SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LITTLE CAESAR’S RIGHT TO FEED CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEES TO LIONS

First, Hobby Lobby employs about 15,000 people, and this decision will have little to no impact on corporate America. 85% of large employers already offered to pay for these contraceptives in question as part of their benefits packages before the Affordable Care Act was passed. Paying for them is cheaper than paying the costs of a pregnancy.

While I don't believe the owners of Hobby Lobby are demanding anything outrageous by asking to exempt only four types of contraception, the "slippery slope" of this argument is in the precedent that it sets for others who will seek to abuse it. There are many other provisions of the Affordable Care Act that could be deemed equally, if not more damaging to small businesses than this contraceptive provision, but Hobby Lobby chose this one because it is religious in nature and therefore inflammatory. They achieved the goal of making headlines for their faith. But at what cost?

The allowance for privately owned businesses to determine what they will or won't pay for in regard to employee benefits based on "strongly held" (what does that even mean?) religious beliefs does not seem so extreme when the religious beliefs in question happen to be the beliefs held by the majority. It "makes sense" to most people. However, when you consider the vast and varying religions available for one to choose from as a business owner, the possibility for discrimination and abuse on all sides must be considered.

In this specific instance, Christian owners of a privately held business should be allowed to run their business according to Christian beliefs. Those who do not agree do not have to shop there or work there. Hit them in the wallet. Simple, right?

Now take a look from the perspective of a non-religious woman working currently for Hobby Lobby who also happens to use one of these questionable types of birth control prescribed to her by her doctor. Why her doctor chose to prescribe that method is between her and her doctor. Her prescription will not be paid for by Hobby Lobby any longer, but she needs employment to support her family. Her co-worker uses a Hobby Lobby approved version of birth control prescribed by her doctor for reasons that are also between her and her doctor and her's is paid for by Hobby Lobby. Is Hobby Lobby now discriminating against the first woman because she is being treated differently based on the professional advice of her doctor? Should she have to discard her doctor's advice and go with an approved birth control out of financial necessity? Will female employees now feel compelled to keep their preferred but questionable prescriptions by obtaining them illegally through another individual's insurance?

And what about other implications not even in reference to the birth control issue? Could this highly publicized case also make female employees of Hobby Lobby feel compelled to agree with the religious beliefs of the owners for fear of being retaliated against for speaking against it? Does this constitute a "hostile work environment" for women using a UID? If they quit Hobby Lobby over this difference of belief, will it be held against them in future consideration for employment? If a woman is fired for other legitimate reasons but happens to use one of these contraceptives in question, does this open the door for frivolous unlawful termination lawsuits?

And what about other "morally questionable" prescriptions? If I own my own business and I can demonstrate that my strongly held religious beliefs disagree with the use of mood altering drugs, should I then take my case to the Supreme Court to argue that I can refuse to pay for the anti-depressant prescribed to my employee? And who gets to decide if my religious belief is legitimate enough to meet this standard? Based on the precedent set by this case, it seems reasonable that the Supreme Court would at least have to consider my argument.

To take it to an extreme point, certain religions would have you refuse all medical treatment whatsoever because it goes against god's wishes. If I'm an unscrupulous business owner, that sounds like a pretty good way to get out of being required by the Affordable Care Act to pay for health insurance for any of my employees. I would never win that case, but it could tie up courts and cost millions in the process. Or maybe I would?

I don't claim to be a lawyer or even close to one, but something about this has me feeling like it will open up a huge number of loop holes for people with ill intentions, and the impact will far outweigh any conversation about the good intentions of a Hobby Lobby owner.

Jestor wrote: You dont see that as helping perpetuate the thing that you are against?

Its ok, as long as you are not doing it?

Would you have rode the bus after Rosa Parks indecent?

Would you buy sugar/coffee/tobacco/cotton if you knew there were slaves working behind it?

Just thought proding, not saying you would...

Not judging a slave owner, is not the same as supporting them, by buying their slave products, lol...

If I were to ever ride a bus, I would ride a bus before, after, with Rosa Parks. The bus is not the problem nor is riding it. The problem was the bigot driving and the attitude of the nation at the time.

I buy things every day that are made by slaves. So does everyone else. That does not mean we support the way it was made or the conditions the people work under. It means we want the product. So I guess we are all hypocrites?

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.

Oh wait... there is this.

In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion, and over time.
In the positive influence of spiritual growth and awareness on society.

So I guess the moral concepts of another nation which have developed over time, even though they do not coincide with our own, we should respect that they are theirs? I would not want to live there and hope that one day unfair treatment of all peoples comes to an end. But I would not judge others based on my own beliefs or force mine upon them.

I know what you are saying though and it is a valid point and can be viewed that way by many.
But the reality of the situation is that until we become a self sustaining nation once more that if we want what others have we are just going to have to deal with it. And that does not make anyone a hypocrite. Just means we live in a world where people treat each other crappy.

Change is inevitable, and is happening everyday, even as we speak. It seems slow sometimes but it continues to march on. We, as citizens of the world, are responsible for trying to make the best changes we can... and I think that the Supreme Court deciding it is unconstitutional for the government to pass laws that infringe upon the individuals belief of religion is a good step.


I know you were prodding me. Cool. I was being sarcastic. Mostly I have a hard time seeing the justification of one person being in conflict with their own teachings and calling out someone else for their perceived fallacy. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.


hahahhahahahhaha :woohoo: :silly:

Two arguments I already made on the topic elsewhere, copied and pasted for your thoughts:



Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

I agree. And I was just having a discussion via PM where I said,

Personally, do I think that government should be able to force insurance on you or force you to buy a private companies product, like car insurance? Nope. I think you should be able to get it if you want it and that it should be affordable to the individual. I also think that companies should be able to turn a profit but not be allowed to gouge patrons. I think that the first step in all that is to regulate the medical industry. Health care would not be an issue if it didn't cost 5 dollars a pill for aspirin at the hospital or 175 for an x-ray by some technician that can't even read it where it has to be sent back to the doctor and you have to pay a co-fee again on your return visit.

But that is a different conversation all together I think.

The cost of health care is through the roof. And where I have no problem with people making a living, even making a good living due to their chosen profession, I do have issue with people being denied medical care because they can’t afford it.

And unfortunately, a lot of the cost incurred in medical bills is because we have been allowed to sue doctors for malpractice. This in turn raises their insurance and someone is going to cover that cost. The cost of schooling to become a doctor is insane. But it can be paid off in a few years with as much as doctors make.

So a part of the problem then comes back to the banking and legal system… which is where this conversation started.

So what do you do?

I'm Just going to say, it seems that SCOTUS is trying to slow chip away at the validity of ACA. They are saying it is oppressing the religious freedoms of employers by forcing them to provide insurance coverage for something they don't believe in; obviously SCOTUS ruled to overturn that part of the ACA. However, in that decision they have oppressed the rites of the individual. Congress has already determined that employers cannot discriminate in hiring people of different faiths. Aye, we have reached a slippery slope.

Just saw this on facebook. had to laugh.

My main concern with this whole thing wasn't specifically with Hobby Lobby, but with the precedence set by the SCOTUS in this case, which will undoubtedly set the bar for many other businesses. As pointed out, the corporate society we live in makes it a bit difficult to afford some things on our own if we aren't wealthy enough. Also, an owner of a small business shouldn't be forced to do something against their religious views or beliefs. I think it's also wrong to invariably force one's beliefs on another person, which is something that was pointed out, as well. Such a catch-22. It just seems contradictory.

Anyway, this is how I view it. If it offends you, please ignore me (or don't; it's up to you).


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Also, this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-finds-more-americans-putting-off-children-u,36354/

Student loans are an agreement between you and the bank. I’m sure that if you tell the bank that you are deeply religious they will be happy to write you a loan that expects you to pay it off within the seven year period.

As to what people keep posting about companies being able to kill someone because of religious beliefs…
That is what is at the core of all of this I think. Some seem to be joking about it, but take a close look at the signs being held by protestors and supporters. A lot of them say things like prochoice and prolife.

In the video Khaos posted in the Gaia Topci…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NrYYqCfHJmA
It explains how all processes on Earth seem to be entropic except life. From the start life seem to become more complex and building, organizing and growing.

There has been a debate for some time as to when life starts during a pregnancy. And the birth control measures in question are ones designed to abort something that has started. The people at Hobby Lobby don’t want to run around killing people… in fact, they are saying that they believe life starts from inception and that they hold life sacred and are being asked to provide the weapon to employees to commit murder. They are asking not to be force to be an accessory to killing defenseless babies that did not ask to be here but are the actions of the parents.

I completely agree. As a Jedi, I hold all life to be sacred. And as I posted the other day…

“Just because you don't like something doesn't mean nobody else will, and just because you can't see something, doesn't mean nobody else can.”
― Terry Masters

I recognize that not everyone shares my views; they do not hold life to be sacred. They have a desire to kill babies and to do so with a clean conscience they will call it something else. That is there prerogative no matter how much I dislike it. But demanding that the government force people to support you in your crusade of murder… that is unreasonable.

And that is just how I feel about it.

Wescli Wardest wrote:
I recognize that not everyone shares my views; they do not hold life to be sacred. They have a desire to kill [strike]babies[/strike]what I consider to be a baby, and to do so with a clean conscience they will call it something else. That is there prerogative no matter how much I dislike it. But demanding that the government force people to support you in your crusade of murder… that is unreasonable.

And that is just how I feel about it.

Our lines on what constitutes a baby may be different...

Jestor wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote:
I recognize that not everyone shares my views; they do not hold life to be sacred. They have a desire to kill [strike]babies[/strike]what I consider to be a baby, and to do so with a clean conscience they will call it something else. That is there prerogative no matter how much I dislike it. But demanding that the government force people to support you in your crusade of murder… that is unreasonable.

And that is just how I feel about it.

Our lines on what constitutes a baby may be different...

That's just it. I do not consider a bunch of cells lumped in a mass a baby. I do consider it life; life that will become a baby.

People say that it cannot survive outside the womb and that is correct. Just as we cannot survive outside our "womb" or our life supporting habitat. How many people think they would survive if tossed out into space? :ohmy:

Those are the fine lines being drawn. What we are willing to kill for our own purposes. I was setting on the porch last night carving wood. And being eaten alive by mosquitoes. Rather than try and swat each one of them, no matter how annoying they are, I just went inside. I wouldn't mind burning the candles that make them go away, but I didn't have any. But I do consider all life to be sacred so I did not just decide they were and inconvenience and try to kill them.

Every day we have choices to make. We can do what is easy or convenient, or we can chose to do what is right.