You say you've got to go?!? Godzilla??
 
2014-07-02 11:42:40 AM  
What about that woman that Limbaugh called a slut, who actually needed it for medicinal purposes?
 
2014-07-02 11:43:08 AM  

BunkoSquad: dittybopper: Look, I'd like to stay in this thread to debate the ins and outs of the Hobby Lobby decision, but I've been neglecting the Godzilla thread. Sorry.

Oh no! You say you've got to go?!? Godzilla??


Ohhhhhhohhhhhhh....there goes Hobby Lobby-o!
 
Displayed 50 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report