Hobby Lobby Case - Page 10
+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 106
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: Hobby Lobby Case

  1. #91
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    What is the difference?
    Perhaps the biggest difference is that the Hobby Lobby stood up and fought for what they believed in, willing to risk everything they had for a cause they believed passionately in and to make their voice heard.

    Whether or not you agree with what they were fighting for, I believe that it is highly commendable that they were willing to stand against the grain and not let themselves be bullied into doing what they believe is morally wrong.

    ~Bonita~

  2. #92
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    Perhaps the biggest difference is that the Hobby Lobby stood up and fought for what they believed in, willing to risk everything they had for a cause they believed passionately in and to make their voice heard.

    Whether or not you agree with what they were fighting for, I believe that it is highly commendable that they were willing to stand against the grain and not let themselves be bullied into doing what they believe is morally wrong.
    If the Quakers did that they'd be arrested for not paying their taxes. Also, that doesn't at all answer the question. I didn't ask what the difference was in their action after the fact, I asked what the difference was on the principle of the thing. If you believe Hobby Lobby shoudn't have to pay for mandated health care services for religious reasons, then you should believe that Quakers shouldn't have to pay taxes or that they should have proof that their tax money doesn't ever go to the military. No?
    Last edited by freddieflounder101; 07-04-2014 at 12:51 PM.
    blather likes this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  3. #93
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    The difference is that the bill for the morning after pill would go to Hobby Lobby and they would pay that bill. They are self-insured so they don't pay set premiums to someone else they pay the bills themselves for each item they agree to cover.
    Does the government send you an itemized bill for a gun for you to pay? No you pay your taxes and someone else decides where that money goes. If you can't see the difference than I don't know how else to explain it to you.
    The principle is still exactly the same. They are required to pay for something that goes against their religion.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  4. #94
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,119

    Default

    And can I ask for clarification. Are you saying if they don't self-insure then the moral dilemma wouldn't exist anymore?

    If not... Then stop making it sounds like this is about the fact that they self-insure
    Last edited by KimPossible; 07-04-2014 at 11:32 AM.

  5. #95
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    And can I ask for clarification. Are you saying if they don't self-insure then the moral dilemma wouldn't exist anymore?

    If not... Then stop making it sounds like this is about the fact that they self-insure
    I can not speak for Gloria, but I do think there would be a difference between a company paying X amount of dollars per employee to a private company that then took care of all aspects of the health care, then an employee directly paying for a product. The problem comes in when all the available companies support something that you are morally against.

    I guess an example would be Walmart. You can feel that Walmart's practices are immoral and not want to participate in any way by shopping at Walmart and giving them your money. That does not mean that you believe you are sinning if you shop at Walmart. In the same way the Hobby Lobby should not have to support an insurance company that provides something that they feel is morally wrong. Neither should they have to provide the objectionable product either.

    ~Bonita~

  6. #96
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I can not speak for Gloria, but I do think there would be a difference between a company paying X amount of dollars per employee to a private company that then took care of all aspects of the health care, then an employee directly paying for a product. The problem comes in when all the available companies support something that you are morally against.

    I guess an example would be Walmart. You can feel that Walmart's practices are immoral and not want to participate in any way by shopping at Walmart and giving them your money. That does not mean that you believe you are sinning if you shop at Walmart. In the same way the Hobby Lobby should not have to support an insurance company that provides something that they feel is morally wrong. Neither should they have to provide the objectionable product either.
    The Walmart analogy doesn't work either.

    Hobby Lobby's objection IS that it's a sin. They think it's a sin to use an IUD, for example, which is why they don't want to pay for it. Religious reasons. It wouldn't matter if they paid an insurance company or paid directly; the minute money from Hobby Lobby goes to cover an IUD, they would object. There can be no middlemen, or 20. The bottom line is, they do NOT want to pay for their employees (who may or may nor share their beliefs) to use a product they believe is a sin to use.

    Quakers believe violence and war are morally wrong. It is against their religious beliefs. Yet they pay taxes which go to military spending. They don't have an option to say that they don't want their money going towards that, despite their religious beliefs.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  7. #97
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I can not speak for Gloria, but I do think there would be a difference between a company paying X amount of dollars per employee to a private company that then took care of all aspects of the health care, then an employee directly paying for a product. The problem comes in when all the available companies support something that you are morally against.
    Well that would be the case because it's required. So there is no difference... So I think we should stop pointing to the self insured thing being the difference between this and the quaker example.
    Emma 08/31/01
    Aodhan 07/24/03
    Lillian 03/04/05
    Nathalie 07/01/07
    Cecilia Marie 1/10/10


    Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography

  8. #98
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    So if you bought Arsenic for someone knowing full well that they were going to use it to poison someone would you say you had no responsibility for that person's death? What if they make assisted suicide legal should corporations be forced to provide a poison on their list of approved medications?
    If it is my deeply-held religious belief that psychiatric medication is poison and I believe that by taking psychiatric medication you are committing suicide, should I have right to refuse to cover psychiatric medication even if it's just one or two that I find especially toxic?Since a corporation "believes" certain bc is akin to abortion, can I not also argue that I believe drugs akin to committing suicide are akin to murder?

  9. #99
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,538

    Default

    Most people that I know that are on the side of the Hobby Lobby do not believe that the Government should be able to force employers to provide anything other than a fair wage. A benefit is supposed to be just that, a benefit not a requirement. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that ACA is Constitutional, but as we can see, the kinks are still being worked out. One of those kinks is not requiring people to go against their moral conviction. I would rather the whole law be tossed out, but as long as it is not, I am deeply thankful that at least some restrictions are being put on it.

    ~Bonita~

  10. #100
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    Most people that I know that are on the side of the Hobby Lobby do not believe that the Government should be able to force employers to provide anything other than a fair wage. A benefit is supposed to be just that, a benefit not a requirement. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that ACA is Constitutional, but as we can see, the kinks are still being worked out. One of those kinks is not requiring people to go against their moral conviction. I would rather the whole law be tossed out, but as long as it is not, I am deeply thankful that at least some restrictions are being put on it.
    Well that's very nice, but it's not really a debate point.

    But I agree with you that the people who support Hobby Lobby aren't really that concerned about the birth control issue, and are just angry about mandated health care and so they'll take what they can.

    I think the decision actually creates a dangerous precedent.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions