Hobby Lobby ahole threatens to close all stores

[BlueStreak]

Go ahead. Good riddance. I certainly won't be going into any of your stores. There are plenty of other places to buy what you sell without having to support your self-centered religious bullcrap.

http://www.tomtayloronline.org/2013/07/07/hobby-lobby-founder-may-close-all-stores/

Of course, he will not close his stores. It is just a way to get attention.

[BlueStreak]

1. I guess this is several weeks old. I saw a bunch of references to it this AM.

It looks like the right wing is making a push to try to get a second wave of attention on this.

Has he actually closed a single store yet?

[IggleDoer]

2. He'll probably sell off his chain

Make lots of money and do little for X-Tian causes.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Our corner is becoming a magnet for these Christian businesses.

Chick-fil-a with a hobby lobby on its way.

Please tell me that Wholesale Foods does not have a Christian competitor because a new market place is about to open up in the same area.

[BlueStreak]

4. You must be mistaken. He is closing his stores.

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. Actually, nowhere in the article does he say he is closing.

He says he is suing.
He says he is against the imposition of the law.
But nowhere does he say he is or will close the stores.
The headline says closing, but that is the site's headline, not the store owner's.

[BlueStreak]

30. He makes a not very veiled threat

"We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult."

When he loses the lawsuit, closure is the only option he has left himself.

[flvegan]

5. In other news: There's a chain of stores called "Hobby Lobby"

[frazzled]

10. That was my reaction: never heard of it

Another business it's easy for me to boycott.

[tridim]

6. Hey asshole, the ACA was passed for the employees you screw, not YOU.

[BlueStreak]

7. If we look into it, we will undoubtedly find

the great majority of his workers are already part time and don't get any benefits.

[lpbk2713]

8. I wouldn't miss it.

I've been to my local H/L once just to check it out. Found their shit highly over priced. I won't be back.

[truebluegreen]

21. Quality on a par with Waldemart...

[PowerToThePeople]

9. put up or shut up. n/t

[libodem]

11. Fine

Go ahead! Jerks! We'll make our own art supplies.

[Autumn]

12. Then abide by your convictions and do so.

There are better stores to shop at.

[NYC_SKP]

13. Hobby Lobby sells nothing even remotely related to actual Hobbies.

It's a POS crafts store and it sucks.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

14. Seems his problem is specifically with providing emergency contraception, not ACA in general.

[BlueStreak]

17. If I have a problem with a particular ulcer medication, should I be able to force my insurance co

not to include that for my employees, considering that most of them probably don't have any problem with that ulcer medication? Indeed, why can't the employees decide for themselves if they don't want to take that ulcer medication or don't want to use contraception?

Nobody is telling any of these workers that they must take the contraception.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

23. Yeah, that thought struck me, too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. It's contraception in general. IIRC he's Catholic.

I suppose he could gut the employees' hours and dump them into government exchanges as many others are doing but hey -- he's Catholic -- many believe it is better to dump all those employees into the outright jobless pool and stop collecting tax revenues; anything except allow someone who doesn't think properly to live their lives as they want.

BTW -- before anyone wants to launch an unfounded screed about me wanting to kill women (I'm a woman) by defending Catholic doctrine (I'm not a Catholic) understand that even Catholics accept that abortion to save the mother's life is permissible. In the matter of pro-choice they believe they should not be made to financially support that choice.

As a Pro-Choice advocate myself I actually agree with them. If my choices are wholly dependent upon other people providing that thing for me then it ceases to be my choice. Whatever they provide they can take away and that is an inherent threat to my freedom of choice.

[BlueStreak]

22. I don't follow that argument. Nobody is telling people they have to use contraceptives

They are simply saying that if that is their choice, the insurance plan must reimburse, just as there are a thousand other things the plan must cover. Just because a plan must pay for gall bladder removal, that doesn't mean I am forced to have my gall bladder removed.

Contraception is one of the best weapons against poverty, violence, disease, and exhaustion of the planet's resources.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. I know the arguments in favor of contraceptives.

My Lover Boy and I are using it and we make love like ferrets on a caffeine bender.

For some people, however, using elective contraceptives is contrary to their deeply-held beliefs. I accept that. That's why I don't share their deeply-held beliefs. But on that same note I also recognize that is their belief and they are more entitled to their beliefs than I am entitled to tell them what they are or are not allowed to believe in.

If those beliefs tell them that paying for a service that provides something that runs contrary to their beliefs is indefensible I would hope people would assess whether our need to have what we want is worth the price of a free society. We can argue all day that it is silly, unfounded, superstitious etc. and it probably wouldn't be much of an argument because we would actually be agreeing. What does matter is that we do not want to be the people who force their beliefs on others. Freedom of conscience doesn't have a "Well, I think you're just stupid" exception.

I earned my money. I was paid my wages. I bought my birth control. I made my choices. I refuse to delegate those choices to third parties, especially a profit-minded corporation using laws imposed by vote-whoring politicians. That is far too many people with no genuine concern for me becoming involved directly in the things that matter to me personally. None of them care for me no matter what the advertising / campaign literature promises and more likely than not they will both seek to manipulate my life to their purposes. Keeping the government and church out of my body is a two-way street. If I want to keep them out I can't invite them in.

[gollygee]

29. So a corporation owned by Jehovah's Witnesses can decide their insurance doesn't cover

blood transfusions, and you're in the hospital and your S/O is trying to figure out how to pay for the blood transfusion because your insurers don't believe in them.

That's now how it works. Their right to practice their religion ends where someone else's right to not practice that religion begins.

[BlueStreak]

34. And to take it to its logical end result,

These Jehovah's Witnesses could equally argue that if you pay for your own blood transfusion, you have essentially "violated the manufacturer's warranty", so they could then claim the right to deny ALL coverage.

A central point of ACA is to define a minimum standard of care that all policies must provide. Individuals always have the right not to undergo care, but employers / insurance companies to not have the right to pick and choose which items they would like to include.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. Actually the owner of Hobby Lobby does have a choice.

He can dump tens of thousands of employees into unemployed status with no benefits whatsoever. You can't force him to stay in business.

If the need for moralizing preening over this issue is so important to some that they would prefer to deny the employees blood transfusions to spite the lack of elective birth control then perhaps it's time to remind them that the separation of church and state is a two-way street.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Yes.

If they are not entitled to their beliefs then neither are you in which case your complaint can no longer be valid -- because you are no longer entitled to it.

[BlueStreak]

44. They are entitled to their beliefs. They are not entitled to force them upon others

And if they choose to be employers in this country, they cannot use that privilege to force their middle ages view of health care on their employees.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. Nonsense.

One party says, "Pay for it yourself." The other party says, "Pay for it for me." Only one side of that debate is forcing itself on the other. Playing dress-up with your bigotry does not alter that basic fact.

My beliefs aren't from "the middle ages" and yet you intrude on my right to govern my body without it being subject to the dictates of corporations and politicians. When I said I wanted government out of my body I meant it as much for you as I did Pat Robertson. As long as we're talking beliefs and politics it is my belief that anybody who is dumb enough to believe politicians care about my health is -- to my reckoning -- too dumb to be allowed to be politically active.

[BlueStreak]

52. You can govern YOUR BODY as you choose. If you are an employer, you do not have the right

to govern the bodies of your employees according to your belief systems, regardless of which century they may be from.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. You're grossly misstating the case.

Nothing that I am aware of in the Hobby Lobby employee policy or practice has ever threatened an employee with corporate sanction if they personally elect to avail themselves of contraceptive services. I defy you to provide such an example.

You are telling him how he must spend his money -- and you're also telling all employees who have similar beliefs that they must purchase such insurance policies from for-profit corporations. Why are you telling them what they must spend their money on? Or are we just assuming all Catholics are rich franchise founders rather than work-a-day folks?

[BlueStreak]

74. And exactly the same argument could be

"Nothing in the employee handbook tells an employee he isn't allowed to take antibiotics, but our company has decided that antibiotics are tools of the devil so we will not include them in your health care benefits. You are free to pay for your own antibiotics. We cannot stop you. But you must never discuss this in the workplace."

It is in the national interest to have a certain baseline of covered practices, services, and medications, and not to have employers arbitrarily making decisions about those things. In the case of contraception, this LOWERS health care costs, so the only reason an employer has for excluding that is to force his own own religious dogma upon others.

This is now the third time that you have ignored the fact that contraceptives are welcomed by insurance carriers because they lower costs -- they do not increase any costs for the employer. The employer is not "paying for" anything with regard to contraceptives. I will not engage any further with you on this subject unless you acknowledge that fundamental point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. So mandate women take BC until licensed to bear children. Geez!

I'm immune to cost-effectiveness arguments because many things I disagree with are cost-effective. To hell what for-profit corporations want for their bottom line. I refuse to subjugate my sense of right and wrong to their quarterly profit-loss statements. Doubly so using the law with its militarized police, profiteering prisons, inept courts and the drunken bribe takers in congress to gain that profit for them.

Dear God, what a repugnant argument. Horrifying. Simply horrifying.

[BlueStreak]

43. He isn't "PAYING" for anything

Contraceptives REDUCE HC costs. The insurance companies were happy to have this included because it lowers their costs and they can offer their policies at a lower price to assholes like the Hobby Lobby guy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. Yes, he is paying for it and the law forces him to do so under threat of legal penalty.

Please tell me by what legal mechanism employer can provide insurance that does not include elective contraception.

[BlueStreak]

57. Stop being intentionally dense. I know you are smarter than that.

Including contraception benefits LOWERS the insurer's costs. Do you have any idea what maternity benefits cost? The insurers didn't make a peep when this was included in the basic requirements. It lowers their costs.

What part of "lower" is hard to understand?

If we followed your "logic", then it would be acceptable for an employer to not include maternity benefits if he had a belief the over-population is destroying our ecosystem.

At least in that case, there would be a legitimate economic argument, because those are expensive HC costs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. I'm deliberately ignoring your appeal to costs because it is immaterial.

If we wanted all law to reflect what is most pragmatic we would attach penalties to bearing and rearing out-of-wedlock children. The body of research that shows children from single-parent households lag behind their peers despite the personal heroism of their parents is irrefutable.

Is this really how you want our laws fashioned? I don't. That's why I ignore such appeals.

If we followed your "logic", then it would be acceptable for an employer to not include maternity benefits if he had a belief the over-population is destroying our ecosystem.

I would defend that person not because I agree with them,* but instead I defend the principle that I refuse to tell them what they can or cannot believe in or what they should or should not purchase with their money no matter how stupid, useless or expensive their belief may be.

When you say, "It's cheaper" you're really saying "for me." If he, as an employer would welcome higher costs to not support elective BC then that is his choice, just as sure as it is his choice to pay his employees above minimum wage even though the law allows him to pay a lower wage. But we all know you're referring to the pool you yourself must pay into. So, in reality what you really mean is you don't like the fact you are forced to drink from the same glass because of the cost to you.

I would prefer a system where we all get our own glasses and fill them with what we want. My husband's policy also covers rehab for IV drug abuse. Neither me or Lover Boy would ever contemplate recreational use of IV drugs, yet we have to pay all the same. And to be honest I'm a little cheesed-off at the thought I have to pay for someone else's foolish choices -- but the law says...

Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a system where you and I pooled our money for policies that were cheaper because we weren't paying for rehab and maternity costs we don't wish to utilize?

If you want to talk cost, there is no lower cost when all providers supply the exact same coverage, without variation. If A = B = C = D then what you really have is a monopoly by A, only with different letterhead. Monopolies -- without exception -- degenerate into higher costs and poorer service.



* Someone once mentioned their concern for over-population to my Lover Boy. "Lead by example," he said. Then he pointed off to the distance saying, "The Whisper-Chipper was over there try to be useful and aim for the garden." Oh, how I wish I had his wit.

[Live and Learn]

58. Catholics are against the death penalty too.

Yet they happily pay their taxes to states that utilize it.

I am against wars, yet I have to pay taxes that support them. We all have to pay for things in a democratically run nation that we might not personally agree with.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. So if the government were to reimpose prayer in public schools that's be OK too?

Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.

[Live and Learn]

76. That would be illegal and has already been decided as such.

If they somehow managed to do it legally, it wouldn't be OK with me but I would still have to abide by while I worked to get it changed.

I really don't understand your question though. There are plenty of things the public schools already do that I don't agree with but I still help support them through my taxes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. USSC decisions get overturned. Yesterday's Dred Scott is tomorrow's Brown v Board.

I support the belief -- regardless of case precedent -- that we ought not be telling each other what to believe even if that allows people I disagree with to not buy something someone else could buy for themselves.

[Tanuki]

87. I'm sure he isn't Catholic, since he has given tens of millions to Liberty University and

Oral Roberts University.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur)

..."Green is the son of a preacher and comes from a family of preachers.[4] Green claims to have built his business squarely on Biblical principles[2] and attributes his success to his faith in God. He has taken a public stance against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because of its inclusion of a provision allowing access to the morning-after pill.[5]

Green takes half of Hobby Lobby's total pretax earnings and commits it directly to a portfolio of evangelical ministries and as of 2012 it has donated an estimated $500 million.[6] This includes 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.[7]..."

[dballance]

53. As soon as he wants to provide "Emergency" pre-natal care, post-uterus care,

food, clothing, boarding, and an education for the kids he thinks need to be born in contravention of his employee's individual will and religious beliefs he can have a leg upon which to stand. Until then he really has no true stake in the game of his employees personal lives.

HL is a retail outlet. I bet that good Christian company barely provides health benefits at all. I'd be shocked if they don't have mostly part-time and temp workers who don't even qualify for health care.

On Edit: If he's a successful business person and decides to actually sell his chain due to this he's not a smart business man. Personally, I think it's just bluster to stoke the masses and get the free PR. The irony is he doesn't think the government should interfere in his business but he's free to interfere in other private persons lives.

[itsrobert]

15. When I park at Hobby Lobby

I go next door to the other stores because there is alway plenty of parking in the Hobby Lobby section. I never go in their stores.

[UTUSN]

16. "run business according to Xtian principles"?!1 I'm sure the Acts of the Apostles

has been great as an operating manual/mission statement. Acts reads like a booster, huckster manual suitable for George BABBITT and the Chamber of Commerce, full of demands for payment for his/Saul/Paul's personal appearances. At least Paul told his followers they also needed to pay Caesar HIS cut. Plus, it's fascinating how Paul thanked the many women (preachers?)/facilitators while dictating that women need to shut up and mind their men.

[Rex]

19. Please! Close down all your stores! The crap you sell there is horrible.

I know a few people that when Michaels is closed, they MIGHT go to Hobby Lobby out of sheer desperation. I read his screed and he is full of SHIT...he cares way more about profits over people. FUCK THEM.

I feel sorry for anyone that has to work for that POS.

[davsand]

20. Good luck peddling your beads and scrap-booking crap online.

I set foot in one of those stores once. Overpriced, lots of crap, and no employees to be found. Had it not been for the fact that we were facing a school project for my grade school age daughter I probably would have walked out without buying anything. As it was, we got what we absolutely HAD to have and ran screaming for the door.

I was told once by a commercial real estate appraiser that Hobby Lobby is the store that euthanizes dying commercial properties. (In other words, once Hobby Lobby goes in, the space dies and the building gets torn down and (hopefully) replaced with something new...)



Laura

[NJCher]

86. LOL

Insightful.


Cher

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

24. He should change the name to China Lobby...

[earthside]

78. China makes Green a hypocrite.

Without the cheap products imported from the Peoples's Republic of China, there wouldn't be a Hobby Lobby.

So, Mr. Green has made his fortune by paying for goods and labor in China and reselling at a profit here in the U.S.

Apparently, Mr. Green's so-called Christian principles stop at the water's edge -- because Chinese government policy on abortion is indeed horrible.

If Green were genuine in his concern about abortion he would immediately cease doing business with companies that support the anti-Christian Chinese government by producing the imported Hobby Lobby products.

Green has no problem with abortion really, he essentially supports it in China. He just has a problem with being required to follow all the rules of the market place in the United States.

Don't kid yourself, this isn't about Green's religion, this is about profit and politics.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

88. Thank you, I wanted to say what you said but I couldn't get them out.

[factsarenotfair]

26. Um, they are opening a LOT of new stores.

http://hobbylobby.com/careers/retail/new_store_careers.cfm

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. You may not care if they close.

But the 21,000 people that work there and need a paycheck do. They pay reasonably well for retail and this would be devastating for thousands of families. Can you be a little less crass about unemployment? This guy sounds like an asshole, but this isn't just about you.

[BlueStreak]

35. Does the average H.L. employee receive health care coverage today?

I bet the majority are part timers who get no benefits.

And this asshole is not shutting down his stores any more than Papa Johns is.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

37. None of that addressed my point.

Whether you think that they are good jobs or not isn't important. This isn't about you. A lot of people depend on these jobs and saying "good riddance" when some people might already be on edge about the whole thing is crass.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. You are soon to observe an amazing phenomenon.

In many debates the employee is held-up as the singular concern of a business. If any libertarian were to be so foolish enough as to stick their head into DU and say something so crass as, "If you don't like the company policy, don't work there." they would -- rightfully -- be inundated by a chorus denouncing their crassness. They would be reminded that jobs are not easy to come by and many times people take jobs just to make ends meet rather than in pursuit of a chosen career.

But let a job owner express a deeply held belief and those employees -- by the tens of thousands -- become sacrificial lambs in the name of driving the one disesteemed person from society and informing that person's co-religionists that "Catholics need not apply" for corporate licensing.

[kcr]

89. Right, because because the power of employees and business owners are equal.

Well, only in the eyes of right wingers and Libertarians. Wow, the amazing phenomenon of progressives telling wingers and libertarians like it is. It's always an amazing thing to behold, actually.

[RedCappedBandit]

31. This guy essentially thinks he has the right to tell his employees how to spend their money.

How is dictating what their insurance covers any different from dictating what they purchase with their wages?

Utter nonsense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Just the opposite. The law tells him how he has to spend his money.

This is for policies the law says he must buy and what those policies must include. In none of the reporting I've heard in the past has the owner at anytime imposed a company policy that threatened sanction against any family exercising its right to birth control, elective or otherwise.

That being said, I'd wager if the law was amended to allow an environment where he could provide a voucher for employees to purchase from competing ala cart plans the controversy would evaporate overnight because then it really would be the employees choice, not his obligation.

[RedCappedBandit]

51. The law also says he must pay his employees

What they do with their wages is their choice, not his. How they use their benefits is also their choice. It is not up to an employer to dictate an employees medical care.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. I agree but the current situation is exactly the opposite.

You're also laboring under the mistaken assumption that all employees support elective contraception. Please tell me what policy an employee -- using their own money according to their own preferences -- can purchase without elective contraceptive coverage. Plenty of Catholics who are women and observant of Church teachings are also mere employees. Yet, they too find themselves in the unenviable position of having to support for-profit corporations that violate their deeply held beliefs. It would be akin to all the people in this thread who have said "I would never shop at such a bigoted store!" suddenly found themselves running afoul of a law that said they have to purchase beads and scrapbooking supplies exclusively from Hobby Lobby.

But even that does not address the point that the law DICTATES that if he does not spend his money to purchase policies that violate his beliefs then the law will take him to court and penalize him. If he were to choose insurance policies that did not provide elective contraceptives then he would be in legal jeopardy. To say otherwise is to be fundamentally dishonest about what the law demands. So, no; despite your gross mischaracterization of the situation, it is not him telling his employees how to spend their money.

[RedCappedBandit]

66. Yes, it is.

The important thing to remember here is that no individual is being forced to use contraceptives. It is, as you say, elective. If this employer had his way, though, he would effectively be able to force his employees to not use contraceptives by denying them coverage.

These Catholics who are women who are observant of (some) church teachings don't need to do anything to betray their faith. That's up to the individual, as it should be.

The policy doesn't violate the employers beliefs. He is not being forced to utilize the services in question. He's simply mandated to provide adequate benefits to his employees, who can also choose to the services they see fit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. You don't get to say what does and does not violate his beliefs.

If you're so confident in your position then change the law to allow insurance companies to offer policies without BC but allow policy purchasers to buy policies from whatever provider they choose. Nothing will stop an employee from buying BC while the employer need only pay what they would normally offer for benefits on their own terms. As I've stated in another post, there are some policy features I would prefer to not pay to receive because they will never be applicable to me.

If people are genuine about supporting my being pro-choice then they should be serious, not situational.

[kcr]

90. What about the employees who can't afford it?

I'm sorry. But until we've separated insurance from employers, we can't allow them to insert their beliefs into the choices we make.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

94. so, you would tell him how to spend his money?

nice... very popular position here.

sP

[kcr]

97. As it happens, it's a very popular position.

I hate to be the one to break it to you.

[RedCappedBandit]

105. Yeah, because we all know buying private insurance is an entirely valid option for the majority of

workers.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

71. nicely stated...

too bad logic gets overrun by feeling and get's shot down as bigoted.

sP

[jmowreader]

85. The law also tells him he must buy fire extinguishers and build wheelchair accessible bathrooms

The law tells business owners to do a lot of things they may not believe in or want to do. This is one of them.

[kcr]

92. LIke nails on a chalkboard to Libertarians, that n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

95. oh wait...

there are religions against fire extinguishers and wheelchair accessible facilities? do tell...

sp

[kcr]

96. It's a good thing there isn't then.

Is that the point?

[jmowreader]

103. Nope

The point is, the government CAN tell you how to run your business. They can also intrude into your religious practices if they feel your religion is contrary to the needs of the general public. Ask the Church of God with Signs Following practitioners (they handle venomous snakes and drink poison during their services), Rastafari practitioners (they believe in the spiritual use of marijuana), Huichol persons who can't prove their heritage far enough back to please the government (they use peyote), Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses with extremely sick children...shall I go on?...whether the government can intrude on your religion.

[kcr]

104. I think you meant that for Prodigal?

I was responding to Prodigal.

[YarnAddict]

32. From what I've read

(here on DU) is that HL is actually a VERY employee-friendly company. They pay well over minimum wage ($14/hr. for full-time,$9.50/hr. for part-time,) and have some pretty good benefits.

Do we really want to say "good riddance" to a company like that?

I really don't have a problem with them not paying for contraceptive and abortifacients if it is against their religious beliefs. They aren't saying that they won't hire anyone who uses birth control of any kind. Employees are certainly free to purchase whatever contraception they want, with the $$ they are paid by HL.

[BlueStreak]

40. Hobby Lobby IS NOT PAYING for contraceptives

The insurance companies are. One might say, "What's the difference? That's just a shell game?"

And if that is one's response, one would be overlooking a fundamental point. Contraceptives REDUCE health care costs. The insurance companies were delighted to include this benefit because it lowers the overall cost of health care. So this benefit isn't costing Hobby Lobby a penny. They have no economic basis for an argument. Their only argument is religious ignorance.

[YarnAddict]

56. They pay the premiums

If contraception is included in the premiums, then HL is purchasing a product that is counter to their religious beliefs.

Why is it too much to expect people to pay for their own contraception?

[Beringia]

69. The Hobby Lobby is just using what leverage they have

to threaten not employing people. If they could, they would not hire anyone who says they would or have taken contraception, or only hire self proclaimed Christians. But since that is illegal, he is attacking Obamacare and making his stand there. Since he already doesn't have what hr probably wants, it makes sense this is a bluff and he will continue to run Hobby Lobby and accustom himself to Obamcare rules.

[YarnAddict]

75. How do you know who they would

or would not hire?

I'm not so sure that the rules won't be changed. After all, there have been so many exceptions made already to the ACA, another one or two affecting religious institutions or Christian-owned businesses won't matter much.

[Beringia]

81. I can't say for sure

It is an extension of his behavior, he wants to run his company based on his Christian ideals, so I would assume he is doing everything he can under the law. It is illegal to not hire someone based on religious beliefs, so that is a law he is abiding by.

[gollygee]

33. I hate employment and health care being tied together

It must have seemed like a good idea at some point but it makes employers feel like they have rights over their employees' healthcare that they don't.

[Hayabusa]

48. +1

I agree. It certainly did seem like a good idea, especially w/ group discounts, but it does make employers feel empowered over the coverage.

[Live and Learn]

60. +1000 nt

[Beringia]

39. Go to Michael's

I used to go to Hobby Lobby when it was the closest place to go, so this could hurt people in smaller towns. But the owner wants to force his beliefs on employees, which is what he is accusing Obamacare of doing to him. What if he asked employees on the application for the job if they are Christians and otherwise refused to hire them? Then he would be in violation of the law.

[dem in texas]

42. Good Riddance

they carry shoddy, cheaply made and overpriced merchandise. I haven't been in one of their stores in years.

[Hayabusa]

47. I have shopped at Hobby Lobby before, but never again.

I have been there because they frequently have Vallejo paint that my local game store doesn't have in stock. Because they have a plastic cement that can be applied with a brush and because they are the only store that sells models in damn near 100 mile radius.

But not anymore. I have abided the owner's religious nutjobbery for too long. No man who claims to be Christian would put so many employees out of work because the government offended him. Instead, I will go elsewhere: wait for my local game store to get the paint in stock or order directly from the manufacturer, buy the models for a bit more at this locally owned hobby shop in Houston I found while I was on vacation there. I will simply stop going in there.

Besides, the being closed on Sundays thing also struck as a way to deny workers more hours, not a "respect the Sabbath" thing.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

108. You mean the place in Bellaire? on Chimney Rock?

M&M Hobby Center. Pretty cool. DH is into model trains.

These people sell gouache, which I learned about in college art courses. This is a REAL art supply store where I go:
www.texasart.com

[Hayabusa]

110. G&G, actually

[rl6214]

49. I don't go to church or shop at hobby lobby but really

Why is he an ahole and what difference does it really make? Too much animosity in this world.

[noamnety]

54. How horrible for him!

The rest of us are forced to fund shit we oppose on a daily basis.

But him, he's rich - it's really not fair that the same rules should apply to him.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

65. there is a mild difference between paying taxes

and cutting a check to a for-profit health insurance company.

sP

[noamnety]

72. The difference is the financial equivalent to semantics.

Your tax dollars pay for my for-profit health insurance - just like they pay for for-profit spying on your phone calls, and for-profit military adventures.

Either it's paid because the government policy is that we hand money to the IRS to redistribute to those companies as a cost of being a private citizen, or we pay directly because the government policy is that we have to do these things as a cost of being a corporate citizen.

In each of these cases, the government is saying these things need to be funded for the common good and generally the only input we have as to whether it's really good or not is through the voting process. He's free to vote like everyone else.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

73. the gov't also says killing people is needed for the common good

and i guess we shouldn't use whatever leverage we have to stop that either? or, is it just majority wins? cause that might not work to your favor someday...

sP

[noamnety]

80. Yeah, I referenced killing people in my post

and it already doesn't work to my favor.

That doesn't change my point that corporations have the burden of certain costs, including health care, for the greater good - and they don't get to pick and chose which of those they will fund, anymore than tax payers get to pick and chose what their money goes towards.

I guess it's within his rights to file a lawsuit or write whiny letters. Mainly I'm just annoyed and not expressing myself well about the things he's funding being for the benefit of his employees who may not share his views - that it's not all about him.

[reformist2]

55. He's exercising his rights. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't generally go to hobby/craft stores, but I see nothing in his letter that would make me boycott his stores.

[Warpy]

63. No, he'll just sell them to some soulless corporation

which will then cut employee hours as far as possible to squeeze as much profit out of them as they can while running up debt, cutting them off to go bankrupt in a few years.

Religious bullies never seem averse to making a dishonest buck.

[mountain grammy]

64. Corporate America; a Hobby Lobby or three in every city and town..

and they decide what's right for their employees. They talk about freedom but it's their freedom to decide, to pollute, to take all the breaks and none of the risks that matters. If we step out of line and support people freedoms or (oh the horror) unions, they'll just slap us down and take their money and leave.
Oh, wait, they've already done that.

[AnotherPerspective]

67. Hobby Lobby CEO's Net Worth= $4.5 Billion

Hobby Lobby CEO's Net Worth= $4.5 Billion.


David Green
Net Worth
$4.5 B As of March 2013

CEO, Hobby Lobby
Age: 71

Forbes Lists
#276 Billionaires
#84 in United States
#276 in 2012
#79 Forbes 400


Source: http://www.forbes.com/profile/david-green/


Reach your own conclusion about their true values and priorities.

[99Forever]

68. Sorry David Green...

I just checked my supply of "give a fuck about whiny 1%er assholes" and see that I'm fresh out.

Close your crappy stores, yesterday. Watcha waitin' on?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

70. YEAH...fuck the 21,000 people who work there

they should have no trouble finding a job in this economy!

sP

[kcr]

91. Right, let's juts let corporations run roughshod over our rights then.

Sorry, but it's the owner who's pushing the agenda to sabotage the ACA.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

93. his religious conviction means he doesn't want to pay for birth control

he has never said people should not have access to it. way to totally stretch the point to hyperbole. it is the only part of the ACA he's said anything about.

the bad thing about private corporations and then people that run them... they have rights too. if he wants to shutter his stores because they are being forced to do something against their beliefs he can.

sP

[kcr]

98. You're right, people have a right to run businesses.

Where you're wrong is they don't have a right to run them any old way they want to. Because the way they run them affects the public, including the people they hire to help run them. The government does get to to tell them how to run their businesses. Sorry there are some that don't like it.

[99Forever]

99. Wow...

... you're gonna 21,000 people? You must be a real stud.

[Initech]

83. Well, I can't say I will miss 'em!

[A Little Weird]

100. If this crap actually works

If this crap actually works and it is decided that employers can dictate what can be included on employee insurance plans, then I predict there will be a sudden mass conversion of business owners to Christian Scientists. That sect doesn't believe in modern medicine, but that prayer should be all that's necessary. According to some on this thread, that seems to be a-ok.

[GP6971]

101. I googled it

and they given a temporary exemption on July 19th

[BlueStreak]

107. Just a little clarification

Nobody was granted an exemption, although some of ht newspapers inaccurately described it that way. The judge in the case essentially granted a restraining order until the court could have a hearing on the merits of the case. That is a very routine thing. Judges have to weight whether any irreparable harm would be done by proceeding, versus the impact of not proceeding. The original court refused to give a TRO. The appeals court asked the lower court to reconsider that one aspect of the case.

I don't think it should make much difference. One would assume there will be a court ruling on the merits of the case in the next few months anyway.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/308541-hobby-lobby-wins-temporary-exemption-from-birth-control-mandate

[GP6971]

111. Thank you for the

clarification......that makes sense

[GoCubsGo]

102. Please do.

The resources wasted on the useless, cheap-ass shit they sell is a crime, and the sooner that stops, the better it is for everyone. I would also like to go to my local Aldi, which shares a parking lot with Hobby Lobby, without having to worry about getting creamed by some brain-dead HL patron. It happens every time.

[Lint Head]

106. He's just hoping all the hobby lobbers will rise up and boycott hobbies.

[Raine]

109. Oh sure, like he's really going to do

that, wa wa wa ... cry me a river. Hey, how can we miss you if you don't go away, you dumb ass!