Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Revoltingest]

Of course there's no Church Tax. But the Church owns a lot of real estate which is not taxed from the Church itself. That tax has to be passed on to other property owners (who are taxpayers).

If a church catches fire or is burglarized, you can bet the pastor/priest will call on the fire department or police department for services. These are services for which the churches pay no taxes to support. In other words, the taxpayers are forced to provide free fire and police services to churches. The churches are also getting free services from all the agencies funded by property taxes.

I've often seen here (RF) the argument that if churches had to pay for these services, that this would violate separation of church & state...essentially saying that they've a right to get them at someone else's cost. Hmmmm.....interesting analog for this thread, eh?

 

[Mycroft]

I've often seen here (RF) the argument that if churches had to pay for these services, that this would violate separation of church & state...essentially saying that they've a right to get them at someone else's cost. Hmmmm.....interesting analog for this thread, eh?

I think that particular sentiment is a very convenient excuse to avoid paying taxes.

 

[Nakosis]

Of course there's no Church Tax. But the Church owns a lot of real estate which is not taxed from the Church itself. That tax has to be passed on to other property owners (who are taxpayers).

No, the property is tax free. No one be taxed for it.

If a church catches fire or is burglarized, you can bet the pastor/priest will call on the fire department or police department for services. These are services for which the churches pay no taxes to support. In other words, the taxpayers are forced to provide free fire and police services to churches. The churches are also getting free services from all the agencies funded by property taxes.

All of the members pay taxes by other means. The Tax payers go to Church, the Tax payers would likely want police and fire protection. They feel the church is of benefit to the community.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that particular sentiment is a very convenient excuse to avoid paying taxes.

I'm sure some are sincere, but I find it an empty argument.
No doubt they'd continue worshiping just fine even if they
were paying property taxes like the rest of us.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm sure some are sincere, but I find it an empty argument.
No doubt they'd continue worshiping just fine even if they
were paying property taxes like the rest of us.

Darn old constitution gets in the way...

I suppose until enough stop believing in separation of Church and state.

Taxes have a lot of power to control.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aye, most of the handgun carriers I know are atheists.
(I don't think Jesus was into guns.)

Jesus was more of a bullwhip-and-sword guy.

 

[ScuzManiac]

I don't see what the big deal is?

If you don't like it, don't work there.

And Hobby Lobby around here pays their employees VERY well....

Especially considering what the job is/where it is.

And condoms are free people. EVERY local health department gives them away.

Again, if you don't like it, don't work there.

Chik-Fil-A didn't hire me as a teen because I had tattoos....

Did I cry about it? No. I got a job elsewhere.

And in the US, jobs aren't hard to find. IF you're willing to TAKE any job.

 

[metis]

I don't see what the big deal is?

If you don't like it, don't work there.

And Hobby Lobby around here pays their employees VERY well....

Especially considering what the job is/where it is.

And condoms are free people. EVERY local health department gives them away.

Again, if you don't like it, don't work there.

Chik-Fil-A didn't hire me as a teen because I had tattoos....

Did I cry about it? No. I got a job elsewhere.

And in the US, jobs aren't hard to find. IF you're willing to TAKE any job.

But this can be played both ways. Why is it that the employee must move if he/she doesn't like the conditions but the employer supposedly can't sell? Let me give an example.

Let's say that you've been working at Widget Inc. for 25 years. So, a CEO that's been there for 10 years works with a board who's average time with the corporation is 12 years, let's say. Why should they have all of the decision-making power and you none? Without you and the other employees, the corporation could not function.

I think it's truly unfortunate that so many Americans have bought into the oligarchical style that owners and boards can and should operate using an authoritarian model, and that employees like you are merely just powerless pawns in their chess game.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Let's see, would I rather make 8 dollars an hour and have my insurance pay for a 30 dollar morning after pill or make 16 dollars an hour and buy the pill myself?

No one is depriving anyone, this mindset of if someone else is not paying for something I can't have it is ignorant.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you don't agree with Hobby Lobby, don't work or shop there.

 

[Revoltingest]

But this can be played both ways. Why is it that the employee must move if he/she doesn't like the conditions but the employer supposedly can't sell? Let me give an example.

Let's say that you've been working at Widget Inc. for 25 years. So, a CEO that's been there for 10 years works with a board who's average time with the corporation is 12 years, let's say. Why should they have all of the decision-making power and you none? Without you and the other employees, the corporation could not function.

I think it's truly unfortunate that so many Americans have bought into the oligarchical style that owners and boards can and should operate using an authoritarian model, and that employees like you are merely just powerless pawns in their chess game.

Businesses are generally not democracies. When I start a company, risking my own capital, & assuming all liability, then I expect to run the show & reap the big rewards. Sure, sure, I'll listen to workers, & act upon good advice, but ultimately I'm in charge, & they provide work in exchange for a wage + bennies. They can quit for a better job at any time (& they do). If the company is sued, I'm at risk & they aren't.
Workers have the right & ability to start their own democratically organized businesses. They can also risk their own money to buy stock in companies they work for, thereby gaining a greater voice. Far & away, most of'm lack the initiative to make this choice.

But let's make your analogy more applicable. Widgets Inc has been offering its compensation package to employees (who agreed to it by staying there for many years), when all of a sudden the government unilaterally changed the agreement by requiring Widgets Inc to provide contraception to female employees. The affected employees had been buying their own prior to the new law, ie, they had no right to their employer to pay for them. I suppose that Widgets Inc (who opposes contraception) could just move overseas, but is that a reasonable solution? You might argue that government is a democracy, but 2 wolves & a goat voting on dinner's main dish is not always yield equitable results.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't see what the big deal is?

If you don't like it, don't work there.

And Hobby Lobby around here pays their employees VERY well....

Especially considering what the job is/where it is.

And condoms are free people. EVERY local health department gives them away.

Again, if you don't like it, don't work there.

Chik-Fil-A didn't hire me as a teen because I had tattoos....

Did I cry about it? No. I got a job elsewhere.

And in the US, jobs aren't hard to find. IF you're willing to TAKE any job.

If you don't agree with Hobby Lobby, don't work or shop there.

Is it that people don't understand the concept of "equal treatment under the law", or is it that people don't care about "equal treatment under the law"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it that people don't understand the concept of "equal treatment under the law", or is it that people don't care about "equal treatment under the law"?

Some people (including USSC justices) also recognize that laws will have
exceptions for religious & other reasons. This has numerous precedents,
either by legislation or by court decision.

 

[metis]

Businesses are generally not democracies. When I start a company, risking my own capital, & assuming all liability, then I expect to run the show & reap the big rewards. Sure, sure, I'll listen to workers, & act upon good advice, but ultimately I'm in charge, & they provide work in exchange for a wage + bennies. They can quit for a better job at any time (& they do). If the company is sued, I'm at risk & they aren't.

You might note that in my example I used a corporation and not a privately-owned business, and I to a large extent agree with you above, but...

Even though you might own the company, without the employees you ain't doing squat. For you to be Joe Dictator with your business makes so little sense to me since "it takes two to tango", and you can't tango by yourself. Yes, you took the risks, but that was your choice; and even if your risk failed, life goes on. And the hurt would be shared by both you and those who lose their jobs if your risk failed, so it's not just you who took them.

Workers have the right & ability to start their own democratically organized businesses. They can also risk their own money to buy stock in companies they work for, thereby gaining a greater voice. Far & away, most of'm lack the initiative to make this choice.

I agree, and I actually prefer businesses that operate more as cooperatives.

But let's make your analogy more applicable. Widgets Inc has been offering its compensation package to employees (who agreed to it by staying there for many years), when all of a sudden the government unilaterally changed the agreement by requiring Widgets Inc to provide contraception to female employees. The affected employees had been buying their own prior to the new law, ie, they had no right to their employer to pay for them. I suppose that Widgets Inc (who opposes contraception) could just move overseas, but is that a reasonable solution? You might argue that government is a democracy, but 2 wolves & a goat voting on dinner's main dish is not always yield equitable results.

Since I don't like the dictatorial model, I think worker input is very important, but not exclusively just them. Compromise and working out solutions are preferable to me versus there being authoritarian rule or total anarchy.

 

[Andal]

Hobby Lobby covers vesectomies and Viagra. They produce their merchandise in China and their 401k plan is connected with companies that produce contraceptives. It appears they are in support of it when they are making money.

hobby Lobby- your leader in hypocrisy.

Supreme Court- corporations are people but women aren't.

Happy Independence Day!

 

[Andal]

Double post

 

[metis]

Hobby Lobby covers vesectomies and Viagra. They produce their merchandise in China and their 401k plan is connected with companies that produce contraceptives. It appears they are in support of it when they are making money.

hobby Lobby- your leader in hypocrisy.

Happy Independence Day!

I agree with you, which leads me to think that HL's "outrage" is probably more politically motivated than intrinsically moral. Either that or they're so dull of mind that they can't see their own hypocrisy.

 

[Revoltingest]

You might note that in my example I used a corporation and not a privately-owned business, and I to a large extent agree with you above, but...

Of course, corporations can be privately held too. But the distinction isn't significant for my purposes, since in all forms of ownership the owners risk the capital, & the workers get wages in exchange for work.

Even though you might own the company, without the employees you ain't doing squat. For you to be Joe Dictator with your business makes so little sense to me since "it takes two to tango", and you can't tango by yourself. Yes, you took the risks, but that was your choice; and even if your risk failed, life goes on. And the hurt would be shared by both you and those who lose their jobs if your risk failed, so it's not just you who took them.

No one disputes the necessity of workers. To attract them, I offer compensation commensurate with their wants. But give them control of the company? No way. If I make bad decisions which cause the company to fail, then I lose far more than the workers do, ie, I lose all my capital & my job, while they lose only their jobs. Besides, they got exactly what they bargained for when they accepted the job.

I agree, and I actually prefer businesses that operate more as cooperatives.

This is the alternative for workers who want some control, but without going so far as to assume the work & risk of starting one's own company.

Since I don't like the dictatorial model, I think worker input is very important, but not exclusively just them. Compromise and working out solutions are preferable to me versus there being authoritarian rule or total anarchy.

In reality, companies vary widely in how much input workers have.
One should consider one's desires for control in seeking a job.

 

[Koldo]

Supreme Court- corporations are people but women aren't.

I have been wondering where all of this started. I mean this sentence. I have heard it so often.

Did this actually happen? Or has it always been a complete misrepresentation of what is going on?

 

[Revoltingest]

Supreme Court- corporations are people but women aren't.

Women lose a legal battle to compel some corporations to provide them with free contraceptives
under a new law....so therefore women aren't people, but corporations now are? I don't think so.