A Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by lethal tupperwa, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    That's a function of commerce, and within his purview as the owner.
    You'd support something similar to the old mining towns, where employees were paid only with company scrip redeemable only in the company stores?

    How does one get from a supposedly Christian worldview to denying their employees health care?

    Why did you choose not to address any of the questions I asked?

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. I was not making a claim about the validity of the position. I was trying to clarify what the mainline view concerning these pills and regular birth control pills is. I am not inclined to discuss the validity of the position at present.

    What if everyone refuses to work for him at that point? In other words let people's choices influence his. He can then either choose to cover genetic diseases or go out of business. I am less concerned with what he covers and why than I am with a group of people mandating that he do it under threat of violence.

  3. I am not denying anyone healthcare. He is not denying anyone health care. How could I support healthcare provisions that are offered under threat of violence? If I owned a business I would want to provide my employees with the maximum benefits I could afford. I would also want that to be my choice.

    All of the discussion of a specific benefit is academic in my case as I do not support government mandated health care to begin with, and find the current Administrations socialization of health care repulsive. The more Americans allow government to control the less we control individually. This seems self evident, and yet people either do not understand it, or worse yet do not care.
  4. None I guess I just thought you wanted to discuss since you asked for it. I assume we either agree or agree to disagree if you have not points to make.

    In regards to business you are. And I don't mean that to be condescending. Look at the history of business and industry in this nation alone. Without regulations and standards on what employees deserve or can expect we had 12 year olds dying in coal mines, women working for next to nothing, zero employee benefits. Without standards there'd be no minimum wage. Look at how pathetic the minimum wage is now. There must be standards and regulations otherwise the majority of business owners would absolutely exploit the work force. It's a double edged sword of course. You take it too far and you have union nut jobs demanding $50.00 an hour wage standards for unskilled labor with 4 day work weeks and 30 minute breaks every 30 minutes. So it's a balancing act for sure. But we cannot view business standards through libertarian goggles. Not in a system where it's profitable to take advantage of people.

    I didn't choose anything. The government has set this standard. To take religious issue with one or more is pointless. And it can't be allowed to set a precedent. If it does then it won't be long before employers refuse to offer any medical benefits to employees due to religious objects.

    This is your assumption. To me... birth control is no different than Advil. It's a personal care product. It has no morality issue attached to it. Why shouldn't it be included with medical benefits? ESPECIALLY when pregnancy can and does effect work conditions. The only side making it about ideals and morals and values are the religious. Because it has to do with sex. And religious people love trying to restrict, or condition, or direct people in how and when they have sex. If birth control becomes a standard for employee benefits then it just is what it is. If the owners of Hobby Lobby have such a moral objection to it... let them fold up shop.

    But not both groups are making it about morality.

    It's possible, but you simply need to try and understand how badly employees would be treated if we had absolute liberty in regards to employment standards. It is profitable to pay your employees as little as possible. It's profitable to discriminate. It's profitable to only hire men because they don't get pregnant and want maternity leave. It's profitable to not maintain your safety equipment. It's profitable to use child labor. You see where I'm going? This is a new standard set by the government. I don't really see the issue. But if it's simply a religious issue then the owners of HL can go jump off a bridge for all I care.
  5. I didn't suggest a boycott. And I'm sure the owners of HL won't fold up shop. They'll lose their law suit and have to step in line with government regulations. And that will be the end of it.

    Lots of places are doing that. I think quality will begin to suffer though as a result. Employees are assets when treated well.
  6. Should he also be allowed to employ 10 year old children to work around dangerous arm removing machines for 16 hours a day? How about sweat shop conditions. What if that's what the owner wants to do?
  7. And when ALL employers decide to pay their people less than $3.00 an hour? Then what?

Share This Page