Hobby Lobby

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

This is exactly how I feel about it. We have freedom to work wherever we are able to get a job (legally) right? So if you don't like it...don't work there..

You put AZTheta's two separate thoughts together and left out her "on the other hand," which indicates that she sees two different sides to the issue.

If you're going to quote someone, quote with accuracy.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

You put AZTheta's two separate thoughts together and left out her "on the other hand," which indicates that she sees two different sides to the issue.

If you're going to quote someone, quote with accuracy.

thank you. Nothing pisses me off quite like being misquoted, or having people put words in my mouth that I didn't say (or type).

The only thing that pisses me off more is the use of ellipses in place of correct punctuation or concise writing. There's one poster on GC who does it constantly. It's way worse than those smilies.

(waits for DrPhil to snipe at me, b/c I deserve it)

[barbino]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

thank you. Nothing pisses me off quite like being misquoted, or having people put words in my mouth that I didn't say (or type).

The only thing that pisses me off more is the use of ellipses in place of correct punctuation or concise writing. There's one poster on GC who does it constantly. It's way worse than those smilies.

(waits for DrPhil to snipe at me, b/c I deserve it)

You missed the capital "T" in Thank you, dear ...

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by barbino

You missed the capital "T" in Thank you, dear ...

OK. Thanks for pulling down my pants. Oh, and welcome back. Where the hell you been?

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

thank you. Nothing pisses me off quite like being misquoted, or having people put words in my mouth that I didn't say (or type).

The only thing that pisses me off more is the use of ellipses in place of correct punctuation or concise writing. There's one poster on GC who does it constantly. It's way worse than those smilies.

(waits for DrPhil to snipe at me, b/c I deserve it)

eek.... Sorry....

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

thank you. Nothing pisses me off quite like being misquoted, or having people put words in my mouth that I didn't say (or type).

The only thing that pisses me off more is the use of ellipses in place of correct punctuation or concise writing. There's one poster on GC who does it constantly. It's way worse than those smilies.

(waits for DrPhil to snipe at me, b/c I deserve it)

I won't let you hijack this thread. LOL.

Originally Posted by shirley1929

Both very fair points. In my mind, I was thinking more of a hourly employee that could probably walk across the street to Michaels and get a job fairly easily. It definitely is much deeper than that.

Hobby Lobby and Michaels employees tend to fit a certain demographic to typically match the customers. But, you're right it is more complex than that. The availability of good paying and long term employment varies based on a number of factors including demographics.

Allowing companies to do what Hobby Lobby is attempting to do places yet another restriction on the average American who doesn't have employment options and money saved for a rainy day. This would also disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minority women. These companies might as well put their socio-politico-religious ideologies on the job application and tell potential applicants that there will be restrictions. Of course, that would be discriminatory and EEOC worthy. Then again, as far as I'm concerned so is this---they are just using a different avenue to discriminate.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

What about a government that's able to force its views on its citizens? That sees more ominous than any employer doing that.

I completely agree, which is why I oppose all of the laws that try to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body or who two consenting adults are allowed to marry.

Originally Posted by irishpipes

Thanks for your condescending comment. Today's newest polling data shows that 26% of Americans support the ACA. There have been plenty of laws in our country's past that were wrong, discriminatory, etc. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it isn't oppressive.

This varies greatly by the poll, apparently. The one released by the Kaiser Foundation survey said this (posted in the last 10 hours):

Almost half of those surveyed (49%) said they wanted Congress to "keep the law in place and work to improve it." Another 10% said Congress should simply leave the law as is.
By contrast, about 3 in 10 either wanted the law repealed outright (18%) or repealed and replaced with a Republican alternative (11%).

Major provisions of the law are quite popular, including subsidies to help people buy insurance, expansion of Medicaid, the guarantee that people can’t be denied coverage because of pre-existing medical problems and the rule eliminating out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, Kaiser found. But 40% to 50% of Americans do not know that the law includes each of those provisions.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...#ixzz2xIZjz5Xq


I do not think companies should be able to impose their beliefs on their employees. I took the "Leave" comment to mean as a consumer or stock holder and I have chosen that route with Hobby Lobby. I will never step foot in that store. A brand new one opened here in the past few years and I simply will not shop there.

The easy answer to all of it is to take health insurance out of the hands of the employer. Easy peasy. Employers can give employees vouchers for the equivalent of what they spend and employees can go to the exchange and buy what they need- not what their employer wants to pay for. It is absolutely ludicrous that your employer gets to choose what kind of health insurance you can get. If you want an HMO, you should be able to get the one you want. If you want a PPO, you should be able to get a PPO. If you want a high deductible plan with an HSA, then you should be able to get that. Why in the world should your employer determine what you get to have? It's absurd.

[BraveMaroon]

This is one of a number of moves Hobby Lobby has made that I consider to be asinine. They lost my business when they refused to stock Hanukkah items.

Let their workers vote with their feet. I'll vote with my wallet.

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by BraveMaroon

This is one of a number of moves Hobby Lobby has made that I consider to be asinine. They lost my business when they refused to stock Hanukkah items.

Let their workers vote with their feet. I'll vote with my wallet.

^^^
Yup this!
They're building one here in my city--they won't be getting one thin dime from me

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Dnpgopenguins

Except for medical conditions that require you to take BC, or it you have a dependent who wants to take BC maybe for a medical condition.

Exactly. I have a couple friends who were prescribed birth control for other conditions. One of them has an IUD for PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome). Another was prescribed birth control pills for acne**. If the pill didn't cause extreme side effects for me, I would have continued taking them for just that reason; my skin had never looked better!

**I know that the Hobby Lobby case doesn't involve BC pills, but if this passes, you can bet other companies will probably try to exclude coverage for those as well.

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

It's pretty troubling that Hobby Lobby getting a lot of political sympathy in part because they're framing the disputed medications as abortifacients instead of contraceptives. OBGYNs say that they aren't abortifacients, but Hobby Lobby says that they can decide biochemical questions according to their religious faith. According to their argument, if an employer decided that ibuprofen is an abortifacient, motivated by sincerely held religious belief, then they can refuse to cover it.

I cannot wait for the case where an employer says they'll only cover maternity care for married women. It's coming.

Or the case where a company won't cover treatment for AIDS, because that's a "gay disease." The possibilities are endless… and outrageous.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I'm really interested in the turnout, though I am a bit worried as well. I think it's very dangerous to give corporations the right to exercise religious freedom. For one thing, who's beliefs are being applied? It allows potentially one person to discriminate against who knows how people, because the person with more money obviously has a greater interest in freedom of religion then those without.

This is what I keep wondering. Let's pretend it's the CEO. What happens when a new CEO takes over and they want to cover these forms of birth control? And let's say 10 years later, another CEO comes in and refuses to cover them all over again?

People can say, "speak with your feet," or whatever, but what happens when you go to a new company and they implement a similar restriction? Or maybe they win a case where they can refuse treatment for some other medication that you need?

If this passes, the court system is going to overflow with desired exceptions from companies.

[Dnpgopenguins]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Exactly. I have a couple friends who were prescribed birth control for other conditions. One of them has an IUD for PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome). Another was prescribed birth control pills for acne**. If the pill didn't cause extreme side effects for me, I would have continued taking them for just that reason; my skin had never looked better!

**I know that the Hobby Lobby case doesn't involve BC pills, but if this passes, you can bet other companies will probably try to exclude coverage for those as well.

I actually just realized this. However, where I am from there are a lot of local businesses that are unwilling to pay for BC regardless of what it is used for, IE to prevent pregnancies or to treat PCOS. Have PCOS I am a little angry that I have to make choices where to work based on if i can afford my medical treatment. This is actually a concern that I am considering when thinking about transferring to a 4 yr school. IE if i stay in state my state health insurance is good to go, if i leave the state I am not sure if I will be able to afford my meds. Or i might just go to school in the UK and not have to worry about any of this.


Or the case where a company won't cover treatment for AIDS, because that's a "gay disease." The possibilities are endless… and outrageous.

When talking to people about this issue I like to bring up something that is relevant, like treatment of cancer. What if a company has to right to say, oh well Breast cancer is less likely in women who don't smoke, exercise regularly, ect. So, because of this it is my personal belief that women can control if they get cancer (yeah I know people who think this) so my company is not going to pay for breast cancer treatment. Well, I don't think a lot of people are going to like that. In my opinion it is the same thing. Companies should not be able to pick and choose which illnesses they pay for because of their own personal beliefs.

This is what I keep wondering. Let's pretend it's the CEO. What happens when a new CEO takes over and they want to cover these forms of birth control? And let's say 10 years later, another CEO comes in and refuses to cover them all over again?

People can say, "speak with your feet," or whatever, but what happens when you go to a new company and they implement a similar restriction? Or maybe they win a case where they can refuse treatment for some other medication that you need?

If this passes, the court system is going to overflow with desired exceptions from companies.

As other people have mentioned it all boils down to the ability to leave. Growing up in a small town it is very difficult to change jobs. I encountered the problem with the sentiment, "oh if you quite your current job to come work here, how do we know you are not going to quite this job to go work somewhere else?" Yeah, i was stuck in a job that i hated for too long because of this. I was lucky that I found a job in the a near by bigger city that was fine with me commuting, but it was not easy. I really don't understand why people have these thoughts. Is it cause their life is perfect and they have never had to deal with a situation like this?

IDK, I am just venting.
DNP

[MaryPoppins]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Then again, as far as I'm concerned so is this---they are just using a different avenue to discriminate.

Amen

[ASTalumna06]

Haha.. And it begins...

Satanists use Hobby Lobby decision to play devil's advocate:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/satan...ry?id=24772548