• Images
  • Text
  • Find a Couple + Registry
GO
Chit Chat

NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

15791011

Re: NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

  • VulgarGirlVulgarGirl Desert Oasis member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    chibiyui said:
    Hobby Lobby paying decent hourly wage does not excuse nor make their decision not to cover those 4 types of contraception any better.
    Not at all, but it does explain why HL employees would be keeping their mouths shut for fear of loosing a job that pays decently well. I know I would be.
    image
    image

    KeptInStitches
  • holyguacamole79holyguacamole79 a taco truck in Houston member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    daria24 said:
    lyndausvi said:
    chibiyui, this is an honest question.  I haven't seen anyone working for Hobby Lobby making any protests regarding the decisions.  Have you?  And it's not like they no longer offer that coverage; it was never available.  I am just curious what the people who work at Hobby Lobby think, because I haven't heard anything.
    I've only been to HL once in Indianapolis.   I would say more than 50% of the staff were near or over child bearing age.   It could well be a non-issue personally so many of them might not publicly protesting for fear of retaliation.    

    Supposedly HL's wages are on the high end for retailers.  Not sure if that is true, but it would be enough incentive for some people to keep their mouths shut.

    The only time I ever went into one, nearly all the employees were Mennonite. Not exactly the demographic crying out for a Mirena.

    How did you know they were Mennonite?
  • ashley8918ashley8918 Chicago Suburbs member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    chibiyui said:
    Hobby Lobby paying decent hourly wage does not excuse nor make their decision not to cover those 4 types of contraception any better.
    AMEN.

    People are blowing Facebook up with this "but, they are a great company to work for!" shit. Look, that's awesome that they pay well, but this is still a steaming pile of shit
    chibiyui
  • daria24 said:
    lyndausvi said:
    chibiyui, this is an honest question.  I haven't seen anyone working for Hobby Lobby making any protests regarding the decisions.  Have you?  And it's not like they no longer offer that coverage; it was never available.  I am just curious what the people who work at Hobby Lobby think, because I haven't heard anything.
    I've only been to HL once in Indianapolis.   I would say more than 50% of the staff were near or over child bearing age.   It could well be a non-issue personally so many of them might not publicly protesting for fear of retaliation.    

    Supposedly HL's wages are on the high end for retailers.  Not sure if that is true, but it would be enough incentive for some people to keep their mouths shut.

    The only time I ever went into one, nearly all the employees were Mennonite. Not exactly the demographic crying out for a Mirena.

    How did you know they were Mennonite?

    I grew up in Central PA, where our Mennonites dress in a very particular way. 
    image
    chibiyui
  • chibiyuichibiyui The Boring Part of MD member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary 5 Answers
    MagicInk said:


    chibiyui said:

    Hobby Lobby paying decent hourly wage does not excuse nor make their decision not to cover those 4 types of contraception any better.

    Not at all, but it does explain why HL employees would be keeping their mouths shut for fear of loosing a job that pays decently well. I know I would be.

    Oh yes, especially if they live in a work at will state.

    I just wanted to head off any justification that a higher wage somehow makes this okay.
    image



    Anniversary
    VulgarGirl
  • daria24 said:
    daria24 said:
    lyndausvi said:
    chibiyui, this is an honest question.  I haven't seen anyone working for Hobby Lobby making any protests regarding the decisions.  Have you?  And it's not like they no longer offer that coverage; it was never available.  I am just curious what the people who work at Hobby Lobby think, because I haven't heard anything.
    I've only been to HL once in Indianapolis.   I would say more than 50% of the staff were near or over child bearing age.   It could well be a non-issue personally so many of them might not publicly protesting for fear of retaliation.    

    Supposedly HL's wages are on the high end for retailers.  Not sure if that is true, but it would be enough incentive for some people to keep their mouths shut.

    The only time I ever went into one, nearly all the employees were Mennonite. Not exactly the demographic crying out for a Mirena.

    How did you know they were Mennonite?

    I grew up in Central PA, where our Mennonites dress in a very particular way. 
    Me too.  You may not notice with the men all of the time because I have seen some that dress the same way as a lot of the farmers in our area dress.  However, with the majority of the women you absolutely can tell.  They dress very similarly to the Amish.  
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    chibiyui said:
    Hobby Lobby paying decent hourly wage does not excuse nor make their decision not to cover those 4 types of contraception any better.


    *** SITB ***

    The question was has anyone heard what the HL employees are saying.   I was just saying that with a higher pay rate and fear of retaliation might be a reason why we haven't heard much.   The comment was not an excuse for HL's actions.






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • chibiyuichibiyui The Boring Part of MD member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary 5 Answers
    lyndausvi said:


    chibiyui said:

    Hobby Lobby paying decent hourly wage does not excuse nor make their decision not to cover those 4 types of contraception any better.


    *** SITB ***

    The question was has anyone heard what the HL employees are saying.   I was just saying that with a higher pay rate and fear of retaliation might be a reason why we haven't heard much.   The comment was not an excuse for HL's actions.



    I didn't think you were trying to justify it and am sorry if you thought that was what I was implying.
    image



    Anniversary
  • I'm a little late to the debate, but I wanted to read the opinion first and think things over. I think this part of the dissent sums everything up accurately. And by the way, the dissent quoted this from an earlier SCOTUS decision....

    "'When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice,” the Court observed, “the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.'"

    JCbride2015ashley8918rajahmd
  • HeatherKatHeatherKat the Frozen Tundra member
    Ninth Anniversary 500 Love Its 100 Comments Name Dropper
    Amor vincet omnia.... par liones.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker

    image
    chibiyui
  • JCbride2015JCbride2015 Dirty Jerz member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its Second Anniversary First Answer
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image

    "I'm not a rude bitch.  I'm ten rude bitches in a large coat."

    chibiyui
  • ViczaesarViczaesar Central Coast, CA member
    Ninth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer
    chibiyui said:
    kat1114 said:
    Ugh, apparently religious freedom no longer means the right to practice your own religion, but rather the right to discriminate against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.
    America, land of the free!

    As long as your White, male, straight, and Christian, otherwise, fuck off.
    FTFY.



  • JennyColadaJennyColada Awesometown, CA member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary First Answer
    Someone on page 1 said something about "I don't know why a business would give a shit about this", and I have the same opinion on that matter as I do about my employees who create drama in the workplace: If you have enough time to worry about stupid shit like this then you obviously aren't working hard enough.
  • Well, that didn't take long, did it?
    image
  • I don't work for HL, but at the company I do work for posting negative things about the company on social media is a fireable offense. I'd keep my mouth shut too.
    Daisypath Anniversary tickers
    ashley8918Liatris2010
  • mellyD2014mellyD2014 member
    100 Comments 100 Love Its Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited July 2014
    Honest question ... a lot of people bring up the hypothetical about JW's and blood transfusions, and I haven't heard anything regarding JW's speaking out regarding this. Has anyone else?
    I haven't heard of them indicating it is something they would pursue, but now that the door is open they certainly could. There are a lot fewer JWs than other kinds of Christian, so it might not affect many businesses, but it does beg the question. Also, now that this is a thing, how many corporations suddenly find religion? How do we decide what is a sincerely held religious belief compared to an insincere one?
    As per your last line - there is already legal precedent that bars the government from determining that religious convictions are sincere. They're simply not allowed to do it. If a person/company claims their beliefs are sincere, it is illegal to even look at questioning that. So, we don't get to decide what is a sincerely held belief :-\

    Edited because words are hard today.
  • SBminiSBmini member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    I had a thought last night that really made me struggle with this decision.

    So yesterday, Target asked people to not take guns into their stores. My first thought was- Target as an organization has every right to request that people not pack while they shop. And I had no issue with Target issuing this request. But it brought me back to this Supreme Court decision. If Target has a right to deny access to people with guns on their persons, then why does Hobby Lobby not have a right to restrict access to a certain type of medication? Both are based on belief that by issuing this restriction they will save lives. Now, guns are more visible and more scary to people in a store vs a medication choice that is a personal decision not brandished on your hip. But where is this line? Why is it OK for Target to say no guns, but not OK for Hobby Lobby to say no BC coverage? Please just help me wrestle with this moral dilemma. 
    image
  • ashley8918ashley8918 Chicago Suburbs member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    edited July 2014
    SBmini said:
    I had a thought last night that really made me struggle with this decision.

    So yesterday, Target asked people to not take guns into their stores. My first thought was- Target as an organization has every right to request that people not pack while they shop. And I had no issue with Target issuing this request. But it brought me back to this Supreme Court decision. If Target has a right to deny access to people with guns on their persons, then why does Hobby Lobby not have a right to restrict access to a certain type of medication? Both are based on belief that by issuing this restriction they will save lives. Now, guns are more visible and more scary to people in a store vs a medication choice that is a personal decision not brandished on your hip. But where is this line? Why is it OK for Target to say no guns, but not OK for Hobby Lobby to say no BC coverage? Please just help me wrestle with this moral dilemma. 
    There is a major difference. Target is asking that people don't bring firearms into their stores for public safety purposes. They are not claiming to be a person or using their religion (as a company? etc) as a backer for this either. Furthermore, there isn't actually anything that they can do if someone does bring a gun into their store in an area where concealed or open carry is legal.

    HL threw a hissy fit because they didn't want to comply with a law/mandate. They then used religion as a way to get themselves out of complying with said mandate and cried morality, while actually investing in the companies that make the drugs that they are so against.

    ETF Quote boxes... except it didn't actually work. UGH.
    kat1114chibiyui
  • kat1114kat1114 member
    500 Love Its 500 Comments First Answer Name Dropper
    edited July 2014
    SBmini said:
    I had a thought last night that really made me struggle with this decision.

    So yesterday, Target asked people to not take guns into their stores. My first thought was- Target as an organization has every right to request that people not pack while they shop. And I had no issue with Target issuing this request. But it brought me back to this Supreme Court decision. If Target has a right to deny access to people with guns on their persons, then why does Hobby Lobby not have a right to restrict access to a certain type of medication? Both are based on belief that by issuing this restriction they will save lives. Now, guns are more visible and more scary to people in a store vs a medication choice that is a personal decision not brandished on your hip. But where is this line? Why is it OK for Target to say no guns, but not OK for Hobby Lobby to say no BC coverage? Please just help me wrestle with this moral dilemma. 
    There is a major difference. Target is asking that people don't bring firearms into their stores for public safety purposes. They are not claiming to be a person or using their religion (as a company? etc) as a backer for this either. Furthermore, there isn't actually anything that they can do if someone does bring a gun into their store in an area where concealed or open carry is legal.

    HL threw a hissy fit because they didn't want to comply with a law/mandate. They then used religion as a way to get themselves out of complying with said mandate and cried morality, while actually investing in the companies that make the drugs that they are so against.

    ETF Quote boxes... except it didn't actually work. UGH.

    Just to comment on the bolded... I live in a state where open carry is legal, including bars and restaurants. However, bars and restaurants have the option to opt out and ban patrons from carrying firearms in their establishments, so the bolded is not always true.


  • ashley8918ashley8918 Chicago Suburbs member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    edited July 2014
    kat1114 said:
    SBmini said:
    I had a thought last night that really made me struggle with this decision.

    So yesterday, Target asked people to not take guns into their stores. My first thought was- Target as an organization has every right to request that people not pack while they shop. And I had no issue with Target issuing this request. But it brought me back to this Supreme Court decision. If Target has a right to deny access to people with guns on their persons, then why does Hobby Lobby not have a right to restrict access to a certain type of medication? Both are based on belief that by issuing this restriction they will save lives. Now, guns are more visible and more scary to people in a store vs a medication choice that is a personal decision not brandished on your hip. But where is this line? Why is it OK for Target to say no guns, but not OK for Hobby Lobby to say no BC coverage? Please just help me wrestle with this moral dilemma. 
    There is a major difference. Target is asking that people don't bring firearms into their stores for public safety purposes. They are not claiming to be a person or using their religion (as a company? etc) as a backer for this either. Furthermore, there isn't actually anything that they can do if someone does bring a gun into their store in an area where concealed or open carry is legal.

    HL threw a hissy fit because they didn't want to comply with a law/mandate. They then used religion as a way to get themselves out of complying with said mandate and cried morality, while actually investing in the companies that make the drugs that they are so against.

    ETF Quote boxes... except it didn't actually work. UGH.

    Just to comment on the bolded... I live in a state where open carry is legal, including bars and restaurants. However, bars and restaurants have the option to opt out and ban patrons from carrying firearms in their establishments, so the bolded is not always true.


    Ah, I didn't know that. You learn something new every day! 
  • daria24 said:
    Birth control, aside, here is an example of the impact of this (COMPLETELY SHITTY) ruling http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/hobby-lobby-is-already-creating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/ Cliff's Notes (or whatever the fluck you Canadians call them): The Obama Administration is planning to sign an executive order banning any federal contractors from discriminating against potential hires/employees based on sexual orientation/gender identity. There is a petition to get a religious exemption added to this executive order. If my tax dollars are paying for you to offer social services/build bridges/supply the toilet paper for the White House, I am going to lose my shit if you get to not hire a transgender person just because your religion says it's totes cool to discriminate.
    AGREED. You can't tell me that what a person has in their pants has any effect whatsoever on their ability to perform a task.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    ashley8918chibiyui
  • holyguacamole79holyguacamole79 a taco truck in Houston member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers

    kat1114 said:
    I don't understand all the trouble conservative christians go through to fight things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. If those things are truly horrible horrible sins that God hates, and those people are going to hell, then what's the point of all the fighting now?! Aren't they going to hell anyways?
    Maybe I can offer a perspective.  Regarding the contraceptive aspects, it's a matter of keeping those of us who object to it out of it.  I don't know if you saw my earlier posts, but the main objection is the fact that employers who have religious objections to contraception don't want to pay for it for anyone.  I know plenty of people who use birth control (and, no, I don't necessarily think they are going to hell).  That alone doesn't bother me.  If a friend asks me to go pick up her Yaz at the pharmacy, then I would politely decline since I don't want to be a part of it.

    I hope that helps.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards