# Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court



## tenaj (Feb 22, 2011)

This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.

Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.

The Bee is boycotting Hobby Lobby.

My personal opinion is that no one should be able to take free choice away from anyone. And everyone have the right to choose birth control as long as it is not abortion related. 

Do you think a boycott is the way to go?


----------



## Dodi2056 (Dec 31, 2013)

No woman should have her right to decide how many children she should have, not a husband, and certainly not an employer. The employer should not know anything about what the employee's doctor's appointment is for, and if it is after working hours, should not even know if the employee has been to the doctor.

I would support a boycott, however, I live in Canada and don't have a Hobby Lobby anywhere near me, let alone any other LYS either, but that is a completely different issue.


----------



## KatieRose (Mar 26, 2013)

There is a business in our area that is Mennonite owned (somewhat Amish, but a little more "modern") that has a case before the United States Supreme Court on this very issue. They will be forced to include birth control in their health plan, but are opposed to it. They think that it is a form of abortion. Decision won't be made until later in the summer. My thought - just because you have access to it, doesn't mean that you have to do it.


----------



## carriemae (Aug 28, 2012)

I will shop at hobby lobby every chance I get.


----------



## jumbleburt (Mar 10, 2011)

I'm currently boycotting them, and although they aren't losing much business, I would feel I was betraying my beliefs if I contributed in any way to a company that feels they have the right to dictate employees' medical decisions.


----------



## TheresaD (Feb 19, 2011)

It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


----------



## Roni Masse (Jan 28, 2014)

Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control. They only are against 4 products whose side effect or purpose is to cause an abortion (these 4 themselves are not used for conventional birth control). I myself am not boycotting anyone. The nearest HL is 35 miles from me and carries very little I would be interested in.


----------



## ELareau (Nov 4, 2012)

I think HobLobb's owner is out of line. The cost of birth control is not coming out of his pocket because that Rx coverage has very little to no effect on the cost of health insurance. 

Curious how he would react when every female in his store became pregnant at the same time. Yes, I know he's very good at hiring women past the age of fertility. 

He's a privately-held corporation so he should only hire Christian conservatives with like beliefs.

I have a right to not shop in his stores because I disagree with his beliefs. I don't order Domino's because that owner supports radical right to lifers. I don't go to Chick-Fil-A because he discriminates against gays. I don't shop at Walmart because the Walton family discriminates against women, chooses to not pay a living wage to their employees, demands lesser quality from their vendors to reduce costs.


----------



## jumbleburt (Mar 10, 2011)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


Sometimes it's a choice; unfortunately, for too many women it isn't.


----------



## Raybo (Mar 12, 2011)

jumbleburt said:


> I'm currently boycotting them, and although they aren't losing much business, I would feel I was betraying my beliefs if I contributed in any way to a company that feels they have the right to dictate employees' medical decisions.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Happy in retirement (Jul 20, 2011)

Why should one boycott them? Everyone has their own believes and that shouldn't mean they are judged because of it. I'm sure everyone of us believes in something that someone else doesn't, so does that mean you are right or wrong? Leave them alone, look at the jobs they create and the pay that there workers are much better than most places. Why take away from them for all the good they are doing, and how many people will loose their jobs because of our incompetant government.


----------



## babsbarb (Dec 23, 2012)

I don't understand what the big deal is. I have a friend that is about 65 years old, male, single (ladies are you looking???) We are in Oregon. Until recently was on his x-wife's insurance. He had to purchase insurance for himself that covers pregnancy. WHY should he have to have this coverage, when we all know what chance he has of becoming pregnant??


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

ELareau said:


> I think HobLobb's owner is out of line. The cost of birth control is not coming out of his pocket because that Rx coverage has very little to no effect on the cost of health insurance.
> 
> Curious how he would react when every female in his store became pregnant at the same time. Yes, I know he's very good at hiring women past the age of fertility.
> 
> ...


Good for you, ELareau. If more people voted with their pocket books, things in this world may not be as bad as they are. I have a long list of products I do not buy because of the company that makes them. The list is too long for here.

I am pleased to see that you share my reasons for not shopping at Walmart. The last time this topic came up, I was pilloried. According to some, Walmart is god's gift to the world. I would rather pay more than contribute to the low standards that I believe Walmart has.


----------



## carriemae (Aug 28, 2012)

Hobby lobby doesn't care what women do they just don't want to pay for it. Why should anyone pay for someone else's choices???? Personally I'm sick of paying for things that moochers think they deserve


----------



## TapestryArtist (Sep 4, 2013)

Maybe he likes women who can still have children??????


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

carriemae said:


> Hobby lobby doesn't care what women do they just don't want to pay for it. Why should anyone pay for someone else's choices???? Personally I'm sick of paying for things that moochers think they deserve


I wonder if Hobby Lobby is "paying" for Viagra? I say, if a man can't sustain an erection and have sex any more, then he should just learn to put up with it (or without it, as the case may be). I surely don't want to pay for a moocher to get Viagra so he can have sex.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

At one time my husband's company insurance did not pay for birth control and I was quite surprised to learn that my daughter's insurance did. I didn't need it as I had had a tubular ligation. But if I had needed birth control, I would have had to pay for it myself. As far as I understand, the employer does pay the insurance company for items that are covered. It is HL's prerogative to choose what will be covered. They are not saying that a woman should not use birth control, only that the woman should foot the bill. I don't see anything wrong with that.

My husband's dental insurance, for instance, has a limit of $1,000 each. Once we have reached that limit, we pay for everything else. This can sometimes run to hundreds of dollars if caps, extractions, etc., are involved. Do I not get my teeth fixed because of this?

Birth control is not very expensive. Try having to buy insulin when you have no insurance. We are all becoming too complacent and reliant on others to foot our bills. When will be responsible for our own actions and costs of those actions?


----------



## missylam (Aug 27, 2011)

Roni Masse said:


> Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control. They only are against 4 products whose side effect or purpose is to cause an abortion (these 4 themselves are not used for conventional birth control). I myself am not boycotting anyone. The nearest HL is 35 miles from me and carries very little I would be interested in.


You are correct about Hobby Lobby, they are not opposing birth control, just the morning after pill that causes abortion.

No I won't boycott Hobby Lobby, will shop there any opportunity.


----------



## judybug52 (Sep 26, 2012)

I love hobby lobby and will shop there every chance I get!


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

Why should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs? If someone does not agree with their policy, they should shop or find a job elsewhere.What happened to religious freedom?


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

missylam said:


> You are correct about Hobby Lobby, they are not opposing birth control, just the morning after pill that causes abortion.
> 
> No I won't boycott Hobby Lobby, will shop there any opportunity.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: Yup ... shopped there yeserday


----------



## YoK2tog (Aug 17, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> Good for you, ELareau. If more people voted with their pocket books, things in this world may not be as bad as they are. I have a long list of products I do not buy because of the company that makes them. The list is too long for here.
> 
> I am pleased to see that you share my reasons for not shopping at Walmart. The last time this topic came up, I was pilloried. According to some, Walmart is god's gift to the world. I would rather pay more than contribute to the low standards that I believe Walmart has.


add me to the list of "not on my knees giving praises to walmart" not fond of them and go elsewhere for my items my pet peeve is finding a company not in the NASCAR pockets they are few and far between


----------



## babsbarb (Dec 23, 2012)

It ONLY covers him, not anyone else!
That is my point, Why should anyone tell us what we have to do. After all this is the U.S.A.


TapestryArtist said:


> Maybe he likes women who can still have children??????


----------



## TapestryArtist (Sep 4, 2013)

I believe that men should not have Viagra paid for. If he can't "do it", wants to "do it", let him pay for it himself. He could cause someone to need birth control. If she should pay, he should pay. This whole discussion is not worth the time people worry about what other people should do in the private places of their lives.


----------



## reborn knitter (Apr 7, 2013)

tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


If you believe "no one has the right to take free choice away from anyone" does that not also mean some one has the free choice to refrain from being forced to do something that they find wrong, i.e. include birth control in the company insurance coverage? Perhaps if companies removed Viagra et al from the company insurance coverage there would not be a need for so much birth control! It's okay, I've got my hard hat on-let the blows begin!


----------



## reborn knitter (Apr 7, 2013)

TapestryArtist said:


> I believe that men should not have Viagra paid for. If he can't "do it", wants to "do it", let him pay for it himself. He could cause someone to need birth control. If she should pay, he should pay. This whole discussion is not worth the time people worry about what other people should do in the private places of their lives.


I didn't see your post until after I wrote mine- TaperstryArtist, want to borrow a hard hat?


----------



## blessedinMO (Mar 9, 2013)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


 :thumbup: and why should the consequences of one choosing to have sex become an employment compensation issue?


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

ELareau said:


> I think HobLobb's owner is out of line. The cost of birth control is not coming out of his pocket because that Rx coverage has very little to no effect on the cost of health insurance.
> 
> Curious how he would react when every female in his store became pregnant at the same time. Yes, I know he's very good at hiring women past the age of fertility.
> 
> ...


Private corporations should have the same rights as a private citizen. There are no share holders to help determine end results on issues. And a great many of their employees hold the same conviction, or maybe they would chose not to work there. If people did not like my DHs view on the military, would they boycott the electrical co. he lays line for and do without one of life's necessities? I think not. Sometimes it is easy to boycott businesses because the same service is awaiting them down the block. I applaud you for doing what you believe you can live with in your heart and soul.My take is, if we boycott everyone we do not agree with and it becomes a grass roots movement, who's jobs are we endangering, whose part time job is taken from a student trying to better him/ herself, we would be on a soap box everyday because some companies just irritate our sensibilities etc. and rarely does it change a thing, sometimes the exact opposite, the other side of the fence mobilizes and the free advertising etc. is in full swing. Sometimes the short term solution flares, dies a quick death and is forgotten. I actually weigh my conscience pro and con and may or may not shop there. Thank heavens we are in a country that allows these individual choices to be made. Forced child labor is a bug-a-boo for me, I will search for a product made from a different country before I will buy it, but I do not boycott the store. The public demands all the products, the store delivers. And a lot of people jump on the band wagon , because they can, without a knowledge or a strong conviction one way or the other. Remember the boycott on French products some years ago? People were not buying french fries in protest, even some of the powers that be in DC. Nil to do with the French. I know some people that get up in the morning wondering " what's the fight today".


----------



## frannie di (Nov 30, 2011)

Hobby Lobby is not saying that they cannot have birth control only that they will not pay for it. The employee can pay for it themselves.


----------



## countryknitwit (Nov 13, 2011)

Montana Gramma said:


> Private corporations should have the same rights as a private citizen. There are no share holders to help determine end results on issues. And a great many of their employees hold the same conviction, or maybe they would chose not to work there. If people did not like my DHs view on the military, would they boycott the electrical co. he lays line for and do without one of life's necessities? I think not. Sometimes it is easy to boycott businesses because the same service is awaiting them down the block. I applaud you for doing what you believe you can live with in your heart and soul.My take is, if we boycott everyone we do not agree with and it becomes a grass roots movement, who's jobs are we endangering, whose part time job is taken from a student trying to better him/ herself, we would be on a soap box everyday because some companies just irritate our sensibilities etc. and rarely does it change a thing, sometimes the exact opposite, the other side of the fence mobilizes and the free advertising etc. is in full swing. Sometimes the short term solution flares, dies a quick death and is forgotten. I actually weigh my conscience pro and con and may or may not shop there. Thank heavens we are in a country that allows these individual choices to be made. Forced child labor is a bug-a-boo for me, I will search for a product made from a different country before I will buy it, but I do not boycott the store. The public demands all the products, the store delivers. And a lot of people jump on the band wagon , because they can, without a knowledge or a strong conviction one way or the other. Remember the boycott on French products some years ago? People were not buying french fries in protest, even some of the powers that be in DC. Nil to do with the French. I know some people that get up in the morning wondering " what's the fight today".


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

frannie di said:


> Hobby Lobby is not saying that they cannot have birth control only that they will not pay for it. The employee can pay for it themselves.


Actually I believe there are only 4 forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover. They are willing to cover the other birth control prescriptions.

I applaud them for standing up for their beliefs.

And if they were to close their doors, what would their employees have then? No jobs and no insurance at all.


----------



## Roni Masse (Jan 28, 2014)

Ladies and Gents,
Lets stick to knitting and crocheting.
Roni


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

Roni Masse said:


> Ladies and Gents,
> Lets stick to knitting and crocheting.
> Roni


We are knitting and crocheting while we are having a discussion about a business that provides us products for our knitting and crocheting and that business' choices.

And you have the choice to enter into the discussion or pass right on by this thread.


----------



## binkbrice (May 19, 2011)

tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


but you are for Hobby Lobby not having the choice to not provide a pill that causes abortion (which is what the issue is not birth control)if they don't want to support that what about their free choice?


----------



## sheardlite (Dec 28, 2011)

I think Hobby Lobby's decision to not include birth control has to do with their Religious beliefs, not what it will cost them. I may be wrong, but that's what I heard.


----------



## DonnieK (Nov 23, 2011)

I think Hobby Lobby is trying to make "religion" in one area of their stores and "no religion" in other areas. When it benefits their purposes and brings in money that is okay. If it costs them or they are "giving" to employees, that is another thing.
I have been boycotting Hobby Lobby for putting Christmas trees up in June or July and saying customers ask them to. Bull, if you are a Christian Company, your Christianity should show in all areas. No Christmas Trees until after Thanksgiving. Ornaments, craft items, okay, I am for that, but trees? Isn't that a two edged sword?
So, I say all of this to say that I would support a boycott on any store that tries to use it's religion for profit lines. And, I am sorry, but, Hobby Lobby needs to pay insurance for health care of all kinds, including birth control. How many more babies do we have to bring into the world that are not wanted and in the welfare system and slipping through the system for lack of caring. 
Boooooooooooo Hobby Lobby!


----------



## seamer45 (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm not supporting either side, I will just be curious to see if they actually close the company down if the ruling doesn't go their way. I keep seeing on their website, when someone asks about them going out of business, that they are not planning on closing any stores and are continuing to open more stores.


----------



## peony (Nov 13, 2012)

BlueJay21 said:


> Good for you, ELareau. If more people voted with their pocket books, things in this world may not be as bad as they are. I have a long list of products I do not buy because of the company that makes them. The list is too long for here.
> 
> I am pleased to see that you share my reasons for not shopping at Walmart. The last time this topic came up, I was pilloried. According to some, Walmart is god's gift to the world. I would rather pay more than contribute to the low standards that I believe Walmart has.


I'm with both of you! Although I spend so little anywhere that my boycotting makes no difference to speak of.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

DonnieK said:


> I think Hobby Lobby is trying to make "religion" in one area of their stores and "no religion" in other areas. When it benefits their purposes and brings in money that is okay. If it costs them or they are "giving" to employees, that is another thing.
> I have been boycotting Hobby Lobby for putting Christmas trees up in June or July and saying customers ask them to. Bull, if you are a Christian Company, your Christianity should show in all areas. No Christmas Trees until after Thanksgiving. Ornaments, craft items, okay, I am for that, but trees? Isn't that a two edged sword?
> So, I say all of this to say that I would support a boycott on any store that tries to use it's religion for profit lines. And, I am sorry, but, Hobby Lobby needs to pay insurance for health care of all kinds, including birth control. How many more babies do we have to bring into the world that are not wanted and in the welfare system and slipping through the system for lack of caring.
> Boooooooooooo Hobby Lobby!


Donnie --- Hobby Lobby *does* provide health insurance and it does include birth control. They are only against the 4 kinds of birth control that all have a similarity to the morning-after pill that is construed by some as a type of abortion.

As for me, I will continue to shop there and I don't really care how many people choose not to shop there ... I was there yesterday and if there had been less shoppers, I would not have had to stand in line so long to check out.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

peony said:


> I'm with both of you! Although I spend so little anywhere that my boycotting makes no difference to speak of.


And no one's boycotting will make much difference unless all of them are notifying the company of their refusal to shop there and why.

There actually are a few businesses that do not get my business and I have notified them of the fact that they will not receive any of my $$ and why.

People need to not only "talk the talk" ... but to also "walk the walk."


----------



## Madame La Farge (Jan 8, 2014)

Boycott Hobby Lobby!!


----------



## TheresaD (Feb 19, 2011)

DonnieK said:


> I think Hobby Lobby is trying to make "religion" in one area of their stores and "no religion" in other areas. When it benefits their purposes and brings in money that is okay. If it costs them or they are "giving" to employees, that is another thing.
> I have been boycotting Hobby Lobby for putting Christmas trees up in June or July and saying customers ask them to. Bull, if you are a Christian Company, your Christianity should show in all areas. No Christmas Trees until after Thanksgiving. Ornaments, craft items, okay, I am for that, but trees? Isn't that a two edged sword?
> So, I say all of this to say that I would support a boycott on any store that tries to use it's religion for profit lines. And, I am sorry, but, Hobby Lobby needs to pay insurance for health care of all kinds, including birth control. How many more babies do we have to bring into the world that are not wanted and in the welfare system and slipping through the system for lack of caring.
> Boooooooooooo Hobby Lobby!


Whatever do Christmas trees have to do with Christianity? Christ was born in a stable and laid in a manger. I don't remember any Christmas trees in the story.


----------



## margoc (Jul 4, 2011)

I posted this yesterday from an article posted by Yarnie.One http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/corporations_are_people_and_that_s_why_hobby_lobby_should_lose_at_the_supreme.html

"What the owners want is for the Supreme Court to pierce the corporate veillegalese for looking behind the corporations legal identity and basing a ruling on the interests and desires of the owners of the firm. But Hobby Lobbys owners only want to pierce the veil for this one issue. They want the court to vindicate their personal beliefs on birth control, yet they still keep the protections of the corporate form for everything else, including limited liability."

"They could have incorporated as a nonprofit. They wouldnt be able to make the same kind of money, but theyd have a corporation with an explicitly religious mission. And under the Affordable Care Act, theyd be exempted from the birth control requirement."

"Hobby Lobbys owners, however, formed a business corporation. By asking the Supreme Court to let them enjoy all the protections of this corporate form, but not all of its duties, Hobby Lobbys owners want to have their corporate cake and eat it, too."

They aren't entitled to claim religious freedom as they are NOT a religious organization. As a for profit corporation, they cannot pick and choose what applies to them and what doesn't.

I personally hope they lose this battle.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

TheresaD said:


> Whatever do Christmas trees have to do with Christianity? Christ was born in a stable and laid in a manger. I don't remember any Christmas trees in the story.


Agreed :thumbup: A Christmas Tree is a pagan symbol. Funny how Hobby Lobby is being badmouthed for putting their Christmas stuff out early when there are stores that sell Christmas stuff all year long.

And the badmouthers obviously shop at Hobby Lobby or they wouldn't even know that the Christmas stuff is put on the shelves at the end of summer.


----------



## bobctwn65 (Jul 27, 2012)

you have to get the facts right,,,they are not against birth control ..just the ones that cause abortion of an already fertilized egg,,,MURDER of an unborn child...and I am behind them 100%


----------



## Lotty (Jul 24, 2011)

carriemae said:


> I will shop at hobby lobby every chance I get.


Me too.


----------



## MASHEPP (Mar 13, 2011)

Do we really need to do this again? This came up a week or so ago and went on for 40+ pages. These hot issues should be in general chit chat. I thought this section was about knitting.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

ELareau said:


> I think HobLobb's owner is out of line. The cost of birth control is not coming out of his pocket because that Rx coverage has very little to no effect on the cost of health insurance.
> 
> Curious how he would react when every female in his store became pregnant at the same time. Yes, I know he's very good at hiring women past the age of fertility.
> 
> ...


I am completely right there with you; in fact, I've boycotted them for quite a while.

Same for Chick-Fil-A, although I've only been there one time and that was probably 10 years ago. I don't shop Walmart either for all the reasons you said.

People keep talking about religious freedom, but too many want to force their religious beliefs on others.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

sheardlite said:


> I think Hobby Lobby's decision to not include birth control has to do with their Religious beliefs, not what it will cost them. I may be wrong, but that's what I heard.


You are correct.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

Roni Masse said:


> Ladies and Gents,
> Lets stick to knitting and crocheting.
> Roni


But this is the Chat Line!!!


----------



## MASHEPP (Mar 13, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> But this is the Chat Line!!!


This is the main one for knitting and crochet. The General Chit chat is for this kind of topic.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

MASHEPP said:


> This is the main one for knitting and crochet. The General Chit chat is for this kind of topic.


Mea culpa!


----------



## Jules934 (May 7, 2013)

The issue is bigger than what is being stated.

Your boss does not have the right to tell you how you are to spend your money.

If you spend it illegally/for some illegal purpose, the proper authorities will deal with you. 

If you spend it immorally/for some immoral putpose, then the Higher Authority will deal with you.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

babsbarb said:


> I don't understand what the big deal is. I have a friend that is about 65 years old, male, single (ladies are you looking???) We are in Oregon. Until recently was on his x-wife's insurance. He had to purchase insurance for himself that covers pregnancy. WHY should he have to have this coverage, when we all know what chance he has of becoming pregnant??


 Why should I have to purchase insurance that covers prostate exams and surgery, viagra and testosterone medication? I don't need any of those...


----------



## nrskrachet (Jun 7, 2013)

missylam said:


> You are correct about Hobby Lobby, they are not opposing birth control, just the morning after pill that causes abortion.
> 
> No I won't boycott Hobby Lobby, will shop there any opportunity.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 
A LITTLE knowledge can be a dangerous thing - everyone assumes and then runs with it.


----------



## flhusker (Feb 17, 2011)

I will go out of my way to go to Hobby Lobby.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

flhusker said:


> I will go out of my way to go to Hobby Lobby.


Me too. Go to everyone in Arkansas!


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Me too. Go to everyone in Arkansas!


HA! I'm just glad I don't have to go out of my way to get to one ... mine is nice and close :mrgreen:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

peachy51 said:


> HA! I'm just glad I don't have to go out of my way to get to one ... mine is nice and close :mrgreen:


I have to go 45 miles to go to the closest one. When I go to my daughter's I stop in Little Rock, then Conway , then Russellville , then Rogers and then over to Fayetteville. All in one day. I have a good husband that drives me and takes naps while I shop.


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I have to go 45 miles to go to the closest one. When I go to my daughter's I stop in Little Rock, then Conway , then Russellville , then Rogers and then over to Fayetteville. All in one day. I have a good husband that drives me and takes naps while I shop.


He is a dear and a keeper!


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Montana Gramma said:


> He is a dear and a keeper!


Yes he is. I have kept him for 43 years.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


No, because it goes beyond Hobby Lobby.

Are we really going to live in a world where backwards, bigoted employers are going to be able to use religion as an excuse to get around hard won basic civil rights?

It wasn't THAT long ago that the Mormon church literally believed dark skin was the mark of the devil.

Would they, if they owned or store or God forbid ran a hospital,, be able to deny black people health insurance because it's against their religious principles to aid Satan?

And no, I don't think that's an extreme hypothetical AT ALL. Truly. If mormans still thought that black people were "of the devil", then if what Hobby Lobby is asking for is allowed, Mormon employers could deny black people many things.

Religious "principle" can NOT be allowed to be an excuse to deny other citizens equal protection under the law to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A woman's right to use whatever tools she can in family planning is _absolutely ESSENTIAL_ to her Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, and I'm sorry but a _CORPORATION'S_ nonexistent right to "religious freedom" can NOT take precedence to that. EVER.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

flhusker said:


> I will go out of my way to go to Hobby Lobby.


As will most "crafty" bigots and chauvinists who hope that religion will now legally be an excuse to discriminate against Other's and deny them their civil rights.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


People don't only want to have sex, they need to have sex to live as full human beings. If you're not a sexual being, then there is something wrong with you, and you should go to a doctor and have yourself looked at. Because it's unhealthy NOT to be a sexual human being.

Having sex is a natural medical need. Which is why Viagra is considered a medical solution to a medical problem.

No corporation should have the right to dictate to women how they are going to take personal responsibility for the sex that they not only have, but NEED as EVERY _healthy_ human being does.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Roni Masse said:


> Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control.


They are against her and her doctor being the only one choosing what method is best for her if that happens to be something that Hobby Lobby doesn't like.

Corporations should have no right to make those decisions for women or deny them ANY options she and her doctor feels is appropriate for her situation.

Hobby Lobby should not be in the business of making or denying any medical decision for a woman.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

jumbleburt said:


> Sometimes it's a choice; unfortunately, for too many women it isn't.


No, actually, it's not a choice for any healthy human being. EVERY human being needs to have sex at certain points in their lives if they're both physically and mentally healthy.

To even SUGGEST that women should abstain from sex, or put at deeper risk for pregnancy because Hobby Lobby doesn't like it, is inherently dehumanizing to women.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

sumpleby said:


> Why should I have to purchase insurance that covers prostate exams and surgery, viagra and testosterone medication? I don't need any of those...


This is such a grossly ignorant question.

Because that's how ALL insurance works. It's all based on risk pooling.

You need to buy car insurance even though the intention is to never HAVE to use it, and ideally, you never have to (_or you at least will need it less than someone else might_)... which is what makes it possible, MATHEMATICALLY for someone who DOES need to use it to be paid if THEY'RE ever in an accident.

The whole entire insurance industry is about computing the risk pools and people NOT using the insurance (_or using it less than others_) so that IF someone else needs to, there will be enough money in the pool to pay for it.

There will be things that YOU use insurance for, that I may never need.

THAT'S ALWAYS HOW INSURANCE HAS WORKED.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> This is such a grossly ignorant question.
> 
> Because that's how ALL insurance works. It's all based on risk pooling.
> 
> ...


Whoa! Came late to the party and got her panties in the bunch, huh?


----------



## lorraine 55 (Aug 8, 2011)

frannie di said:


> Hobby Lobby is not saying that they cannot have birth control only that they will not pay for it. The employee can pay for it themselves.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## lorraine 55 (Aug 8, 2011)

sheardlite said:


> I think Hobby Lobby's decision to not include birth control has to do with their Religious beliefs, not what it will cost them. I may be wrong, but that's what I heard.


From what I understand it is because of religious beliefs. They are against morning after pills and IUDS because they consider it abortion.


----------



## Melz (May 29, 2011)

lorraine 55 said:


> From what I understand it is because of religious beliefs. They are against morning after pills and IUDS because they consider it abortion.


And yet they do business and have no objections handing over their money to support a government(China) that provides these procedures that they claim are against their religious beliefs. Hmm...sounds like they use religion when it benefits their bottom line and ignore their religious belief when it benefits their bottom line. All these people that so proudly proclaim to continue to shop and support HL even go out of their way to support them, how do you proclaim to be against abortion and contraceptives that you say cause abortions and yet have no problem handing your money over to a company that will then use your money to support a government that provides these procedures? Aren't you then paying for these abortions or as you call them murder of innocent babies? How is it okay for them and you to pay for these abortions and it's not murder but if it's in the US it's then against your religious belief because it's murder? Please help me understand why it's Murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in the US but not murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in a foreign country?


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

I live in Canada and we don't have Hobby Lobby. But I do boycott stores I don't believe have the best interests of the workers in mind, and I do boycott certain products because I believe they are tested on animals. I also boycott products that are made by any company that is associated with a company that tests on animals. 

However, if one feels strongly enough about a subject, then that person will do whatever she/he thinks will provide the best solution. Basically, I am not a proponent of abortion, yet, there are times when abortion is the best solution for everyone. I am not against contraception. I don't know enough about the morning-after pill to form an opinion. This is a very personal decision, one which only the woman in question can make.

If you feel strongly enough about Hobby Lobby's decision, then proceed accordingly. I am not religious and personally feel very strongly that organized religion has caused so much damage to people in this world over the years that we would all be better off without it. 

Let us just try to live in harmony one with another. Do what you think best for you. But do, please, get all the facts before you make your decision.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

Melz said:


> And yet they do business and have no objections handing over their money to support a government(China) that provides these procedures that they claim are against their religious beliefs. Hmm...sounds like they use religion when it benefits their bottom line and ignore their religious belief when it benefits their bottom line. All these people that so proudly proclaim to continue to shop and support HL even go out of their way to support them, how do you proclaim to be against abortion and contraceptives that you say cause abortions and yet have no problem handing your money over to a company that will then use your money to support a government that provides these procedures? Aren't you then paying for these abortions or as you call them murder of innocent babies? How is it okay for them and you to pay for these abortions and it's not murder but if it's in the US it's then against your religious belief because it's murder? Please help me understand why it's Murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in the US but not murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in a foreign country?


Nothing to explain from here ... I am now and always have been pro-choice. That is my stance. I don't have to believe in Hobby Lobby's take on abortion for me to shop there.

How a person or company feels about the abortion issue does not come into play as to how I feel about that person or that company.

And, as far as Hobby Lobby's lawsuit against Obamacare, my stance on that is that the whole thing needs to be repealed.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> This is such a grossly ignorant question.
> 
> Because that's how ALL insurance works. It's all based on risk pooling.
> 
> ...


Ah...if you'd looked at the quote I was responding to, you would have seen that it was about a man the poster had said protested about having to purchase (under ACA) insurance that includes birth control, etc. because he is not a woman and doesn't need it.

Calm down. And read before responding.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

I keep hearing how the morning after pill is an abortificant. No less than birth control pills, yet they will cover those. It is from lack of education that they actually think that the birth control pill is not "causing an abortion". The birth control pill is designed to prevent ovulation, however in the event that ovulation does occur (and it may) then the birth control pill has worked in such a way that this fertilized egg can't -GASP!- implant in the uterus wall (because it has not "prepared" itself for a pregnancy) and the fertilized egg will just flush out with the period. This happens NATURALLY all the time, but people don't even realize it's happening. 

So anybody who is fine with the birth control pill, yet is not with the morning after pill, is either a hypocrit or is uneducated.

Oddly if this people like this were (gods forbid) raped I bet they would be the first ones to ask for the meds they give out to "prevent" pregnancy in the hospital.... which is the morning after pill. Seen things like that so many times.


----------



## cbjlinda (May 25, 2011)

I couldn't agree more.


Happy in retirement said:


> Why should one boycott them? Everyone has their own believes and that shouldn't mean they are judged because of it. I'm sure everyone of us believes in something that someone else doesn't, so does that mean you are right or wrong? Leave them alone, look at the jobs they create and the pay that there workers are much better than most places. Why take away from them for all the good they are doing, and how many people will loose their jobs because of our incompetant government.


----------



## quiltmom (Jul 8, 2012)

Happy in retirement said:


> Why should one boycott them? Everyone has their own believes and that shouldn't mean they are judged because of it. I'm sure everyone of us believes in something that someone else doesn't, so does that mean you are right or wrong? Leave them alone, look at the jobs they create and the pay that there workers are much better than most places. Why take away from them for all the good they are doing, and how many people will loose their jobs because of our incompetant government.


I agree completely with you. They are standing up for what they believe. And it's costing them money to stand for those beliefs. I will continue to shop with them.


----------



## flyingrabbit (Oct 8, 2012)

I am excited by this conversation - we are fortunate to live in a democracy where we CAN and SHOULD have these discussions...what does democracy mean and how to we "advance" it, etc.... It is true that we enter into a contract through the tax system where we pay for education (because it helps society) even if we do not have children and we pay to have all kinds of services we might not personally use. However, in the US (I am a US and Canadian citizen) the freedom of religion and the right to practice it is prominent...Some believe that abortion is murder and we are not going to change their minds by boycotting. In fact, if they did change their minds based on that, they would be worshiping the mighty dollar more than their G-d.....so, boycott, or not, it is all good...just keep the discourse going! Smiles.....


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

OK...I'm not getting into the fray because I hold very strong opinions about the topic. However, I have a question that may cause a stir anyway: Do you know that many insurance policies (prior to the ACA) would not cover birth control pills...even if prescribed for medical conditions, BUT they did cover VIAGRA?!


----------



## Ohioknitter (Dec 12, 2011)

morningstar said:


> OK...I'm not getting into the fray because I hold very strong opinions about the topic. However, I have a question that may cause a stir anyway: Do you know that many insurance policies (prior to the ACA) would not cover birth control pills...even if prescribed for medical conditions, BUT they did cover VIAGRA?!


Viagra does not cause abortion. This is NOT a question of providing or not providing birth control. It is a question of providing ABORTION.


----------



## MPolaski (Mar 14, 2011)

Actually, the issue before the Supreme Court is about certain forms of birth control that are essentially abortifacients, such as "Plan B" or the morning after pill. It is my understanding that the family who owns Hobby Lobby does not have an issue with other methods of birth control, however since it's all lumped together it's very difficult to pick and choose. Hobby Looby has already stated that should they not be successful at the Supreme Court, they will close every single store and shut down the entire business. Personally, I plan to shop at Hobby Lobby as much as possible and support them. But then, I'm a Christian conservative who doesn't think that the government should be so big or so involved in our lives.


----------



## Kitchenergal (Nov 13, 2013)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Tokyoal (Mar 19, 2014)

BlueJay21 said:


> Good for you, ELareau. If more people voted with their pocket books, things in this world may not be as bad as they are. I have a long list of products I do not buy because of the company that makes them. The list is too long for here.
> 
> I am pleased to see that you share my reasons for not shopping at Walmart. The last time this topic came up, I was pilloried. According to some, Walmart is god's gift to the world. I would rather pay more than contribute to the low standards that I believe Walmart has.


I refuse to help - with my tax dollars - fund food stamps for people who work hard at Walmart so the Walton family can just get richer. I shop at Costco instead of Sam's Club and they are right across the street from each other.


----------



## Globee (Sep 5, 2013)

No, this is the general chit chat section. That means anything can be discussed.


----------



## JoanDL (Aug 26, 2013)

Birth control pills are a drug. Prescription drugs are covered under the plans. A woman who doesn't want them won't ask for them. Women who do should be able to get them. The government has no business in the nation's bedrooms. This is all about one group forcing their beliefs on the rest of the people.


----------



## SherryH (Apr 4, 2011)

Haven't read all the posts yet, so sorry if this is redundant. I wonder if all these companies that are balking about insurance paying for birth control are also not paying for viagra? Apparently whats good for the goose is not what's good for the gander.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Better shop fast.



carriemae said:


> I will shop at hobby lobby every chance I get.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ditto. I think there are more people offended by Hobby Lobby than not.



jumbleburt said:


> I'm currently boycotting them, and although they aren't losing much business, I would feel I was betraying my beliefs if I contributed in any way to a company that feels they have the right to dictate employees' medical decisions.


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

JoanDL said:


> Birth control pills are a drug. Prescription drugs are covered under the plans. A woman who doesn't want them won't ask for them. Women who do should be able to get them. The government has no business in the nation's bedrooms. This is all about one group forcing their beliefs on the rest of the people.


 :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What about all the people that are discriminated against in hiring? I've not heard that they pay higher wages.



Happy in retirement said:


> Why should one boycott them? Everyone has their own believes and that shouldn't mean they are judged because of it. I'm sure everyone of us believes in something that someone else doesn't, so does that mean you are right or wrong? Leave them alone, look at the jobs they create and the pay that there workers are much better than most places. Why take away from them for all the good they are doing, and how many people will loose their jobs because of our incompetant government.


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

I believe I sent a thumbup without connecting it to the comment. Sorry.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

BlueJay21 said:


> I live in Canada and we don't have Hobby Lobby. But I do boycott stores I don't believe have the best interests of the workers in mind, and I do boycott certain products because I believe they are tested on animals. I also boycott products that are made by any company that is associated with a company that tests on animals.
> 
> However, if one feels strongly enough about a subject, then that person will do whatever she/he thinks will provide the best solution. Basically, I am not a proponent of abortion, yet, there are times when abortion is the best solution for everyone. I am not against contraception. I don't know enough about the morning-after pill to form an opinion. This is a very personal decision, one which only the woman in question can make.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> No, because it goes beyond Hobby Lobby.
> 
> Are we really going to live in a world where backwards, bigoted employers are going to be able to use religion as an excuse to get around hard won basic civil rights?
> 
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Insurance provides a group of items. A single item has a negligible cost. It's not like going to the bulk grocery and purchasing exactly what you want. I believe that this 'Why should I have to pay for....' question originated with the same insurance lobby that invented the cost structure in the first place. (Researched it but no proof yet.)



babsbarb said:


> I don't understand what the big deal is. I have a friend that is about 65 years old, male, single (ladies are you looking???) We are in Oregon. Until recently was on his x-wife's insurance. He had to purchase insurance for himself that covers pregnancy. WHY should he have to have this coverage, when we all know what chance he has of becoming pregnant??


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

painthoss said:


> I wonder if Hobby Lobby is "paying" for Viagra? I say, if a man can't sustain an erection and have sex any more, then he should just learn to put up with it (or without it, as the case may be). I surely don't want to pay for a moocher to get Viagra so he can have sex.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

In the USA the Affordable Care Act is changing the playing field for insurance companies, requiring no pre-existing conditions, etc. Payilng for insurance and getting little in return may eventually be a thing of the past.

It truly makes a difference of the health care people receive. Talk about 'death squads...'



BlueJay21 said:


> At one time my husband's company insurance did not pay for birth control and I was quite surprised to learn that my daughter's insurance did. I didn't need it as I had had a tubular ligation. But if I had needed birth control, I would have had to pay for it myself. As far as I understand, the employer does pay the insurance company for items that are covered. It is HL's prerogative to choose what will be covered. They are not saying that a woman should not use birth control, only that the woman should foot the bill. I don't see anything wrong with that.
> 
> My husband's dental insurance, for instance, has a limit of $1,000 each. Once we have reached that limit, we pay for everything else. This can sometimes run to hundreds of dollars if caps, extractions, etc., are involved. Do I not get my teeth fixed because of this?
> 
> Birth control is not very expensive. Try having to buy insulin when you have no insurance. We are all becoming too complacent and reliant on others to foot our bills. When will be responsible for our own actions and costs of those actions?


----------



## loravaughn (Dec 14, 2013)

I am sorry but I don't see what the big issue is. I had to pay for my own birth control and also you can go to any public health department and get free birth control. Hobby Lobby does not object to birth control in general. They object to the day after pill which is a form of abortion. Why should your rights be any different than theirs. We all have our beliefs and are entitled to them and I admire Hobby Lobby for standing up for theirs. We as adults all understand that when we make the decision to participate in the sexual act, we are taking the chance of becoming pregnant EVEN WITH BIRTH CONTROL so pay for what you need and don't expect your employer to pay for something that would provide it.


----------



## Jean Keith (Feb 17, 2011)

Nothing will stop a group of religious fanatics but I too intend to not shop at Hobby Lobby. They closed down a KMart here in Cedar Rapids to open a Hobby Lobby. I won't shop there mainly because I've never liked the store.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

They aren't buying prescriptions. They are providing health insurance. I guess they could stop providing health insurance to employees and give everyone an $8,000 per year raise to purchase it on their own and see who applies to work there.



Judyh said:


> Why should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs? If someone does not agree with their policy, they should shop or find a job elsewhere.What happened to religious freedom?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Judyh said:


> Why should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs? If someone does not agree with their policy, they should shop or find a job elsewhere.What happened to religious freedom?


What happened to freedom from religion?


----------



## jmai5421 (May 6, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> At one time my husband's company insurance did not pay for birth control and I was quite surprised to learn that my daughter's insurance did. I didn't need it as I had had a tubular ligation. But if I had needed birth control, I would have had to pay for it myself. As far as I understand, the employer does pay the insurance company for items that are covered. It is HL's prerogative to choose what will be covered. They are not saying that a woman should not use birth control, only that the woman should foot the bill. I don't see anything wrong with that.
> 
> My husband's dental insurance, for instance, has a limit of $1,000 each. Once we have reached that limit, we pay for everything else. This can sometimes run to hundreds of dollars if caps, extractions, etc., are involved. Do I not get my teeth fixed because of this?
> 
> Birth control is not very expensive. Try having to buy insulin when you have no insurance. We are all becoming too complacent and reliant on others to foot our bills. When will be responsible for our own actions and costs of those actions?


Agree. My cousins insurance went from 300 to700 a month because the insurance company has to insure birth control and pregnancy. As cousin is well past the age when she first took out the policy she opted out of the birth control and pregnancy. Because of the new laws the insurance company has to include it in their policy's and she gets to pay for it.


----------



## jmai5421 (May 6, 2011)

cbjlinda said:


> I couldn't agree more.


Agree. I love HL and shop there all the time. I like the fact they are closed Sundays for their employees.


----------



## Phyllis (Jan 20, 2011)

I agree with you, the choice is when you decide to have sex. There are so many choices out there now for protection.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

In my opinion, a corporation is not the same as a private citizen. Seems obvious to me. Wonder if the corporation doesn't want old people working there, or gays, or maybe they think child labor is a perk, should they have the right to discriminate? My answer is no. There is a difference between an owner's beliefs and a corporation's rights. The owner is not the corporation.



Montana Gramma said:



> Private corporations should have the same rights as a private citizen. There are no share holders to help determine end results on issues. And a great many of their employees hold the same conviction, or maybe they would chose not to work there. If people did not like my DHs view on the military, would they boycott the electrical co. he lays line for and do without one of life's necessities? I think not. Sometimes it is easy to boycott businesses because the same service is awaiting them down the block. I applaud you for doing what you believe you can live with in your heart and soul.My take is, if we boycott everyone we do not agree with and it becomes a grass roots movement, who's jobs are we endangering, whose part time job is taken from a student trying to better him/ herself, we would be on a soap box everyday because some companies just irritate our sensibilities etc. and rarely does it change a thing, sometimes the exact opposite, the other side of the fence mobilizes and the free advertising etc. is in full swing. Sometimes the short term solution flares, dies a quick death and is forgotten. I actually weigh my conscience pro and con and may or may not shop there. Thank heavens we are in a country that allows these individual choices to be made. Forced child labor is a bug-a-boo for me, I will search for a product made from a different country before I will buy it, but I do not boycott the store. The public demands all the products, the store delivers. And a lot of people jump on the band wagon , because they can, without a knowledge or a strong conviction one way or the other. Remember the boycott on French products some years ago? People were not buying french fries in protest, even some of the powers that be in DC. Nil to do with the French. I know some people that get up in the morning wondering " what's the fight today".


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hobby Lobby's beliefs break down when it comes to their vendors from China where child labor and forced abortion are rules of the land.



DonnieK said:


> I think Hobby Lobby is trying to make "religion" in one area of their stores and "no religion" in other areas. When it benefits their purposes and brings in money that is okay. If it costs them or they are "giving" to employees, that is another thing.
> I have been boycotting Hobby Lobby for putting Christmas trees up in June or July and saying customers ask them to. Bull, if you are a Christian Company, your Christianity should show in all areas. No Christmas Trees until after Thanksgiving. Ornaments, craft items, okay, I am for that, but trees? Isn't that a two edged sword?
> So, I say all of this to say that I would support a boycott on any store that tries to use it's religion for profit lines. And, I am sorry, but, Hobby Lobby needs to pay insurance for health care of all kinds, including birth control. How many more babies do we have to bring into the world that are not wanted and in the welfare system and slipping through the system for lack of caring.
> Boooooooooooo Hobby Lobby!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Madame La Farge said:


> Boycott Hobby Lobby!!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## joypar (Oct 29, 2013)

The real issue here is freedom. Does Hobby Lobby have the right to run their business the way they want or does the government have the right to come in and tell them how? How many freedoms are we willing to give up? I would hate to see Hobby Lobby close their doors if they lose this case. We would all lose because we would no longer have competition which drives costs down. Time to wake up America!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Me too. Well put.



margoc said:


> I posted this yesterday from an article posted by Yarnie.One http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/corporations_are_people_and_that_s_why_hobby_lobby_should_lose_at_the_supreme.html
> 
> "What the owners want is for the Supreme Court to pierce the corporate veillegalese for looking behind the corporations legal identity and basing a ruling on the interests and desires of the owners of the firm. But Hobby Lobbys owners only want to pierce the veil for this one issue. They want the court to vindicate their personal beliefs on birth control, yet they still keep the protections of the corporate form for everything else, including limited liability."
> 
> ...


----------



## Czar-knitter (Aug 25, 2012)

carriemae said:


> Hobby lobby doesn't care what women do they just don't want to pay for it. Why should anyone pay for someone else's choices???? Personally I'm sick of paying for things that moochers think they deserve


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Czar-knitter (Aug 25, 2012)

joypar said:


> The real issue here is freedom. Does Hobby Lobby have the right to run their business the way they want or does the government have the right to come in and tell them how? How many freedoms are we willing to give up? I would hate to see Hobby Lobby close their doors if they lose this case. We would all lose because we would no longer have competition which drives costs down. Time to wake up America!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

There's plenty of room for Christmas stuff since they don't sell Hanukkah products.



peachy51 said:


> Agreed :thumbup: A Christmas Tree is a pagan symbol. Funny how Hobby Lobby is being badmouthed for putting their Christmas stuff out early when there are stores that sell Christmas stuff all year long.
> 
> And the badmouthers obviously shop at Hobby Lobby or they wouldn't even know that the Christmas stuff is put on the shelves at the end of summer.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Not General Chit Chat. Avoid it if you do not wish to participate.



MASHEPP said:


> Do we really need to do this again? This came up a week or so ago and went on for 40+ pages. These hot issues should be in general chit chat. I thought this section was about knitting.


----------



## Czar-knitter (Aug 25, 2012)

jmai5421 said:


> Agree. My cousins insurance went from 300 to700 a month because the insurance company has to insure birth control and pregnancy. As cousin is well past the age when she first took out the policy she opted out of the birth control and pregnancy. Because of the new laws the insurance company has to include it in their policy's and she gets to pay for it.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> Why should I have to purchase insurance that covers prostate exams and surgery, viagra and testosterone medication? I don't need any of those...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## TheBigK (Mar 15, 2014)

I am a 55-year-old female with a hysterectomy. My husband and I recently changed our Carefirst BCBS plan coverage and we were informed that it is now mandatory for us to have pregnancy coverage. I have more chance to be Miss America than pregnant! Why is it ok for the government (Obamacare) to tell me what I have to purchase? Be glad that HobbyLobby is providing any health coverage for their employees as most companies have had to stop offering it as part of their benefit packages.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put. Bravo.



VocalLisa said:


> No, because it goes beyond Hobby Lobby.
> 
> Are we really going to live in a world where backwards, bigoted employers are going to be able to use religion as an excuse to get around hard won basic civil rights?
> 
> ...


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't see any reference to the arguments made before the Supreme Court yesterday, but they are very interesting in terms of what the court will actually consider when making their decision. There is also the very real subject of the sweeping ramifications their decision will have should HL prevail.

First of all, there is a question of whether the CORPORATION has a religion or even CAN have a religion. Remember, the corporate structure HL has chosen instead of remaining a private company, affords any number of benefits under the law. That individual shareholders are shielded from liability is one of the main benefits. So individual religious beliefs are rendered immaterial when considering HL's legal status. It is the corporation that wants to claim a religious belief. (Sketchy in my view).

This is very similar to the Citizens United case considered a few years ago wherein the Court ruled that corporations are people when it comes to expressing their opinion via campaign contributions. I don't think many of us think that was a good decision in light of how big money/corporate interests have hijacked our political system. I personally look forward to the day when future courts will recognize that error and overturn Citizens United.

HL needs to prove that providing the prescriptions and services in question would present an "undue burden" on its religious beliefs. As I understand it (please let me know if you understand it better...) this deals with the balance the court needs to find between two conflicting interests. To me, this is the crux of the issue - whose rights have the greater burden? A corporation (which can't be religious, since it is not a real person) or the women whose bodies are at stake? In my mind, it is the woman's interest that should prevail.

As for the ramifications, should the Supreme Court find in HL's favor, it is not just insurance that will be affected. This would have mind-boggling consequences and could effectively render Title VII moot. All forms of discrimination would be legal if companies or individuals had a religious conviction of some sort. Don't like black people? Go ahead and refuse them service, a job, insurance, whatever. Don't like gays? Go ahead and refuse them service, a job, insurance, whatever. You think women should be paid less than men? Feel free to discriminate. Don't think older workers are as productive as younger ones? Hate Hispanics? Discriminate away. The bible is rich with passages that can be construed to condemn race, other religions, sex, sexual orientation, or national origin. Arizona would not have to pass anti-gay laws - the Supreme Court would have done their bidding in one sweep of the pen. 

I hope the Supreme Court decides against HL for everyone's sake. We all pay for things we don't agree with. It's called democracy and free enterprise. I don't think any of us really want to go back 60 years to the good old days of rampant discrimination.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Everyone has the right to express their opinion.



peachy51 said:


> Whoa! Came late to the party and got her panties in the bunch, huh?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

damemary said:


> Well put. Bravo.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

flyingrabbit said:


> I am excited by this conversation - we are fortunate to live in a democracy where we CAN and SHOULD have these discussions...what does democracy mean and how to we "advance" it, etc.... It is true that we enter into a contract through the tax system where we pay for education (because it helps society) even if we do not have children and we pay to have all kinds of services we might not personally use. However, in the US (I am a US and Canadian citizen) the freedom of religion and the right to practice it is prominent...Some believe that abortion is murder and we are not going to change their minds by boycotting. In fact, if they did change their minds based on that, they would be worshiping the mighty dollar more than their G-d.....so, boycott, or not, it is all good...just keep the discourse going! Smiles.....


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

MPolaski said:


> Actually, the issue before the Supreme Court is about certain forms of birth control that are essentially abortifacients, such as "Plan B" or the morning after pill. It is my understanding that the family who owns Hobby Lobby does not have an issue with other methods of birth control, however since it's all lumped together it's very difficult to pick and choose. Hobby Looby has already stated that should they not be successful at the Supreme Court, they will close every single store and shut down the entire business. Personally, I plan to shop at Hobby Lobby as much as possible and support them. But then, I'm a Christian conservative who doesn't think that the government should be so big or so involved in our lives.


The government should not be so involved in our lives, but our employer's religious beliefs (Christian, Mormon, Amish, Islamic, etc) should be?


----------



## Munchn (Mar 3, 2013)

Hobby Lobby has the right to their decision. Why should HL be forced to include birth control in its health care plan? You have a right to decide to use birth control or not. HL is entitled too.

The gov't is sticking its nose into way too much of the citizens business.

That's where I stand.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you so much for providing the pertinent arguments before the Supreme Court.



DGreen said:


> I don't see any reference to the arguments made before the Supreme Court yesterday, but they are very interesting in terms of what the court will actually consider when making their decision. There is also the very real subject of the sweeping ramifications their decision will have should HL prevail.
> 
> First of all, there is a question of whether the CORPORATION has a religion or even CAN have a religion. Remember, the corporate structure HL has chosen instead of remaining a private company, affords any number of benefits under the law. That individual shareholders are shielded from liability is one of the main benefits. So individual religious beliefs are rendered immaterial when considering HL's legal status. It is the corporation that wants to claim a religious belief. (Sketchy in my view).
> 
> ...


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

damemary said:


> Thank you so much for providing the pertinent arguments before the Supreme Court.


Thank you, damemary.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Regarding the 'let them pay for it' argument. 

Middle Class Families have steadily lost buying power. What used to cost $10 per month for a prescription now may cost several hundred dollars per month. At this point, is birth control a choice? Instead take your chances, risk your life and financial security.

All so a corporation's religious belief's will not be offended.


----------



## Geeda602 (Apr 3, 2012)

Agree! Good for you ELareau! I'm with you, don't shop any of those stores. I don't think there's a HL in my entire stare, doesn't matter, I wouldn't shop there anyway. As far as abortion and birth control, the body belongs to the woman, she should have the choice to do what is best for her. Let's remember, there are more than enough infants left in places they shouldn't be.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

carriemae said:


> Hobby lobby doesn't care what women do they just don't want to pay for it. Why should anyone pay for someone else's choices???? Personally I'm sick of paying for things that moochers think they deserve


I'll bet the pay for Viagra!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Time to wake up America. A corporation doesn't have religious beliefs or freedom. We do.



joypar said:


> The real issue here is freedom. Does Hobby Lobby have the right to run their business the way they want or does the government have the right to come in and tell them how? How many freedoms are we willing to give up? I would hate to see Hobby Lobby close their doors if they lose this case. We would all lose because we would no longer have competition which drives costs down. Time to wake up America!


----------



## Sherry Ann (Apr 7, 2013)

Please everyone....Hobby Lobby will pay for insurance that covers CONTRACEPTION. In other words....the PILL.

The PILL prevents ovulation so no baby is created.

They are against the IUD which allows a baby to be created but will not allow it to attach....so the baby is aborted.

The other thing they object to providing is a pill that is taken after you know you are pregnant. This pill kills the baby and it is then aborted.

There is a distinct difference between prevention and abortion.

I really didn't want to get into this fight, but please read what is in the lawsuit and not what you hear from others.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Judyh said:


> Why should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs? If someone does not agree with their policy, they should shop or find a job elsewhere.What happened to religious freedom?


As long as HL is a for profit institution, they should be required to follow the rules for those entities. HL is not a religious institution.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

But your employer is sticking its nose way too much in citizens' lives. Doesn't that bother you? It does me.



Munchn said:


> Hobby Lobby has the right to their decision. Why should HL be forced to include birth control in its health care plan? You have a right to decide to use birth control or not. HL is entitled too.
> 
> The gov't is sticking its nose into way too much of the citizens business.
> 
> That's where I stand.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> As long as HL is a for profit institution, they should be required to follow the rules for those entities. HL is not a religious institution.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joypar said:


> The real issue here is freedom. Does Hobby Lobby have the right to run their business the way they want or does the government have the right to come in and tell them how? How many freedoms are we willing to give up? I would hate to see Hobby Lobby close their doors if they lose this case. We would all lose because we would no longer have competition which drives costs down. Time to wake up America!


In the case of Hobby Lobby, low prices are more a function of their buying practices. Which means buying in China, where people have horrible working conditions, minimal pay, and where women are subject to mandatory abortions. Such a wonderful, Christian company. They say they will shut down every store if the SC decides against them - why not? They have made millions off cheap labor and can afford it.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Kyba (Oct 12, 2011)

Shame on hobby lobby for not supporting the very hand that feeds them, women.


----------



## J-Jean (Jul 30, 2011)

So many of you are misinformed about this lawsuit. I strongly suggest that you research what this case is about before boycotting anyone.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

For those of you who feel "the government" is sticking its nose into private lives, remember that the laws that intrude are presented by YOUR representatives. 

In state after state, laws are being proposed and passed that intrude on women's bodies. Look up Senator Richard Ross of Florida's latest - he proposed legislation that would require women (or the party remaining in the home, which would affect women more than men) who are in divorce proceedings to obtain a judge's approval in order to date or have sex. I'm not making this up. He's a conservative. Who presumably is for less government. His supposed reasoning? To protect children. His ACTUAL reason? Because one of his buddies asked him to write the bill because he wanted to maintain control of his soon-to-be ex-wife. Until we throw goons like him out of office we will continue to get less than we pay for. And we deserve it for not paying attention.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

Hobby Lobby does not want to take away access to birth control; it just does not want to be forced to pay for it through their provision of health insurance. Employees who want birth control can pay for it themselves or work somewhere that the employer insurance does provide it. Should you or I be forced to pay for medicines or procedures, that is, to financially support, acts of which we disapprove? This is not about abortion or birth control access, it's about freedom of religion. Is it logical or fair to require an entity to buy certain items they do not wish to buy?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Sherry Ann said:


> Please everyone....Hobby Lobby will pay for insurance that covers CONTRACEPTION. In other words....the PILL.
> 
> The PILL prevents ovulation so no baby is created.
> 
> ...


The transcripts and oral arguments can be found on the Supreme Courts website.


----------



## vdavis (Mar 17, 2014)

The birth control they are being forced to provide coverage for includes abortion. That's the issue.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

J-Jean said:


> So many of you are misinformed about this lawsuit. I strongly suggest that you research what this case is about before boycotting anyone.


This case is about a corporation wanting to make choices for one gender of its employees which should only be made by the employee and her doctor. HL wants to take advantage of rules for religious institutions instead of abiding by rules for profit making bodies. What next, exemption from paying tax on their profits?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

taborhills said:


> Hobby Lobby does not want to take away access to birth control; it just does not want to be forced to pay for it through their provision of health insurance. Employees who want birth control can pay for it themselves or work somewhere that the employer insurance does provide it. Should you or I be forced to pay for medicines or procedures, that is, to financially support, acts of which we disapprove? This is not about abortion or birth control access, it's about freedom of religion. Is it logical or fair to require an entity to buy certain items they do not wish to buy?


It is also about freedom FROM religion. Christians don't have the right to force their religion on their employees. HL or anyone else. HL is a corporation - corporations don't have religious beliefs.

As for working somewhere else - the question covers more ground than just HL. If HL prevails, any business would be free to impose religious belief on employees. And HOW would a job applicant know? Usually insurance benefits are discussed after the job offer. Jobs are hard to come by, in case you had not noticed. Not everyone has the luxury of picking and choosing their employer.


----------



## kayortiz (Aug 12, 2013)

excuse me! moochers really iserved in the military and have several medals i earned including one for the gulf war, i worked all my life for companies that did not provide health insurance and those that did. they take part of your pay to cover your share of your health insurance to the tune of $50 a month to over $200 a month. that is not mooching. yes i am entitled to health care under the va, but i earned that. if you pay for the right to use health care it is not mooching :thumbdown:


----------



## Frandelia (May 24, 2011)

What's next? Suppose the owner of a business is a Christian Scientist who doesn't believe in any medical care? Or is opposed to blood transfusions? Does Hobby Lobby not want to cover vasectomies? I can imagine lots of scenarios where someone's "religion" would come into play.


----------



## La la patti (Apr 3, 2011)

God bless America . Where a woman has a choice,and a family owned business has a choice to disagree because of their religious beliefs .
I'm a practicing catholic and I will shop at Hobby Lobby. Not because of their sticking to their principles as Christians ,but because as a business owner I know what they are up against in our very regulated society.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Frandelia said:


> What's next? Suppose the owner of a business is a Christian Scientist who doesn't believe in any medical care? Or is opposed to blood transfusions? Does Hobby Lobby not want to cover vasectomies? I can imagine lots of scenarios where someone's "religion" would come into play.


Exactly.


----------



## Nancyn (Mar 23, 2013)

I guess you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I think HL wants to pick and choose what laws the want to adhere to or not. It will be very interesting to see if they really shut their doors if they lose. Sort of cutting of your nose to spite your face. I do admire their stance of sticking up for what they believe in, but, I think they are backing themselves into a corner. We can not go backwards as far as women's healthcare is concerned. I am well pass the childbearing age, but I for one do not want anyone (company, politician,, church,etc.) telling me what I can or can not do in regards to my choice in a personal matter.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


You should tell the Bee they misunderstand the court case. Hobby Lobby is providing and plans to continue to provide birth control in many forms. What their religious views prohibit is abortifacient drugs and devices. They cannot and will not fire employees for using them. They are available for minimal costs to anyone. Hobby Lobby just doesn't want to facilitate abortion.

I rarely shop at Hobby Lobby, but I respect their moral and legal stance and will continue to shop there if I need something they provide. I don't approve of the lies the Progressives are telling about this issue. I also think everyone should have the right to spend their money where and when they choose, including the owners of Hobby Lobby.


----------



## Condia (Jul 24, 2012)

I should never have started to read this post, just makes me furious to read most of the responses here. Going to unfollow now. Thank you Lord for this option.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

DGreen said:


> It is also about freedom FROM religion. Christians don't have the right to force their religion on their employees. HL or anyone else. HL is a corporation - corporations don't have religious beliefs.
> 
> As for working somewhere else - the question covers more ground than just HL. If HL prevails, any business would be free to impose religious belief on employees. And HOW would a job applicant know? Usually insurance benefits are discussed after the job offer. Jobs are hard to come by, in case you had not noticed. Not everyone has the luxury of picking and choosing their employer.


----------



## Ms43 (Aug 19, 2012)

I wonder if they cover erectile disfunction products. Seems they are ok. It's alright for a man to get you pregnant but not for you to take something to protect ypuself from pregnancy.


----------



## Nanacarolann (Oct 22, 2013)

I agree! Hobby Lobby is my favorite craft store and I can always find everything in there I want. I think they are a wonderful company and their employees are just the most, warm, friendly, helpful people you could ask for.
I'm new on Knitting Paradise. This is the first time I have ever commented. But, I do feel strongly about the survival of Hobby Lobby. I've lived in several states and haven't found a better store then Hobby Lobby. Knitting Paradise is also the best.
Nanacarolann


----------



## Tokyoal (Mar 19, 2014)

Ms43 said:


> I wonder if they cover erectile disfunction products. Seems they are ok. It's alright for a man to get you pregnant but not for you to take something to protect ypuself from pregnancy.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Lettuceknit (Dec 22, 2012)

"Our" government is taking our privileges for us each and every day and few are standing up and saying little to nothing. Who are they to make a law demanding I have to have health insurance. It was signed into law even though the people I know we're against Nobamacare, it was passed.


----------



## Carol9 (Dec 5, 2013)

Me too


----------



## smc (Nov 27, 2011)

Roni Masse said:


> Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control. They only are against 4 products whose side effect or purpose is to cause an abortion (these 4 themselves are not used for conventional birth control). I myself am not boycotting anyone. The nearest HL is 35 miles from me and carries very little I would be interested in.


This is correct. Thank you for pointing out that Hobby Lobby is only against these 4 products, not every form of birth control.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

I certainly agree that beliefs should not be forced on anyone. (BTW I am not myself Christian!) If one is against forcing, would one not also favor allowing any entity to opt out of paying for something they do not choose? As for the entity corporation not having religious beliefs, no, but their owners do and have rights. Freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion, both principles imply that it is better to have these personal issues kept out of medical laws, that is, not included in governmental actions.


----------



## clfarris58 (Aug 10, 2013)

carriemae said:


> Hobby lobby doesn't care what women do they just don't want to pay for it. Why should anyone pay for someone else's choices???? Personally I'm sick of paying for things that moochers think they deserve


Thank you for stating the obvious. Why should Hobby Lobby be forced to support something that goes against their beliefs. People are not forced to shop at HL to support opposing beliefs. Why should HL be forced to support something their belief system opposes.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

Nancyn said:


> I am well pass the childbearing age, but I for one do not want anyone (company, politician,, church,etc.) telling me what I can or can not do in regards to my choice in a personal matter.


No one is proposing restricting your access or anyone's access.
Any woman is free to get certain medical treatments, just not on HL's dime.

It is "going along" with foolish ballooning of government that can destroy our freedoms. We really NEED to be aware and critical of each step. Anyone who treasures her freedoms
will NOT boycott Hobby Lobby for raising this issue.


----------



## TheresaD (Feb 19, 2011)

damemary said:


> What happened to freedom from religion?


As far as I can see, the First Amendment does not say anything about freedom FROM religion. It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[69]


----------



## Flowerchild (Jun 16, 2012)

The largest company among them, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., and the Green family that owns it, say their "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception."


----------



## MacRae (Dec 3, 2011)

Here is my take. I try in the best way I know how to be an observer in all of the emotion when it comes to birth control. And it is not any ones business whether I take it or not. Not my employers, my next door neighbors, or the church down the street. Having said that women have walked 10 paces behind because of social pressure for far to long. We struggle for equal pay, we were punished because we wanted the right to vote, and having control over our bodies is yet another struggle. 

For those who say, "I don't want to pay for birth control". You aren't. If I were to use that analogy here is what I don't want to pay for, which is rather silly.

1. Anything that has to do with men, I'm a women and don't need it. Prostrate cancer for one
2, Insulin (for those who can't control their sweet tooth) 
3. Toe nail cutting, I cut my own and so should my Mother who is 90. Her nails are too thick, so she must go to the clinic 
4. Blood pressure medication.... I control my own salt. 
5. Any type of vaccines for children, my children are all grown. 
6. Most medications. I for one believe that there are many things we can do (if we only made the right choices) to keep a healthy body. As I do not take any medications, I'm 63, I don't want to pay for any one else to take them either. 

As you can see, when you take the emotion out of it, it really is very logical. Each to her own and I'll save the moral judgement for someone greater than myself. Hobby Lobby please offer a comprehensive insurance plan that will work for everyone. 

I think the only agreement on this debate is that we all enjoy our knitting and helping others. I'm not sure why I felt the need this morning to respond. I need to go reflect upon that.


----------



## kprxtech (Mar 12, 2014)

I was using birth control because I was bleeding so badly that I had become anemic. Literally for 4 weeks straight. Birth control is not just prescribed for that one purpose. It helps with other medical conditions as well.


----------



## amberdragon (Dec 12, 2011)

i believe in choice...HL s and the women who protest...both have a right to support birth control or not.
Blessings


----------



## Tokyoal (Mar 19, 2014)

Dbacksflaglady said:


> "Our" government is taking our privileges for us each and every day and few are standing up and saying little to nothing. Who are they to make a law demanding I have to have health insurance. It was signed into law even though the people I know we're against Nobamacare, it was passed.


So....if you have a heart attack or get hit by a bus or get in to a car accident.....should I (who has health care) pay for your treatment? Or maybe...the hospital will say "no insurance"? Here's a bandaid. Does that seem fair to you? How come you aren't complaining about car insurance, which is a law. Or homeowner's insurance which your mortgage company requires you to have? Aren't you embarrassed that we are the ONLY industrialized country in the WORLD that doesn't have universal health care. A recent study rated the US 37th in the world for health care.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

seamer45 said:


> I'm not supporting either side, I will just be curious to see if they actually close the company down if the ruling doesn't go their way. I keep seeing on their website, when someone asks about them going out of business, that they are not planning on closing any stores and are continuing to open more stores.


If stores are closed, it will happen because the government is bludgeoning Hobby Lobby with fines. Hobby Lobby's views are known, their stance is firm, and if the Supreme Court uses wisdom, they will stay in business because fines will not be leveled. If the Supreme Court decides to side with governmental abuse, Hobby Lobby will close their business rather than comply. Once again governmental overreach will cause job losses and knitters and crocheters will lose a supply source.


----------



## Marybc (Jan 9, 2013)

Seems to me that if one feels so strongly about this issue, one wouldn't want to work for this company, and should feel free to get a job elsewhere.


----------



## Grama Guinn (Sep 12, 2013)

carriemae said:


> I will shop at hobby lobby every chance I get.


 me also. and I have to drive 50 miles to do so.


----------



## dijewe (Mar 1, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> At one time my husband's company insurance did not pay for birth control and I was quite surprised to learn that my daughter's insurance did. I didn't need it as I had had a tubular ligation. But if I had needed birth control, I would have had to pay for it myself. As far as I understand, the employer does pay the insurance company for items that are covered. It is HL's prerogative to choose what will be covered. They are not saying that a woman should not use birth control, only that the woman should foot the bill. I don't see anything wrong with that.
> 
> My husband's dental insurance, for instance, has a limit of $1,000 each. Once we have reached that limit, we pay for everything else. This can sometimes run to hundreds of dollars if caps, extractions, etc., are involved. Do I not get my teeth fixed because of this?
> 
> Birth control is not very expensive. Try having to buy insulin when you have no insurance. We are all becoming too complacent and reliant on others to foot our bills. When will be responsible for our own actions and costs of those actions?


Well said. I am in complete agreement. If people want to have sex then they should be responsible for their own birth control and not expect anyone else to help them out.

I totally disagree with hobby lobby though, they should just mind their own business. If they are going to provide healthcare, it's not of their business how employees get to use it.

Why is it that Christians always feel they have the right to pass judgment on others?


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

blessedinMO said:


> :thumbup: and why should the consequences of one choosing to have sex become an employment compensation issue?


It's not an employment compensation issue. Employment compensation is pay. Insurance plans are benefits. In fact, Hobby Lobby pays sales clerks twice the minimum wage as a starting salary. They take care of their employees.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

Why are we required by law to have car insurance? Because it is demonstrably for the common good. There is considerable disagreement as to whether abortifacients are for the common good; evidence that it would help society as a whole is lacking. Therefore, although improved access to health care may be better for society as a whole, not every so-called medical intervention is. We need to allow for differences of opinion as to what counts as a truly beneficial "medical" choice and what does not. Freedom of choice should allow for freedom to disagree.


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

DGreen said:


> I don't see any reference to the arguments made before the Supreme Court yesterday, but they are very interesting in terms of what the court will actually consider when making their decision. There is also the very real subject of the sweeping ramifications their decision will have should HL prevail.
> 
> First of all, there is a question of whether the CORPORATION has a religion or even CAN have a religion. Remember, the corporate structure HL has chosen instead of remaining a private company, affords any number of benefits under the law. That individual shareholders are shielded from liability is one of the main benefits. So individual religious beliefs are rendered immaterial when considering HL's legal status. It is the corporation that wants to claim a religious belief. (Sketchy in my view).
> 
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Judyh said:


> Why should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs? If someone does not agree with their policy, they should shop or find a job elsewhere.What happened to religious freedom?


That's only the owners religious belief. Not all their employees share their views and shouldn't be oppressed by these views.
Is it right to press your religious views onto other people?
Religious freedom does not allow you to impose your views on others.
Separation between state and religion, remember?


----------



## MichO (Dec 11, 2012)

The question is not birth control products to which Hobby Lobby objects. It is abortion and products to induce abortion. Abortion is offensive to many, me included. When the state of Texas settled on abortion up to 21 or 22 weeks, some people were up in arms. That is at least 5 months of life for that baby. My question is how long should it take for a woman to decide that she is going to kill/murder her baby. So, yes, I'll support Hobby Lobby and pray that the Supreme Court rules in their favor. If they don't, then Hobby Lobby will close because the owners believe abortion is unconscionable and will not be a part of it.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

Ms43 said:


> I wonder if they cover erectile disfunction products. Seems they are ok. It's alright for a man to get you pregnant but not for you to take something to protect ypuself from pregnancy.


Once again this issue is not about birth control. It is about products to abort a pregnancy. There is a law in the US that says Americans are not required to pay for abortions. This issue could be solved by a ruling that determines when life begins. Some believe it begins at birth. As someone awaiting a new grandchild and seeing the ultrasounds and viewing the growth and development, I am convinced that the only logical viewpoint is that it begins at conception.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

dwernars said:


> Why is it that Christians always feel they have the right to pass judgment on others?


This comment seems to me not only inaccurate but unnecessarily rude. By the way, I am not writing defensively as I am not myself a Christian. I just would like to see us all maintain civility as much as possible.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

taborhills said:


> I certainly agree that beliefs should not be forced on anyone. (BTW I am not myself Christian!) If one is against forcing, would one not also favor allowing any entity to opt out of paying for something they do not choose? As for the entity corporation not having religious beliefs, no, but their owners do and have rights. Freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion, both principles imply that it is better to have these personal issues kept out of medical laws, that is, not included in governmental actions.


There is no implication regarding religion in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The language is very specific and straightforward. It is freedom _*OF*_ religion. There is nothing regarding 'from' religion, implied or otherwise. That verbiage is a recent morph and hijacking by wishful thinking and uninformed citizens in an attempt to have it read the way _they_ would want it to read.


----------



## nevadalynn (Apr 27, 2011)

jumbleburt said:


> I'm currently boycotting them, and although they aren't losing much business, I would feel I was betraying my beliefs if I contributed in any way to a company that feels they have the right to dictate employees' medical decisions.


 I have been boycotting them as well


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Boycott if you wish--that is your choice (at least we still have that freedom) but you might want to think about it from this perspective as well:

Say you are a business owner and your employees want you to be REQUIRED to match donations to the charity of THEIR choice--ones, by the way, to which you are morally opposed. How would you feel if they succeeded in getting legislation passed that required you to support their charities? How would you feel if previous customers stopped coming to your shop because you don't want to support those charities? If you would feel aggrieved by such a situation that would be an indication of how you might view the Hobby Lobby situation.

"Voting" with our dollars can be a very powerful thing but personally I prefer to use that power when companies violate my values but not so much when they are standing up for their own. For example, I stopped buying any Pepsi product after the Pepsi commercial that implied if the Catholic church would use cola and chips for communion a lot more people would come to church.

Many people probably thought that was just a clever little bit of fluff, laughed and then never gave it another thought. I saw it as sacrilegious and believe that it mocked God. From that time (at least several years ago) to this I have not knowingly purchased ANY Pepsi product, including going to Taco Bell which used to be my favorite not-so-"secret" fast food vice. Nor do I plan to ever again purchase anything "Pepsi."

Now, I know someone will say that Pepsi will never miss my business and that is certainly true but at least I am living in a manner that is congruent with my values.

I see Hobby Lobby's position as being the same thing. It is not as if they are trying to make birth control unavailable or illegal. It is not congruent with their values and they object to being forced to support others in an activity they cannot morally agree with. I don't think anyone really wants to be put in that position.



tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

lins said:


> That's only the owners religious belief. Not all their employees share their views and shouldn't be oppressed by these views.
> Is it right to press your religious views onto other people?
> Religious freedom does not allow you to impose your views on others.
> Separation between state and religion, remember?


You don't understand the concept of separation of church and state (state and religion is not the correct term). The church and state issue supported in our Bill of a Rights was put there because it was common in other countries for the governing entity to dictate a specific church/religion.

In England at the time the Constitution was written, that would have been the Church of England (Anglican). Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Anabaptists, etc. were unable to hold power and were fined, imprisoned, and lost land holdings. The same thing occurs today in most Muslim countries. If you are a Christian in those countries, you die.

America's founders put the separation of church and state provision into place to avoid that, but that concept works both ways. The state can't tell Hobby Lobby owners how to worship or live their faith. The Hobby Lobby owners religion can't demand that their religion be the state religion. This rule supports Hobby Lobby more than their employees because Hobby Lobby isn't trying to tell employees to worship as they do or to worship at all.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Dodi,
Hobby Lobby is not asking who is using that service--they are morally opposed to it in general. So it is not about who knows what.



Dodi2056 said:


> No woman should have her right to decide how many children she should have, not a husband, and certainly not an employer. The employer should not know anything about what the employee's doctor's appointment is for, and if it is after working hours, should not even know if the employee has been to the doctor.
> 
> I would support a boycott, however, I live in Canada and don't have a Hobby Lobby anywhere near me, let alone any other LYS either, but that is a completely different issue.


----------



## sterry (May 29, 2012)

If the decision goes against Hobby Lobby, the business will fold up and go away? (Somewhere on this forum I read that.) Sounds like an idle threat to me. Hobby Lobby's "bottom line" is MONEY, and as long as it's a profitable business, I doubt there will be any move to close down. And, if it did, I won't miss it. (I went there once, and that was one time too many.)


----------



## Patricia Martinek (Jan 22, 2014)

I will continue to vote with my feet. This issue is not about freedom of religion. It is about freedom from having others impose theirs on me, especially bosses who already have a lot of control over me. My insurance also pays for things I do not use. Pregnancy. Smoking-related illlness. Diabetes. Viagra. I do not begrudge others for having the same policy. We as a society are all in this together to promote public health. Well, except maybe for the Viagra...

The forms of contraception that HL and Conestoga (the Mennonite -owned company in the same lawsuit) object to are not abortion. They are not. 

Women still are at a disadvantage in this country, and even more so throughout the world, as far as equal pay and equal opportunities. We deserve to make our own choices and help contribute in the world beyond bearing children. If we believe we should not intervene in natural reproductive processes, then we are hypocritical to intervene with other medical advances that enhance and prolong life. We are already at 7 billion people helping to create the second-most-destructive mass extinction in history. Let's nurture our children at a pace we can handle, and that Mother Nature can afford. I support insurance-covered preventative care that helps raise healthy families and preserves our world.

So here is my vote for Joanne's, Michael's, and best of all, all my LYS's -- local yarn stores. Or better yet, visit my local sheep ranch then make my own yarn. Which I do.


----------



## blavell (Mar 18, 2011)

Believe it or not, Hobby Lobby's owner is a woman! I saw her speak on TV last evening. My feeling is HL has no business in my personal life & certainly should be providing health care for their employees.


ELareau said:


> I think HobLobb's owner is out of line. The cost of birth control is not coming out of his pocket because that Rx coverage has very little to no effect on the cost of health insurance.
> 
> Curious how he would react when every female in his store became pregnant at the same time. Yes, I know he's very good at hiring women past the age of fertility.
> 
> ...


----------



## blavell (Mar 18, 2011)

AMEN!!!!


Patricia Martinek said:


> I will continue to vote with my feet. This issue is not about freedom of religion. It is about freedom from having others impose theirs on me, especially bosses who already have a lot of control over me. My insurance also pays for things I do not use. Pregnancy. Smoking-related illlness. Diabetes. Viagra. I do not begrudge others for having the same policy. We as a society are all in this together to promote public health. Well, except maybe for the Viagra...
> 
> The forms of contraception that HL and Conestoga (the Mennonite -owned company in the same lawsuit) object to are not abortion. They are not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Teatime4granny (Apr 4, 2011)

I havent read all the post on this, there are 13 pages so far, 
BUT, It is my understanding that HL does not oppose Birth control, It does oppose the other pill which causes abortion.


----------



## blavell (Mar 18, 2011)

I've also been there only once & it's not a business I will miss.


sterry said:


> If the decision goes against Hobby Lobby, the business will fold up and go away? (Somewhere on this forum I read that.) Sounds like an idle threat to me. Hobby Lobby's "bottom line" is MONEY, and as long as it's a profitable business, I doubt there will be any move to close down. And, if it did, I won't miss it. (I went there once, and that was one time too many.)


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

thumper5316 said:


> There is no implication regarding religion in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The language is very specific and straightforward. It is freedom _*OF*_ religion. There is nothing regarding 'from' religion, implied or otherwise. That verbiage is a recent morph and hijacking by wishful thinking and uninformed citizens in an attempt to have it read the way _they_ would want it to read.


Your position is just plain WRONG.

How in the name of common sense or reality can you possibly believe what you are saying? The first amendment definitely DOES protect me from your religion. I cannot be forced to abide by your, or anyone else's religion. I can't be forced to join a church - any church. The United States was not founded as a theocracy (as in "Christian nation"). It is SECULAR. You can't have freedom OF without freedom FROM religion. You can't pass laws that enforce religious beliefs. How would you like to be subject to Mormon values? Or Muslim values? Or Jewish values? Or any religious values that you don't believe in? Religion is an intensely personal thing and each of us is free to choose religion, or no religion, for ourselves but NO ONE ELSE.

The founding fathers saw the evils perpetrated by state-sponsored religion and specifically avoided that pitfall to the betterment of everyone. There is no doubt that Christian morality influenced their values, but religious doctrine was never, ever, ever, intended to be allowed as the foundation for law. When are you Christians going to learn that one does not need god in order to be a moral, ethical person?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Patricia Martinek said:


> I will continue to vote with my feet. This issue is not about freedom of religion. It is about freedom from having others impose theirs on me, especially bosses who already have a lot of control over me. My insurance also pays for things I do not use. Pregnancy. Smoking-related illlness. Diabetes. Viagra. I do not begrudge others for having the same policy. We as a society are all in this together to promote public health. Well, except maybe for the Viagra...
> 
> The forms of contraception that HL and Conestoga (the Mennonite -owned company in the same lawsuit) object to are not abortion. They are not.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Well said.


----------



## camgrafx (Oct 11, 2013)

oh my! what diverse opinions regarding the Hobby Lobby situation!!! I'm A 77 year old single, gay man. While I personally oppose abortion, I do not believe I should be able to make the choice for every other person on earth nor do I believe Hobby Lobby should be able to make such choices except for the owners family. On the other hand, if Hobby Lobby should win in the Supreme Court, their employees have the choice to change jobs and work for a different employer who will support their choices regarding birth control / abortion. I am also a Christian but I don't believe in pushing my faith down someone else's throat. I don't often shop at Hobby Lobby ( I usually choose Michaels) because of other rules they impose upon their employees. Faith is and should be a very personal matter... I don't think any of us is ready for another Inquisition!!!


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Lisa,
You are conflating two issues. You are correct that insurance is risk pooling but risk pooling does not address the question of WHAT is being insured and that is is what at issue in this discussion. Your example of car insurance is not really a good one because we are LEGALLY REQUIRED to purchase it. HL is not (so far, at least) legally required to provide specific kinds of birth control products.

You may call it a grossly ignorant question but it has great implications for our society. The basic issue is not access but about being required to violate ones principles.



VocalLisa said:


> This is such a grossly ignorant question.
> 
> Because that's how ALL insurance works. It's all based on risk pooling.
> 
> ...


----------



## PattyAnn (Jan 24, 2011)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


True.


----------



## sterry (May 29, 2012)

----> D GREEN.......So well-stated. Could not agree with you more!


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> There is no implication regarding religion in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The language is very specific and straightforward. It is freedom _*OF*_ religion. There is nothing regarding 'from' religion, implied or otherwise. That verbiage is a recent morph and hijacking by wishful thinking and uninformed citizens in an attempt to have it read the way _they_ would want it to read.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Beila Charna (Apr 28, 2012)

Thanks to BlueJay21 and ELareau for your posts. I do not patronize Hobby Lobby, Chick Fil-A, Domino's or Walmart -- for the reasons you mention. So glad to meet other courageous KPers who live according to similar principles.

Amended comment: I responded quickly to the first few posts. Having gone back and read more responses, I am impressed with the reasonable, rational comments from so many like-minded members. Thank you to all of you.


----------



## Tokyoal (Mar 19, 2014)

ElyseKnox said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Which religion are you talking about? There are many.


----------



## knitbreak (Jul 19, 2011)

Should we not be boycotting all products coming in from China? They force women to have an abortion if they have a more than one child, esp if it is a girl.Maybe Hobby Lobby should take out all their products marked made in China.


----------



## EBurk56622 (Oct 11, 2011)

Thank You Roni for clearing that issue up. Hobby Lobby shouldn't (IMHO) be boycoytted to stand up for their beliefs. As Roni said, their issue is not with the birth control but with the four products that abort a baby. We all need to get all the actual facts of an issue before taking such a strong stance against the company for standing up for their beliefs. 
Personally, I admire their determined stance against having something crammed down their throats by the government that they believe to be very wrong. GO HOBBY LOBBY! I HOPE YOU WIN!


----------



## Beila Charna (Apr 28, 2012)

knitbreak said:


> Should we not be boycotting all products coming in from China? They force women to have an abortion if they have a more than one child, esp if it is a girl.Maybe Hobby Lobby should take out all their products marked made in China.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Ronie (Jan 21, 2011)

I think the Ghosts of our founding fathers should haunt the White House and remind them _why_ we are _who_, and _where_, we are!!!! Your right this country was founded on *Freedom!* and to take that away is UnAmerican! In my opinion of course


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

Knit crazy said:


> You don't understand the concept of separation of church and state (state and religion is not the correct term). The church and state issue supported in our Bill of a Rights was put there because it was common in other countries for the governing entity to dictate a specific church/religion.
> 
> In England at the time the Constitution was written, that would have been the Church of England (Anglican). Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Anabaptists, etc. were unable to hold power and were fined, imprisoned, and lost land holdings. The same thing occurs today in most Muslim countries. If you are a Christian in those countries, you die.
> 
> America's founders put the separation of church and state provision into place to avoid that, but that concept works both ways. The state can't tell Hobby Lobby owners how to worship or live their faith. The Hobby Lobby owners religion can't demand that their religion be the state religion. This rule supports Hobby Lobby more than their employees because Hobby Lobby isn't trying to tell employees to worship as they do or to worship at all.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## dingo (Jun 20, 2011)

ELareau said:


> I think HobLobb's owner is out of line. The cost of birth control is not coming out of his pocket because that Rx coverage has very little to no effect on the cost of health insurance.
> 
> Curious how he would react when every female in his store became pregnant at the same time. Yes, I know he's very good at hiring women past the age of fertility.
> 
> ...


I totally agree.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

That provision in our constitution was written as a direct result of there being an "official" religion in England, one that all were required to take part in. There was never any intent by our founding fathers to say that there should be NO religion--just that there should be no OFFICIAL religion that citizens would be required to participate in and support.

That original freedom "OF" (definitely not FROM) has been so impinged upon to have taken us full circle. Freedom to live our religious beliefs--particularly if those beliefs happen to be Christian-- are being legislated away.



Tokyoal said:


> Which religion are you talking about? There are many.


----------



## Mercury (Apr 12, 2012)

I love Hobby Lobby and I love their products. I will continue to shop there. All of this nonsense does not enter into where I shop. I give them credit for standing up to their convictions even they do not affect me.


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

Melz said:


> And yet they do business and have no objections handing over their money to support a government(China) that provides these procedures that they claim are against their religious beliefs. Hmm...sounds like they use religion when it benefits their bottom line and ignore their religious belief when it benefits their bottom line. All these people that so proudly proclaim to continue to shop and support HL even go out of their way to support them, how do you proclaim to be against abortion and contraceptives that you say cause abortions and yet have no problem handing your money over to a company that will then use your money to support a government that provides these procedures? Aren't you then paying for these abortions or as you call them murder of innocent babies? How is it okay for them and you to pay for these abortions and it's not murder but if it's in the US it's then against your religious belief because it's murder? Please help me understand why it's Murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in the US but not murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in a foreign country?


I'm pretty sure I've read every post on every page of this thread, and nobody has answered these questions. If I'm wrong please guide me to the posts that address these questions. To me, they go to the heart of the matter of what "standing up for principals and values" really means.

Well done, Melz.


----------



## kayortiz (Aug 12, 2013)

why does everyone think they are paying for everyone elses health care. you pay for your own insurance. companies may pay for part and yes we pay in a slightly higher price so their profits don't go down. we also pay for their bonuses, vacations and perks through higher prices. taxes pay for medicare for below proverty level people, unwed teenagers and uninsured children. that you are paying for. if i pay part or all of my health insurance that comes out of my pocket. in germany people pay an added value tax to pay for national health care and retirement. canada has a national health care that is paid for through taxes, maybe we should do that. some hospitals charge different for people with insurance and those without. guess who pays more.


----------



## Bloomers (Oct 11, 2013)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


Bravo, Theresa, that's where the "choice" is! I whole-heartedly support Hobby Lobby and I don't think that the government should interfere with how companies conduct business.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> You don't understand the concept of separation of church and state (state and religion is not the correct term). The church and state issue supported in our Bill of a Rights was put there because it was common in other countries for the governing entity to dictate a specific church/religion.
> 
> In England at the time the Constitution was written, that would have been the Church of England (Anglican). Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Anabaptists, etc. were unable to hold power and were fined, imprisoned, and lost land holdings. The same thing occurs today in most Muslim countries. If you are a Christian in those countries, you die.
> 
> America's founders put the separation of church and state provision into place to avoid that, but that concept works both ways. The state can't tell Hobby Lobby owners how to worship or live their faith. The Hobby Lobby owners religion can't demand that their religion be the state religion. This rule supports Hobby Lobby more than their employees because Hobby Lobby isn't trying to tell employees to worship as they do or to worship at all.


But the state puts a law 'for everyone' and religion can't put it's own rules to oppose those laws but they are free to live by their religious rules themselves.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

knitbreak said:


> Should we not be boycotting all products coming in from China? They force women to have an abortion if they have a more than one child, esp if it is a girl.Maybe Hobby Lobby should take out all their products marked made in China.


Boycotting China products is a great! Let's start a real movement.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

lins said:


> But the state puts a law 'for everyone' and religion can't put it's own rules to oppose those laws but they are free to live by their religious rules themselves.


The state cannot make a law that requires a person to violate their religious beliefs. That is the separation of Church and state.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> The state cannot make a law that requires a person to violate their religious beliefs. That is the separation of Church and state.


 :thumbup:


----------



## olcagran (Oct 2, 2013)

I totally agree with everyone taking responsibility for their own actions....when did it become law that we pay for birth control for everyone????? I too am sick of the people that think everyone else should pay for them and their wants! Hobby Lobby needs to stick to their guns and I hope the Supreme Court makes a decision that will let them follow their religious beliefs. If the people that work there don't like it, they can work somewhere else! If I had a Hobby Lobby nearby I would certainly shop there!


----------



## mimizz (Nov 27, 2013)

I believe businesses, as well as people, have every right to run their business and their lives, as their beliefs dictate. We all may not agree, but those are the benefits of the type of government we have. Also, if you do not agree with their practices, you too, have the right to avoid shopping at those stores.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

ElyseKnox said:


> That provision in our constitution was written as a direct result of there being an "official" religion in England, one that all were required to take part in. There was never any intent by our founding fathers to say that there should be NO religion--just that there should be no OFFICIAL religion that citizens would be required to participate in and support.
> 
> That original freedom "OF" (definitely not FROM) has been so impinged upon to have taken us full circle. Freedom to live our religious beliefs--particularly if those beliefs happen to be Christian-- are being legislated away.


Give us some examples, please. I would really like to know which legislation is taking away your freedom to live your religious beliefs. If it is truly happening, I'll stand by you 100%.


----------



## binkbrice (May 19, 2011)

camgrafx said:


> oh my! what diverse opinions regarding the Hobby Lobby situation!!! I'm A 77 year old single, gay man. While I personally oppose abortion, I do not believe I should be able to make the choice for every other person on earth nor do I believe Hobby Lobby should be able to make such choices except for the owners family. On the other hand, if Hobby Lobby should win in the Supreme Court, their employees have the choice to change jobs and work for a different employer who will support their choices regarding birth control / abortion. I am also a Christian but I don't believe in pushing my faith down someone else's throat. I don't often shop at Hobby Lobby ( I usually choose Michaels) because of other rules they impose upon their employees. Faith is and should be a very personal matter... I don't think any of us is ready for another Inquisition!!!


They are not making that choice for every other person on earth go ahead you just have to pay for it yourself HL should have the right to say they do not cover that particular pill if they so choose it is there company and if a woman doesn't like that then don't work there as simple as that, my insurance doesn't pay for certain tests but you don't see me sueing the company for it I just pay for them out of my pocket if I opt to have it done!


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

Just to let others know that there are two active threads on this topic already.


----------



## sharon05676 (May 13, 2012)

I agree. It's all about freedoms. Freedom to shop where you want, freedom to run your business as you want, freedom to work where you want. I just discovered HL here in FL and love it!



Judyh said:


> Why should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs? If someone does not agree with their policy, they should shop or find a job elsewhere.What happened to religious freedom?


----------



## cialea (Jan 8, 2014)

jumbleburt said:


> I'm currently boycotting them, and although they aren't losing much business, I would feel I was betraying my beliefs if I contributed in any way to a company that feels they have the right to dictate employees' medical decisions.


I so agree


----------



## GoodyTwoShoes (Apr 4, 2013)

Hobby Lobby has a belief that is contrary to popular opinion AND they have just as much right to exercise that belief and make their policies accordingly. It is a privately owned business and the government should BUTT OUT! Personally I like what they stand for and will not stop shopping there. It is gratifying to see people standing up for what they believe in while knee deep in the BS that is political correctness. You go, Hobby Lobby!


----------



## sterry (May 29, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Give us some examples, please. I would really like to know which legislation is taking away your freedom to live your religious beliefs. If it is truly happening, I'll stand by you 100%.


----------



## sterry (May 29, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Give us some examples, please. I would really like to know which legislation is taking away your freedom to live your religious beliefs. If it is truly happening, I'll stand by you 100%.


I'd like to know about those laws also...waiting....


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> That provision in our constitution was written as a direct result of there being an "official" religion in England, one that all were required to take part in. There was never any intent by our founding fathers to say that there should be NO religion--just that there should be no OFFICIAL religion that citizens would be required to participate in and support.
> 
> That original freedom "OF" (definitely not FROM) has been so impinged upon to have taken us full circle. Freedom to live our religious beliefs--particularly if those beliefs happen to be Christian-- are being legislated away.


Freedom of religion implies that I must have a religion. What if I choose not to be a religious person at all?


----------



## sonnie71 (Feb 11, 2013)

This is a for profit business not a Christian institution. If the owners and their families choose not to use birth control that is their perogative but to make that choice for their employees, Christian or not, is not their right. Birth control for many families is an absolute necessity. Only the family can decide whether they can afford another child, financially, physically etc., not an employer.


----------



## sterry (May 29, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Freedom of religion implies that I must have a religion. What if I choose not to be a religious person at all?


I think it means IT"S YOUR BUSINESS. If you choose not to affiliate with any religious organization, that's also part of your FREEDOM. I have never been questioned about my religion or whether I am associated with a religion.


----------



## arkynana (Apr 11, 2011)

Roni Masse said:


> Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control. They only are against 4 products whose side effect or purpose is to cause an abortion (these 4 themselves are not used for conventional birth control). I myself am not boycotting anyone. The nearest HL is 35 miles from me and carries very little I would be interested in.


:thumbup: The following link is an interview from last night with HL's lawyer: http://video.foxnews.com/v/3391994905001/exclusive-mark-rienzi-on-hobby-lobby-contraception-case/#sp=show-clips&v=3391994905001

This was 1st time I had heard the 'rest of the story'.


----------



## PARANDALL (Nov 16, 2011)

ELareau said:


> I think HobLobb's owner is out of line. The cost of birth control is not coming out of his pocket because that Rx coverage has very little to no effect on the cost of health insurance.
> 
> Curious how he would react when every female in his store became pregnant at the same time. Yes, I know he's very good at hiring women past the age of fertility.
> 
> ...


AMEN!


----------



## Knitnutty (Feb 9, 2011)

I'm boycotting them also. Mostly all they have is imported junk anyway and any of the craft supplies you can get anywhere and I will never use their yarn again. They threatened to close the doors if they have to abide by the law so as far as I'm concerned they can close today.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

One wonders whatever happened to separation of church and state.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

carriemae said:


> I will shop at hobby lobby every chance I get.


My problem with Hobby Lobby is their insistence that their religion is foremost so their stores are closed on Sundays. Why do they sell on their website on Sundays? I'd call that trying to have it both ways.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

jumbleburt said:


> Sometimes it's a choice; unfortunately, for too many women it isn't.


Absolutely correct!


----------



## knittykitty (Mar 22, 2011)

The way I understand the Hobby Lobby issue is -

They don't want to furnish coverage for 4 drugs on the list as they are considered abortion related. 

The same drugs are also being protested by the Mennonites, I believe.

kk


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

carriemae said:


> Hobby lobby doesn't care what women do they just don't want to pay for it. Why should anyone pay for someone else's choices???? Personally I'm sick of paying for things that moochers think they deserve


At the age of 75, and after a career in state welfare, I'm wondering where all these huge numbers of "moochers" are that so many keep referring to. That wasn't my experience. I had only three out of a caseload of 500, two of whom were convicted and jailed, one of whom skipped the state.


----------



## dijewe (Mar 1, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> My problem with Hobby Lobby is their insistence that their religion is foremost so their stores are closed on Sundays. Why do they sell on their website on Sundays? I'd call that trying to have it both ways.


Thank you. I do not believe for one minute they would close their stores either.


----------



## MSchipper (Jun 24, 2011)

(They are not making that choice for every other person on earth go ahead you just have to pay for it yourself HL should have the right to say they do not cover that particular pill if they so choose it is there company and if a woman doesn't like that then don't work there as simple as that, my insurance doesn't pay for certain tests but you don't see me sueing the company for it I just pay for them out of my pocket if I opt to have it done!)

PLEASE USE PUNCTUATION. Yes, I intended this to be all in CAPS.


----------



## anetdeer (Jul 16, 2012)

When I was getting married, birth control pills were covered under my health ins. The VERY next year, they weren't...back in the mid-70's. Okay..it didn't make sense but okay. Six years ago I was looking for a job and interviewed for the archdiocese...I was told I would have to go to church each day (half hour service). I also interviewed at a Jewish school and recreation center and was told they were Kosher. Did I feel my freedoms were being withheld because of the above 3 examples...NO...I was the employee...I had the freedom of choice whether or not to work there. That's like taking a job knowing you must wear a uniform and then you decide you don't want to any longer. People...I don't think we are "entitled" to birth control OR abortions to be paid by our employer...never did. I do, however, am grateful that I have a job and I will abide by the company's rules and regulations in exchange for my paycheck.

This is my humble opinion...and should not be confused with the start of an argument.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

sonnie71 said:


> This is a for profit business not a Christian institution. If the owners and their families choose not to use birth control that is their perogative but to make that choice for their employees, Christian or not, is not their right. Birth control for many families is an absolute necessity. Only the family can decide whether they can afford another child, financially, physically etc., not an employer.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

anetdeer said:


> When I was getting married, birth control pills were covered under my health ins. The VERY next year, they weren't...back in the mid-70's. Okay..it didn't make sense but okay. Six years ago I was looking for a job and interviewed for the archdiocese...I was told I would have to go to church each day (half hour service). I also interviewed at a Jewish school and recreation center and was told they were Kosher. Did I feel my freedoms were being withheld because of the above 3 examples...NO...I was the employee...I had the freedom of choice whether or not to work there. That's like taking a job knowing you must wear a uniform and then you decide you don't want to any longer. People...I don't think we are "entitled" to birth control OR abortions to be paid by our employer...never did. I do, however, am grateful that I have a job and I will abide by the company's rules and regulations in exchange for my paycheck.
> 
> This is my humble opinion...and should not be confused with the start of an argument.


Church-owned enterprises can do that. If it isn't church-owned, they can't. Simple. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Can't force their religion on employees.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

carriemae said:


> I will shop at hobby lobby every chance I get.


Don't like being a woman, do you?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

E


babsbarb said:


> I don't understand what the big deal is. I have a friend that is about 65 years old, male, single (ladies are you looking???) We are in Oregon. Until recently was on his x-wife's insurance. He had to purchase insurance for himself that covers pregnancy. WHY should he have to have this coverage, when we all know what chance he has of becoming pregnant??


Why do we pay for Viagra and penis pumps, I don't have a penis.


----------



## Casey47 (Feb 5, 2014)

Roni Masse said:


> Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control. They only are against 4 products whose side effect or purpose is to cause an abortion (these 4 themselves are not used for conventional birth control). I myself am not boycotting anyone. The nearest HL is 35 miles from me and carries very little I would be interested in.


This was my understanding too, that the opposition was to the types of birth controls that work AFTER conception. Many things throughout history have been done in the name of religion and I think Hobby Lobby is following that practice. I believe it's all about the money. They think they've got a better chance of getting out of providing health insurance if they base their objections on religious conviction. Look at the countries where Hobby Lobby buys the bulk of their merchandise. Many of these countries don't care about human rights in general, and women's and children's rights in particular. I don't approve of post conception birth control either but it's not as bad as things done to women and children in countries where Hobby Lobby buys merchandise. They don't screen their customers - they'll take anyone's money no matter who or what you are or what you have done. If they want to be sure the insurance money they pay out is not used for post conception birth control they should hire like minded people. If they are allowed to get away with this it's going to open a huge Pandora's box.


----------



## alidakyle (Dec 20, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I don't see any reference to the arguments made before the Supreme Court yesterday, but they are very interesting in terms of what the court will actually consider when making their decision. There is also the very real subject of the sweeping ramifications their decision will have should HL prevail.
> 
> First of all, there is a question of whether the CORPORATION has a religion or even CAN have a religion. Remember, the corporate structure HL has chosen instead of remaining a private company, affords any number of benefits under the law. That individual shareholders are shielded from liability is one of the main benefits. So individual religious beliefs are rendered immaterial when considering HL's legal status. It is the corporation that wants to claim a religious belief. (Sketchy in my view).
> 
> ...


Well said!!


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> Once again this issue is not about birth control. It is about products to abort a pregnancy. There is a law in the US that says Americans are not required to pay for abortions. This issue could be solved by a ruling that determines when life begins. Some believe it begins at birth. As someone awaiting a new grandchild and seeing the ultrasounds and viewing the growth and development, I am convinced that the only logical viewpoint is that it begins at conception.


I think we are beating our heads against a wall. People who don't "want" to know that HL DOES provide birth control, just not the "morning after" pill choose to ignore that fact. So members of this forum who keep talking about birth control in general do NOT want to acknowledge that birth control is offered except for one form. It is best for them to "forget" this fact.


----------



## KatieRose (Mar 26, 2013)

This issue was presented to the US Supreme Court yesterday - both Hobby Lobby and the Mennonite business were involved. Decision in June.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

olcagran said:


> I totally agree with everyone taking responsibility for their own actions....when did it become law that we pay for birth control for everyone????? I too am sick of the people that think everyone else should pay for them and their wants! Hobby Lobby needs to stick to their guns and I hope the Supreme Court makes a decision that will let them follow their religious beliefs. If the people that work there don't like it, they can work somewhere else! If I had a Hobby Lobby nearby I would certainly shop there!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## anetdeer (Jul 16, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Church-owned enterprises can do that. If it isn't church-owned, they can't. Simple. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Can't force their religion on employees.


If so..why are the nuns having to buy health ins. that supply bc?


----------



## Madame La Farge (Jan 8, 2014)

I see nothing wrong with the so-called morning after pill, nor for that matter, anything at all wrong with abortion.


----------



## ics (Jul 19, 2012)

Shouldn't store owners have the freedom, (right), to follow their own beliefs and make choices according to those beliefs? I don't have a Hobby Lobby near me, but I wish I did.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

sonnie71 said:


> This is a for profit business not a Christian institution. If the owners and their families choose not to use birth control that is their perogative but to make that choice for their employees, Christian or not, is not their right. Birth control for many families is an absolute necessity. Only the family can decide whether they can afford another child, financially, physically etc., not an employer.


And they can! HL offers birth control!!!!! HL is not preventing employees birth control.How many times does that have to be said before it sinks in??


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

Roni Masse said:


> Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control. They only are against 4 products whose side effect or purpose is to cause an abortion (these 4 themselves are not used for conventional birth control). I myself am not boycotting anyone. The nearest HL is 35 miles from me and carries very little I would be interested in.


You may be mistaken here...one of the products Hobby Lobby does not wish to cover is the IUD, the most effective method of birth control.


----------



## Melz (May 29, 2011)

Melz wrote:
And yet they do business and have no objections handing over their money to support a government(China) that provides these procedures that they claim are against their religious beliefs. Hmm...sounds like they use religion when it benefits their bottom line and ignore their religious belief when it benefits their bottom line. All these people that so proudly proclaim to continue to shop and support HL even go out of their way to support them, how do you proclaim to be against abortion and contraceptives that you say cause abortions and yet have no problem handing your money over to a company that will then use your money to support a government that provides these procedures? Aren't you then paying for these abortions or as you call them murder of innocent babies? How is it okay for them and you to pay for these abortions and it's not murder but if it's in the US it's then against your religious belief because it's murder? Please help me understand why it's Murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in the US but not murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in a foreign country?



painthoss said:


> I'm pretty sure I've read every post on every page of this thread, and nobody has answered these questions. If I'm wrong please guide me to the posts that address these questions. To me, they go to the heart of the matter of what "standing up for principals and values" really means.
> 
> Well done, Melz.


Which is my point.

Thank you painthoss, I thoght maybe I did not put it in a way that got the point across.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

Religion is an intensely personal thing and each of us is free to choose religion, or no religion, for ourselves but NO ONE ELSE. 

So, tell me, how is HL choosing anyones religion? THEY DO OFFER BIRTH CONTROL. And if you don't agree with their stand, for heaven sake, go somewhere else. You are not forced to shop there!


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

So far, it looks to me like those on the "Pro-Life" side of the birth control argument want as many babies to be born as possible, which is a fine goal and I applaud it, but they seem to stop at the point when a baby is born and fail address everything it takes to raise a child until it is at least 18 years old. 

I reluctantly say that birth control methods should be included in all health plans. I may be unusually naive to say this, but I don't think very many people who don't believe in using birth control are going to change their religious beliefs and start using birth control when they have easy access to it. Those who choose to use birth control despite religious beliefs will have to wrestle with their choice, and I believe how anyone practices any particular religion is an intensely private matter.

I don't think boycotting Hobby Lobby will make a really meaningful statement. Putting some real time and attention into the question of how babies who are born but not necessarily wanted are raised seems more important, IMO. And I'm not advocating some new form of welfare as the only and best solution to this problem.

I'm 64, but if someone wanted to give me a baby they didn't want and/or couldn't afford to raise, I'd take that baby home in a hot second and be sure to make arrangements for its care should I die or become unable to raise it, and those plans wouldn't include throwing the child into the snake pit we call the foster care system.


----------



## Bea 465 (Mar 27, 2011)

HL is NOT against birth control. They object to having to provide for 4 (FOUR) methods - like the day after pill because they consider that abortion. They are willing to pay for all other birth control methods demanded by Obamacare except these 4. I wish people would quite claiming they refuse to pay for any birth control through their insurance plan.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

lins said:


> That's only the owners religious belief. Not all their employees share their views and shouldn't be oppressed by these views.
> Is it right to press your religious views onto other people?
> Religious freedom does not allow you to impose your views on others.
> Separation between state and religion, remember?


How are they pressing their views on others? No one makes anyone work there, they have the freedom to work elsewhere and not be "oppressed".


----------



## Meanjean (Jan 26, 2014)

You say that noone should take free choice away from anyone. I agree. So Noone should be able to take away free choice away from Hobby Lobby either if you want to be fair.


----------



## jaa520 (Apr 16, 2013)

I believe Hobby Lobby has a right to decide their beliefs and live by them. If people decide not to shop there it is their right also. I will proudly continue to shop and support Hobby Lobby.


----------



## grammacat (Nov 30, 2011)

My sentiments exactly. Scanned through some of this ridiculous thread. This is a knitting forum and I choose to read about and look at things related to knitting. that is why I am clickning unwatch. Goodbye.


Munchn said:


> Hobby Lobby has the right to their decision. Why should HL be forced to include birth control in its health care plan? You have a right to decide to use birth control or not. HL is entitled too.
> 
> The gov't is sticking its nose into way too much of the citizens business.
> 
> That's where I stand.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

Meanjean said:


> You say that noone should take free choice away from anyone. I agree. So Noone should be able to take away free choice away from Hobby Lobby either if you want to be fair.


 The question is whether Hobby Lobby is 'anyone,' and especially whether Hobby Lobby is an 'anyone' with religious beliefs.
Can a corporation have a mind? Can a corporation have an individual soul?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Roni Masse said:


> Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control. They only are against 4 products whose side effect or purpose is to cause an abortion (these 4 themselves are not used for conventional birth control). I myself am not boycotting anyone. The nearest HL is 35 miles from me and carries very little I would be interested in.


Thank you. Finally someone who knows the facts behind Hobby Lobby's lawsuit. So many people think that HL is declining birth control to its employees. They are not. It is just the drugs that HL feels are abortion drugs that they object to. They also are not saying anything against/threatening any action against any employee that would use these drugs. HL just doesn't want to be ordered to pay for them.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Bea 465 said:


> HL is NOT against birth control. They object to having to provide for 4 (FOUR) methods - like the day after pill because they consider that abortion. They are willing to pay for all other birth control methods demanded by Obamacare except these 4. I wish people would quite claiming they refuse to pay for any birth control through their insurance plan.


Several people have pointed this out, and I'm really glad they have. I didn't know that HL was objecting to medications like the morning after pill, a form of "birth control" I strongly object to. I wrote my post on page 17 before I had read enough of this topic to learn about HL's position on birth control, but I still stand by what I said while being better informed.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> At the age of 75, and after a career in state welfare, I'm wondering where all these huge numbers of "moochers" are that so many keep referring to. That wasn't my experience. I had only three out of a caseload of 500, two of whom were convicted and jailed, one of whom skipped the state.


Thank you! I think it's time someone challenged the idea that purchasing contraceptives is as simple as just heading down to the nearest Walgreen's. I don't know about ANYONE else on this thread, but I am personally thankful that I have had enormous advantages in my life. Like being healthy, coming from a family that valued education and could feed me wholesome food. I'm thankful that I have never been caught up in the crushing cycle of poverty many people live with, nor have I had grave misfortune plunge me into poverty. Too many of our sisters and brothers have not had those advantages. People criticize them for being poor, as if to say (as some politicians do), then STOP BEING POOR. How quick we are to judge others. And how unwilling to help end the cycle.

The Affordable Care Act includes birth control coverage for good reasons. It helps those who truly can't afford that kind of care to plan their families and rise out of poverty which benefits everyone. It allows women opportunities to continue their education and at the same time live a full and satisfying life. Yes, women ARE sexual beings. Sexual activity is part of a normal life. It helps keep families OFF welfare. It helps prevent child abuse because there are those who don't have the coping skills to deal with the grinding misery of living on the edge of hunger and want. It is basic healthcare. Denying that care is discrimination against women - there is no "controversy" about any aspect of men's healthcare.

"Don't have sex if you can't afford a baby" is a ridiculous position. Who do people think they are to judge other people's lives, as if the poor deserve to be judged? Or that they are second-class citizens? Who dares call them "moochers?"


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

anetdeer said:


> If so..why are the nuns having to buy health ins. that supply bc?


Who cares? They also pay for Viagra.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Catarry said:


> The question is whether Hobby Lobby is 'anyone,' and especially whether Hobby Lobby is an 'anyone' with religious beliefs.
> Can a corporation have a mind? Can a corporation have an individual soul?


Refer to Citizen's United. Evidently the Supreme Court thinks so.

then look at the result.


----------



## cialea (Jan 8, 2014)

sonnie71 said:


> This is a for profit business not a Christian institution. If the owners and their families choose not to use birth control that is their perogative but to make that choice for their employees, Christian or not, is not their right. Birth control for many families is an absolute necessity. Only the family can decide whether they can afford another child, financially, physically etc., not an employer.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## jumbleburt (Mar 10, 2011)

People keep pointing out that HL doesn't want to avoid paying for all birth control options, just ones they think are wrong - as if that made all the difference. No one gets to decide, because of their religion or any other reason, what part of the law they will obey and what part they won't. 

Through history, activists who believe laws are wrong have protested, died, ended up in jail, or accepted other sanctions for what they believed, but in no instance has the government said, "OK, if the law doesn't suit your beliefs, you can just ignore it". 

HL is free to do all they can to get the law changed (and I understand that that is what they're trying to do in this case) but as long as the law is in place, they will either obey it or accept the consequences. If the consequence they choose is to go out of business, that is their prerogative.


----------



## Patricia Martinek (Jan 22, 2014)

I honestly believe that HL is doing something they believe is right. But what is right? How do we legislate some seemingly-acceptable behaviors and not others as far as health insurance? If I am not willing to pay for the best technology consequences of others' reproductive activities, why should I pay insurance premiums that cover the health consequences of smoking? Obesity? Heart disease? Getting caught in a landslide because of where I choose to live? Use of guns and bombs on innocent bystanders? Just where would we ever draw the line? I believe in ethical and smart living, and also in a society that supports freedom and public health. I take responsibility for my actions, but just what if they give me cancer?


----------



## cialea (Jan 8, 2014)

DGreen said:


> Thank you! I think it's time someone challenged the idea that purchasing contraceptives is as simple as just heading down to the nearest Walgreen's. I don't know about ANYONE else on this thread, but I am personally thankful that I have had enormous advantages in my life. Like being healthy, coming from a family that valued education and could feed me wholesome food. I'm thankful that I have never been caught up in the crushing cycle of poverty many people live with, nor have I had grave misfortune plunge me into poverty. Too many of our sisters and brothers have not had those advantages. People criticize them for being poor, as if to say (as some politicians do), then STOP BEING POOR. How quick we are to judge others. And how unwilling to help end the cycle.
> 
> The Affordable Care Act includes birth control coverage for good reasons. It helps those who truly can't afford that kind of care to plan their families and rise out of poverty which benefits everyone. It allows women opportunities to continue their education and at the same time live a full and satisfying life. Yes, women ARE sexual beings. Sexual activity is part of a normal life. It helps keep families OFF welfare. It helps prevent child abuse because there are those who don't have the coping skills to deal with the grinding misery of living on the edge of hunger and want. It is basic healthcare. Denying that care is discrimination against women - there is no "controversy" about any aspect of men's healthcare.
> 
> "Don't have sex if you can't afford a baby" is a ridiculous position. Who do people think they are to judge other people's lives, as if the poor deserve to be judged? Or that they are second-class citizens? Who dares call them "moochers?"


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Casey47 said:


> If they want to be sure the insurance money they pay out is not used for post conception birth control they should hire like minded people. If they are allowed to get away with this it's going to open a huge Pandora's box.


If they hired only like-minded people, they would be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that says you can't discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring. That, by the way, protects EVERYBODY, including you. They are a public company and are required to follow the law like everyone else.


----------



## jumbleburt (Mar 10, 2011)

DGreen said:


> The Affordable Care Act includes birth control coverage for good reasons. It helps those who truly can't afford that kind of care to plan their families and rise out of poverty which benefits everyone. It allows women opportunities to continue their education and at the same time live a full and satisfying life. Yes, women ARE sexual beings. Sexual activity is part of a normal life. It helps keep families OFF welfare. It helps prevent child abuse because there are those who don't have the coping skills to deal with the grinding misery of living on the edge of hunger and want. It is basic healthcare. Denying that care is discrimination against women - there is no "controversy" about any aspect of men's healthcare.
> 
> "Don't have sex if you can't afford a baby" is a ridiculous position. Who do people think they are to judge other people's lives, as if the poor deserve to be judged? Or that they are second-class citizens? Who dares call them "moochers?"


Thank you!
:thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## nitnana (Feb 3, 2013)

I may have missed the question - and the correct answer - but is Hobby Lobby paying for this insurance or just "offering" it to their employees? Very few businesses pay for health ins. fully anymore. If it is being offered, no one has to use if all (or most) of their employees are past fertility, as one post said. There are many things my ins. covers which I am sure (hopefully!) I will never use - and I heard that there is no additional cost whether the contraceptive meds are included or not! So, the problem is that it simply offends the owners' religion. And they are NOT a religious institution. Many women are prescribed those meds for their health - not to induce an abortion!Maybe even some of the nuns who were mentioned! Nuff said.


----------



## Casey47 (Feb 5, 2014)

Melz said:


> Melz wrote:
> And yet they do business and have no objections handing over their money to support a government(China) that provides these procedures that they claim are against their religious beliefs. Hmm...sounds like they use religion when it benefits their bottom line and ignore their religious belief when it benefits their bottom line. All these people that so proudly proclaim to continue to shop and support HL even go out of their way to support them, how do you proclaim to be against abortion and contraceptives that you say cause abortions and yet have no problem handing your money over to a company that will then use your money to support a government that provides these procedures? Aren't you then paying for these abortions or as you call them murder of innocent babies? How is it okay for them and you to pay for these abortions and it's not murder but if it's in the US it's then against your religious belief because it's murder? Please help me understand why it's Murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in the US but not murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in a foreign country?
> 
> Which is my point.
> ...


This is what I was trying to say on the previous page. It's about the money. And double standards.


----------



## Patricia Martinek (Jan 22, 2014)

DGreen and Casey47: Absolutely. I appreciate your thoughtful and accurate responses! Ironic about the protection for employees from religious discrimination thanks to yet another federal government protection.


----------



## Cheryl Jaeger (Oct 25, 2011)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


I'm going to agree with this comment.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

I really like your post. You've touched on some very important issues that surround birth control. Still, it's pretty easy to get condoms at any drug store, and even some supermarkets. Maybe we need to expand this discussion to consider the responsibilities men should take when they are going to have sex. Some of the organizations that don't want to provide birth control in their health plans seem to have forgotten that "it takes two to tango".


DGreen said:


> Thank you! I think it's time someone challenged the idea that purchasing contraceptives is as simple as just heading down to the nearest Walgreen's. I don't know about ANYONE else on this thread, but I am personally thankful that I have had enormous advantages in my life. Like being healthy, coming from a family that valued education and could feed me wholesome food. I'm thankful that I have never been caught up in the crushing cycle of poverty many people live with, nor have I had grave misfortune plunge me into poverty. Too many of our sisters and brothers have not had those advantages. People criticize them for being poor, as if to say (as some politicians do), then STOP BEING POOR. How quick we are to judge others. And how unwilling to help end the cycle.
> 
> The Affordable Care Act includes birth control coverage for good reasons. It helps those who truly can't afford that kind of care to plan their families and rise out of poverty which benefits everyone. It allows women opportunities to continue their education and at the same time live a full and satisfying life. Yes, women ARE sexual beings. Sexual activity is part of a normal life. It helps keep families OFF welfare. It helps prevent child abuse because there are those who don't have the coping skills to deal with the grinding misery of living on the edge of hunger and want. It is basic healthcare. Denying that care is discrimination against women - there is no "controversy" about any aspect of men's healthcare.
> 
> "Don't have sex if you can't afford a baby" is a ridiculous position. Who do people think they are to judge other people's lives, as if the poor deserve to be judged? Or that they are second-class citizens? Who dares call them "moochers?"


----------



## cialea (Jan 8, 2014)

rocky1991 said:


> E
> 
> Why do we pay for Viagra and penis pumps, I don't have a penis.


 I do notice how that never comes up in these discussions... It's always about beating down the woman... Just like that ridiculous statement a male politician said about how a woman's body can take care not to get pregnant if it was really rape...


----------



## cialea (Jan 8, 2014)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I really like your post. You've touched on some very important issues that surround birth control. Still, it's pretty easy to get condoms at any drug store, and even some supermarkets. Maybe we need to expand this discussion to consider the responsibilities men should take when they are going to have sex. Some of the organizations that don't want to provide birth control in their health plans seem to have forgotten that "it takes two to tango".


 :thumbup:


----------



## jumbleburt (Mar 10, 2011)

Sure, you can get condoms lots of places, but they require male cooperation and they are far from fool-proof (thus the need for the "morning after" pill.


----------



## cialea (Jan 8, 2014)

nitnana said:


> I may have missed the question - and the correct answer - but is Hobby Lobby paying for this insurance or just "offering" it to their employees? Very few businesses pay for health ins. fully anymore. If it is being offered, no one has to use if all (or most) of their employees are past fertility, as one post said. There are many things my ins. covers which I am sure (hopefully!) I will never use - and I heard that there is no additional cost whether the contraceptive meds are included or not! So, the problem is that it simply offends the owners' religion. And they are NOT a religious institution. Many women are prescribed those meds for their health - not to induce an abortion!Maybe even some of the nuns who were mentioned! Nuff said.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## olcagran (Oct 2, 2013)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Mercury (Apr 12, 2012)

Can't we drop this subject? I think we have gotten off the beaten track. This is a knitting forum and not a sex panel. Lwt's move on.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

jumbleburt said:


> I'm currently boycotting them, and although they aren't losing much business, I would feel I was betraying my beliefs if I contributed in any way to a company that feels they have the right to dictate employees' medical decisions.


They aren't dictating employees' medical decisions. The employees can still purchase the products if they want to.


----------



## jumbleburt (Mar 10, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> They aren't dictating employees' medical decisions. The employees can still purchase the products if they want to.


If you think it's that easy, you apparently have never had to live on the kind of salary retail clerks make.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

nitnana said:


> I may have missed the question - and the correct answer - but is Hobby Lobby paying for this insurance or just "offering" it to their employees? Very few businesses pay for health ins. fully anymore. If it is being offered, no one has to use if all (or most) of their employees are past fertility, as one post said. There are many things my ins. covers which I am sure (hopefully!) I will never use - and I heard that there is no additional cost whether the contraceptive meds are included or not! So, the problem is that it simply offends the owners' religion. And they are NOT a religious institution. Many women are prescribed those meds for their health - not to induce an abortion!Maybe even some of the nuns who were mentioned! Nuff said.


They are objecting to the provision of the Affordable Care Act that mandates all insurance policies to cover birth control. They don't like all forms of birth control and are objecting to some on the grounds that providing it would violate their religious beliefs, even thought they are a corporation.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I really like your post. You've touched on some very important issues that surround birth control. Still, it's pretty easy to get condoms at any drug store, and even some supermarkets. Maybe we need to expand this discussion to consider the responsibilities men should take when they are going to have sex. Some of the organizations that don't want to provide birth control in their health plans seem to have forgotten that "it takes two to tango".


You are SO right. However, having said that, only women get pregnant. Men can, and do, walk away. Not all of them by any stretch, but when it comes right down to it, women need to have the means to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies. That is why I believe it is a much more important concern for women.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Evie RM said:


> They aren't dictating employees' medical decisions. The employees can still purchase the products if they want to.


They are trying to deny their employees the same coverage everyone else has under the ACA. Which would be less - all in the name of their religion.


----------



## cialea (Jan 8, 2014)

DGreen said:


> You are SO right. However, having said that, only women get pregnant. Men can, and do, walk away. Not all of them by any stretch, but when it comes right down to it, women need to have the means to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies. That is why I believe it is a much more important concern for women.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cialea (Jan 8, 2014)

Evie RM said:


> They aren't dictating employees' medical decisions. The employees can still purchase the products if they want to.


A close friend of mine is on the pill... she is 47 years old has had her tubes tied but gets very heavy periods... So bad she passed out from the loss of blood... Her doctor prescribed her the pill to try to regulate her... I guess under HL ideas this would be wrong too??? Please everyone. We should not pass judgement until we have been in the same situation... I don't know for sure but if I was sixteen & found I was pregnant after being raped I think I would opt for the abortion. Again, Please keep your judgements to yourself and about yourself... If life were fair we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions.


----------



## Connie W (Aug 3, 2011)

babsbarb said:


> I don't understand what the big deal is. I have a friend that is about 65 years old, male, single (ladies are you looking???) We are in Oregon. Until recently was on his x-wife's insurance. He had to purchase insurance for himself that covers pregnancy. WHY should he have to have this coverage, when we all know what chance he has of becoming pregnant??


For the same reason women would help pay for his treatment for prostate cancer should it become necessary.


----------



## grammyv (Feb 11, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Your position is just plain WRONG.
> 
> How in the name of common sense or reality can you possibly believe what you are saying? The first amendment definitely DOES protect me from your religion. I cannot be forced to abide by your, or anyone else's religion. I can't be forced to join a church - any church. The United States was not founded as a theocracy (as in "Christian nation"). It is SECULAR. You can't have freedom OF without freedom FROM religion. You can't pass laws that enforce religious beliefs. How would you like to be subject to Mormon values? Or Muslim values? Or Jewish values? Or any religious values that you don't believe in? Religion is an intensely personal thing and each of us is free to choose religion, or no religion, for ourselves but NO ONE ELSE.
> 
> The founding fathers saw the evils perpetrated by state-sponsored religion and specifically avoided that pitfall to the betterment of everyone. There is no doubt that Christian morality influenced their values, but religious doctrine was never, ever, ever, intended to be allowed as the foundation for law. When are you Christians going to learn that one does not need god in order to be a moral, ethical person?


The United States is a predominately Christian country (based on the % of population who declare themselves to be Christian)
The government is secular.


----------



## Patricia Martinek (Jan 22, 2014)

It is so great that we, as a group of humble knitters, can have a civilized dialogue about an issue that is so close to our hearts, our bodies, and our collective strength as women in this great country that lets us speak our minds. I have learned a lot reading this blog about others' thinking and beliefs, and am better able to step beyond my usual myopic (and typically liberal and pro-womens' choice) opinions. 

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts. I do hope all of us can take action in whatever fora (plural for forum) we choose, and to support those who take charge on our behalf--er is that behalves, based on informed, thoughtful, ethical, philanthropical, realistic, and logical choices?

Thank you, everyone, for a surprising learning curve. Thank you for hearing me, you, others, and everything. I appreciate Knitting Paradise for hosting us. Happy knitting, marching, speaking, and living a healthy and self-chosen life. I hope we all stay healthy and as-planned in our lives.


----------



## Dreamweaver (Feb 1, 2011)

I sure haven't read all 20 pages... But here is my take. Since employers have to provide insurance... I don't think they get to pick and chose what they want to cover regardless of beliefs. Their employees may or may not agree and have to have insurance...... 

I fel the same about pharmacists who don't want to fill birth control prescriptions on moral grounds. They should have chosen another profession!!!!! 

Certainly, shop your conscience.... But I think the companies are wrong to withhold coverage. What group will they next have a moral objection to and what will they want to withhold from them? A very slippery slope.....

Regardless of beliefs, pro or con... I don't believe anyone should force theirs on anyone else....... 

BTW, my daughter is prescribed birth control, but for a totally different reason. It has nothing to do with a moral issue, in her case. Glad she doesn't work at HL or go to a pharmacy with exclusion policy......


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Casey47 said:


> This was my understanding too, that the opposition was to the types of birth controls that work AFTER conception. Many things throughout history have been done in the name of religion and I think Hobby Lobby is following that practice. I believe it's all about the money. They think they've got a better chance of getting out of providing health insurance if they base their objections on religious conviction. Look at the countries where Hobby Lobby buys the bulk of their merchandise. Many of these countries don't care about human rights in general, and women's and children's rights in particular. I don't approve of post conception birth control either but it's not as bad as things done to women and children in countries where Hobby Lobby buys merchandise. They don't screen their customers - they'll take anyone's money no matter who or what you are or what you have done. If they want to be sure the insurance money they pay out is not used for post conception birth control they should hire like minded people. If they are allowed to get away with this it's going to open a huge Pandora's box.


You won't be getting one word of argument from me. I think too many of us look just at the surface of things and don't think it through. There aren't any issues I know of that are all wrong or all right, so we should judge based on all the facts and weigh them against one another before making decisions or taking action. I had parents who made snap judgements on everything and everyone, can you tell?


----------



## missjudy (Jun 17, 2011)

Birth control is a personal issue and is not an issue that should involve an employer and certainly not the US government. For birth control users, step up and pay for it yourself - why expect the government or your employer to do it, as it is your choice.
I support Hobby Lobby as I don't feel that the government has any business telling a company that they have to provide for certain types of birth control in their insurance programs. It is my understanding that the issue here is in providing all types of birth control including the morning after pill, which is technically abortion in my opinion. This is my opinion and I know there are many who will definitely disagree with me, but I felt I needed to add my voice to those who are taking a stand for a company's right to not be dictated by the government on what should be a personal and individual choice.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Bea 465 said:


> HL is NOT against birth control. They object to having to provide for 4 (FOUR) methods - like the day after pill because they consider that abortion. They are willing to pay for all other birth control methods demanded by Obamacare except these 4. I wish people would quite claiming they refuse to pay for any birth control through their insurance plan.


An IUD is birth control, and they don't want to pay for that!


----------



## Keepmeinstitches (Feb 21, 2011)

If those who are interested in this topic read or listen carefully they will find out that Hobby Lobby does not want to pay for 4 out of 20 types of birth control. All 16 other types of birth control are completely covered. The 4 types cause the fetus to abort, sometimes violently. If someone is so concerned about their privacy, they should consider buying this pill privately, not through their job related insurance, for approx. $4.95. It's too bad that all this incorrect info could possibly be responsible for a very good company going out of business. I'll bet if you could poll the over 16.000 employees of Hobby Lobby they would overwhelmingly choose their job over a $4.95 pill they might or might not need one day. Don't be taken in by all incorrect hypes who have an agenda.


----------



## Keepmeinstitches (Feb 21, 2011)

He hires many women way past child bearing age and pays them double minimum wage.


----------



## Connie W (Aug 3, 2011)

damemary said:


> Hobby Lobby's beliefs break down when it comes to their vendors from China where child labor and forced abortion are rules of the land.


Good point


----------



## chriscappo (Jan 15, 2012)

In this economy the employees are fortunate to have jobs with healthcare benefits. Hobby Lobby is providing coverage for 16 different types of birth control and is against 4 types that induce miscarriage.


----------



## grammyv (Feb 11, 2011)

cialea said:


> A close friend of mine is on the pill... she is 47 years old has had her tubes tied but gets very heavy periods... So bad she passed out from the loss of blood... Her doctor prescribed her the pill to try to regulate her... I guess under HL ideas this would be wrong too??? Please everyone. We should not pass judgement until we have been in the same situation... I don't know for sure but if I was sixteen & found I was pregnant after being raped I think I would opt for the abortion. Again, Please keep your judgements to yourself and about yourself... If life were fair we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions.


Your close friend would not be prescribed an abortifacient drug to treat heavy periods. Those are the only drugs HL is objecting to. Your friend would probably be taking a regular birth control pill and HL covers those. Read previous posts explaining this.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Keepmeinstitches said:


> If those who are interested in this topic read or listen carefully they will find out that Hobby Lobby does not want to pay for 4 out of 20 types of birth control. All 16 other types of birth control are completely covered. The 4 types cause the fetus to abort, sometimes violently. If someone is so concerned about their privacy, they should consider buying this pill privately, not through their job related insurance, for approx. $4.95. It's too bad that all this incorrect info could possibly be responsible for a very good company going out of business. I'll bet if you could poll the over 16.000 employees of Hobby Lobby they would overwhelmingly choose their job over a $4.95 pill they might or might not need one day. Don't be taken in by all incorrect hypes who have an agenda.


Here's my agenda: keep your hands off a woman's ability to control her own body! To me, here are the options...a morning after pill, in case the condom didn't work, or a back alley abortion. I think we are smart enough to make our own decisions and don't need an employer in a for profit company to tell us how we should conduct our reproduction activities!


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

I think boycotts are a very productive way of expressing ones displeasure with a corporation. Would boycott if we had one here.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Church-owned enterprises can do that. If it isn't church-owned, they can't. Simple. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Can't force their religion on employees.


They aren't trying to force their religious views on anyone. They just don't think the government has the right to abridge their religious views and force them to be accessories to murder. They take God at his word not to commit murder. If they pay for a policy that provides abortion drugs/devices, they believe they would be accessories to murder. They have a moral stance that is unusual today. Most people today pretend it isn't murder even if they claim to believe in God.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

jumbleburt said:


> If you think it's that easy, you apparently have never had to live on the kind of salary retail clerks make.


You are right. I had to live on the salary that a secretary makes and I paid for my own birth control pills.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Nov 30, 2011)

calisuzi said:


> I think boycotts are a very productive way of expressing ones displeasure with a corporation. Would boycott if we had one here.


Remember when the gay community wanted to boycott Chick-A-Fila? And lo and behold, the lines to get into their stores were around the block! My guess is that your boycott of HL is working out about as well. Good luck with that. Like they say, "Haters gonna hate."


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

damemary said:


> In my opinion, a corporation is not the same as a private citizen. Seems obvious to me. Wonder if the corporation doesn't want old people working there, or gays, or maybe they think child labor is a perk, should they have the right to discriminate? My answer is no. There is a difference between an owner's beliefs and a corporation's rights. The owner is not the corporation.


Incorporation only protects the business from taking the owners personal assests should bankruptcy occur, every individual has the right to incorporate. I would be protecting my hard work of developement. I am incorporated in my Craft Co- op, I am still an individual selling my wares and I do not intend to quit because some people do not like knitting or crochet. Nor has anyone said, " I am going to boycott you because of your personal beliefs". 
It will be never or a very long ways away IMHO before they sell insurance as a selective package. The baby boomers are paying the majority of the premiums and does anyone think they are going to streamline and lose all that $? 
When you set up a corp. you can put any language you like into the company's mandate and operational rules. The public is left to decide to shop or not. And again thank heavens we all have that choice. 
But I do not ask others to follow my suit when it is a personal belief, not an illegal action etc. boils down to doing what is best for me, by myself. Is different for me if many people are being physically hurt or imprisoned or their individual rights being taken away. And since women can still purchase birth control privately , they have only lost $ not a right. It is expensive to be a woman, just add up 40 years of personal products. No men do not have the same expenses but I do not expect someone else to buy them just because it is "not fair". I raised my children to realize life is not fair and we need to deal with the situations that can work around that. I do not ask others to create a new world for me, they are busy sorting out their own lives. 
And so we go on doing what we feel is best, working along side people doing the same. Should our values , morals and ethics not blend, I keep in mind I only work with them , not live with them and leave the mark they are thinking they have made on me, at work.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Here's my agenda: keep your hands off a woman's ability to control her own body! To me, here are the options...a morning after pill, in case the condom didn't work, or a back alley abortion. I think we are smart enough to make our own decisions and don't need an employer in a for profit company to tell us how we should conduct our reproduction activities!


HL is not telling you how you should conduct your reproduction activities, they are telling you they don't want to pay for certain drugs.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> The state cannot make a law that requires a person to violate their religious beliefs. That is the separation of Church and state.


The religious beliefs are not a law. 
The ACA does not require that HB owners or their staff have abortions or use birth control but the law is they must let those people have their own right to choose and be covered if they so choose.

Religion has no place in the federal legislation.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

cialea said:


> A close friend of mine is on the pill... she is 47 years old has had her tubes tied but gets very heavy periods... So bad she passed out from the loss of blood... Her doctor prescribed her the pill to try to regulate her... I guess under HL ideas this would be wrong too??? Please everyone. We should not pass judgement until we have been in the same situation... I don't know for sure but if I was sixteen & found I was pregnant after being raped I think I would opt for the abortion. Again, Please keep your judgements to yourself and about yourself... If life were fair we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions.


I had a similar situation years ago. I took hormone replacement drugs. They are similar formulations, but not for birth control, which I no longer need. Realistically, when a Hobby Lobby employee visits her doctor, the prescriptions would be prescribed based on medical coding. A drug for birth control could be prescribed, but the provider filling the prescription would know whether it was for birth control or for another reason. If it was for birth control, the HL employee would be presented with the bill. If it were coded for another reason, the insurance would pay.

Thus, the intent of the drug would determine whether the drug was covered. If my insurance hadn't paid for the drugs, I think I could have afforded the $10 for 3 months of that drug. Anyone who says they can't afford birth control doesn't think birth control is important.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

MacRae said:


> Here is my take. I try in the best way I know how to be an observer in all of the emotion when it comes to birth control. And it is not any ones business whether I take it or not. Not my employers, my next door neighbors, or the church down the street. Having said that women have walked 10 paces behind because of social pressure for far to long. We struggle for equal pay, we were punished because we wanted the right to vote, and having control over our bodies is yet another struggle.
> 
> For those who say, "I don't want to pay for birth control". You aren't. If I were to use that analogy here is what I don't want to pay for, which is rather silly.
> 
> ...


MacRae: I take exception to your inclusion of "Insulin for those who can't control their sweet tooth."

Do you know that some children are born with diabetes? No one really has an answer to how some people become diabetic. Being overweight is considered one cause, but it is not definitive. Eating sweets is considered a cause, but is not definitive.

Until you have walked in another's shoes, be careful.


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

Keepmeinstitches said:


> He hires many women way past child bearing age and pays them double minimum wage.


And does he pay the older men and younger people the same? If not then everyone would likely have a case of discriminative hiring practices and I imagine they are too savvy for that! Many older people have to work because they do not have enough retirement etc. double minimum wage here would be well over $ 15 per hour. I will quit my job and go to work for that! A store full of grey haired employees does not mean a deliberate attempt to keep certain people for needing a certain type of insurance coverage. Believe me, broken hips are way more expensive that birth control. Where does this information come from? Sometimes a store hires the older employee because that is who applies for the job. There are many other reasons why older people are in the work force but I sincerely doubt not being of child bearing age has anything to do with it.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

olcagran said:


> I totally agree with everyone taking responsibility for their own actions....when did it become law that we pay for birth control for everyone????? I too am sick of the people that think everyone else should pay for them and their wants! Hobby Lobby needs to stick to their guns and I hope the Supreme Court makes a decision that will let them follow their religious beliefs. If the people that work there don't like it, they can work somewhere else! If I had a Hobby Lobby nearby I would certainly shop there!


Do you have a car? Do you pay taxes that care for those roads you drive on? Do you think people who don't drive cars should have to pay towards the care of those roads?


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

BlueJay21 said:


> MacRae: I take exception to your inclusion of "Insulin for those who can't control their sweet tooth."
> 
> Do you know that some children are born with diabetes? No one really has an answer to how some people become diabetic. Being overweight is considered one cause, but it is not definitive. Eating sweets is considered a cause, but is not definitive.
> 
> Until you have walked in another's shoes, be careful.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

lins said:


> Do you have a car? Do you pay taxes that care for those roads you drive on? Do you think people who don't drive cars should have to pay towards the care of those roads?


They still ride on them, even if they don't drive the car themselves.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

Montana Gramma said:


> And does he pay the older men and younger people the same? If not then everyone would likely have a case of discriminative hiring practices and I imagine they are too savvy for that! Many older people have to work because they do not have enough retirement etc. double minimum wage here would be well over $ 15 per hour. I will quit my job and go to work for that! A store full of grey haired employees does not mean a deliberate attempt to keep certain people for needing a certain type of insurance coverage. Believe me, broken hips are way more expensive that birth control. Where does this information come from? Sometimes a store hires the older employee because that is who applies for the job. There are many other reasons why older people are in the work force but I sincerely doubt not being of child bearing age has anything to do with it.


I believe Hobby Lobby's starting salary is uniformly higher than the norm for everyone. Why would you presume that this employer would just award women a higher salary?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> They aren't trying to force their religious views on anyone. They just don't think the government has the right to abridge their religious views and force them to be accessories to murder. They take God at his word not to commit murder. If they pay for a policy that provides abortion drugs/devices, they believe they would be accessories to murder. They have a moral stance that is unusual today. Most people today pretend it isn't murder even if they claim to believe in God.


You call it murder, I call it birth control!


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> They still ride on them, even if they don't drive the car themselves.


Where is the religious objection to improving roads? This is a total canard.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> You call it murder, I call it birth control!


Birth control comes before a life can be formed. Murder is the actual killing of the life.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Knit crazy said:


> Where is the religious objection to improving roads? This is a total canard.


There isn't one and no objection to property taxes being paid to support public schools even though the property has no children living on it that go to school or have children on it that go to private schools.


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

Keepmeinstitches said:


> He hires many women way past child bearing age and pays them double minimum wage.


I was responding to this post, sorry it did not come up.


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

Knit crazy said:


> I believe Hobby Lobby's starting salary is uniformly higher than the norm for everyone. Why would you presume that this employer would just award women a higher salary?


Responding to keepsmeinstitches ' post.


----------



## trout23 (Aug 28, 2012)

If everyone would get informed before giving opinions the world would be a much kinder place. Hobby Lobby pays OVER minimum wage and DOES provide health insurance. Their health insurance DOES cover birth control. The part of the coverage they don't believe in is the part that provides the morning after pill and the IUD. They feel these are the same as an abortion because it kills the fetus. Of course - if you believe in abortion this is probably ok with you. If you were the owner of Hobby Lobby you could make the decision. And as far as the employees go - no one is making you work for any certain company. Your decision - just like you need to be responsible in all of your decisions. Just as in the decision as to where you shop. For a whole group to boycott a business is crazy. I would think we would all be at the age we can make our own minds up where we shop or don't.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

pardoquilts said:


> An IUD is birth control, and they don't want to pay for that!


It is also an abortifacient. Birth control pills work by suppressing ovulation. Hence, no need to abort. IUDs work differently. They make the uterus a hostile place for implantation of a fertilized ovum. If you believe life is there when a fertilized ovum reaches the uterus, that's abortion. IUDs can also cause problems. They can be expelled, and sometimes they don't work and a fetus is injured. They can cause infections, and they can perforate the uterus which can prevent further pregnancies.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> They still ride on them, even if they don't drive the car themselves.


Exactly.

So everyone should pay into the pool.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> There isn't one and no objection to property taxes being paid to support public schools even though the property has no children living on it that go to school or have children on it that go to private schools.


But HL can object to what they object to because they do not use it or believe in it even though other people do?


----------



## shanbeth (Sep 28, 2013)

cher45 said:


> If everyone would get informed before giving opinions the world would be a much kinder place. Hobby Lobby pays OVER minimum wage and DOES provide health insurance. Their health insurance DOES cover birth control. The part of the coverage they don't believe in is the part that provides the morning after pill and the IUD. They feel these are the same as an abortion because it kills the fetus. Of course - if you believe in abortion this is probably ok with you. If you were the owner of Hobby Lobby you could make the decision. And as far as the employees go - no one is making you work for any certain company. Your decision - just like you need to be responsible in all of your decisions. Just as in the decision as to where you shop. For a whole group to boycott a business is crazy. I would think we would all be at the age we can make our own minds up where we shop or don't.


Thank you, you are right, if some of these women would read something instead of listening to women that have no idea what they are talking about, they would be better informed.. I stand with Hobby Lobby, abortion is Murder.. the morning after pill and the IUD causes that..


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

lins said:


> But HL can object to what they object to because they do not use it or believe in it even though other people do?


They are just following their rule book called the Holy Bible. If your rule book says it is a sin to buy yarn, would you want to pay for someone else to buy yarn? Your money would be going against the rule of not buying yarn which for you is a sin against God and His rule book.


----------



## SwampCatNana (Dec 27, 2012)

tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


Aren't youbeing a bit hipocritical? " And everyone have the right to choose birth control as long as it is not abortion related. "

Abortion is NOT against the law. You are telling people they can have birth control as long as it isn't abortion related! You are doing exactly what Hobby Lobby is being accused of!
Dictating what they can have for health coverage!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

SwampCatNana said:


> Aren't youbeing a bit hipocritical? " And everyone have the right to choose birth control as long as it is not abortion related. "
> 
> Abortion is NOT against the law. You are telling people they can have birth control as long as it isn't abortion related! You are doing exactly what Hobby Lobby is being accused of!
> Dictating what they can have for health coverage!!!!!!!!!


It may not be against the law, but it is against Hobby Lobby's rule book.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> It is also an abortifacient. Birth control pills work by suppressing ovulation. Hence, no need to abort. IUDs work differently. They make the uterus a hostile place for implantation of a fertilized ovum. If you believe life is there when a fertilized ovum reaches the uterus, that's abortion. IUDs can also cause problems. They can be expelled, and sometimes they don't work and a fetus is injured. They can cause infections, and they can perforate the uterus which can prevent further pregnancies.


The birth control pill also makes the uterus a hostile place for implantation. And sometimes a woman does ovulate on the birth control pill (not that common). If that's the case the birth control pill works like the IUD's you describe.

Also now there are IUD's that prevent ovulation as well, not the old IUD's from back in the day. They work just like the birth control pill and release a steady bit of hormones, just like the birth control pill. Those IUD's you spoke of were the ones used back in the day. They may be used today occassionally, but it is much more common to have the hormone ones.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Ms43 said:


> I wonder if they cover erectile disfunction products. Seems they are ok. It's alright for a man to get you pregnant but not for you to take something to protect ypuself from pregnancy.


Hardly a fair comparison since erectile disfunction drugs do not cause the death of a baby in the womb.

As has been stated many times, Hobby Lobby is only opposed to being required to provide drugs that cause abortions. They already do provide and will continue to provide coverage for other birth control pills. And no one is saying a woman can't take whatever drugs she chooses to take. If a woman is concerned about an unwanted pregnancy she could actually pay for her own morning after pill. I hardly think that would break the bank.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

To me it sounds disrespectful to refer to Hobby Lobby's "rule book." Abortion and abortifacients are to many people matters of deep, hard-won conviction, not simply of following a "rule book" which tells a person what to think or do. 

Over the years I have changed my views on some "odd" things other people believe. Usually I come to see that even though other religions may have different mythologies or theology or vocabulary than mine, their ways are interesting and perfectly valid ways of connecting with truth. 

The more deeply we connect with others, the better life is. The less we see others as silly, foreign, invalid, strange, or unenlightened, the more compassionate, kind, and loving we can be. And the world becomes a better and more peaceful place. We really all have so much in common. The same issues, needs, and sufferings face us all. Can't we respect each other?


----------



## knitnanny (Feb 28, 2012)

jumbleburt said:


> I'm currently boycotting them, and although they aren't losing much business, I would feel I was betraying my beliefs if I contributed in any way to a company that feels they have the right to dictate employees' medical decisions.


I totally agree with you and I don't go in there either...


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

kprxtech said:


> I was using birth control because I was bleeding so badly that I had become anemic. Literally for 4 weeks straight. Birth control is not just prescribed for that one purpose. It helps with other medical conditions as well.


Please read the facts. HL is not preventing anyone from taking birth control pills for ANY reason, be it to prevent pregnancy or for another medical purpose. They ARE opposed to paying for the morning after pill, which is designed to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. That is the destruction of life and they do not want their $$$ used for that purpose. Please stop spreading incorrect information.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

"Please keep your judgements to yourself" comes across as a judgmental statement. So who gets to state what they believe and who does not?



cialea said:


> A close friend of mine is on the pill... she is 47 years old has had her tubes tied but gets very heavy periods... So bad she passed out from the loss of blood... Her doctor prescribed her the pill to try to regulate her... I guess under HL ideas this would be wrong too??? Please everyone. We should not pass judgement until we have been in the same situation... I don't know for sure but if I was sixteen & found I was pregnant after being raped I think I would opt for the abortion. Again, Please keep your judgements to yourself and about yourself... If life were fair we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

dwernars said:


> Why is it that Christians always feel they have the right to pass judgment on others?


Why is it that non-Christians think they are the only ones with rights? Hobby Lobby is not "passing judgment" on anyone. They are simply exercising their right to not be forced to murder unborn children.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

Lkholcomb said:


> The birth control pill also makes the uterus a hostile place for implantation. And sometimes a woman does ovulate on the birth control pill (not that common). If that's the case the birth control pill works like the IUD's you describe.


You are misinformed here. I have a friend who has two children that were both conceived and carried to full term while she was religiously taking her birth control pill every day. The pill is supposed to prevent ovulation ... it has no property to make the uterus a hostile place.



Lkholcomb said:


> Also now there are IUD's that prevent ovulation as well, not the old IUD's from back in the day. They work just like the birth control pill and release a steady bit of hormones, just like the birth control pill. Those IUD's you spoke of were the ones used back in the day. They may be used today occassionally, but it is much more common to have the hormone ones.


Those IUD's are not new. Back in the '70's I had several IUD's over a 6-year period that released a small amount of hormone every day. But should an egg get through, that same IUD was designed to prevent the egg from attaching in the uterus.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

lins said:


> That's only the owners religious belief. Not all their employees share their views and shouldn't be oppressed by these views.
> Is it right to press your religious views onto other people?
> Religious freedom does not allow you to impose your views on others.
> Separation between state and religion, remember?


Please don't exaggerate. Hobby Lobby isn't requiring their employees to convert to Christianity, or even acknowledge it, nor are they "oppressing" anyone. Also, separation of church and state does not apply here - Hobby Lobby is a privately held corporation, not a government entity. Employees are free to work elsewhere should they so desire.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> So far, it looks to me like those on the "Pro-Life" side of the birth control argument want as many babies to be born as possible, which is a fine goal and I applaud it, but they seem to stop at the point when a baby is born and fail address everything it takes to raise a child until it is at least 18 years old.
> 
> I reluctantly say that birth control methods should be included in all health plans. I may be unusually naive to say this, but I don't think very many people who don't believe in using birth control are going to change their religious beliefs and start using birth control when they have easy access to it. Those who choose to use birth control despite religious beliefs will have to wrestle with their choice, and I believe how anyone practices any particular religion is an intensely private matter.
> 
> ...


I'm with you on this. My mother was schizophrenic, my father a pedophile. They had two unwanted children. We survived in spite of them, but believe me, it sure puts a different face on the subject of birth control and leaves lifelong scars from neglect/abuse.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Judyh said:


> How are they pressing their views on others? No one makes anyone work there, they have the freedom to work elsewhere and not be "oppressed".


How much freedom is there to work elsewhere in today's economy? I'm retired, but I have a number of younger friends and relatives who are struggling to eat and wouldn't dare leave whatever jobs they can get.


----------



## oliveeyes (Sep 26, 2013)

I have a family member who has to take birth control pills to prevent endometriosis. She has had to have emergency surgery for this problem and had to have one fallopian tube and ovary removed. So not everyone who takes birth control pills is taking it to prevent pregnancy. 
I am curious, is Hobby Lobby refusing to pay for Viagra?


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> They are just following their rule book called the Holy Bible. If your rule book says it is a sin to buy yarn, would you want to pay for someone else to buy yarn? Your money would be going against the rule of not buying yarn which for you is a sin against God and His rule book.


Well what about the people that don't follow the RULES of the Holy Bible?
Not everyone does you know.

Rules are rules, laws are laws.

Maybe HL should sit down with each of their employees and see if they are or have been breaking the 'their' rules and then extend that conversation to their paying customers.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

taborhills said:


> To me it sounds disrespectful to refer to Hobby Lobby's "rule book." Abortion and abortifacients are to many people matters of deep, hard-won conviction, not simply of following a "rule book" which tells a person what to think or do.
> 
> Over the years I have changed my views on some "odd" things other people believe. Usually I come to see that even though other religions may have different mythologies or theology or vocabulary than mine, their ways are interesting and perfectly valid ways of connecting with truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


Just checked in to KP for the day, and saw your comment. I don't have time to sort through the 20+ pages of comments, so this was very possibly addressed already... 
I believe that the insurance Hobby Lobby wants to offer their employees DOES include a number of available "birth control" pills - their issue is with a handful (4 or 5) drugs that are "morning after" type drugs, and are considered abortifacients.
The question that always amazes me most however, is how not paying for someone's "stuff" (i.e. giving it for free) is taking away their "choice". How helpless have some people become?


----------



## Melz (May 29, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> They aren't trying to force their religious views on anyone. They just don't think the government has the right to abridge their religious views and force them to be accessories to murder. They take God at his word not to commit murder. If they pay for a policy that provides abortion drugs/devices, they believe they would be accessories to murder. They have a moral stance that is unusual today. Most people today pretend it isn't murder even if they claim to believe in God.


Hmm...so buying products from China (a country that does perform abortions and provides contraceptives that HL considers to cause abortion) is okay, even though they are basically paying for those abortions by buying their products , they don't consider that being accessories to murder or going against their moral stance?

This is how they take God at his word not to commit murder?

Paying for a policy that provides these contraceptives/devices here in this country is making them accessories to murder because they don't think the government has the right to abridge their religious views? So it's only murder and against their religious beleif if the government forces them to use their money to pay for these so called abortion drugs/devices, but not murder or against their religious beleif if they knowingly and willingly use their money to support a government that provides abortion drugs/devices?

Most people today pretend it isn't murder even if they claim to believe in God.[/quote]
Kind of how HL is pretending it isn't murder when it benefits them even though they claim to beleive in God.

It has been interesting reading this thread. I was hoping to understand other peoples views, stance, opinions, and I must say I have learned a thing or two, but I think it is time for me to move on. Thank you ladies it has been a learning experience and I wish you all a good evening.

Happy Knitting!


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Melz said:


> Melz wrote:
> And yet they do business and have no objections handing over their money to support a government(China) that provides these procedures that they claim are against their religious beliefs. Hmm...sounds like they use religion when it benefits their bottom line and ignore their religious belief when it benefits their bottom line. All these people that so proudly proclaim to continue to shop and support HL even go out of their way to support them, how do you proclaim to be against abortion and contraceptives that you say cause abortions and yet have no problem handing your money over to a company that will then use your money to support a government that provides these procedures? Aren't you then paying for these abortions or as you call them murder of innocent babies? How is it okay for them and you to pay for these abortions and it's not murder but if it's in the US it's then against your religious belief because it's murder? Please help me understand why it's Murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in the US but not murder and against HL and your religious belief if it's in a foreign country?
> 
> Which is my point.
> ...


So then what you are saying is that HL should stop buying yarn from the United States that also supports abortion. Where, then, should they purchase yarn?


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

missjudy said:


> Birth control is a personal issue and is not an issue that should involve an employer and certainly not the US government. For birth control users, step up and pay for it yourself - why expect the government or your employer to do it, as it is your choice.
> I support Hobby Lobby as I don't feel that the government has any business telling a company that they have to provide for certain types of birth control in their insurance programs. It is my understanding that the issue here is in providing all types of birth control including the morning after pill, which is technically abortion in my opinion. This is my opinion and I know there are many who will definitely disagree with me, but I felt I needed to add my voice to those who are taking a stand for a company's right to not be dictated by the government on what should be a personal and individual choice.


But Hobby Lobby is not a person or an individual, and that is the crux of the question. Hobby Lobby can not have religious beliefs. Its owners may, but the owners decided to incorporate. That decision essentially protects them from the consequences of actions by the corporation: Incorporation allows the owners to say 'We are not that' when the corporation gets into trouble. Now, they are trying to claim that their corporation has their religous beliefs. In effect, they are saying "Our corporation is us."

Their corporation is not them. So many posters here keep conflating the owners of HL and the corporation itself...they are different, and when you begin refering to the corporation as 'them' instead of 'it,' trouble begins.


----------



## 2631430 (Jun 22, 2012)

Hobby Lobby is NOT against all birth control...they are against the few forms of birth control that cause the baby to be aborted.


----------



## Melz (May 29, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> So then what you are saying is that HL should stop buying yarn from the United States that also supports abortion. Where, then, should they purchase yarn?


Ooops...forgot to click unwatch on this thread.

Well, they are the ones who say they are fighting for their religious beleif and standing up for their principals and values and if this is true then stick to them no matter what, don't pick and choose only when it benefits you and if that means you don't have anywhere to buy yarn then by golly you still stick to your beleifs, principals, and values. 
Don't use your religion to get out of paying for something that you willingly pay for when it makes you a profit and yet balk at having to provide these same services to your employees.

Now I'm really moving on. Back to my knitting, Yay!

Again, thank you ladies for an interesting thread and have a good evening.


----------



## jmai5421 (May 6, 2011)

TheBigK said:


> I am a 55-year-old female with a hysterectomy. My husband and I recently changed our Carefirst BCBS plan coverage and we were informed that it is now mandatory for us to have pregnancy coverage. I have more chance to be Miss America than pregnant! Why is it ok for the government (Obamacare) to tell me what I have to purchase? Be glad that HobbyLobby is providing any health coverage for their employees as most companies have had to stop offering it as part of their benefit packages.


I did not have coverage through my employer but it was my choice to work for that dentist. Other dentists and dental groups had coverage but wereno fun to work for and did not have retirement. Mine did but no medical. It was my choice to work for himand his choice whether to provide coverage or not. If you don't like their offerings, policy's, wages etc you can move on. Sometimes it might require a little schooling but that is good.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Melz said:


> Ooops...forgot to click unwatch on this thread.
> 
> Well, they are the ones who say they are fighting for their religious beleif and standing up for their principals and values and if this is true then stick to them no matter what, don't pick and choose only when it benefits you and if that means you don't have anywhere to buy yarn then by golly you still stick to your beleifs, principals, and values.
> Don't use your religion to get out of paying for something that you willingly pay for when it makes you a profit and yet balk at having to provide these same services to your employees.
> ...


Then what you are basically saying is that they should not be in business at all. That is such totally wrong thinking. If that is what you believe Hobby Lobby is doing, then my suggestion to you is don't shop there.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

People have become more poor. Glad you haven't experienced it. Others have experienced a decrease of buying power that leaves them with empty food cupboards at the end of every month.



flyovercindy said:


> Just checked in to KP for the day, and saw your comment. I don't have time to sort through the 20+ pages of comments, so this was very possibly addressed already...
> I believe that the insurance Hobby Lobby wants to offer their employees DOES include a number of available "birth control" pills - their issue is with a handful (4 or 5) drugs that are "morning after" type drugs, and are considered abortifacients.
> The question that always amazes me most however, is how not paying for someone's "stuff" (i.e. giving it for free) is taking away their "choice". How helpless have some people become?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

BINGO!



Catarry said:


> But Hobby Lobby is not a person or an individual, and that is the crux of the question. Hobby Lobby can not have religious beliefs. Its owners may, but the owners decided to incorporate. That decision essentially protects them from the consequences of actions by the corporation: Incorporation allows the owners to say 'We are not that' when the corporation gets into trouble. Now, they are trying to claim that their corporation has their religous beliefs. In effect, they are saying "Our corporation is us."
> 
> Their corporation is not them. So many posters here keep conflating the owners of HL and the corporation itself...they are different, and when you begin refering to the corporation as 'them' instead of 'it,' trouble begins.


----------



## thumper5316 (Oct 7, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Your position is just plain WRONG.
> 
> How in the name of common sense or reality can you possibly believe what you are saying? The first amendment definitely DOES protect me from your religion. I cannot be forced to abide by your, or anyone else's religion. I can't be forced to join a church - any church. The United States was not founded as a theocracy (as in "Christian nation"). It is SECULAR. You can't have freedom OF without freedom FROM religion. You can't pass laws that enforce religious beliefs. How would you like to be subject to Mormon values? Or Muslim values? Or Jewish values? Or any religious values that you don't believe in? Religion is an intensely personal thing and each of us is free to choose religion, or no religion, for ourselves but NO ONE ELSE.
> 
> The founding fathers saw the evils perpetrated by state-sponsored religion and specifically avoided that pitfall to the betterment of everyone. There is no doubt that Christian morality influenced their values, but religious doctrine was never, ever, ever, intended to be allowed as the foundation for law. When are you Christians going to learn that one does not need god in order to be a moral, ethical person?


It does NOT protect you _from_ religion. Please show me where that word is used in the first amendment. The specific word used is 'of'. Not 'from'.


----------



## MaryE-B (May 11, 2012)

As a former Catholic I was indoctrinated on the evils of birth control and abortion. 
It's one of the reasons I'm a former Catholic. 
No employer should control what is a personal and hopefully private matter. No pharmacist should be able to refuse to provide legal prescriptions. Healthcare insurance offered by religious-affiliated institutions such as schools, hospitals and clinics should not be able to refuse to reimburse employes for receiving birth control. No employer should have that kind of control over its employees' private lives.
If you don't mind regulating when you have sexual relations, that's fine, but it frequently doesn't prevent pregnancy and it's unnecessary.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for detailing your views.



MaryE-B said:


> As a former Catholic I was indoctrinated on the evils of birth control and abortion.
> It's one of the reasons I'm a former Catholic.
> No employer should control what is a personal and hopefully private matter. No pharmacist should be able to refuse to provide legal prescriptions. Healthcare insurance offered by religious-affiliated institutions such as schools, hospitals and clinics should not be able to refuse to reimburse employes for receiving birth control. No employer should have that kind of control over its employees' private lives.
> If you don't mind regulating when you have sexual relations, that's fine, but it frequently doesn't prevent pregnancy and it's unnecessary.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Please don't exaggerate. Hobby Lobby isn't requiring their employees to convert to Christianity, or even acknowledge it, nor are they "oppressing" anyone. Also, separation of church and state does not apply here - Hobby Lobby is a privately held corporation, not a government entity. Employees are free to work elsewhere should they so desire.


Of course they are.

'- Hobby Lobby is a privately held corporation, not a government entity.'????

So what? They have to follow the rules of the government, just like every corp.


----------



## Tokyoal (Mar 19, 2014)

Tokyoal said:


> So....if you have a heart attack or get hit by a bus or get in to a car accident.....should I (who has health care) pay for your treatment? Or maybe...the hospital will say "no insurance"? Here's a bandaid. Does that seem fair to you? How come you aren't complaining about car insurance, which is a law. Or homeowner's insurance which your mortgage company requires you to have? Aren't you embarrassed that we are the ONLY industrialized country in the WORLD that doesn't have universal health care. A recent study rated the US 37th in the world for health care.


This got buried somewhere many pages ago. A person was asking why the government had the right to "force" us to have health insurance. This is my answer.


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

Evie RM said:


> So then what you are saying is that HL should stop buying yarn from the United States that also supports abortion. Where, then, should they purchase yarn?


Here's a thought: maybe they should close all their doors, as they have vowed to do if they are not able to do business according to their own religious dictates?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


Tell that to your husband.


----------



## sterry (May 29, 2012)

painthoss said:


> Here's a thought: maybe they should close all their doors, as they have vowed to do if they are not able to do business according to their own religious dictates?


Reasonable idea! However, I doubt that a money-making enterprise would do that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Roni Masse said:


> Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control. They only are against 4 products whose side effect or purpose is to cause an abortion (these 4 themselves are not used for conventional birth control). I myself am not boycotting anyone. The nearest HL is 35 miles from me and carries very little I would be interested in.


Really? Where did you get the idea that an IUD is not conventional birth control? It is also many times more effective than either the pill or condoms. 
It is just circumstance I am sure that they object to this the most expensive to administer.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

binkbrice said:


> but you are for Hobby Lobby not having the choice to not provide a pill that causes abortion (which is what the issue is not birth control)if they don't want to support that what about their free choice?


If the Greens don't want to use that contraception they don't have to.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

peachy51 said:


> Actually I believe there are only 4 forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover. They are willing to cover the other birth control prescriptions.
> 
> I applaud them for standing up for their beliefs.
> 
> And if they were to close their doors, what would their employees have then? No jobs and no insurance at all.


If Hobby Lobby closed their doors it would open up opportunities for other businesses, wouldn't it?


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

Here, here!


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

sterry said:


> Reasonable idea! However, I doubt that a money-making enterprise would do that.


Reasonable, logical, consistent, and ethical. And in accordance with their beliefs which have been so widely held up as a good example by fellow believers. Let us now see whether they put their money where their mouths have been.

Not that I want to know where their mouths have been, really, but you know what I mean. :wink:


----------



## sterry (May 29, 2012)

The so-called morning after pill and the IUD don't abort a pregnancy. They are CONTRACEPTIVES used to prevent pregnancy.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

damemary said:


> The government should not be so involved in our lives, but our employer's religious beliefs (Christian, Mormon, Amish, Islamic, etc) should be?


Not to mention the discrimination against gays.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Catarry said:


> But Hobby Lobby is not a person or an individual, and that is the crux of the question. Hobby Lobby can not have religious beliefs. Its owners may, but the owners decided to incorporate. That decision essentially protects them from the consequences of actions by the corporation: Incorporation allows the owners to say 'We are not that' when the corporation gets into trouble. Now, they are trying to claim that their corporation has their religous beliefs. In effect, they are saying "Our corporation is us."
> 
> Their corporation is not them. So many posters here keep conflating the owners of HL and the corporation itself...they are different, and when you begin refering to the corporation as 'them' instead of 'it,' trouble begins.


Thank you for your very astute comment!


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

damemary said:


> People have become more poor. Glad you haven't experienced it. Others have experienced a decrease of buying power that leaves them with empty food cupboards at the end of every month.


I'm sorry, not to be rude, but I didn't say I haven't experienced it. Our 40 years of married life have been evenly divided between above and below the poverty line. Our 4 children were thoughtful choices, not second thoughts or the result of an impulse. Want has at times led us to scrimp, save, sacrifice and work hard to provide for ourselves, but never to take hand-outs - reciprocated help from family maybe, but never from the government. 
I pray for those who are hungry, and I also pray for their ability to understand how to never to be hungry again.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Why is it that non-Christians think they are the only ones with rights? Hobby Lobby is not "passing judgment" on anyone. They are simply exercising their right to not be forced to murder unborn children.


 Inflammatory: unborn children is an oxymoron.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

painthoss said:


> I wonder if Hobby Lobby is "paying" for Viagra? I say, if a man can't sustain an erection and have sex any more, then he should just learn to put up with it (or without it, as the case may be). I surely don't want to pay for a moocher to get Viagra so he can have sex.


Exactly. HL won't see any "mooching" money from my pocket.


----------



## margoc (Jul 4, 2011)

Exactly!! I have been reading through the pages before posting on this exact issue. The issue isn't insurance -- the issue is HL as a CORPORATION (which has no religious bearing) that is trying to use RELIGION to get out of something the OWNERS don't agree with. They should have incorporated as a religious organization to avoid conflict of interest. Being a corporation means they are interested in PROFIT, hence their religion is secondary in this instance.



Catarry said:


> But Hobby Lobby is not a person or an individual, and that is the crux of the question. Hobby Lobby can not have religious beliefs. Its owners may, but the owners decided to incorporate. That decision essentially protects them from the consequences of actions by the corporation: Incorporation allows the owners to say 'We are not that' when the corporation gets into trouble. Now, they are trying to claim that their corporation has their religous beliefs. In effect, they are saying "Our corporation is us."
> 
> Their corporation is not them. So many posters here keep conflating the owners of HL and the corporation itself...they are different, and when you begin refering to the corporation as 'them' instead of 'it,' trouble begins.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Please don't exaggerate. Hobby Lobby isn't requiring their employees to convert to Christianity, or even acknowledge it, nor are they "oppressing" anyone. Also, separation of church and state does not apply here - Hobby Lobby is a privately held corporation, not a government entity. Employees are free to work elsewhere should they so desire.


What if it were Jehovah's witnesses trying to ban blood transfusions because they do not believe in them?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

thumper5316 said:


> It does NOT protect you _from_ religion. Please show me where that word is used in the first amendment. The specific word used is 'of'. Not 'from'.


You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Just because the word "from" is not used, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Courts have been interpreting the bill of rights for a long time and not every concept they consider valid is stated in exactly the words you would accept.

But since you find this problematic, please tell me what "freedom from religion" would mean to you and why it is not a valid concept.

I'll wait.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

margoc said:


> Exactly!! I have been reading through the pages before posting on this exact issue. The issue isn't insurance -- the issue is HL as a CORPORATION (which has no religious bearing) that is trying to use RELIGION to get out of something the OWNERS don't agree with. They should have incorporated as a religious organization to avoid conflict of interest. Being a corporation means they are interested in PROFIT, hence their religion is secondary in this instance.


Thank you!


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

sterry said:


> The so-called morning after pill and the IUD don't abort a pregnancy. They are CONTRACEPTIVES used to prevent pregnancy.


You really need to research how these work. The morning after pill does cause a miscarriage in the event an egg has been fertilized.

And an IUD prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

Neither one of those prevents a sperm from fertilizing an egg.

They are both more "let's not let this pregnancy continue" rather than "let's not let an egg get fertilized to become a pregnancy."


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Tell that to your husband.


 :? ...seriously...?


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

blessedinMO said:


> :thumbup: and why should the consequences of one choosing to have sex become an employment compensation issue?


Tbey cover men's private parts, but not women's. Not equitable.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Tokyoal said:


> So....if you have a heart attack or get hit by a bus or get in to a car accident.....should I (who has health care) pay for your treatment? Or maybe...the hospital will say "no insurance"? Here's a bandaid. Does that seem fair to you? How come you aren't complaining about car insurance, which is a law. Or homeowner's insurance which your mortgage company requires you to have? Aren't you embarrassed that we are the ONLY industrialized country in the WORLD that doesn't have universal health care. A recent study rated the US 37th in the world for health care.


Thank you. We in the United States are far behind in many areas, health care being one.
:thumbup:


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> If stores are closed, it will happen because the government is bludgeoning Hobby Lobby with fines. Hobby Lobby's views are known, their stance is firm, and if the Supreme Court uses wisdom, they will stay in business because fines will not be leveled. If the Supreme Court decides to side with governmental abuse, Hobby Lobby will close their business rather than comply. Once again governmental overreach will cause job losses and knitters and crocheters will lose a supply source.


Personally, I don't think HL will close if the decision is not in their favor. They are making far too much money to close.

I continue to shop anyplace but Hobby Lobby.


----------



## sterry (May 29, 2012)

peachy51 said:


> You really need to research how these work. The morning after pill does cause a miscarriage in the event an egg has been fertilized.
> 
> And an IUD prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
> 
> ...


I have done the research, and that is why I posted that the IUD prevents fertilization, as does the pill often referred to as "morning after"...which is NOT the same as RU-486.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Marybc said:


> Seems to me that if one feels so strongly about this issue, one wouldn't want to work for this company, and should feel free to get a job elsewhere.


Well, it is not quite that simple. As other wise people have said, the doors would be open for any company to decide to exclude treatment for all sorts of health issues.

And in this very difficult job market, jobs are hard to find.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> What if it were Jehovah's witnesses trying to ban blood transfusions because they do not believe in them?


Hobby Lobby is not trying to ban anything. Their employees still have the choice to do what they want to do. They can pay for their own abortions or they can work elsewhere. Hobby Lobby just does not want to pay for something that goes against what their belief says is wrong.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

peachy51 said:


> You really need to research how these work. The morning after pill does cause a miscarriage in the event an egg has been fertilized.
> 
> And an IUD prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
> 
> ...


You know what, I don't care what the process is, and it is none of HL's business what form of birth control an employee decides to use. 
Certainly, nobody taking the "morning after pill" knows whether they have a fertilized egg or not at that stage.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Hobby Lobby is not trying to ban anything. Their employees still have the choice to do what they want to do. They can pay for their own abortions or they can work elsewhere. Hobby Lobby just does not want to pay for something that goes against what their belief says is wrong.


I guess you missed the query about all the money they are dropping in China, a governmental entity that REQUIRES abortions. 
How do you suppose they rationalize the money that goes to pay for those abortions in a nation run by the Communist party? 
Do you really think that Hobby Lobby isn't supporting those abortions?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Colorado knits said:


> Personally, I don't think HL will close if the decision is not in their favor. They are making far too much money to close.
> 
> I continue to shop anyplace but Hobby Lobby.


And that is your choice. But no one has to pay for what you purchase elsewhere.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> It does NOT protect you _from_ religion. Please show me where that word is used in the first amendment. The specific word used is 'of'. Not 'from'.


Please explain how this affects the HL decision? they can impose their religious beliefs on employees or cannot impose their religious beliefs?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

peachy51 said:


> Lkholcomb wrote:
> The birth control pill also makes the uterus a hostile place for implantation. And sometimes a woman does ovulate on the birth control pill (not that common). If that's the case the birth control pill works like the IUD's you describe.
> 
> You are misinformed here. I have a friend who has two children that were both conceived and carried to full term while she was religiously taking her birth control pill every day. The pill is supposed to prevent ovulation ... it has no property to make the uterus a hostile place.
> ...


No, you are misinformed.

amount of man-made estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. *Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation *

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pills (fourth paragraph down)


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> Please explain how this affects the HL decision? they can impose their religious beliefs on employees or cannot impose their religious beliefs?
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


They are not imposing their religious beliefs on anyone.


----------



## lfitzie (Apr 4, 2011)

Hobby Lobby offers 14 types of contraception for its employees. It does NOT want to offer the 4 types that are abortion methods as abortion is against their religious beliefs. If the employee wants an abortion she can pay for it herself. It seems that 14 types of contraception are quite adequate. This is a means of having employers pay for abortions. Get the facts right.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lfitzie said:


> Hobby Lobby offers 14 types of contraception for its employees. It does NOT want to offer the 4 types that are abortion methods as abortion is against their religious beliefs. If the employee wants an abortion she can pay for it herself. It seems that 14 types of contraception are quite adequate. This is a means of having employers pay for abortions. Get the facts right.


If the owners of Hobby Lobby don't want to use those four forms of birth control they don't have to. 
This is America, people get to choose the medical care they desire.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Hobby Lobby is not trying to ban anything. Their employees still have the choice to do what they want to do. They can pay for their own abortions or they can work elsewhere. Hobby Lobby just does not want to pay for something that goes against what their belief says is wrong.


They are a secular corporation. They are not a religious corporation.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

sterry said:


> I'd like to know about those laws also...waiting....


Yep, I'm waiting too.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> They are not imposing their religious beliefs on anyone.


they do not believe in birth control, therefore their employees shouldn't be able to get them, I really don't care about the type of bc they are taking, that is between them and their physician.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lfitzie said:


> Hobby Lobby offers 14 types of contraception for its employees. It does NOT want to offer the 4 types that are abortion methods as abortion is against their religious beliefs. If the employee wants an abortion she can pay for it herself. It seems that 14 types of contraception are quite adequate. This is a means of having employers pay for abortions. Get the facts right.


You get the facts right, insisting that your company is only going to pay for health care that suits their beliefs and not those of the employee is a form of discirmination.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> So then what you are saying is that HL should stop buying yarn from the United States that also supports abortion. Where, then, should they purchase yarn?


The US doesn't MANDATE abortions. That's the obvious difference. They are handing money to a place that FORCES abortion on women.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

lfitzie said:


> Hobby Lobby offers 14 types of contraception for its employees. It does NOT want to offer the 4 types that are abortion methods as abortion is against their religious beliefs. If the employee wants an abortion she can pay for it herself. It seems that 14 types of contraception are quite adequate. This is a means of having employers pay for abortions. Get the facts right.


I suppose they support eh Personhood amendment, More RW fanaticism.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> The US doesn't MANDATE abortions. That's the obvious difference. They are handing money to a place that FORCES abortion on women.


Who forces abortions on women?
I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> You know what, I don't care what the process is, and it is none of HL's business what form of birth control an employee decides to use.
> Certainly, nobody taking the "morning after pill" knows whether they have a fertilized egg or not at that stage.


She is in error about the process anyway. The iud kills the sperm for prevents it from fertilizing the egg. Some days I get tire of trying to give people the real information (as you know I did get official education in this and have the license and registration to prove it).

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

grammyv said:


> The United States is a predominately Christian country (based on the % of population who declare themselves to be Christian)
> The government is secular.


It doesn't matter if the country is predominately Christian, the government needs to pass secular laws.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

lins said:


> Who forces abortions on women?
> I don't understand what you're saying.


China. The place that HL purchase things made in from.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> You get the facts right, insisting that your company is only going to pay for health care that suits their beliefs and not those of the employee is a form of discirmination.


Obviously some people are not familiar with the concept that not everybody can just "choose" any birth control method. A lot of medical consderation goes into it from breastfeeding, to heart disease to osteoporosis to blood clot histories, and so much more. 14 may seem like a lot but to someone with more complicated medical histories it's not.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> She is in error about the process anyway. The iud kills the sperm for prevents it from fertilizing the egg. Some days I get tire of trying to give people the real information (as you know I did get official education in this and have the license and registration to prove it).
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control


We were not actually talking to the same poster, Lkholcomb. 
I don't mean to be rude, but since I think people should be able to use whatever form of birth control they want and I am way too old to need any from of birth control I really don't care what form it takes. 
People should be able to choose what pleases them, they should understand how it works.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> We were not actually talking to the same poster, Lkholcomb.
> I don't mean to be rude, but since I think people should be able to use whatever form of birth control they want and I am way too old to need any from of birth control I really don't care what form it takes.
> People should be able to choose what pleases them, they should understand how it works.


I'm sorry, silly me  . I do agree though, people should chose what fits them, not what is forced on them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I'm sorry, silly me  . I do agree though, people should chose what fits them, not what is forced on them.


Not silly at all, the first time you posted that was great, I am sure that there are plenty of people around who can use the info. 
I thank my lucky little stars that I don't need it.
I wonder if one of the forms of birth control they will pay for is a vasectomy or tubal ligation, are they still called that?


----------



## binkbrice (May 19, 2011)

anetdeer said:


> When I was getting married, birth control pills were covered under my health ins. The VERY next year, they weren't...back in the mid-70's. Okay..it didn't make sense but okay. Six years ago I was looking for a job and interviewed for the archdiocese...I was told I would have to go to church each day (half hour service). I also interviewed at a Jewish school and recreation center and was told they were Kosher. Did I feel my freedoms were being withheld because of the above 3 examples...NO...I was the employee...I had the freedom of choice whether or not to work there. That's like taking a job knowing you must wear a uniform and then you decide you don't want to any longer. People...I don't think we are "entitled" to birth control OR abortions to be paid by our employer...never did. I do, however, am grateful that I have a job and I will abide by the company's rules and regulations in exchange for my paycheck.
> 
> This is my humble opinion...and should not be confused with the start of an argument.


Well said!


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> They aren't trying to force their religious views on anyone. They just don't think the government has the right to abridge their religious views and force them to be accessories to murder. They take God at his word not to commit murder. If they pay for a policy that provides abortion drugs/devices, they believe they would be accessories to murder. They have a moral stance that is unusual today. Most people today pretend it isn't murder even if they claim to believe in God.


Want it both ways, don't you?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

peachy51 said:


> You really need to research how these work. The morning after pill does cause a miscarriage in the event an egg has been fertilized.
> 
> And an IUD prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
> 
> ...


She is in error about the process anyway. The iud kills the sperm for prevents it from fertilizing the egg. Some days I get tire of trying to give people the real information (as you know I did get official education in this and have the license and registration to prove it).

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control

Also the morning after pills does not cause a miscarriage. A miscarriage is the loss of an embryo or fetus. When the fertilized egg would be flushed out it would be a zygote or blastocyst. If the egg implanted then it would develop into an embryo. So it won't cause a miscarriage if used properly. It would cause a failed implantation which happens all the time naturally and most women never even know.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> MacRae: I take exception to your inclusion of "Insulin for those who can't control their sweet tooth."
> 
> Do you know that some children are born with diabetes? No one really has an answer to how some people become diabetic. Being overweight is considered one cause, but it is not definitive. Eating sweets is considered a cause, but is not definitive.
> 
> Until you have walked in another's shoes, be careful.


At the cost of answering for someone else, I read that as tongue-in-cheek examples.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Not silly at all, the first time you posted that was great, I am sure that there are plenty of people around who can use the info.
> I thank my lucky little stars that I don't need it.
> I wonder if one of the forms of birth control they will pay for is a vasectomy or tubal ligation, are they still called that?


Yup, they still call it that


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> China. The place that HL purchase things made in from.


Okay, gotcha'. Thanks.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

shanbeth said:


> Thank you, you are right, if some of these women would read something instead of listening to women that have no idea what they are talking about, they would be better informed.. I stand with Hobby Lobby, abortion is Murder.. the morning after pill and the IUD causes that..


Are you saying that people who disagree with you are not informed? Certainly, I could say the same thing.


----------



## binkbrice (May 19, 2011)

grammyv said:


> Your close friend would not be prescribed an abortifacient drug to treat heavy periods. Those are the only drugs HL is objecting to. Your friend would probably be taking a regular birth control pill and HL covers those. Read previous posts explaining this.


It is not birth control that they won't cover it is the Morning after pill that causes abortion that they do not want to cover.


----------



## susan heierman (Sep 13, 2012)

ELareau said:


> I think HobLobb's owner is out of line. The cost of birth control is not coming out of his pocket because that Rx coverage has very little to no effect on the cost of health insurance.
> 
> Curious how he would react when every female in his store became pregnant at the same time. Yes, I know he's very good at hiring women past the age of fertility.
> 
> ...


I agree with all that you said. I think we could be best friends.


----------



## Augustgran (Apr 16, 2011)

I know I am late to the conversation but the poster who said she shouldnt have to pay for insulin because "someone" can't control their sweetooth is RUDE.
my son is has had diabetes type 1 which has nothing to do with a sweetooth,why should nt he be covered?


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Why is it that non-Christians think they are the only ones with rights? Hobby Lobby is not "passing judgment" on anyone. They are simply exercising their right to not be forced to murder unborn children.


Again, beliefs differ on the definition of abortion and murder.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> You know what, I don't care what the process is, and it is none of HL's business what form of birth control an employee decides to use.
> Certainly, nobody taking the "morning after pill" knows whether they have a fertilized egg or not at that stage.


You know what? I don't care what the process is either and I don't care what type of birth control anyone uses ... I have used most of them in the past ... and Hobby Lobby doesn't care what type of birth control a person uses either ... they just don't want to be forced to pay for types they don't believe in ... and for that matter, I don't want to have to pay for other people's abortions either.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

One can simply see a newspaper flyer to see what is being sold when.


peachy51 said:


> Agreed :thumbup: A Christmas Tree is a pagan symbol. Funny how Hobby Lobby is being badmouthed for putting their Christmas stuff out early when there are stores that sell Christmas stuff all year long.
> 
> And the badmouthers obviously shop at Hobby Lobby or they wouldn't even know that the Christmas stuff is put on the shelves at the end of summer.


----------



## seemyart (May 31, 2013)

you are totally correct. it's amazing how ignorant of the issues so many people are!! and they vote!


----------



## binkbrice (May 19, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> You get the facts right, insisting that your company is only going to pay for health care that suits their beliefs and not those of the employee is a form of discirmination.


How is it any different when my insurance won't pay for a pap smear and a mammogram in the same year, it's not other than they don't pay because they are cheap and Hobby Lobby has a moral issue with the morning after pill, I just either don't have the test or I pay for it myself, if an employee working for Hobby Lobby wants the morning after pill they should pay for it out of pocket like anybody else would have to pay for medicine or testing that is not covered.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Colorado knits said:


> Personally, I don't think HL will close if the decision is not in their favor. They are making far too much money to close.
> 
> I continue to shop anyplace but Hobby Lobby.


I must amend this. I don't shop at Walmart either.


----------



## Judithlynn (May 13, 2012)

tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

I don't see anyone mentioning that Hobby Lobby paid willingly for all these methods until just recently. So this whole thing reeks of political manipulation

Second,HL is not a private club. It is a public business and seeks the public's support for its existence. By preventing women who work there from reproductive coverage, they are imposing their private beliefs onto the public and harming women by removing their right to chose.

Third, it is true that people have the right to their beliefs BUT only if those beliefs are not imposed on others and do not harm. I can believe anything I want, including putting these narrow minded people in jail, however, I do not have the right, legally or ethically to enact such a belief.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> they do not believe in birth control, therefore their employees shouldn't be able to get them, I really don't care about the type of bc they are taking, that is between them and their physician.


They do believe in birth control or they would not be paying for birth control in the insurance offered to their employees. It is abortions (the killing of a child) that they do not believe in. If their employee wants to pay for their own abortion, they can make that choice for themselves and pay for it themselves. Also, their employees do not have to apply for the insurance that Hobby Lobby offers. They can always get their own.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

tamarque said:


> I don't see anyone mentioning that Hobby Lobby paid willingly for all these methods until just recently. So this whole thing reeks of political manipulation
> 
> Second,HL is not a private club. It is a public business and seeks the public's support for its existence. By preventing women who work there from reproductive coverage, they are imposing their private beliefs onto the public and harming women by removing their right to chose.
> 
> Third, it is true that people have the right to their beliefs BUT only if those beliefs are not imposed on others and do not harm. I can believe anything I want, including putting these narrow minded people in jail, however, I do not have the right, legally or ethically to enact such a belief.


Then you are saying it is OK for the belief that abortion is OK to be imposed on Hobby Lobby's owners. Their belief is not being imposed on anyone. Let the employees pay for their own abortions.


----------



## Judithlynn (May 13, 2012)

DonnieK said:


> I think Hobby Lobby is trying to make "religion" in one area of their stores and "no religion" in other areas. When it benefits their purposes and brings in money that is okay. If it costs them or they are "giving" to employees, that is another thing.
> I have been boycotting Hobby Lobby for putting Christmas trees up in June or July and saying customers ask them to. Bull, if you are a Christian Company, your Christianity should show in all areas. No Christmas Trees until after Thanksgiving. Ornaments, craft items, okay, I am for that, but trees? Isn't that a two edged sword?
> So, I say all of this to say that I would support a boycott on any store that tries to use it's religion for profit lines. And, I am sorry, but, Hobby Lobby needs to pay insurance for health care of all kinds, including birth control. How many more babies do we have to bring into the world that are not wanted and in the welfare system and slipping through the system for lack of caring.
> Boooooooooooo Hobby Lobby!


But they should not have to pay for abortion! And if you have an unwanted baby, there are numerous people who would jump at the chance to adopt.


----------



## ginnyinnr (May 20, 2012)

tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

tamarque said:


> ....
> 
> Second,HL is not a private club. It is a public business and seeks the public's support for its existence. By preventing women who work there from reproductive coverage, they are imposing their private beliefs onto the public and harming women by removing their right to chose.
> 
> ...


HOW IS ANYONE AT HOBBY LOBBY IMPOSING THEIR BELIEFS?

DO THOSE WHO WANT ABORTIFACIENTS PAID FOR UNDER INSURANCE HAVE THE RIGHT TO "IMPOSE" THEIR WISH ON THEIR EMPLOYER? DOES NOT THE EMPLOYER HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT THEIR SPONSORED INSURANCE WILL COVER ACCORDING TO WHAT THE EMPLOYER IS WILLING TO PAY FOR? DOES AN INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE HOW TO SPEND HIS/ITS RESOURCES IF SUCH EXPENDITURE DOES NOT DEMONSTRABLY BENEFIT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE?

DO YOU THINK NAME-CALLING AS IN "NARROW-MINDED" IS PERSUASIVE? HELPFUL?


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I was thinking, since I don't smoke and never did,why should I have to pay for treatment of heart disease and lung cancer when it was clearly self-inflicted. I have no children, yet I had to pay for all the children my male co workers produced, their pediatricians etc. and then I had to pay for their vasectomies. I pay huge property taxes of which the largest percentage goes to public schools (I don't mind this at all as I feel the education of our young people is essential to our future). I have never really complained about these expenses. I am complaining now, facetiously, to make a point. Perhaps, if any of this was against my religion, I would be justified in complaining. But, alas, I am affiliated with no organized religion.


MacRae said:


> Here is my take. I try in the best way I know how to be an observer in all of the emotion when it comes to birth control. And it is not any ones business whether I take it or not. Not my employers, my next door neighbors, or the church down the street. Having said that women have walked 10 paces behind because of social pressure for far to long. We struggle for equal pay, we were punished because we wanted the right to vote, and having control over our bodies is yet another struggle.
> 
> For those who say, "I don't want to pay for birth control". You aren't. If I were to use that analogy here is what I don't want to pay for, which is rather silly.
> 
> ...


----------



## margoc (Jul 4, 2011)

If there are 'numerous people who would jump at the chance to adopt" why are there so many children in foster care and why are so many people going to foreign countries to adopt?



Judithlynn said:


> But they should not have to pay for abortion! And if you have an unwanted baby, there are numerous people who would jump at the chance to adopt.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Some guy having an induced erection that could last up to four hours does nothing for the common good.


taborhills said:


> Why are we required by law to have car insurance? Because it is demonstrably for the common good. There is considerable disagreement as to whether abortifacients are for the common good; evidence that it would help society as a whole is lacking. Therefore, although improved access to health care may be better for society as a whole, not every so-called medical intervention is. We need to allow for differences of opinion as to what counts as a truly beneficial "medical" choice and what does not. Freedom of choice should allow for freedom to disagree.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

binkbrice said:


> It is not birth control that they won't cover it is the Morning after pill that causes abortion that they do not want to cover.


That makes no sense, if there is no fertilized egg then there is no abortion. One has no idea whether there has been fertilization and never will when taking that pill.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

binkbrice said:


> It is not birth control that they won't cover it is the Morning after pill that causes abortion that they do not want to cover.


The morning after pill does not cause abortion.

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html


----------



## kabedew (Jan 16, 2011)

I entered a new Hobby Lobby when it first came into my area and was overwhelmed by the fumes coming from the imported cheap furniture from overseas. I have asthma and the fumes were unbelievable. Also, their selection of yarns or even knitting needles/crochet hooks were stuck way in the back, so I walked through all the "bad for my health air" to see their yarn. 

I will not shop at any store that is so overloaded with imported cheap stuff. Also their decision to be closed on the only day I have off keeps me from going to HL.

I rarely go to Walmart's too. For similar reasons. Plus, I have worked for Walmart's, as a licensed professional. And I was "in a bubble" by the license so didn't face the issues of super low wages or shortened hours at any time. But, I remember the times when Sam Walton and Walmart's television ads focused on how they bought American and brought jobs to various small American companies. Sam Walton has passed away and now Walmart's specializes in cheap, imported, poor quality imports.

I also remember saying, "its okay to buy newborn clothing from Walmart's because my babies grow out of the clothes before they fall apart" Now, I don't believe it is okay to buy even quickly outgrown clothes from Walmart's because the clothes are imported and the workers who produce these garments suffer from poor work conditions. But more personally, I am afraid of what is on or in the fabrics of these imports.

HL lost my patronage because their store was a toxic air zone for me. But their choice to be closed on Sunday, or not provide birth control care for their employees also make me less likely to support them. 

There are women who should not bear children for health reasons.....and BC is a safer answer for these women than a pregnancy. HL's policy leaves these women at risk.

Sorry for talking so long but I have been working at an optical location for over 10 years. And am watching it become a Retail (first item of importance, not the help to see clearly) store that sells eyewear. And it saddens me to see large corporations of any political beliefs pressure their staff by the politics of greed by the corporations.

kabedew


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> They do believe in birth control or they would not be paying for birth control in the insurance offered to their employees. It is abortions (the killing of a child) that they do not believe in. If their employee wants to pay for their own abortion, they can make that choice for themselves and pay for it themselves. Also, their employees do not have to apply for the insurance that Hobby Lobby offers. They can always get their own.


Abortion/killing of a child???? Come on.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

margoc said:


> If there are 'numerous people who would jump at the chance to adopt" why are there so many children in foster care and why are so many people going to foreign countries to adopt?


A few reasons are that some people will not open their homes to children of another racial background, or to several children from a family, or to handicapped children, or to older children. Some people only want children who look like themselves or are healthy adorable babies, or feel overwhelmed by the prospect of multiple children coming at once or by dealing with the complexities of a special needs child.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Judithlynn said:


> But they should not have to pay for abortion! And if you have an unwanted baby, there are numerous people who would jump at the chance to adopt.


We have adopted children, yet I believe in birth control and keeping abortion legal.

People should put their money where their mouth is.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Then you are saying it is OK for the belief that abortion is OK to be imposed on Hobby Lobby's owners. Their belief is not being imposed on anyone. Let the employees pay for their own abortions.


Actually, I don't think they referenced abortion, just that they think the contraceptive causes an abortion.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Time for a bit of (honest) humor.


----------



## binkbrice (May 19, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> That makes no sense, if there is no fertilized egg then there is no abortion. One has no idea whether there has been fertilization and never will when taking that pill.


 I will continue to shop there. How can you say my statement makes no sense and then make the one you did.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Judithlynn said:


> But they should not have to pay for abortion! And if you have an unwanted baby, there are numerous people who would jump at the chance to adopt.


Who asked them to pay for abortion?


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Little correction here. You stated taxes pay for medicare for below poverty people. First of all, it is medicaid of which you speak and you are only paying part in taxes. I was on medicaid for four years and I paid $325/mo. for that privilege. I went without a lot of things and donated plasma for money to pay my utilities. I only used that insurance for my annual physical. I am a healthy person and I wished to remain such.


kayortiz said:


> why does everyone think they are paying for everyone elses health care. you pay for your own insurance. companies may pay for part and yes we pay in a slightly higher price so their profits don't go down. we also pay for their bonuses, vacations and perks through higher prices. taxes pay for medicare for below proverty level people, unwed teenagers and uninsured children. that you are paying for. if i pay part or all of my health insurance that comes out of my pocket. in germany people pay an added value tax to pay for national health care and retirement. canada has a national health care that is paid for through taxes, maybe we should do that. some hospitals charge different for people with insurance and those without. guess who pays more.


----------



## Mary Smith (Oct 12, 2011)

Here's hoping that you will be the only one that goes along with a woman's freedom being taken away by a religion. If they want to be closed on Sunday, that's their decision and a loss of profits for their company. Let's face it, the majority of customers at this store are women as are the employees. I just don't get it. I'd love to see all businesses with this attitude go out of business. Funny thing is they are willing to take my money even though I believe in contraception being offered to all in insurance plans. I feel most of us feel this way. What's next? I don't like the color of your hair, your weight, the car you drive so I will take it to the Supreme Court to fight that I don't have to sell to you? Exaggerated yes - but think - what's next? I don't like their beliefs so I'll simply not shop their store. See how simple that works - if the majority of us would do the same HL will soon be out of business.
It was amazing how the female judges called this discrimination against women yet the male judge called it abortion? Do you think he uses birth control or takes the purple pill?


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

When we talk of the common good, it means we accept a wide variety of conditions in that. When a company provides health insurance, it is expected that it cover what is commonly considered basic. Reproductive services fit that bill. It is not for an employer to cherry pick what he wants to cover, especially when it is based on his religion. That is imposition of a personal belief onto others who don't necessarily agree.

Of course, with a Federally funded and run Single Payer system, all this nonsense with HL would be moot.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

taborhills said:


> HOW IS ANYONE AT HOBBY LOBBY IMPOSING THEIR BELIEFS?
> 
> DO THOSE WHO WANT ABORTIFACIENTS PAID FOR UNDER INSURANCE HAVE THE RIGHT TO "IMPOSE" THEIR WISH ON THEIR EMPLOYER? DOES NOT THE EMPLOYER HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT THEIR SPONSORED INSURANCE WILL COVER ACCORDING TO WHAT THE EMPLOYER IS WILLING TO PAY FOR? DOES AN INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE HOW TO SPEND HIS/ITS RESOURCES IF SUCH EXPENDITURE DOES NOT DEMONSTRABLY BENEFIT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE?
> 
> DO YOU THINK NAME-CALLING AS IN "NARROW-MINDED" IS PERSUASIVE? HELPFUL?


Why are you yelling? Do you think it helps?


----------



## binkbrice (May 19, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Abortion/killing of a child???? Come on.


What would you call it then?


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

The caps were just to separate my comments from the content to which I was responding. Not yelling. No italics on this system.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

binkbrice said:


> What would you call it then?


It is not a baby until it is born.


----------



## binkbrice (May 19, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> It is not a baby until it is born.


Does it have a beating heart, and move inside the mother? I am pretty darn sure it is a baby when it is conceived!!!


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

What is the thing if it comes early? What if it is not born "naturally" but by caesarean section prematurely?
Is it not a baby? Or is it only a baby after 9 months in utero?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

tamarque said:


> I don't see anyone mentioning that Hobby Lobby paid willingly for all these methods until just recently. So this whole thing reeks of political manipulation
> 
> Second,HL is not a private club. It is a public business and seeks the public's support for its existence. By preventing women who work there from reproductive coverage, they are imposing their private beliefs onto the public and harming women by removing their right to chose.
> 
> Third, it is true that people have the right to their beliefs BUT only if those beliefs are not imposed on others and do not harm. I can believe anything I want, including putting these narrow minded people in jail, however, I do not have the right, legally or ethically to enact such a belief.


Oh they did? Makes it even more interesting. Do you have an article or something that shows they did?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

peachy51 said:


> Whoa! Came late to the party and got her panties in the bunch, huh?


Just explaining the basics regarding someone who clearly doesn't even have rudimentary understanding of what insurance is and how it works. (_The man the poster was referring to_)


----------



## Mary Smith (Oct 12, 2011)

binkbrice said:


> It is not birth control that they won't cover it is the Morning after pill that causes abortion that they do not want to cover.


How can it be an abortion if there is no fetus?????


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Judithlynn said:


> But they should not have to pay for abortion! And if you have an unwanted baby, there are numerous people who would jump at the chance to adopt.


Really? Someone should tell those people about the kids now in the foster care system awaiting good homes!


----------



## grammacat (Nov 30, 2011)

Why as I still getting these posts, when I clicked UNWATCH. Now I don't have that option, as UNWATCH button now says WATCH.


----------



## Mary Smith (Oct 12, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Abortion/killing of a child???? Come on.


The are against contraception in any form - especially morning after pill - and neither is a form of abortion.


----------



## Mary Smith (Oct 12, 2011)

grammacat said:


> Why as I still getting these posts, when I clicked UNWATCH. Now I don't have that option, as UNWATCH button now says WATCH.


So don't open the topic - duh?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> That makes no sense, if there is no fertilized egg then there is no abortion. One has no idea whether there has been fertilization and never will when taking that pill.


Yeah and that pill can actually prevent ovulation from occurring in that case, so it would prevent an egg from being fertilized. But then I think some people imagine every time a person takes it they are "killing a baby"
:roll:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

binkbrice said:


> I will continue to shop there. How can you say my statement makes no sense and then make the one you did.


I could care less where you shop, how do you justify that you are paying for abortions forced on Chinese couples?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Yeah and that pill can actually prevent ovulation from occurring in that case, so it would prevent an egg from being fertilized. But then I think some people imagine every time a person takes it they are "killing a baby"
> :roll:


It is quite obvious that some people have great imaginations.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

peachy51 said:


> How a person or company feels about the abortion issue does not come into play as to how I feel about that person or that company.


Yes, but people using their religiosity to deny other people equal protection under the law is what they're doing.

I don't care either what they believe _for themselves_. But, we can't PRACTICALLY live in a society where someone can invent "religious reasons" to avoid civil responsibilities that deny others equal protection under the law.

As I've pointed out, they should not have the right to deny paying for coverage that includes blood infusions any more than can deny women THEIR legal medical choices.

With or without Obamacare, that is the case. Although this is just a ruse to try and take Obamacare down.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

sumpleby said:


> Ah...if you'd looked at the quote I was responding to, you would have seen that it was about a man the poster had said protested about having to purchase (under ACA) insurance that includes birth control, etc. because he is not a woman and doesn't need it.
> 
> Calm down. And read before responding.


.... and I was agreeing with you.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Mary Smith said:



> So don't open the topic - duh?


And people complain about the education kids are receiving today?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

sumpleby said:


> Ah...if you'd looked at the quote I was responding to, you would have seen that it was about a man the poster had said protested about having to purchase (under ACA) insurance that includes birth control, etc. because he is not a woman and doesn't need it.
> 
> Calm down. And read before responding.


Double post glitch.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Oh they did? Makes it even more interesting. Do you have an article or something that shows they did?


I have forgotten the exact number but it could be 22 or 28 (or somewhere in between) states that require birth control be covered...

http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/15946174/28_states_already_require_birth_control_coverage_why_the_uproar_now


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

taborhills said:


> The caps were just to separate my comments from the content to which I was responding. Not yelling. No italics on this system.


*Yes, there are indeed italics (as well as other BB tags) on this system*


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I could care less where you shop, how do you justify that you are paying for abortions forced on Chinese couples?


If you could care less it means you do care.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

binkbrice said:


> Does it have a beating heart, and move inside the mother? I am pretty darn sure it is a baby when it is conceived!!!


That's not a baby.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

taborhills said:


> What is the thing if it comes early? What if it is not born "naturally" but by caesarean section prematurely?
> Is it not a baby? Or is it only a baby after 9 months in utero?


And the very least, I don't think it's a baby if it's not _naturally_ viable outside the womb.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> If you could care less it means you do care.


Thank you for being so clever as to point that out, is there some reason other than to be totally ignorant that you felt it was necessary?

You do realize that people have been responding with that bit of stupidity since before either of us was born, right?
Why not respond to the rest of the post?
How do conservatives justify that little bit of hypocrisy?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> If you could care less it means you do care.


I couldn't care less about your need to nit-pick.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I couldn't care less about your need to nit-pick.


LOL


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

jumbleburt said:


> Sure, you can get condoms lots of places, but they require male cooperation and they are far from fool-proof (thus the need for the "morning after" pill.


The biggest reason condoms don't work is that male cooperation deal, though you grossly underestimate the extent to which men want to take responsibility for the results of having sex. There is also an element of female cooperation there, too, much as feminists want to deny it.

Then there's the fact that we only give birth to one child at a time, so we HAVE to be designed to be able to have sex as often as possible to keep our species from becoming extinct. The fact that we seek to control the birth of children into our various societies is the miracle. The fact that we can't always do that is the societal norm, everywhere. for all humans.

The "morning after" pill is just another way to murder potential human beings, which is exactly what abortion does. It's ever so convenient to believe that ensoulment doesn't occur at the moment of conception, but that's a convenient fantasy some women use so they don't have to confront what they've done when they have an abortion.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Thank you for being so clever as to point that out, is there some reason other than to be totally ignorant that you felt it was necessary?
> 
> You do realize that people have been responding with that bit of stupidity since before either of us was born, right?
> Why not respond to the rest of the post?
> How do conservatives justify that little bit of hypocrisy?


You have never responded to any of mine with any substance, why ask of me what you don't do yourself? AND if it is stupid why is it true and why do people say it when they don't mean it?
You are the hypocrite.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

binkbrice said:


> Does it have a beating heart, and move inside the mother? I am pretty darn sure it is a baby when it is conceived!!!


We apparently have differing views. It can not live outside the uterus, so it is not a baby/child.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You have never responded to any of mine with any substance, why ask of me what you don't do yourself? AND if it is stupid why is it true and why do people say it when they don't mean it?
> You are the hypocrite.


Oh Hey, Joey, how are ya?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

peachy51 said:


> Hobby Lobby doesn't care what type of birth control a person uses either ... they just don't want to be forced to pay for types they don't believe in ... and for that matter, I don't want to have to pay for other people's abortions either.


I don't want to pay for ignorant conservatives procreating either as I think it's bound to be harmful to society in general , but since it would be discriminatory to deny conservatives medical care costs due to their choice to reproduce, I will probably still have to pay for it.

And I accept that, because I understand that we can't live in a country that denies people equal protection under the law based on discriminatory practices whether they think "religious conscience" justifies it or not.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> What if it were Jehovah's witnesses trying to ban blood transfusions because they do not believe in them?


If a Jehovah's witness owns their own business and does not wish to provide for blood transfusions in their corporate-paid health care plan, I would fully support their right to do so. And their employees and customers could choose whether or not they wish to continue working and shopping there.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> If a Jehovah's witness owns their own business and does not wish to provide for blood transfusions in their corporate-paid health care plan, I would fully support their right to do so. And their employees and customers could choose whether or not they wish to continue working and shopping there.


Well, good for you, you can support anything you want. Fact is, it would be against the law.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Whether HL should be "forced" to cover the kinds of contraceptives that go against their religious beliefs is not a simple issue. Nor should it be. I can personally understand and appreciate those who feel HL's religious values are being violated. I don't agree because for my own reasons, primarily because allowing them exemption from the law would open the door to making ANY religious belief - whether personal or corporate - legitimate grounds for exemption from the law. This would hurt each and every one of us as it would open the door to discrimination of any and every kind. 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the bible contains passages that could be construed to "justify" discrimination against many groups. Blacks. Jews. Hispanics. Older Americans. Americans of "foreign" descent. Women. Gays. Discrimination in employment, in housing, in educational opportunities. Just like the 1950's. Do we really want to go back? Are you sure that unbounded freedom of religion for corporations and private companies would not come back to hurt you or those you care about? Do you want to live in a society that practices such discrimination?

The thing I wish people could see is that their world as seen from their perspective is valid but not complete. Laws must encompass everyone, with the least harm to anyone. No law is perfect because in our country we have so much diversity of circumstance. Laws must be fair to both poor and rich, and fair to those of all faiths and persuasions, political beliefs and viewpoints. It's a tough balance and rarely do new laws/programs satisfy everyone. How could they? The Supreme Court must find an answer to a very difficult problem - who would be LEAST harmed and how? No matter what they decide, one group's rights must prevail over another's. 

I believe that the ACA is a good thing. Not a perfect thing, but it is a start to reversing the alarming escalation in medical costs to everyone. Costs that divert our resources from ourselves, our communities and our country. It provides care for millions who otherwise have NO ability to secure basic medical care, let alone obtain care for serious illnesses. It will help alleviate the horrendous costs we ALL pay when the uninsured seek the only care they can get for themselves or their children - the emergency room. It prevents insurance companies from refusing coverage and dropping coverage when illness strikes. I know there are many who will howl with outrage because so many object to the ACA. That it requires coverage for birth control for anyone who wants or needs it is IN THE LONG RUN a major benefit for all of us - even those who don't want to "pay" for benefits they don't like. It is a fair and equitable part of the law and will help many who truly can't afford birth control services for whatever reason. 

According to what I have read, it seems the Supreme Court MAY be able to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, but restrict any exemption to CLOSELY HELD corporations only. Presumably, a closely held corporation with only a few shareholders might reasonably be considered to have a religion, where other public entities such as IBM or GM could not plausibly claim this. Seems to me this might be a workable balance - respecting both the sincerely held beliefs of HL while maintaining the prohibition on discrimination. I guess we will have to wait until June to find out.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Wibdgrfan said:


> If a Jehovah's witness owns their own business and does not wish to provide for blood transfusions in their corporate-paid health care plan, I would fully support their right to do so. And their employees and customers could choose whether or not they wish to continue working and shopping there.


Hope they find out before it's too late.


----------



## ka_avery (Jan 20, 2014)

carriemae said:


> I will shop at hobby lobby every chance I get.


Amen.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> If the owners of Hobby Lobby don't want to use those four forms of birth control they don't have to.
> This is America, people get to choose the medical care they desire.


It seems to me that employees who are not happy with their employer's benefits should seek employment elsewhere. Perhaps instead of whining about what the plan does NOT cover, they should be thankful to have employer-paid health insurance coverage and be grateful that it covers the big things. Birth control is not that expensive and it can be obtained through other sources, often at no cost (Planned Parenthood). This is being blown WAY out of proportion. If a person absolutely cannot afford $10 a month for contraceptives, perhaps they can learn to exercise some self-control and refrain from sexual intercourse. It CAN be done.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

grammyv said:


> The United States is a predominately Christian country (based on the % of population who declare themselves to be Christian)
> The government is secular.


I think you need to do some research on what is going on in the United States regarding whether it is still a predominately Christian country.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Wibdgrfan said:


> It seems to me that employees who are not happy with their employer's benefits should seek employment elsewhere. Perhaps instead of whining about what the plan does NOT cover, they should be thankful to have employer-paid health insurance coverage and be grateful that it covers the big things. Birth control is not that expensive and it can be obtained through other sources, often at no cost (Planned Parenthood). This is being blown WAY out of proportion. If a person absolutely cannot afford $10 a month for contraceptives, perhaps they can learn to exercise some self-control and refrain from sexual intercourse. It CAN be done.


Ever hear of the ACA? Perhaps you should look it up and understand what it is before you start making uninformed statements.

Conservatives have managed to gut all funding for Planned Parenthood, so that may not be a real option.

How about you tell us why you think you have the right to judge other's sex lives. Even the government doesn't try to do that.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> She is in error about the process anyway. The iud kills the sperm for prevents it from fertilizing the egg. Some days I get tire of trying to give people the real information (as you know I did get official education in this and have the license and registration to prove it).
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control


No, it would appear YOU are in error. Not only does the IUD kill sperm, it also affects the lining of the uterus. This quote is taken from the link you provided:

"How it works
Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow)."


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I think you need to do some research on what is going on in the United States regarding whether it is still a predominately Christian country.


Why don't you tell us about it. Seriously - I think people should know that Christians are not as powerful or numerous as they think.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> You get the facts right, insisting that your company is only going to pay for health care that suits their beliefs and not those of the employee is a form of discirmination.


Discrimination is when one person or group of persons is treated differently than other people or groups of people. HL is treating all of it's employees the same, therefore there is no discrimination.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Colorado knits said:


> Again, beliefs differ on the definition of abortion and murder.


Yes, and HL is entitled to its own belief, just as you are entitled to yours.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Discrimination is when one person or group of persons is treated differently than other people or groups of people. HL is treating all of it's employees the same, therefore there is no discrimination.


Let's see -- there are no restrictions on coverage for males. Only females.

Discrimination is not the issue. It is imposing their religious values on their women employees by denying certain types of birth control.


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> I don't want to pay for ignorant conservatives procreating either as I think it's bound to be harmful to society in general , but since it would be discriminatory to deny conservatives medical care costs due to their choice to reproduce, I will probably still have to pay for it.
> 
> And I accept that, because I understand that we can't live in a country that denies people equal protection under the law based on discriminatory practices whether they think "religious conscience" justifies it or not.


I know several people who procreate and they are conservative and liberal partners. Ideology is not determined at birth. I can imagine they would find your comment a slam or rude, at a minimum insensitive, making it sound as a liberal is the only one who has the privilege to give birth and partake in all the programs for which everyone pays. You of course have every freedom to think that way. I do not take offense because it would take a lot more substance to get my dander up.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Well, good for you, you can support anything you want. Fact is, it would be against the law.


While the ACA indeed does mandate the coverage, the Supreme Court will determine whether or not that mandate is lawful under our constitution. We do still have a constitution and hopefully, one of these days, those in positions of power will decide to start reading and implementing it again.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Hope they find out before it's too late.


Well, in the absence of coverage, they could also pay for their own transfusion, which is what most people would choose to do in a life or death situation.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Colorado knits said:


> Are you saying that people who disagree with you are not informed? Certainly, I could say the same thing.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Ever hear of the ACA? Perhaps you should look it up and understand what it is before you start making uninformed statements.
> 
> Conservatives have managed to gut all funding for Planned Parenthood, so that may not be a real option.
> 
> How about you tell us why you think you have the right to judge other's sex lives. Even the government doesn't try to do that.


Yes, I have heard of ACA. And I've done extensive reading and studying on it. None of my statements has been inaccurate or uninformed. I don't think there is anyone in America who fully understands the ACA or what it's implication will be. If you think you do, perhaps you could explain it to our President. Even he can't seem to follow it and continually changes the rules.

I am not judging anyone's sex life, nor do I think I have a right to do so. I have simply stated that there are alternatives. The fact that you don't like the alternatives offered does not mean they are not viable options.

Do you REALLY believe that someone cannot afford to purchase their own contraceptives, if that is truly a priority to them?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> No, it would appear YOU are in error. Not only does the IUD kill sperm, it also affects the lining of the uterus. This quote is taken from the link you provided:
> 
> "How it works
> Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow)."


As i said, just like the birth control pill. It's primary action is to prevent ovulation (which was not addressed by the poster to whom I was replying). It's secondary action is to make the uterus unfriendly, just like the birth control pills that HL will provide. I never said that the IUD didn't make it unfriendly to a zygote.

It's either hypocrisy or lack of education on HL's part.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Let's see -- there are no restrictions on coverage for males. Only females.
> 
> Discrimination is not the issue. It is imposing their religious values on their women employees by denying certain types of birth control.


Last time I looked, males do not become pregnant, therefore your argument is illogical.

Please explain to me how providing access to 16 types of birth control is imposing their religious beliefs on the their employees. HL's owner is exercising a constitutional right to freely practice their religion, by refusing to comply with a law that violates their religious belief. They are not demanding that their employees agree with HL's religious beliefs. They are not terminating employees who disagree with their beliefs, or terminating employees who have abortions or use abortifacient types of birth control.


----------



## RachelL (Dec 18, 2011)

Posted in error.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Yes, I have heard of ACA. And I've done extensive reading and studying on it. None of my statements has been inaccurate or uninformed. I don't think there is anyone in America who fully understands the ACA or what it's implication will be. If you think you do, perhaps you could explain it to our President. Even he can't seem to follow it and continually changes the rules.
> 
> I am not judging anyone's sex life, nor do I think I have a right to do so. I have simply stated that there are alternatives. The fact that you don't like the alternatives offered does not mean they are not viable options.
> 
> Do you REALLY believe that someone cannot afford to purchase their own contraceptives, if that is truly a priority to them?


You must have led a very sheltered life if you don't believe that there are those who truly don't have that $10.

Your comments on abstinence DID sound judgmental when you said that people should exercise "self control." Why, when birth control is supposed to be available at no or low cost to all, should some people have their lives restricted in that way? But there is no issue here anyway because HL does not object to ALL forms of birth control. The issue is RELIGION. Where it has no right to be.

You seem to have a narrow view of other people's options and problems. Jobs are hard to come by and MANY people are in no position to turn down a job offer or simply change jobs because they don't like the benefit package.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Yes, and HL is entitled to its own belief, just as you are entitled to yours.


Except that I am not trying to restrict choices for others.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Colorado knits said:


> Except that I am not trying to restrict choices for others.


Strongly religious people don't understand the concept. They think they're being persecuted.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Colorado knits said:


> Except that I am not trying to restrict choices for others.


Aren't you? You are trying to restrict HL from exercising their constitutional right as granted in the 1st amendment.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

DGreen said:


> You must have led a very sheltered life if you don't believe that there are those who truly don't have that $10.
> 
> Your comments on abstinence DID sound judgmental when you said that people should exercise "self control." Why, when birth control is supposed to be available at no or low cost to all, should some people have their lives restricted in that way? But there is no issue here anyway because HL does not object to ALL forms of birth control. The issue is RELIGION. Where it has no right to be.
> 
> You seem to have a narrow view of other people's options and problems. Jobs are hard to come by and MANY people are in no position to turn down a job offer or simply change jobs because they don't like the benefit package.


You are making assumptions about me when, in fact, you know absolutely nothing about the life I've led, the struggles I've faced or my financial situation.

Of COURSE there are people in our country who would indeed truly struggle to come up with $10, but they most likely are not employed at HL. And, we are talking about HL, aren't we? And, even if we expand this discussion to the broader arena, there are safeguards and programs in place for the less fortunate to obtain the healthcare they require, including contraceptives and even abortions.

My point is that when something is truly important to a person, they can usually find a way to obtain it. Sometimes personal sacrifice is required, sometimes difficult choices must be made. There are many people today who have an entitlement mentality, rather than an attitude of personal responsibility. If a woman does not wish to become pregnant, it is HER responsibility to do what it takes to prevent it. No one is going to do it for her. And why CAN'T people exercise self-control? It's not judgmental to suggest that. It's common sense. If you don't want a baby, and you can't afford birth control, don't have sex. It's not rocket science.

Please show me in the US Constitution where it states that birth control must be available to all people at low or no cost. It just isn't there. But the 1st Amendment to the Constitution does include freedom of religion. The ACA may have crossed the line by prohibiting the free exercise of religious beliefs by HL. That is for the Supreme Court to decide.

Jobs are hard to come by and people should be thankful when they have an employer that provides health insurance as a benefit. If they're not in a position to turn down a job or switch jobs, perhaps they should simply be grateful for what they DO have. Yet they turn around and bad-mouth those employers for lack of a $10 prescription benefit? How does that make any sense?


----------



## mzmom1 (Mar 4, 2011)

TheresaD said:


> It is also a choice to have sex. Sometimes we have to take personal responsibility for our actions.


True, no matter how badly the entitlement culture among us hates to admit it. Conception control products are much cheaper than alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, and drugs.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Wibdgrfan said:


> You are making assumptions about me when, in fact, you know absolutely nothing about the life I've led, the struggles I've faced or my financial situation.
> 
> Of COURSE there are people in our country who would indeed truly struggle to come up with $10, but they most likely are not employed at HL. And, we are talking about HL, aren't we? And, even if we expand this discussion to the broader arena, there are safeguards and programs in place for the less fortunate to obtain the healthcare they require, including contraceptives and even abortions.
> 
> ...


Oh how I agree with that.

Personal responsibility is a foreign concept to many people. That is why abortion is needed because they can't fathom facing the facts. Women are born to be women, not men. With that comes pregnancy, just a fact, if you have sex you might get pregnant. There is no war on anyone, unless you want a war against the creator. No one is waging any kind of war against women (but I am positive some won't or can't believe it). It is just a convenient excuse to feel like the victim. 
Accepting the facts of life and taking responsibility for your own person will set all of you free. Quit blaming the other person for things. I was pregnant when I didn't want to be. Oh well. That's life . You can't always plan everything in your life and things that seem like the end of the world very very seldom are as bad as one thinks. In fact many times people say it was a blessing in disguise. I don't know what my life would be like if the unplanned pregnancy had not happened-the fact is it doesn't matter. If I had gotten pregnant just a few months later I could have had a legal abortion. I thank God all the time it wasn't legal at the time, because if it had been I may not have had Jennifer in my life. I can't imagine life without her, she is the only Jen that will ever exist, a completely unique human being.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And a very succinct and helpful explanation it is. Thank you.



Tokyoal said:


> This got buried somewhere many pages ago. A person was asking why the government had the right to "force" us to have health insurance. This is my answer.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

painthoss said:


> Reasonable, logical, consistent, and ethical. And in accordance with their beliefs which have been so widely held up as a good example by fellow believers. Let us now see whether they put their money where their mouths have been.
> 
> Not that I want to know where their mouths have been, really, but you know what I mean. :wink:


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## mzmom1 (Mar 4, 2011)

MASHEPP said:


> Do we really need to do this again? This came up a week or so ago and went on for 40+ pages. These hot issues should be in general chit chat. I thought this section was about knitting.


There is another section even more appropriate and that is the 'Political Women's Forum.' 
Admin usually moves posts to their correct category but seems to have fallen down on the job lately taking care of the Obama and Hobby Lobby stuff.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It doesn't hurt to pray.

I'm sure you must understand then that the choices are difficult to fit into a strained budget.

I think the 'self-insured' thing brought the owner too much information. It could all be avoided by purchasing insurance for all employees in the marketplace.

IMHO Medical choices are private, not to be shared with judgmental employers.



flyovercindy said:


> I'm sorry, not to be rude, but I didn't say I haven't experienced it. Our 40 years of married life have been evenly divided between above and below the poverty line. Our 4 children were thoughtful choices, not second thoughts or the result of an impulse. Want has at times led us to scrimp, save, sacrifice and work hard to provide for ourselves, but never to take hand-outs - reciprocated help from family maybe, but never from the government.
> I pray for those who are hungry, and I also pray for their ability to understand how to never to be hungry again.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks Rocky. Good to see you.



rocky1991 said:


> Inflammatory: unborn children is an oxymoron.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

binkbrice said:


> How is it any different when my insurance won't pay for a pap smear and a mammogram in the same year, it's not other than they don't pay because they are cheap and Hobby Lobby has a moral issue with the morning after pill, I just either don't have the test or I pay for it myself, if an employee working for Hobby Lobby wants the morning after pill they should pay for it out of pocket like anybody else would have to pay for medicine or testing that is not covered.


Here! Here!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you. Deserves repeating.



rocky1991 said:


> Please explain how this affects the HL decision? they can impose their religious beliefs on employees or cannot impose their religious beliefs?
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You fooled me, but I love your avatar. Springer Spaniel?



Evie RM said:


> They are not imposing their religious beliefs on anyone.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm waving the Stars and Stripes.



Janet Cooke said:


> If the owners of Hobby Lobby don't want to use those four forms of birth control they don't have to.
> This is America, people get to choose the medical care they desire.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

China has a One Child Policy that is enforced. PS. They also practice abortions on female fetuses, hence the shortage of marriageable women in the population at large.



lins said:


> Who forces abortions on women?
> I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Abortion/killing of a child???? Come on.


What do you call abortion if it is not the killing of a child?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Isn't the real answer that health care insurance should not come through your employer at all? I'd like to see a one-payer system covering everyone.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I think it was meant as a facetious answer. Poor example.



grandmasheryl said:


> I know I am late to the conversation but the poster who said she shouldnt have to pay for insulin because "someone" can't control their sweetooth is RUDE.
> my son is has had diabetes type 1 which has nothing to do with a sweetooth,why should nt he be covered?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for the information. Seems to be another manufactured, political brouhaha. I wonder what lobbyist is paying for the suit.



tamarque said:


> I don't see anyone mentioning that Hobby Lobby paid willingly for all these methods until just recently. So this whole thing reeks of political manipulation
> 
> Second,HL is not a private club. It is a public business and seeks the public's support for its existence. By preventing women who work there from reproductive coverage, they are imposing their private beliefs onto the public and harming women by removing their right to chose.
> 
> Third, it is true that people have the right to their beliefs BUT only if those beliefs are not imposed on others and do not harm. I can believe anything I want, including putting these narrow minded people in jail, however, I do not have the right, legally or ethically to enact such a belief.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

taborhills said:


> HOW IS ANYONE AT HOBBY LOBBY IMPOSING THEIR BELIEFS?
> 
> DO THOSE WHO WANT ABORTIFACIENTS PAID FOR UNDER INSURANCE HAVE THE RIGHT TO "IMPOSE" THEIR WISH ON THEIR EMPLOYER? DOES NOT THE EMPLOYER HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT THEIR SPONSORED INSURANCE WILL COVER ACCORDING TO WHAT THE EMPLOYER IS WILLING TO PAY FOR? DOES AN INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE HOW TO SPEND HIS/ITS RESOURCES IF SUCH EXPENDITURE DOES NOT DEMONSTRABLY BENEFIT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE?
> 
> DO YOU THINK NAME-CALLING AS IN "NARROW-MINDED" IS PERSUASIVE? HELPFUL?


Shouting is rude and definitely not persuasive.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

tamarque said:


> When we talk of the common good, it means we accept a wide variety of conditions in that. When a company provides health insurance, it is expected that it cover what is commonly considered basic. Reproductive services fit that bill. It is not for an employer to cherry pick what he wants to cover, especially when it is based on his religion. That is imposition of a personal belief onto others who don't necessarily agree.
> 
> Of course, with a Federally funded and run Single Payer system, all this nonsense with HL would be moot.


Hear, hear. I feel the same.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It is perceived as shouting.



taborhills said:


> The caps were just to separate my comments from the content to which I was responding. Not yelling. No italics on this system.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I agree it's a confusing system, but WATCH is there if you wish to return to WATCHING. I'm not even convinced it works all the time.



grammacat said:


> Why as I still getting these posts, when I clicked UNWATCH. Now I don't have that option, as UNWATCH button now says WATCH.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> I couldn't care less about your need to nit-pick.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Xay-Zays.auntie (Aug 26, 2013)

Hobby Lobby has gotten what it's wanted all along: publicity. Even people who have never heard of them before all of this has come about are talking about them now, so no matter how the SC rules, they've still won.

To the people saying to work elsewhere, may I ask where you are all from? Because I have to say, in my area there just aren't that many jobs out there. When it comes to a choice of putting food on the table or keeping a job, I'd choose to keep the job, at least until something better came along. Wouldn't want to be a "mooch" and quit a job that helped pay the bills.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Well, good for you, you can support anything you want. Fact is, it would be against the law.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

"The least harm to everyone." I like that concept.

I hope the Supreme Court rules that a corporation does not have a religion. All I know for sure is that I will never shop there.



DGreen said:


> Whether HL should be "forced" to cover the kinds of contraceptives that go against their religious beliefs is not a simple issue. Nor should it be. I can personally understand and appreciate those who feel HL's religious values are being violated. I don't agree because for my own reasons, primarily because allowing them exemption from the law would open the door to making ANY religious belief - whether personal or corporate - legitimate grounds for exemption from the law. This would hurt each and every one of us as it would open the door to discrimination of any and every kind.
> 
> As I mentioned in an earlier post, the bible contains passages that could be construed to "justify" discrimination against many groups. Blacks. Jews. Hispanics. Older Americans. Americans of "foreign" descent. Women. Gays. Discrimination in employment, in housing, in educational opportunities. Just like the 1950's. Do we really want to go back? Are you sure that unbounded freedom of religion for corporations and private companies would not come back to hurt you or those you care about? Do you want to live in a society that practices such discrimination?
> 
> ...


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

And round and round and round we go. I have been reading most of these posts and putting in my two bits worth here and there. Perhaps I should keep out of the fray as I am not and American and do not know very much about Obamacare. Living in Canada as I do, we have universal health care. It doesn't cover everything everywhere. Each province has a right to cover whatever drugs it desires to. Some of these drugs are, indeed, lifesaving, but are very expensive and some provinces choose not to cover them. Some provinces charge for medical care through taxes. My province charges each person a monthly fee, which keeps going up and up. A person earning, say, $15,000 a year pays the same as a person who earns $250,000 per year. Doesn't seem fair to be, but that is the way it is. Maybe with another government it will change.

It is apparently illegal not to pay the fee. However, for the most part, the system seems to work well for the majority of people. Everyone, I believe, will get help whether they have coverage or not. Those who do not have coverage can, however, be billed.

It seems like a good idea to have the majority of people covered under a universal health care system. I don't understand why there is so much animosity regarding this system in the US. 

Now regarding Hobby Lobby's dilemma. I think that HL should be allowed to say what they will cover and what they will not. From reading what you all have said, it would seem that they are not against contraception, only certain forms of contraception. I don't know how big an organization HL is and how many employees they have. I don't know if it is mandatory for them to offer medical coverage and to what extent that coverage is. If a person wants a drug of any kind that is not covered, then it is up to that individual to obtain that drug for him/herself. As someone earlier said, contraceptives are cheaper than booze or cigarettes.

As I write this, I note that we have now reached page 36. I don't think any one is going to change her mind, do you? You (I say you as we don't have HL here) will shop at HL or you won't for whatever reasons you have. I guess you will have to wait till June to see what the courts decide and then we can get this going again, eh?

I do look forward to the back and forth that goes on here, mostly people reiterating what has already been said or just putting in word or two, even though they are off topic. If we had HL here I probably wouldn't buy much there, as, from what others have said, a lot of it is from China, and I try whenever possible not to give China any of my money.

I look forward to more comments on this topic. 

(I am not going to read over this, as I usually do, so please forgive any improper punctuation or spelling.)


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.



BlueJay21 said:


> And round and round and round we go. I have been reading most of these posts and putting in my two bits worth here and there. Perhaps I should keep out of the fray as I am not and American and do not know very much about Obamacare. Living in Canada as I do, we have universal health care. It doesn't cover everything everywhere. Each province has a right to cover whatever drugs it desires to. Some of these drugs are, indeed, lifesaving, but are very expensive and some provinces choose not to cover them. Some provinces charge for medical care through taxes. My province charges each person a monthly fee, which keeps going up and up. A person earning, say, $15,000 a year pays the same as a person who earns $250,000 per year. Doesn't seem fair to be, but that is the way it is. Maybe with another government it will change.
> 
> It is apparently illegal not to pay the fee. However, for the most part, the system seems to work well for the majority of people. Everyone, I believe, will get help whether they have coverage or not. Those who do not have coverage can, however, be billed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> It seems to me that employees who are not happy with their employer's benefits should seek employment elsewhere. Perhaps instead of whining about what the plan does NOT cover, they should be thankful to have employer-paid health insurance coverage and be grateful that it covers the big things. Birth control is not that expensive and it can be obtained through other sources, often at no cost (Planned Parenthood). This is being blown WAY out of proportion. If a person absolutely cannot afford $10 a month for contraceptives, perhaps they can learn to exercise some self-control and refrain from sexual intercourse. It CAN be done.


It seems to me that if businesses don't like operating under the US Constitution they can take their product and sell it somewhere else. China perhaps? That way they can be open about supporting the abortions that their product supplier forces on their citizenry. 
What ever makes you think that contraceptives cost $10. per month? It is upwards of $1000. to have an IUD implanted. 
You haven't learned self control of your fingers and that would be much simpler, you continue to spew hatefilled rhetoric.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Oh they did? Makes it even more interesting. Do you have an article or something that shows they did?


Read an article a few days ago but did not save it. Was able to find this reference that notes HL paid for 80% of the ACA required benefits before the law.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/4_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_hobby_lobby_scotus_case/

Here are a couple of other articles that I found interesting on this case. It seems to me that the religious protest of HL is somewhat bogus. It reads more, to me, like a part of a reactionary movement to destroy all kinds of efforts to create equality in the country. It looks more like a continuation of the Citizen United ruling applied to all kinds of social equality issues.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-case/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know-about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Read an article a few days ago but did not save it. Was able to find this reference that notes HL paid for 80% of the ACA required benefits before the law.
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/4_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_hobby_lobby_scotus_case/
> 
> ...


Thank you so much for posting those links. 
I was so taken up with the Green Family refrain from the right that I missed that they were a corporation which is, of course, key to the argument and *should* make the decision straightforward. 
That doesn't mean that we can count on this court to do that, it is a decision to look forward to and prepare to call reps to demand new laws if the corp is allowed to stomp all over individuals rights.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

And this is exactly what Citizens United does--trample on individual rights.

Something I always keep in mind is that politicians, like lawyers (and so many of them are)are very controlled in their planning. They are not the emotional reacters like the majority of the public. We see a lot of that here in KP discussions. Afterall, we are the public. So when one of them makes a statement, no matter how stupid and incorrect it may be, you can rest assured they have thought about it and dissected its power with their cohorts. People at the top of the heap work in teams, collectively if you will. 

Relative to the HL case, this private corporation needs to be viewed within the context of this understanding. It is not the religious beliefs of the HL owners. They are corporate business people who are very, very wealthy and that controls their decision-making. Maybe they foist their prayers on workers which is odious enough, but a few seconds of compliance at a meeting really has no impact on the lives of the people. Forced prayer in schools is illegal because of separation of church and state. Private corporations I think are allowed to create an internal work climate within limits. I await the lawsuit against HL for doing this as it is a hostile environment for people with other belief systems. But so far I don't know of any laws that prevent this specific behavior at work. I don't think they can discriminate in hiring for religious beliefs but that is as far as I know.

So regarding this lawsuit, HL extends Citizens United into the realm of enforced relgious beliefs as a corporation, which under Citizens United, it claims it is a 'person.'

The GOP and radical, right fundamentalists want much more. They want to be able to assault every single social equality issue. This case can be used against sex gender choice or orientation. I know they want to use it to attack civil rights for people of color. Remember when Rand Paul ran for Congress. He made a stink over businesses not being allowed to chose who they allow in their stores and who they serve. Images of sit-ins at Woolworth in the South come flooding my mind. Paul knew exactly what he was saying and doing. I see this HL case within the context of this Paul statement and others of a similar nature by people of this ideological agenda. 

I just hope the Court will give power to the issue of separation of church and state, the fact that HL already was paying for medical coverage that included birth control, and the scientific fact that the drugs in question are not abortifacients. One of the articles I sent spells this out.

Ultimately, I see this as an extension of the move backwards to more feudal relationships in this country with the loss of individual rights and civil liberties.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

taborhills said:


> The caps were just to separate my comments from the content to which I was responding. Not yelling. No italics on this system.


 _There are italics._ Hit the reply button and you'll see smileys and a list of 'tags' in the box to your left. The tags allow you to put words in bold, italics, underline them or color them.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

binkbrice said:


> Does it have a beating heart, and move inside the mother? I am pretty darn sure it is a baby when it is conceived!!!


For at least the time before implantation, the fertilized egg does not have a heartbeat nor can it move on its own.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

I know this will fall on pro-life deaf ears, but the definition of a life, is one that can survive independently of the mother's womb. That is why a somewhat arbitrary cut off point at about 7 mos is used since a fetus can be extracted and live, but typically only with life support technology to simulate the womb conditions. This in itself raises questions about this arbitrary 7 mos standard. 

However, accepting this standard, you do not have a baby at conception. Nor do you have a baby at 4 mos. It is only the possibility of one. Think about your vegebles or fruits. My tomato plants put out flowers galore and then they are fertilized. But they are not fruit at that stage. And even when they begin to develop, they are still not fruit because they cannot be eaten and do not have the development to be a fruit. It is only when they reach a certain size that they can be picked and allowed to ripen; ie, com,plete their development under specific conditions. This is the same for humans. We are all on the same life path with the same need for a process to occur to produce a living organism. Before that stage is reached, there is only an idea, a possibility. But it is not a reality. 

This idea that a cell is a baby at conception is just a crock of malarky with no factual basis. And the HL case is based on this same erroneous concept. But more so, it is dishonest and fraudulent. They want the corporate tax deductions while imposing their anti-woman ideology on the workers.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

tamarque said:


> And this is exactly what Citizens United does--trample on individual rights.
> 
> The GOP and radical, right fundamentalists want much more. They want to be able to assault every single social equality issue. This case can be used against sex gender choice or orientation. I know they want to use it to attack civil rights for people of color. Remember when Rand Paul ran for Congress. He made a stink over businesses not being allowed to chose who they allow in their stores and who they serve. .


I think your comments are spot on.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

glad to share.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Aren't you? You are trying to restrict HL from exercising their constitutional right as granted in the 1st amendment.


You really don't get it, do you. HL is a for-profit company trying to force their beliefs on employees.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

damemary said:


> Isn't the real answer that health care insurance should not come through your employer at all? I'd like to see a one-payer system covering everyone.


Oh, we so need a good national health plan. Sadly, I cannot see that happening.
:thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

What absurd over-generalizations! "The GOP and [and?] right fundamentalists want...." This credits them all with a degree of consensus they do not have.

"They want to use it [it? antecedent?] to attack civil rights for people of color."
What about those of us from mixed-color families who challenge some of the
trends toward expansion of government? What about legally married gays who also question?

It's a shame that our educational system has not trained people to think logically and to support their arguments with facts, evidence and reason. Actually, it is a disaster for our country's survival that people use pop phrases -- like "trample on" and "spot on" -- instead of logic and proof.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

tamarque said:


> I know this will fall on pro-life deaf ears, but the definition of a life, is one that can survive independently of the mother's womb. That is why a somewhat arbitrary cut off point at about 7 mos is used since a fetus can be extracted and live, but typically only with life support technology to simulate the womb conditions. This in itself raises questions about this arbitrary 7 mos standard.
> 
> However, accepting this standard, you do not have a baby at conception. Nor do you have a baby at 4 mos. It is only the possibility of one. Think about your vegebles or fruits. My tomato plants put out flowers galore and then they are fertilized. But they are not fruit at that stage. And even when they begin to develop, they are still not fruit because they cannot be eaten and do not have the development to be a fruit. It is only when they reach a certain size that they can be picked and allowed to ripen; ie, com,plete their development under specific conditions. This is the same for humans. We are all on the same life path with the same need for a process to occur to produce a living organism. Before that stage is reached, there is only an idea, a possibility. But it is not a reality.
> 
> This idea that a cell is a baby at conception is just a crock of malarky with no factual basis. And the HL case is based on this same erroneous concept. But more so, it is dishonest and fraudulent. They want the corporate tax deductions while imposing their anti-woman ideology on the workers.


Agree.


----------



## donna.erikson (Dec 19, 2011)

I believe that no company should have a mandate shoved down their throat-especially one that is against their own beliefs. I applaud Hobby Lobby for standing up for themselves! If you don't hold the same beliefs as Hobby Lobby, don't work there-it is as simple as that. 
The right to practice birth control is a personal one, I agree. However, some forms of birth control are preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall and is in itself an abortion as the egg already has been fertilized and preventing it from attaching to the uterine wall is essentially preventing it from getting the necessary nutrients it needs and therefore starving it.
I believe that it is life upon fertilization, and no human has the right to take that life away. I do not believe it is all about women's rights-it is protecting an unborn life.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

tamarque said:


> I know this will fall on pro-life deaf ears, but the definition of a life, is one that can survive independently of the mother's womb. That is why a somewhat arbitrary cut off point at about 7 mos is used since a fetus can be extracted and live, but typically only with life support technology to simulate the womb conditions. This in itself raises questions about this arbitrary 7 mos standard.
> 
> However, accepting this standard, you do not have a baby at conception. Nor do you have a baby at 4 mos. It is only the possibility of one. Think about your vegebles or fruits. My tomato plants put out flowers galore and then they are fertilized. But they are not fruit at that stage. And even when they begin to develop, they are still not fruit because they cannot be eaten and do not have the development to be a fruit. It is only when they reach a certain size that they can be picked and allowed to ripen; ie, com,plete their development under specific conditions. This is the same for humans. We are all on the same life path with the same need for a process to occur to produce a living organism. Before that stage is reached, there is only an idea, a possibility. But it is not a reality.
> 
> This idea that a cell is a baby at conception is just a crock of malarky with no factual basis. And the HL case is based on this same erroneous concept. But more so, it is dishonest and fraudulent. They want the corporate tax deductions while imposing their anti-woman ideology on the workers.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

donna.erikson said:


> I believe that no company should have a mandate shoved down their throat-especially one that is against their own beliefs. I applaud Hobby Lobby for standing up for themselves! If you don't hold the same beliefs as Hobby Lobby, don't work there-it is as simple as that.
> The right to practice birth control is a personal one, I agree. However, some forms of birth control are preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall and is in itself an abortion as the egg already has been fertilized and preventing it from attaching to the uterine wall is essentially preventing it from getting the necessary nutrients it needs and therefore starving it.
> I believe that it is life upon fertilization, and no human has the right to take that life away. I do not believe it is all about women's rights-it is protecting an unborn life.


Companies don't have brains, they don't have beliefs, they dont have fantasies, they don't get to make any decisions other than business decisions.


----------



## donna.erikson (Dec 19, 2011)

I am in total disagreement with you. First, I would never compare a human being to a plant-I believe they have more value. 
Second, if a plant was not living, then how can it grow and develop a flower which will then produce a fruit? So are you saying that because an infant is not fully developed outside of the womb until it reaches adulthood, it has no intrinsic value?

I believe in women's rights but not when they infringe on the right of an another organism that happens to be developing inside another. Since the DNA of the mom is different from the DNA of the child she is carrying, she is making choices for another individual. 
There are 7 characteristics of LIFE that we teach in science...one of them is ALL living things grow and develop...you mean to tell me that a fertilized egg does not grow and develop in a woman's womb for 9 months? ...just a scientific viewpoint from another female...


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

taborhills said:


> What absurd over-generalizations! "The GOP and [and?] right fundamentalists want...." This credits them all with a degree of consensus they do not have.
> 
> "They want to use it [it? antecedent?] to attack civil rights for people of color."
> What about those of us from mixed-color families who challenge some of the
> ...


The GOP makes news frequently by promoting fundamentalist Christian values. If more moderate Christians spoke out against their more outrageous statements maybe that perception would not be so prevalent.

As for right-wing religious fundamentalists, there appears to be a pretty strong consensus. Have you been following their efforts to teach creationism as a legitimate alternative theory to science? To change textbooks? Their concerted and well-coordinated efforts to outlaw abortion? Again, moderates don't seem to be speaking out on those issues, thereby giving tacit approval.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> It seems to me that if businesses don't like operating under the US Constitution they can take their product and sell it somewhere else. China perhaps? That way they can be open about supporting the abortions that their product supplier forces on their citizenry.
> What ever makes you think that contraceptives cost $10. per month? It is upwards of $1000. to have an IUD implanted.
> You haven't learned self control of your fingers and that would be much simpler, you continue to spew hatefilled rhetoric.


HL is following the US Constitution. It is Obama and his Admin that regularly ignore it.


----------



## donna.erikson (Dec 19, 2011)

Really? Who runs companies...robots?
They are run by people.


----------



## donna.erikson (Dec 19, 2011)

dON'T LIKE IT, DON'T WORK THERE. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO WOULD GLADLY WORK FOR A COMPANY THAT SHARES THEIR BELIEFS.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> HL is following the US Constitution. It is Obama and his Admin that regularly ignore it.


Ok. I'll bite.

Which part of the constitution is being ignored?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Colorado knits said:


> You really don't get it, do you. HL is a for-profit company trying to force their beliefs on employees.


You really don't got it, do you. HL is a company, who chooses to hire employees, paying them more than the required minimums, are in business for a profit as are 100% of all for-profit businesses, who are seeking the laws afforded them by the Constitution of the USA are followed.

Anyone who doesn't support HL in their lawsuit, are trying to force their personal beliefs upon others.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

donna.erikson said:


> I believe that no company should have a mandate shoved down their throat-especially one that is against their own beliefs. I applaud Hobby Lobby for standing up for themselves! If you don't hold the same beliefs as Hobby Lobby, don't work there-it is as simple as that.
> The right to practice birth control is a personal one, I agree. However, some forms of birth control are preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall and is in itself an abortion as the egg already has been fertilized and preventing it from attaching to the uterine wall is essentially preventing it from getting the necessary nutrients it needs and therefore starving it.
> I believe that it is life upon fertilization, and no human has the right to take that life away. I do not believe it is all about women's rights-it is protecting an unborn life.


Where life begins is NOT the issue. The question is whether a corporation can use religion to restrict employee's personal decisions.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Where life begins is NOT the issue. The question is whether a corporation can use religion to restrict employee's personal decisions.


That is NOT the issue. The question is whether a corporation is allowed the rights and protections afforded them by the USA Constitution when running their business, or whether or not those rights will be ignored now and forever more.

The Supreme Court would not accept a case as you defined the issue since that has been decided long ago.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

taborhills said:


> What absurd over-generalizations! "The GOP and [and?] right fundamentalists want...." This credits them all with a degree of consensus they do not have.
> 
> "They want to use it [it? antecedent?] to attack civil rights for people of color."
> What about those of us from mixed-color families who challenge some of the
> ...


Just putting a load of unrelated questions and insults out there don't really serve a reference point or a purpose, do they?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Companies don't have brains, they don't have beliefs, they dont have fantasies, they don't get to make any decisions other than business decisions.


If companies don't have brains, "what" is making any decision for the company including business decisions?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You really don't got it, do you. HL is a company, who chooses to hire employees, paying them more than the required minimums, are in business for a profit as are 100% of all for-profit businesses, who are seeking the laws afforded them by the Constitution of the USA are followed.
> 
> Anyone who doesn't support HL in their lawsuit, are trying to force their personal beliefs upon others.


There is a conflict as to whose rights will prevail. The employee also has the right to be free of another person's religion. Trouble is, there is no other "person" here because HL is a CORPORATION. Corporations don't HAVE a religion. HL wants the legal protection afforded by incorporating without the restrictions imposed by the first amendment.

You say anyone who doesn't support HL is necessarily trying to force their personal beliefs on others. Nah.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> That is NOT the issue. The question is whether a corporation is allowed the rights and protections afforded them by the USA Constitution when running their business, or whether or not those rights will be ignored now and forever more.
> 
> The Supreme Court would not accept a case as you defined the issue since that has been decided long ago.


You obviously think corporations are "people" as in the case of Citizens United. Take a look at how that worked out. Same premise.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> There is a conflict as to whose rights will prevail. The employee also has the right to be free of another person's religion. Trouble is, there is no other "person" here because HL is a CORPORATION. Corporations don't HAVE a religion. HL wants the legal protection afforded by incorporating without the restrictions imposed by the first amendment.
> 
> You say anyone who doesn't support HL is necessarily trying to force their personal beliefs on others. Nah.


The HL employees have always had their rights and maintain their freedom of religion. HL is not forcing anything upon their employees. No employee is forced to work for HL either.

You say HL is a corporation who is forcing their rights. Then you immediately say HL cannot be forcing anything because they are a corporation. Which is it?

Corporations ARE nothing more than a group of people who file different tax forms than a sole proprietor. Every entity being tax is a human being.

HL didn't file for tax exempt status nor are they seeking it now. Those who have tax exempt status are still entities of people too. You do not understand tax laws nor the USA Constitution which is confusing your opinion of the HL case.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> You obviously think corporations are "people" as in the case of Citizens United. Take a look at how that worked out. Same premise.


Corporations are nothing more than a group of people who filed and secured that tax status.

Who do you think makes the decisions, runs the business, files the tax returns, and pays the appropriate taxes on the business profits?

Animals?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

donna.erikson said:


> dON'T LIKE IT, DON'T WORK THERE. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO WOULD GLADLY WORK FOR A COMPANY THAT SHARES THEIR BELIEFS.


You obviously don't understand the argument.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

DGreen said:


> You obviously think corporations are "people" as in the case of Citizens United. Take a look at how that worked out. Same premise.


Funny, isn't it? 
How can people see the function of business entities overriding the interests of people under the US Constitution?
It is incomprehensible that ultra conservatives cannot see the end game and how they end up in this scenario.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The HL employees have always had their rights and maintain their freedom of religion. HL is not forcing anything upon their employees. No employee is forced to work for HL either.
> 
> You say HL is a corporation who is forcing their rights. Then you immediately say HL cannot be forcing anything because they are a corporation. Which is it?
> 
> ...


HL is CLAIMING the right of religious freedom.

"Every entity being taxed is a human being." You might want to check with the IRS on that one. Corporations are taxed separately from the shareholders. That's one of the basic characteristics of a corporation.

Never said HL was applying for tax exempt status. Totally extraneous statement. Where did you get that one?

"no one is being forced to work for HL" is BOGUS. Not pertinent in any way, shape or form to the constitutional question. Sounds good, but bears no relevance to the issue.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> You obviously don't understand the argument.


Neither do you.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Funny, isn't it?
> How can people see the function of business entities overriding the interests of people under the US Constitution?
> It is incomprehensible that ultra conservatives cannot see the end game and how they end up in this scenario.


They only see what they want to see.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Funny, isn't it?
> How can people see the function of business entities overriding the interests of people under the US Constitution?
> It is incomprehensible that ultra conservatives cannot see the end game and how they end up in this scenario.


I guess you worked for machines.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Neither do you.


It is a constitutional question, not in any way related to one's right to apply for, work for or quit a job at HL.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Corporations are nothing more than a group of people who filed and secured that tax status.
> 
> Who do you think makes the decisions, runs the business, files the tax returns, and pays the appropriate taxes on the business profits?
> 
> Animals?


Corporations are not a group of people, they are a separate entity created to protect those people and to attach certain benefit in formation. 
Hired hands do the work, even if they are the same people who filed the paperwork they are hired hands afforded the protections of corporation. 
If you don't know that you should.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> If companies don't have brains, "what" is making any decision for the company including business decisions?


Why don't you look up how corporations are structured? It might be instructive.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> That is NOT the issue. The question is whether a corporation is allowed the rights and protections afforded them by the USA Constitution when running their business, or whether or not those rights will be ignored now and forever more.
> 
> The Supreme Court would not accept a case as you defined the issue since that has been decided long ago.


Then why are you making a big issue out of when life begins? Separate argument.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> HL is CLAIMING the right of religious freedom.
> 
> "Every entity being taxed is a human being." You might want to check with the IRS on that one. Corporations are taxed separately from the shareholders. That's one of the basic characteristics of a corporation.
> 
> ...


HL is NOT claiming the right of religious freedom. They are requesting the Constitution to be followed which allows them the right to run their business as they see fit while following the laws of the land. The ACA, has been changed, illegally, at least 28 times by Obama and his Admin, thereby denying HL their rights as afforded in the US Constit.

You better check with the IRS. Who do you think pays the corporate taxes? Animals? Do you understand the flow through of taxes and who pays the tax liabilities of a corp? I know you do not.

I commented on YOUR statement that HL wants exemption status; they do not.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> It is a constitutional question, not in any way related to one's right to apply for, work for or quit a job at HL.


I never said differently.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Corporations are not a group of people, they are a separate entity created to protect those people and to attach certain benefit in formation.
> Hired hands do the work, even if they are the same people who filed the paperwork they are hired hands afforded the protections of corporation.
> If you don't know that you should.


You are 100% wrong. Have a nice day.

ETA: Janet says corps are *not* a group of people BUT those people who joined together (a group) to protect themselves with certain benefits of formation form the corporation.

OMG: you need help.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Why don't you look up how corporations are structured? It might be instructive.


I suggest you do.

I know it already.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Then why are you making a big issue out of when life begins? Separate argument.


I haven't and don't because that is a separate argument.

The argument of HL has nothing to do with when life begins.

I've told you multiple times what the lawsuit is about.

You still are confused on the issue.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I suggest you do.
> 
> I know it already.


Why not educate us then? 
Fill us in on your version of the pros and cons to corporate ownership?


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

1. Freedom of speech applies to one, single individual person. Not a corporate structure. Each dollar they contribute is not for a single voice but for a corporation that gives millions. They do not have millions of individual voices. Citizens United was bought and paid for my corporate moghuls. That class of people have been working for decades to undo all the social gains for the mass of the public which has all profited regardless of their political persuasions.

2. There is a 'they.' It is only the mass of public that has been led to believe in their individualism, another belief system. It has served the 'they' people well as it is a divide and conquer strategy. "they" do meet and make collective decisions. "they" do divide the pie amongst themselves. Did you know that Rockefeller, during the Nazi era, taught the German corporate magnates how to organize cartels in order to control the country and its wealth. They worked with Hitler, for sure, but they did it in concert with each other. Breaking up the German cartel I.G.Farben after the war did not end that experience of mutual collusion. And the Rockefellers were not alone in this country. Even the AMA developed with Rockefeller chemical money. It was that effort to foist chemicals on the public in the arena of health. They funded the failing medical associatio n of the late 19c and turned it into a powerful trade organization designed to control all health care and turn it into a medical/chemical industry at the total expense of the public and the public's right to freedom of health choice.

3. Sorry you don't like my analogy of a fetus to a developing tomato. Personally, there are many tomatoes that I respect more than some people (lol). But the analogy holds. A fetus is not a baby, just a potential one annd remains so until it can sustain life on its own.

4. So it seems you scribe to the right wing attack on women as individuals with freedom of choice about their own lives and body. A woman you note is simply a vesicle for another potential life that may or may not happen. Thanks for taking women's rights back to the dark ages. Maybe you think we cannot vote because we are ruled only by the womb and have no ability to think critically.

5. And yes, I have been following the religious right's attempt to include creationism in textbooks and to eliminate evolution. I am also aware that the majority of text books in this country are published in Texas and those publishing houses are subordinate to State politics with its anti-woman positions. I have watched for several years the efforts to control State Educ boards and local school boards in order to promote their ideology. It is not only creationism that is being promoted. They have been eliminating history about the Civil Rights Movement and other social movements. And recently (this month) I read an article that focused on the religious right's own publishing houses and the books they print for their schools. They are completely rewriting history. Try reading this article:

http://www.alternet.org/education/10-insane-history-lessons-private-religious-voucher-schools-are-teaching-americas-kids?akid=11635.276957.KlR0Ni&rd=1&src=newsletter973618&t=3

Regarding this issue, I like Alternet because it tracks the GOP anti-women assaults and the religious right's insanity.

Even Pat Robertson, certainly no friend of separation of church and state has recently castigate the religious right wing fundamentalist statements about the age of the earth and their literal use of the bible. He is part of a large power base and they do work collectively. I can only repeat that it is the public lost in its individualism, that thinks these people work the same way. They train their children to work in their power base. Some are trained to be part of the leadership; most of the others to be their warriors. Actually, it is the same across the board. The Prussians actually devised the system of using education for mass social manipulation. Hitler applied it and we have much documentation on that. But so did the US when it created pubic education. What we do have in the US is access to alternative information and primary source information --if and only if people will read it.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

DGreen said:


> The GOP makes news frequently by promoting fundamentalist Christian values. If more moderate Christians spoke out against their more outrageous statements maybe that perception would not be so prevalent.
> 
> As for right-wing religious fundamentalists, there appears to be a pretty strong consensus. Have you been following their efforts to teach creationism as a legitimate alternative theory to science? To change textbooks? Their concerted and well-coordinated efforts to outlaw abortion? Again, moderates don't seem to be speaking out on those issues, thereby giving tacit approval.


I think you may need to read more broadly or listen to different stations. Try not to think in labels, such as "right-wing religious fundamentalists" or in unsupported generalizations such "pretty strong consensus." The actual breadth of perspectives is very much more interesting than you may suspect.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I haven't and don't because that is a separate argument.
> 
> The argument of HL has nothing to do with when life begins.
> 
> ...


Are you listening to the HL arguments at all? There whole argument is based on when life begins. That is their argument against birth control. It stops life from forming at conception. They call that abortion. They have completely altered basic definitions and science.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> HL is NOT claiming the right of religious freedom. They are requesting the Constitution to be followed which allows them the right to run their business as they see fit while following the laws of the land. The ACA, has been changed, illegally, at least 28 times by Obama and his Admin, thereby denying HL their rights as afforded in the US Constit.
> 
> You better check with the IRS. Who do you think pays the corporate taxes? Animals? Do you understand the flow through of taxes and who pays the tax liabilities of a corp? I know you do not.
> 
> I commented on YOUR statement that HL wants exemption status; they do not.


Your first statement is total BS. The constitutional right HL is invoking is the right to freedom of religion. There is no other question at stake relative to their freedom to run their business as they wish.

I will not engage you on Obama. He has nothing to do with this argument and your statements are nothing more than an attempt to voice your hatred of him. No sale.

When it's time to file tax returns, the corporation files SEPARATELY from individuals. The corporation must report its income, expenses, deductions, whatever, then pays taxes on profit. Some of those expenses are wages, salaries, etc., paid to the OFFICERS of the company, who in turn pay taxes on their earnings. Just like rank-and-file employees. Why is that so hard to understand??

Never, at any time did I refer to tax-exempt status. I'm talking about being exempt from the provisions of the ACA.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Are you listening to the HL arguments at all? There whole argument is based on when life begins. That is their argument against birth control. It stops life from forming at conception. They call that abortion. They have completely altered basic definitions and science.


I've read the filed argument, have you?

You don't understand the case. HL has, for years, provided insurance which included birth control for their employees. HL isn't concerned with their employees sexual lives nor should they be. HL didn't file a lawsuit against birth control.

You have completely and falsely altered the facts and basis of HL's lawsuit. You don't understand it.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You have completely and falsely altered the facts and basis of HL's lawsuit. You don't understand it.


No, I have not. Yes, I understand the lawsuit.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Your first statement is total BS. The constitutional right HL is invoking is the right to freedom of religion. There is no other question at stake relative to their freedom to run their business as they wish.


You are still confused on the lawsuit. HL is arguing their rights as allowed in the US Consit. They believe they have the right to NOT be MANDATED to provide drugs that is against their religious beliefs. To date, that very FACT, has been afforded ANY business owner. IF the Supreme Court rules against HL, the rights afforded ALL businesses is changed. You are arguing for YOUR beliefs to be impressed upon HL. At this moment, that is against the laws of the Constitution.



DGreen said:


> I will not engage you on Obama. He has nothing to do with this argument and your statements are nothing more than an attempt to voice your hatred of him. No sale.


Obama has everything to do with this argument. If not for ObamaCare, HL's lawsuit would not be in existence. I do not hate Obama, I do hate his policy of the ACA, that was passed not in the usual way, and only by the Democrats and has been changed 30 times illegally by Obama. Don't you remember what Obama did so that Scott Brown could not vote on the ACA? I guess you have selective memory.

You stating that this suit has nothing to do with Obama is your bias and ignorance of what are the facts of the case and why this case is being decided by the Supreme Court. You denying same, shows your hatred of the Constitution and the laws of our country. Your choice.



DGreen said:


> When it's time to file tax returns, the corporation files SEPARATELY from individuals. The corporation must report its income, expenses, deductions, whatever, then pays taxes on profit. Some of those expenses are wages, salaries, etc., paid to the OFFICERS of the company, who in turn pay taxes on their earnings. Just like rank-and-file employees. Why is that so hard to understand??


Why are you so unable to understand who pay the corporations' taxes? I'll ask again, if not people, then who? You need some IRS 101 classes. I'm not taking my precious time to explain to you how to file a corp return. Officers AND the corp have tax liabilities; and guess what? Officers AND the corp taxes are paid on PEOPLES' returns.



DGreen said:


> Never, at any time did I refer to tax-exempt status. I'm talking about being exempt from the provisions of the ACA.


Go back and reread you own post that you don't remember mentioning what I answered.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> No, I have not. Yes, I understand the lawsuit.


You don't even understand that my comment you just responded to was to tamarque, not you, yet you are now putting yourself in her place. Crazy!

Neither of you understand the HL lawsuit.

I'm resting my case, since I'm wasting my time responding to both of you on something neither of you understand.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

taborhills said:


> I think you may need to read more broadly or listen to different stations. Try not to think in labels, such as "right-wing religious fundamentalists" or in unsupported generalizations such "pretty strong consensus." The actual breadth of perspectives is very much more interesting than you may suspect.


It sounds as if you are trying to limit the ability to identify exactly who people are identifying. There is a reason for saying right wing religious fundamentals that is to draw a distinction from other people. Consensus is not a generalization.

Could I suggest that if you want to counter that you give descriptions of your perceptions rather than attempting to direct how others express themselves?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You don't even understand that my comment you just responded to was to tamarque, not you, yet you are now putting yourself in her place. Crazy!
> 
> Neither of you understand the HL lawsuit.
> 
> I'm resting my case, since I'm wasting my time with you two.


Translation: I am running away now since I wasn't able to browbeat you into submission.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Translation: I am running away now since I wasn't able to browbeat you into submission.


Get help, Janet.

I don't run from anything or anyone.

Some people do not have the capacity to learn or understand; including you.

When I have discussions with people who prove they aren't able to follow the conversation, or separate facts from fiction or use logic and reasoning, I might as well talk to a brick wall.

I know a brick wall when I see one. To date, none can reason or participate in any discussion. They don't file tax returns either.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

" Obama has everything to do with this argument. If not for ObamaCare, HL's lawsuit would not be in existence. I do not hate Obama, I do hate his policy of the ACA, that was passed not in the usual way, ... and has been changed 30 times illegally by Obama. " :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I've read the filed argument, have you?
> 
> You don't understand the case. HL has, for years, provided insurance which included birth control for their employees. HL isn't concerned with their employees sexual lives nor should they be. HL didn't file a lawsuit against birth control.
> 
> You have completely and falsely altered the facts and basis of HL's lawsuit. You don't understand it.


Quite the opposite. First, I noted already in this discussion that HL had been paying for medical insurance that included birth control--for years. So it is disingenuous to raise this issue of freedom of religion for its corporation now.

Women's right to birth control was settled decades ago. HL's raising the issue is not about them, but just their part in an ongoing battle to control women's lives.

Nothing happens in a vaccuum. And that applies to this lawsuit. It has to be understood within the context of the economics and politics of our day and they are being played out. HL did not wake up one day and say 'whoops, what is happening here?' They are part and parcel of a reactionary tendency to destroy the ACA, to attack women's self-determination, to destroy secular prominence in our lawmaking and civil life. HL's argument has been getting promoted by the religious right for quite some time now. They didn't invent it. I would bet that if truth be told, we would discover closed door meetings with so-called leaders of the GOP, Tea Party, fundamentalist right wingers and even the Koch Bros and their ALEC group.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

It's really very simple...

The issue before the SC is NOT whether HL should cover any and/or all forms of contraception methods, the issue before the SC is ONLY about the CO-PAY!

Obamacare forces employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control WITHOUT a co-pay. Prior to that provision in the law taking effect, were women restricted from access? No, they just weren't getting it without a co-pay. So if that so-called contraception mandate went away, things would stay exactly as they were before it began, nothing would have changed. 

Not a single thing has changed EXCEPT for the CO-PAY!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> It's really very simple...
> 
> The issue before the SC is NOT whether HL should cover any and/or all forms of contraception methods, the issue before the SC is ONLY about the CO-PAY!
> 
> ...


Thanks for that contribution to the morning's humor.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Get help, Janet.
> 
> I don't run from anything or anyone.
> 
> ...


Uh huh.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Get help, Janet.
> 
> I don't run from anything or anyone.
> 
> ...


I beg to differ. You seem to be bright, bright enough to find ways of twisting an argument to shore up your state of cognitive dissonance. You can look that one up on your own.
I have dealt with many people like you and you do run away with ad hominems about other people's character defaults. That is what cognitive dissonance will get you.

And this is something that I will hold to firmly--The right wing is notorious for using emotional arguments, rarely any facts, and character assassination in order to get their way.


----------



## Casey47 (Feb 5, 2014)

DGreen said:


> If they hired only like-minded people, they would be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that says you can't discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring. That, by the way, protects EVERYBODY, including you. They are a public company and are required to follow the law like everyone else.


You are so right - I wasn't thinking about that side of it. The points you make are excellent but I still think it's really about the money. I also recognize that I'm probably not smart enough or well informed enough to be posting my opinions. But I've had personal experiences where the most devout people were able to do unchristian things for profit. A separation of 'business and church' if you will. Anyway, as I said (and others have said better), if Hobby Lobby is taking this stand for reasons of religious beliefs, how then can they do business with China where many 'Christian' values are meaningless. It's double standards for gain.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Uh huh.


I'm still here. Haven't run, have I?

Project your foolishness on someone else.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

Tamarque writes, "The right wing [sic] is notorious for using emotional arguments, rarely any facts, and character assassination in order to get their way." ALL excited politicians, demagogues, and their followers talk and write this way. Everyone here either tries to express herself with civility or should be doing so! IMHO.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

tamarque said:


> I beg to differ. You seem to be bright, bright enough to find ways of twisting an argument to shore up your state of cognitive dissonance. You can look that one up on your own.
> I have dealt with many people like you and you do run away with ad hominems about other people's character defaults. That is what cognitive dissonance will get you.
> 
> And this is something that I will hold to firmly--The right wing is notorious for using emotional arguments, rarely any facts, and character assassination in order to get their way.


Thank you for your compliment. I'm bright enough to know you do not understand the HL lawsuit, and that you are bright enough to manipulate your words to suit your ideals.

You don't deal in facts, but your opinion presented as facts. I don't buy anything you sell, but you have your write to post your propaganda.

When one, such as you, cannot argue the facts, you manipulate them and attempt to analysis others to prove your point. It doesn't work on me. I cannot, of course, speak for others.

Haven't you noticed I don't respond to your posts? They are loaded with lies, propaganda and biases and not very interesting either. I prefer to converse with those offering solid logic, facts and reasoning along with opinions different from my own. Otherwise the exercise is futile and boring.

I would say you need to be pointed.

Have a nice day.


----------



## nanllg (Aug 23, 2011)

The way I understood the case explained by one of Hobby Lobby's lawyers was that they already provide birth control for employees but the problem is FOUR of the birth control methods cause abortion and that is what they are objecting to. Birth control okay abortion not.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

taborhills said:


> " Obama has everything to do with this argument. If not for ObamaCare, HL's lawsuit would not be in existence. I do not hate Obama, I do hate his policy of the ACA, that was passed not in the usual way, ... and has been changed 30 times illegally by Obama. " :thumbup: :thumbup:


Hurrah! A voice of reason and understanding. :thumbup:


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

nanllg said:


> The way I understood the case explained by one of Hobby Lobby's lawyers was that they already provide birth control for employees but the problem is FOUR of the birth control methods cause abortion and that is what they are objecting to. Birth control okay abortion not.


That is true. But the fact is that they are making a false argument. None of the b.c. methods cause abortion. That is the accepted science of these methods. FYI, the morning after pill is not covered under the ACA and, thus, cannot be considered in this discussion, or the lawsuit.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Thank you for your compliment. I'm bright enough to know you do not understand the HL lawsuit, and that you are bright enough to manipulate your words to suit your ideals.
> 
> You don't deal in facts, but your opinion presented as facts. I don't buy anything you sell, but you have your write to post your propaganda.
> 
> ...


Thank you for making my point exactly. You use the very tactics to avoid facts that I listed.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

"I would say you need to be pointed"????


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

tamarque said:


> You use the very tactics to avoid facts that I listed.


You didn't use hardly any, remember? I do.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It seems to me that if businesses don't like operating under the US Constitution they can take their product and sell it somewhere else. China perhaps? That way they can be open about supporting the abortions that their product supplier forces on their citizenry.
> What ever makes you think that contraceptives cost $10. per month? It is upwards of $1000. to have an IUD implanted.
> You haven't learned self control of your fingers and that would be much simpler, you continue to spew hatefilled rhetoric.


Based on my research, an IUD costs from $500-1000 and lasts for 5-10 years, with no additional cost during those years. That breaks down to less than $9/month. Many health providers will allow patients who lack adequate insurance coverage to make monthly payments.

BTW, I am not "spewing hateful rhetoric". I am providing factual information and commenting based on my opinion. The facts have been researched and I AM entitled to have my own opinion. Just because YOU happen to disagree does not mean my comments are hateful.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

taborhills said:


> "I would say you need to be pointed"????


I referred to people who cannot use facts, logic and reasoning in my conversations with them as less interesting and more futile than me talking to a brick wall.

A brick wall is nothing but a pile of rubble with mortar to hold it and seal it together. When the mortar crumbles, cracks, fails or falls away from its purpose, it is time to remove the old stuff and replace with new. The process is called pointing, or repointing.

The pointing has to be done with care and with the proper tools and materials to avoid permanently compromising or destroying the integrity of the original brick structure.

For me, it is exactly what those on KP who speak without reason, logic or facts need; repointing!

:-D


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Based on my research, an IUD costs from $500-1000 and lasts for 5-10 years, with no additional cost during those years. That breaks down to less than $9/month. Many health providers will allow patients who lack adequate insurance coverage to make monthly payments.
> 
> BTW, I am not "spewing hateful rhetoric". I am providing factual information and commenting based on my opinion. The facts have been researched and I AM entitled to have my own opinion. Just because YOU happen to disagree does not mean my comments are hateful.


 :thumbup: BTW: I'm intrigued by your avatar; very pretty!


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Colorado knits said:


> You really don't get it, do you. HL is a for-profit company trying to force their beliefs on employees.


HL is a PRIVATE for-profit company, exercising their constitutional right. As of right now, that is still allowed in America. Please tell me what it is they are "forcing" their employees to believe.

Do they require their employees to be Christian? No.
Do they require their employees to attend church? No.
Do they require their employees not to use birth control? No.
Do they tell their employees they cannot have an abortion? No.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Where life begins is NOT the issue. The question is whether a corporation can use religion to restrict employee's personal decisions.


HL is NOT "restricting employee's personal decisions". They are simply not willing to pay for contraception that violates their religious beliefs. Employees can decide whether or not to use those methods. If they choose to do so, they will have to pay for it themselves. What a concept - paying for your own needs!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> HL is a PRIVATE for-profit company, exercising their constitutional right. As of right now, that is still allowed in America. Please tell me what it is they are "forcing" their employees to believe.
> 
> Do they require their employees to be Christian? No.
> Do they require their employees to attend church? No.
> ...


You are spot on! Thank you for stating more of the truth.

HL even has provided for years several options within their insurance program for birth control products and drugs for their employees. The ACA, however, mandates that all businesses that have not been granted a waiver by Obama or his HHS figureheads, denial of their Constitutional rights.

That is what the HL case is about.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Thank you for making my point exactly. You use the very tactics to avoid facts that I listed.


And she doesn't respond to your posts other than this one and the one that she squawked at another KPer for responding to, and any of the others she has answered. 
Piece of work, she is.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup: BTW: I'm intrigued by your avatar; very pretty!


Thank you!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Thank you for your compliment. I'm bright enough to know you do not understand the HL lawsuit, and that you are bright enough to manipulate your words to suit your ideals.
> 
> You don't deal in facts, but your opinion presented as facts. I don't buy anything you sell, but you have your write to post your propaganda.
> 
> ...


How many times must I override the self-correcting features on my electronics!

Above, I typed, "... but you have your _right_ to post your propaganda."

grrrr .....


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Based on my research, an IUD costs from $500-1000 and lasts for 5-10 years, with no additional cost during those years. That breaks down to less than $9/month. Many health providers will allow patients who lack adequate insurance coverage to make monthly payments.
> 
> .


Health providers allow patients to take 5-10 years to pay for services? Hardly.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Not sure what people don't want to understand concerning health insurance being earned compensation, the employer is not giving a gift that is determined by the corporation. Compensation is used by the earner at will.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Not sure what people don't want to understand concerning health insurance being earned compensation, the employer is not giving a gift that is determined by the corporation. Compensation is used by the earner at will.


Please point out the IRS form on which I report my "earned compensation" called health insurance.

Further, please tell me what form of being gave me my health insurance since you state that corps are not people and that my insurance was not determined by a person, but a corp.

Can I also use my insurance at will or will Obama and HHS determine how I'm to use my insurance?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts - you said: Don't you remember what Obama did so that Scott Brown could not vote on the ACA? I guess you have selective memory. 

Memory is not involved here. Facts are. Obama had nothing to do with Scott Brown's swearing in. What, are you now a conspiracy theorist, too?

Consider:

Brown was elected in a 2010 special election to finish the term of the late-Sen. Edward Kennedy. When Kennedy died on Aug. 25, 2009, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick appointed a Democrat, Paul Kirk, to hold his seat. State law requires a special election for federal seats to be held between 145 and 160 days of when the vacancy occurred -- or in the case of Kennedys seat somewhere between Jan. 17, 2010, and Feb. 1, 2010.

Massachusetts election was Jan. 19, 2010, the first Tuesday in that window. Brown, who had campaigned on being the 41st vote against the health care legislation, defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by a vote of 52 percent to 47 percent.

Browns victory did not mean he could just move to Capitol Hill and start casting votes the next day. Brown was sworn in Feb. 4, 2010, 16 days after his election.

Was his swearing-in ceremony delayed?

No.

Cities and towns in Massachusetts have 15 days to send final results to the Massachusetts Secretary of State, including a 10-day window for counting absentee and overseas ballots.

"It wasnt delayed," said Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin. "This process had to be done."

In fact, Brown was sworn in a week earlier than he had planned, according to media reports. After receiving criticism of his "three-week victory lap" from a newspaper columnist, he wrote state officials asking for his election results to be certified immediately. The results were certified by the governors council and sent to the U.S. Senate "as soon as the ink was dry," McNiff said.
- from Politifact.com


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You really don't got it, do you. HL is a company, who chooses to hire employees, paying them more than the required minimums, are in business for a profit as are 100% of all for-profit businesses, who are seeking the laws afforded them by the Constitution of the USA are followed.
> 
> Anyone who doesn't support HL in their lawsuit, are trying to force their personal beliefs upon others.


Quite the opposite.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Please point out the IRS form on which I report my "earned compensation" called health insurance.
> 
> Further, please tell me what form of being gave me my health insurance since you state that corps are not people and that my insurance was not determined by a person, but a corp.
> 
> Can I also use my insurance at will or will Obama and HHS determine how I'm to use my insurance?


So your benefit package is not a part of your compensation? I want to make sure I understand your position correctly.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Health providers allow patients to take 5-10 years to pay for services? Hardly.


No kidding. Those bills go to collection agencies.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> So your benefit package is not a part of your compensation? I want to make sure I understand your position correctly.


When the democrats finally get their way and tax our benefit packages as earned income, THEN it will be considered part of our compensation...and not until then.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> When the democrats finally get their way and tax our benefit packages as earned income, THEN it will be considered part of our compensation...and not until then.


Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Benefits are most assuredly part of your compensation package. Always have been. Companies calculate the cost of benefits into the overall budget for each employee's position. They include it in the cost of wages/compensation when calculating expenses.

It is not a "gift" from the employer. Some packages are just more generous than others.

You are confusing taxable income with compensation.

Ladies - help me out here. Is there an accountant out there?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Colorado knits said:


> No kidding. Those bills go to collection agencies.


They go right away, too. I've been threatened with collection agencies when a disputed bill was delayed for payment by 30 days.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> Abortion/killing of a child???? Come on.


If abortion was not done, you would have a baby, so with the abortion you have killed that baby.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

A compensation "package" is a combination of salary, benefits, and other employee programs...that is true. 

It varies from company to company and is simply an umbrella term covering the myriad of ways in which an employee is "compensated." 

In terms of income, it is technically not "compensation" unless it is taxed.

We're splitting hairs here precisely BECAUSE it is an umbrella term...and it becomes moot.


----------



## Melz (May 29, 2011)

Okay, I give up. Can't seem to get this right, I think I'll give up trying to post.


----------



## Nanacarolann (Oct 22, 2013)

nitnana said:


> I may have missed the question - and the correct answer - but is Hobby Lobby paying for this insurance or just "offering" it to their employees? Very few businesses pay for health ins. fully anymore. If it is being offered, no one has to use if all (or most) of their employees are past fertility, as one post said. There are many things my ins. covers which I am sure (hopefully!) I will never use - and I heard that there is no additional cost whether the contraceptive meds are included or not! So, the problem is that it simply offends the owners' religion. And they are NOT a religious institution. Many women are prescribed those meds for their health - not to induce an abortion!Maybe even some of the nuns who were mentioned! Nuff said.


The entire issue here is that HL is providing bIrth control, but object to supplying four drugs that are for abortion. 
I think that if people don't want to comply with the companies insurance policies, they can find a job somewhere else. At least that is they way I understand it. I am from a small town in NH too, but haven't lived there for many years, I miss NH. I read your profile and we seem to have a lot in 
Common as far as interest go. Hope you have a delightful day. Nanacarolann


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Please point out the IRS form on which I report my "earned compensation" called health insurance.
> 
> Further, please tell me what form of being gave me my health insurance since you state that corps are not people and that my insurance was not determined by a person, but a corp.
> 
> Can I also use my insurance at will or will Obama and HHS determine how I'm to use my insurance?


If you actually earn money through working and you check your earnings statement and the listings are right there. 
Federal Income Tax
Social Security Tax
Medicare Tax

Dental Pretax
Medical Pretax

Of course, if you don't earn money then you don't have an earnings statement to check.
Then, you poor dear, you don't know about Schedule A... itemized deduction for the employee portion of the health insurance premium along with other medical expenses, I guess.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Health providers allow patients to take 5-10 years to pay for services? Hardly.


Actually, yes, they do, as long as arrangements are made in advance. Most health care providers are very willing to work with people in difficult financial situations.

Now, if you receive a bill for $1000 and simply ignore it or just pay what you can, without making advance arrangements, you most likely will be put into collections.

But, it seems you may have missed the actual point of the comment. That is, when averaged over the effective time of the device, an IUD is no more expensive than the pill.

It is up to a doctor and patient to decide which contraceptive is right for the patient, taking ALL considerations into account, including whether or not the patient has insurance coverage for each option. Then the patient can choose which option works best in their situation.


----------



## jaa520 (Apr 16, 2013)

Wibdgrfan, I totally agree with you.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Wibdgrfan said:


> It is up to a doctor and patient to decide which contraceptive is right for the patient, taking ALL considerations into account, including whether or not the patient has insurance coverage for each option. Then the patient can choose which option works best in their situation.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Actually, yes, they do, as long as arrangements are made in advance. Most health care providers are very willing to work with people in difficult financial situations.
> 
> Now, if you receive a bill for $1000 and simply ignore it or just pay what you can, without making advance arrangements, you most likely will be put into collections.
> 
> ...


Averaging the cost is of no help when a woman can't afford the up-front cost.

Taking 5-10 years to pay is a stretch - I seriously doubt many health care providers would be willing to go that far, particularly those who are very large, corporate practices.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Averaging the cost is of no help when a woman can't afford the up-front cost.
> 
> Taking 5-10 years to pay is a stretch - I seriously doubt many health care providers would be willing to go that far, particularly those who are very large, corporate practices.


You might be surprised. Either way, that is why a woman and her doctor must consider ALL aspects of each contraceptive method, including financial restrictions, before making a decision. If a woman cannot afford an IUD, whether making one payment or several payments, then that is not a viable option for her, even if that is her preference.

Many people, myself included, have to make similar medical or drug decisions. If a certain medication or procedure is not covered under my policy, or the co-pay does not fit into my budget, I explore other options and then choose the option that both solves the medical concern AND is affordable under my plan.

And, be honest, there are very few cases in which birth control is a life or death situation, unless, of course, you happen to be the unborn child whose mother wants an abortion. (Please note - I am NOT speaking about cases where the mother's life is in danger!)


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Actually, yes, they do, as long as arrangements are made in advance. Most health care providers are very willing to work with people in difficult financial situations.
> 
> Now, if you receive a bill for $1000 and simply ignore it or just pay what you can, without making advance arrangements, you most likely will be put into collections.
> 
> ...


This is simply a distraction, while I appreciate you sharing your experience of spreading payments out over decades this case is about corporate standing to deny people who are earning compensation the right to use it as they see fit due to religious beliefs. 
Hobby Lobby wants the protections without the responsibilities.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> This is simply a distraction, while I appreciate you sharing your experience of spreading payments out over decades this case is about corporate standing to deny people who are earning compensation the right to use it as they see fit due to religious beliefs.
> Hobby Lobby wants the protections without the responsibilities.


Your statement that Hobby Lobby wants the protections without the responsibilities is simply not true.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> How many times must I override the self-correcting features on my electronics!
> 
> Above, I typed, "... but you have your _right_ to post your propaganda."
> 
> grrrr .....


First accurate thing you have written--altho perhaps a Freudian slip


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Please point out the IRS form on which I report my "earned compensation" called health insurance.
> 
> Further, please tell me what form of being gave me my health insurance since you state that corps are not people and that my insurance was not determined by a person, but a corp.
> 
> Can I also use my insurance at will or will Obama and HHS determine how I'm to use my insurance?


Since when could you ever use your medical industry insurance at will. Insurance companies define what they will pay for. Drug corporations control so much of the FDA that it makes that agency a prostitute for Drug corporations and Chemical corporations. Since when could you access different medical personal at your will. Your are extremely limited.

I don't think earned benefits was meant to be taken as if they were cash income. But they are earned by dint of the hard work of the laborers and labor agreements reached over the years.

It seems you not only have a problem with cognitive dissonce, it also seems you are not able to put events into a total picture in order to understand what causes the dialectic to swing the way it does. Anyone who does study of a society, should come away with an overview of the dynamics of that society and be able to interpret new events within a larger context. The blinders you chose to wear preclude your ability to do this it seems.

Just a reminder that all legal actions take into consideration the current climate of acceptability which is why Bush was so hot to trot on appointing radical right wingers who would push his reactionary agenda. He was not going to let some independent thinking middle of the roaders sit on the bench. And because of this installed bias on the Supreme Court, this case is very critical.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Your statement that Hobby Lobby wants the protections without the responsibilities is simply not true.


Really? Please show me where I have gone wrong? 
Could you tell us which corporate benefits they shun?


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Really? Please show me where I have gone wrong?
> Could you tell us which corporate benefits they shun?


Apparently our opposition is not aware that corporations get tax benefits by providing acceptable insurance. HL wants to give medical insurance but wants to change the law so it can provide only what it wants and still get the benefits.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> This is simply a distraction, while I appreciate you sharing your experience of spreading payments out over decades this case is about corporate standing to deny people who are earning compensation the right to use it as they see fit due to religious beliefs.
> Hobby Lobby wants the protections without the responsibilities.


Please do not exaggerate. I never said anything about spreading payments out over decades. I said 5-10 years. 10 years is one decade, not several decades.

Actually, this case is about Congress passing a law which prevents the free exercise of religion (as protected in the first amendment) by requiring that all methods of birth control (including abortion) be included in all health plans, and how that law relates to corporations who are owned by individuals whose religious beliefs do not allow said abortions. It has absolutely nothing to do with denying employees the right to use their earnings as they see fit. That is why I continue to point out that HL is not preventing any of their employees from using the compensation they earn as they see fit. If the employee wishes to purchase birth control not covered in their plan, they are free to spend their money to do so.

This is a very complicated case and unless you are an attorney who has thoroughly studied the related case law as well as the US Constitution, it is very difficult to understand all the aspects. I know I must continue to read and learn more about this case as it progresses, but I also strive to be as accurate as I can when discussing it with others. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and distortion of the facts serve no one.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Really? Please show me where I have gone wrong?
> Could you tell us which corporate benefits they shun?


They have taken the responsibility. They provide their employees a fair wage and provide them with insurance, including many forms of birth control. The only thing they do not want to pay for is anything that would cause an abortion. Their employees are welcome to pay for that themselves.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Please do not exaggerate. I never said anything about spreading payments out over decades. I said 5-10 years. 10 years is one decade, not several decades.
> 
> Actually, this case is about Congress passing a law which prevents the free exercise of religion (as protected in the first amendment) by requiring that all methods of birth control (including abortion) be included in all health plans, and how that law relates to corporations who are owned by individuals whose religious beliefs do not allow said abortions. It has absolutely nothing to do with denying employees the right to use their earnings as they see fit. That is why I continue to point out that HL is not preventing any of their employees from using the compensation they earn as they see fit. If the employee wishes to purchase birth control not covered in their plan, they are free to spend their money to do so.
> 
> This is a very complicated case and unless you are an attorney who has thoroughly studied the related case law as well as the US Constitution, it is very difficult to understand all the aspects. I know I must continue to read and learn more about this case as it progresses, but I also strive to be as accurate as I can when discussing it with others. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and distortion of the facts serve no one.


I agree.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> knitpresentgifts - you said: Don't you remember what Obama did so that Scott Brown could not vote on the ACA? I guess you have selective memory.
> 
> Memory is not involved here. Facts are. Obama had nothing to do with Scott Brown's swearing in. What, are you now a conspiracy theorist, too?


Nope, I believe in facts, unlike you.

Consider how the Dems in the DC Senate wanted to count Kirk's vote while ramming through Obama's nomination of Craig Becker BEFORE Brown was seated in Washington.

Also remember the facts of Pelosi swearing in an unelected candidate in violation of the US Constitution and NY state law in order for the Speaker of the House to get passage of the ACA bill passed (by an extremely narrow margin), and back to the Senate so the Senate didn't have to approve an amended bill they had already passed on to the House.

Also remember that *not one, * I'll repeat, not *one* Republican in either House of Congress voted for the ACA.

The entirety of the failed law known as ObamaCare is 100% on the Democrats and Obama himself.

Your selective memory serves you well.

Your beloved Dems don't agree with you however. The majority of them are currently distancing themselves from the ACA and Obama.

Wonder why?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> When the democrats finally get their way and tax our benefit packages as earned income, THEN it will be considered part of our compensation...and not until then.


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> So your benefit package is not a part of your compensation? I want to make sure I understand your position correctly.


You're catching on; benefits are not earned compensation nor are they taxed, yet, in the majority of tax returns, which is what I stated refuting Janet Cooke's assertions.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> ...


Yes, me. BTW: multiple business owner, too, in other professions.

You, again are wrong, wrong, and more wrong and do need help in your understanding. I've tried to explain it to you, but you cannot listen with an open mind in order to comprehend what I've said to you.

BTW: are the "companies" and "employer" you mentioned people? You still refuse to answer who pays a corp's tax liabilities.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Please do not exaggerate. I never said anything about spreading payments out over decades. I said 5-10 years. 10 years is one decade, not several decades.
> 
> Actually, this case is about Congress passing a law which prevents the free exercise of religion (as protected in the first amendment) by requiring that all methods of birth control (including abortion) be included in all health plans, and how that law relates to corporations who are owned by individuals whose religious beliefs do not allow said abortions. It has absolutely nothing to do with denying employees the right to use their earnings as they see fit. That is why I continue to point out that HL is not preventing any of their employees from using the compensation they earn as they see fit. If the employee wishes to purchase birth control not covered in their plan, they are free to spend their money to do so.
> 
> This is a very complicated case and unless you are an attorney who has thoroughly studied the related case law as well as the US Constitution, it is very difficult to understand all the aspects. I know I must continue to read and learn more about this case as it progresses, but I also strive to be as accurate as I can when discussing it with others. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and distortion of the facts serve no one.


Actually, the case is about a corporation that wants to control the sex lives of its employees while enjoying the cash flow they think they deserve for providing less than adequate choices.

Back to the payments over time, you seem to have neglected to include in your plan that the IUDs must be removed and replaced either by another IUD or another form of birth control. 
So, yes, decades.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> If you actually earn money through working and you check your earnings statement and the listings are right there.
> Federal Income Tax
> Social Security Tax
> Medicare Tax
> ...


Good, God. You are hopeless.

What IRS FORM do I (not anyone who sends me an earning statement) report my "earned health insurance" amount received, Janet?

I file so many schedules you wouldn't be able to count that high. Do not presume to tell me what you do not know anything about.

BTW: You cannot deduct Medical exps on Schedule A UNLESS and UNTIL they are over a specific % of your AGI.

You're welcome for the free tax advice.

Trying answering one question that I posed to you if you want me to continue responding to you.

Here are the three most recent that I asked you based on your assertions:

1) Please point out the IRS form on which I report my "earned compensation" called health insurance.

2) Further, please tell me what form of being gave me my health insurance since you state that corps are not people and that my insurance was not determined by a person, but a corp.

3) Can I also use my insurance at will or will Obama and HHS determine how I'm to use my insurance?

Man, I just remembered. You, Janet, have no clue when it comes to taxes, business, and numbers. I'll refrain from asking you any further questions or responding to you on those topics.

It would only serve to confuse you further and bore any other reader.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup:


Here in Canada, we have a box for "Taxable Benefits." These are the benefits for which the employer pays, but we pay tax on. Seems fair to me.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Actually, yes, they do, as long as arrangements are made in advance. Most health care providers are very willing to work with people in difficult financial situations.
> 
> Now, if you receive a bill for $1000 and simply ignore it or just pay what you can, without making advance arrangements, you most likely will be put into collections.
> 
> ...


That is the logical and expected way of doing things. However, that doesn't mean most KPers do it that way, as I've learned reading these remarkable posts. 
:shock:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Good, God. You are hopeless.
> 
> What FORM do I report my "earned health insurance" amount received, Janet?
> 
> ...


So why are you asking me something that you already know the answer to? Why are you telling me things that it is quite obvious that I already know? 
If one does not have sufficient deductions to itemize the standard deduction is used. 
The corporation claims the applicable percentage of expenses on their end. 
How many times do I have to say this?
I give you this same info every time we have an employer/employee discussion in one form or another.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> This is simply a distraction, while I appreciate you sharing your experience of spreading payments out over decades this case is about corporate standing to deny people who are earning compensation the right to use it as they see fit due to religious beliefs.
> Hobby Lobby wants the protections without the responsibilities.


head - to - desk - slam

You understand nothing that has been posted.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Your statement that Hobby Lobby wants the protections without the responsibilities is simply not true.


 :thumbup: Several KPers have tried, repeatedly to explain the HL case to Janet and others. They simply cannot understand.

I've given up.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Actually, the case is about a corporation that wants to control the sex lives of its employees while enjoying the cash flow they think they deserve for providing less than adequate choices.


No, it's not. This type of comment is a prime example of exaggeration, hyperbole and distortion of facts. Please give an example of how HL has or is controlling the sex lives of it's employees.



Janet Cooke said:


> Back to the payments over time, you seem to have neglected to include in your plan that the IUDs must be removed and replaced either by another IUD or another form of birth control.
> So, yes, decades.


The payments for ONE procedure would not extend over decades. Please stick to the facts. I am happy to engage in a discussion, but you are not being factual, nor are you being reasonable.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Actually, the case is about a corporation that wants to control the sex lives of its employees while enjoying the cash flow they think they deserve for providing less than adequate choices.


Uh, huh.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BlueJay21 said:


> Here in Canada, we have a box for "Taxable Benefits." These are the benefits for which the employer pays, but we pay tax on. Seems fair to me.


Understood. However, you also have socialized health care, or a one-payer system for health care in your country as I understand it.

The USA does not presently and our health insurance costs are not taxable income.

We do have co-pays and deductibles for our health care services.

We used to enjoy one of the best health care systems, doctors, specialists, staff members and services in the world.

The ACA is doing its best to change that.

So far, the ACA has done nothing affordable nor beneficial to American citizens. It has decidedly divided our citizens further, placed undue circumstances and burdens upon them, drastically increased our national deficit and ruined already thousands of lives.

Millions, 40-60+millions of health insurance policies, not people, mind you, but policies have been predicted to be effected in a negative way. Image the number of people negatively affected if you think of the average family to be four people.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> head - to - desk - slam
> 
> You understand nothing that has been posted.


Do it again, do it again, harder harder.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> So why are you asking me something that you already know the answer to?


I asked you three simple ?s based on what you claimed to be the facts. I don't know how you would answer nor know how your mind would answer those questions because you don't have the capacity to answer those question I now realize after multiple responses from you. I know you don't understand the facts re corporations even though you claim you do. You have proven you don't know by not being able to answer any questions.

I've tried to follow your reasoning, but you have none.



Janet Cooke said:


> Why are you telling me things that it is quite obvious that I already know? [/quote}
> 
> I'm not. Besides, you don't know, or at least, haven't expressed anything accurate to me on these topics. Earlier you asked that I educate you, but apparently, you don't care to learn anything.
> 
> ...


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> head - to - desk - slam
> 
> You understand nothing that has been posted.


I disagree. Janet understands exactly what has been posted. She is doing this solely for the argument/fight with you, nothing more, nothing less. Her behavior is predictable.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Understood. However, you also have socialized, or a one-payer system for health care in your country as I understand it.
> 
> The USA does not presently and our health insurance costs are not taxable income.
> 
> ...


You are so full of fertilizer. Of course, our expenses are deductible. I just explained all of this to you, if you have enough expenses they are itemized on Schedule A, if not they are included in your standardized deductions. You don't see them, that does not mean that you don't get credit for them.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> If a Jehovah's witness owns their own business and does not wish to provide for blood transfusions in their corporate-paid health care plan, I would fully support their right to do so. And their employees and customers could choose whether or not they wish to continue working and shopping there.


Fine, but let's be clear about what that literally means;

you support endangering and harming human beings using religious "principle"/"conscience" as an excuse for doing so and worship capitalism more than you do God himself.

Which, IMO, is as blasphemous as it is unconstitutional and unAmerican.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Well, then you support harming people using religious principle as an excuse for doing so.
> 
> Which, IMO, is as blasphemous as it is unconstitutional and unAmerican.


Yup, Yup.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Do it again, do it again, harder harder.


You are not worthy of my time.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> The payments for ONE procedure would not extend over decades. Please stick to the facts. I am happy to engage in a discussion, but you are not being factual, nor are you being reasonable.


 :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> It seems to me that employees who are not happy with their employer's benefits should seek employment elsewhere.


It seems to me that people who want to live in a corporate run theocracy, should seek citizenship elsewhere.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> They have taken the responsibility. They provide their employees a fair wage and provide them with insurance, including many forms of birth control. The only thing they do not want to pay for is anything that would cause an abortion. Their employees are welcome to pay for that themselves.


Once again---these are not methods to cause abortions. It is a contrived argument. The science clearly tells you that these methods do not work by causing abortions. What can't your understand--other than your refusal to get beyond your emotional connection to the issue.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> I disagree. Janet understands exactly what has been posted. She is doing this solely for the argument/fight with you, nothing more, nothing less. Her behavior is predictable.


She is a ........ Never mind. She wants the fight? She can get if from someone who cares. I agree, her behavior is predictable and also despicable.

She asked me to educate her. I tried. She is incapable of learning.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> It seems to me that people who want to live in a corporate run theocracy, should seek citizenship elsewhere.


Oh, that is funny. The perfect answer to 'go live in Russia!'


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Understood. However, you also have socialized, or a one-payer system for health care in your country as I understand it.
> 
> The USA does not presently and our health insurance costs are not taxable income.
> 
> ...


I was responding to the taxable benefits, not the health care system per se. If you receive a benefit that is paid for by the employer, such as insurance of any kind, then this would be a taxable benefit, just as if the employer had given you the money and you had spent it on the benefit that was given by the employer. Not every employer pays for the employees' medical plan. Some employers actually include the amount of the premium in the pay; i.e., $x for working + $y for benefits. Just a different way of getting the same result.

It would be nice if the US could implement a medical plan similar to that used in Canada, so that everyone benefitted. It seems to be a very expensive system you have at present and I am sure there are many people who go without medical aid because of the cost. President Obama, I think from what I have heard and read, was trying to create a more universal programme. These things sometimes take time to develop, particularly when there seems to be such strong opposition from other parties.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> You are so full of fertilizer. Of course, our expenses are deductible. I just explained all of this to you, if you have enough expenses they are itemized on Schedule A, if not they are included in your standardized deductions. You don't see them, that does not mean that you don't get credit for them.


Lie - wrong - stupid. Perhaps you'll get audited. Maybe then you'll learn something.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> If a person absolutely cannot afford $10 a month for contraceptives, perhaps they can learn to exercise some self-control and refrain from sexual intercourse. It CAN be done.


Having sex is part of being a human being and is a medical necessity, therefore what you just said is that poor people are not allowed to live as human beings.

Yes, being celibate CAN be done, just like many other forms of medical self-harm CAN be done, but it's not healthy. I suppose someone can learn to not sneeze when they need to also, but that doesn't erase the fact that their body needs to sneeze and it would be harmful to them in the long-run if they are continually prevented from sneezing.

It's sick and inhuman and literally unAmerican to suggest that human beings don't have the right to equal protection under the law or to live as full human beings with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which indubitably includes sexual intercourse.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Fine, but let's be clear about what that literally means;
> 
> you support endangering and harming human beings using religious "principle"/"conscience" as an excuse for doing so and worship capitalism more than you do God himself.
> 
> Which, IMO, is as blasphemous as it is unconstitutional and unAmerican.


Please do not twist my words to make your convoluted argument.

A company's (or corporation's) decision not to provide coverage for a certain procedure or drug in no way prevents anyone from paying for that procedure or drug out of their own pocket. In an emergency situation, a hospital or care-giver will treat the patient as needed to stabilize or preserve life. Doctors and nurses are seldom aware of what type of insurance coverage any given patient may or may not have. Ability to pay does not factor into emergency life-saving care. If it is not an emergency situation, arrangements can be made in advance for those who cannot afford to pay in full at the time of service.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are not worthy of my time.


Then, please, stop responding to my posts. 
You seem to forget that the KP world was happily rolling along for quite some time without your joy kill surrounding every thread I post on. 
Just go away. Don't waste our time...


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Discrimination is when one person or group of persons is treated differently than other people or groups of people. HL is treating all of it's employees the same, therefore there is no discrimination.


No, they are specifically denying ONLY WOMEN the medical care that they require.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are correct. You cannot and do not answer any questions posed to you because you do not know the answers.
> 
> You have no knowledge of how and why a corporation is formed, who or how their tax liabilities are paid nor how to prepare a corp tax return.
> 
> ...


Thank you, God.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Yes, and HL is entitled to its own belief, just as you are entitled to yours.


And no one is forcing them to have different beliefs. But they are trying to force their employees to live by their beliefs.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BlueJay21 said:


> I was responding to the taxable benefits, not the health care system per se. If you receive a benefit that is paid for by the employer, such as insurance of any kind, then this would be a taxable benefit, just as if the employer had given you the money and you had spent it on the benefit that was given by the employer. Not every employer pays for the employees' medical plan. Some employers actually include the amount of the premium in the pay; i.e., $x for working + $y for benefits. Just a different way of getting the same result.
> 
> It would be nice if the US could implement a medical plan similar to that used in Canada, so that everyone benefitted. It seems to be a very expensive system you have at present and I am sure there are many people who go without medical aid because of the cost. President Obama, I think from what I have heard and read, was trying to create a more universal programme. These things sometimes take time to develop, particularly when there seems to be such strong opposition from other parties.


I disagree. I was talking about taxable health insurance benefits and you implied you were discussing the same.

In the US, health insurance premiums paid on behalf of a wage earning are not presently taxable. Same with a life insurance policy benefit from an employer. Or cafeteria, or gym membership, etc. That is now - who knows in the future.

It would NOT be great if the USA implements a health care system as what is the Canadian system.

Presently about 70-78% of Americans do NOT want what the Democratic Party of the US Congress passed to change our health care system.

The ACA (ObamaCare) law that was passed (not properly) about four years ago is a 100% failure.

It most likely will dissolve on its own accord and I couldn't be more pleased.

The biggest problems are the massive debt and hardship Obama and his Admin has caused millions of Americans who deserve better.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Montana Gramma said:


> VocalLisa said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to pay for ignorant conservatives procreating either as I think it's bound to be harmful to society in general , but since it would be discriminatory to deny conservatives medical care costs due to their choice to reproduce, I will probably still have to pay for it.
> ...


Boy, my very simple point went right over YOUR head.









Yes, my perspective would be rude and discriminatory I would not have the right to deny them medical coverage based on my discriminatory POV, whether it was "religiously based".

Just as HL's "perspective" is a rude and discriminatory "slam", whether they use "religious conscience" as an excuse to do so or not.

That was my point.

And just like I should not have the right, as a business owner to deny ignorant conservatives the medical support/insurance they need to procreate, (_even if that's against MY "religious conscience_") they should not have the right to do that to others who disagree with THEIR philosophy.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Based on my research, an IUD costs from $500-1000 and lasts for 5-10 years, with no additional cost during those years. That breaks down to less than $9/month. Many health providers will allow patients who lack adequate insurance coverage to make monthly payments.
> 
> BTW, I am not "spewing hateful rhetoric". I am providing factual information and commenting based on my opinion. The facts have been researched and I AM entitled to have my own opinion. Just because YOU happen to disagree does not mean my comments are hateful.


I was going to just ask, then decided that it was preferable to show you where you figured the cost of a one time insertion over time. That sure looks to be spread out over a decade for $1000. procedure.

And you know, I believe that these days physicians' offices actually arrange for financing not payments directly to the docs. That messy for profit medical thing... so there would be credit checks and finance charges.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Fine, but let's be clear about what that literally means;
> 
> you support endangering and harming human beings using religious "principle"/"conscience" as an excuse for doing so and worship capitalism more than you do God himself.
> 
> Which, IMO, is as blasphemous as it is unconstitutional and unAmerican.


This is about what you were responding to.

It's weird thinking isn't it.
...hates anything about contraceptives/abortion and yet would support a companies religious decision that would let a "living" child die if it needed a blood transfusion.
Sad, sad.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Then, please, stop responding to my posts.
> You seem to forget that the KP world was happily rolling along for quite some time without your joy kill surrounding every thread I post on.
> Just go away. Don't waste our time...


You seem to forget to is you who repeatedly responds to me!

I cannot help that you love me and have something negative or spiteful to say to most of my postings.

When I wasn't posting the past few weeks, or whenever I'm not active on KP, you regularly and often speak of me and call for me to post. You repeatedly refer to my posts even when I'm not on the thread where you are participating.

You should learn to be honest with yourself and others.

You insult me at every opportunity. That's OK, I can take whatever you cannot rise above.

I get a kick out of you repeating and using my very words to you back at me. Do you know imitation is the highest form of flattery?

I guess you cannot take the heat, so I'll leave your kitchen, Cooke.

Better luck next time in your endeavors. I'm sorry your life, marriage and business were failures for you.

I'm sure others, as I have, tried to help you but you ignored them as well.

I know I'm not a "joy kill" as you suggest. I wonder if you have any idea of the friendships and social relationships that have been granted to me from other KPers. I can only believe you do not share my same blessings. I, like anyone, can see your public words and attitudes to others. We are not alike.

I can easily ignore you in the future.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Please do not exaggerate. I never said anything about spreading payments out over decades. I said 5-10 years. 10 years is one decade, not several decades.
> 
> Actually, this case is about Congress passing a law which prevents the free exercise of religion (as protected in the first amendment) by requiring that all methods of birth control (including abortion) be included in all health plans, and how that law relates to corporations who are owned by individuals whose religious beliefs do not allow said abortions. It has absolutely nothing to do with denying employees the right to use their earnings as they see fit.  That is why I continue to point out that HL is not preventing any of their employees from using the compensation they earn as they see fit. If the employee wishes to purchase birth control not covered in their plan, they are free to spend their money to do so.
> 
> This is a very complicated case and unless you are an attorney who has thoroughly studied the related case law as well as the US Constitution, it is very difficult to understand all the aspects. I know I must continue to read and learn more about this case as it progresses, but I also strive to be as accurate as I can when discussing it with others. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and distortion of the facts serve no one.


Actually, the basic concept of religious freedom (or freedom from religion) is pretty easy to understand. Others have read documentation and commentary on the subject, too. Your version of "accuracy" may not represent a consensus.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> I was responding to the taxable benefits, not the health care system per se. If you receive a benefit that is paid for by the employer, such as insurance of any kind, then this would be a taxable benefit, just as if the employer had given you the money and you had spent it on the benefit that was given by the employer. Not every employer pays for the employees' medical plan. Some employers actually include the amount of the premium in the pay; i.e., $x for working + $y for benefits. Just a different way of getting the same result.
> 
> It would be nice if the US could implement a medical plan similar to that used in Canada, so that everyone benefitted. It seems to be a very expensive system you have at present and I am sure there are many people who go without medical aid because of the cost. President Obama, I think from what I have heard and read, was trying to create a more universal programme. These things sometimes take time to develop, particularly when there seems to be such strong opposition from other parties.


Bluejay in the US we have some of the very worse health and health care among western developed nations.. All the data point to this on a number of health indices tracked. We have the highest infant mortality for example. We also are dying younger. Heart disease, cancer, etc: the US is at the bottom or very close to it.

The cost for this luxury is at least 3x that of other nations with Single Payer systems. The cost for insurance management alone adds a minimum of 10% to the costs, and sometimes way more.

Despite all the emotionality and fearmongering about socialism, many people's lives would be totally destroyed without govt funded programs and entitlements. Most of these people who rail against socialism all relied on public education or they would have had none. That also goes for many other services provided our of the shared national and state funds.

It is more than a sad thing that so many people who had to work hard for a living will rail against govt funded services. The truth is that every time you research the costs and services of govt run services compared to private industry run services, the gov't services always come out ahead for costs and delivery. Utilities are another area that this is true. I would venture a guess that most of the people in this discussion do not know of the history of public utilities for gas and electric. So we have a history to analyze and compare and this, in fact has been done. Public education may have problems but it is not because it is public. It is because it is controlled by private corporations who demand students be trained for industry purposes. One of those purposes is to have workers who are dutiful and don't ask questions; ie, fearful of authority. The voucher system being pushed is a total disaster with theft of monies and poor services to compare with the millions stolen by Haliburton in Iraq.

But don't expect people who have this false image of socialism to understand or believe in the benefits of the Canadian system. So many with experiences on both sides of the border have spoken so favorably about Canada's system of health care.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Nope, I believe in facts, unlike you.
> 
> Consider how the Dems in the DC Senate wanted to count Kirk's vote while ramming through Obama's nomination of Craig Becker BEFORE Brown was seated in Washington.
> 
> ...


What a bunch of right-wing spin. Your views on the "whys" and "hows" of the ACA have no bearing. Why don't we talk about how Bush lied to us about WMDs? Dredge up the old hot button topics. You evidently have quite an agenda.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Having sex is part of being a human being and is a medical necessity, therefore what you just said is that poor people are not allowed to live as human beings.


Oh my goodness!!! Really?? Having sex is a medical necessity? Since when?

And even if that were true, I have in NO WAY suggested that poor people should not be allowed to live as human beings. Your logic is so flawed, I'm not sure I can even begin explain it to you. But for some reason, I'm going to try.

People can have sex or not have sex....poor people, rich people, middle class people, smart people, stupid people, all people can make their own decision regarding this. If they don't want to become pregnant, they should use some form of birth control. If they truly can't afford birth control and their insurance doesn't pay for it, they most likely can obtain it for free from some government agency or Planned Parenthood. If they're too lazy to find out where that is, they have no one to blame but themselves should an unwanted pregnancy occur.

Now, just to remind you........HL DOES provide coverage for 16 birth control drugs in the insurance plan they offer to their employees. Surely, if the "poor" people NEED to have sex to survive, they can make one of those 16 provided options work for them. If not, then maybe they are willing to take the risk associated with sex.........pregnancy.



VocalLisa said:


> Yes, being celibate CAN be done, just like many other forms of medical self-harm CAN be done, but it's not healthy.


Please cite a credible medical source that states being celibate is not healthy. Many people live celibate lives for many different reasons. I doubt that they are unhealthy because of celibacy.



VocalLisa said:


> It's sick and inhuman and literally unAmerican to suggest that human beings don't have the right to equal protection under the law or to live as full human beings with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which indubitably includes sexual intercourse.


HL's owner's are human beings, too. They, too, have a right to equal protection under the law. FYI, the US Constitution does not give anyone the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. That phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence and has nothing to do with the LAWS of our country.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> While the ACA indeed does mandate the coverage, the Supreme Court will determine whether or not that mandate is lawful under our constitution. We do still have a constitution and hopefully, one of these days, those in positions of power will decide to start reading and implementing it again.


Unfortunately the the Theocratic nuts are doing the opposite of understanding the Constitution and are willfully twisting and distorting it in an effort to deny the Constitutional rights of people.

They are arguing to deny basic civil rights and equal protection under the law that the Constitution already guarantees them.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Actually, the basic concept of religious freedom (or freedom from religion) is pretty easy to understand. Others have read documentation and commentary on the subject, too. Your version of "accuracy" may not represent a consensus.


There is no right granted in our Country for freedom "from" religion. The right is freedom "of" religion and pretty easy to understand.

You are not accurate if you are referring to the USA.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Well, in the absence of coverage, they could also pay for their own transfusion, which is what most people would choose to do in a life or death situation.


That's not equal protection under the law, which is, and should be unconstitutional.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

I have enjoyed this topic and engaging in conversation with those of you who are respectful and do not jump to irrational conclusions about the comments made by others. Unfortunately, there are now a couple of people on this thread that cannot be logical, factual rational or respectful. Therefore, I bid you all a good day.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> What a bunch of right-wing spin. Your views on the "whys" and "hows" of the ACA have no bearing. Why don't we talk about how Bush lied to us about WMDs? Dredge up the old hot button topics. You evidently have quite an agenda.


Ya, sure, let's talk about something that happened over 10-12 years ago so you can avoid talking about the topic at hand or the failure of the ACA.

Certainly, the Dems haven't given you any concrete talking points since they are fighting desperately amongst themselves trying to remove themselves from the success of Obamacare.

I have no agenda other than to stick to the topic of the thread. I wasn't the one to bring up unrelated topics, you did.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yes, me. BTW: multiple business owner, too, in other professions.
> 
> You, again are wrong, wrong, and more wrong and do need help in your understanding. I've tried to explain it to you, but you cannot listen with an open mind in order to comprehend what I've said to you.
> 
> BTW: are the "companies" and "employer" you mentioned people? You still refuse to answer who pays a corp's tax liabilities.


The corporation pays it's taxes. When they file their tax returns, the check that pays the taxes is written on the corporate account. For example: When IBM or General Motors pays their corporate taxes, some "person" in the company signs a check. Written on the IBM or General Motors' corporate bank account. Not the president's account, not the CEO's account, not the payroll account. Taxes are an expense - a cost of doing business. A corporation is not a person. It doesn't show up for work at 8:00, it doesn't actually accomplish any tangible work such as bookkeeping, sweeping the floors, manufacturing a computer. People do those things. A conglomerate group of people who work FOR the corporation carry out the goals and activities of the corporation. The people who direct those activities are NOT the corporation - they work for it, just like the secretaries and designers do. What part of that is incorrect?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Wibdgrfan said:


> I have enjoyed this topic and engaging in conversation with those of you who are respectful and do not jump to irrational conclusions about the comments made by others. Unfortunately, there are now a couple of people on this thread that cannot be logical, factual rational or respectful. Therefore, I bid you all a good day.


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> The corporation pays it's taxes. When they file their tax returns, the check that pays the taxes is written on the corporate account. For example: When IBM or General Motors pays their corporate taxes, some "person" in the company signs a check. Written on the IBM or General Motors' corporate bank account. Not the president's account, not the CEO's account, not the payroll account. Taxes are an expense - a cost of doing business. A corporation is not a person. It doesn't show up for work at 8:00, it doesn't actually accomplish any tangible work such as bookkeeping, sweeping the floors, manufacturing a computer. People do those things. A conglomerate group of people who work FOR the corporation carry out the goals and activities of the corporation. The people who direct those activities are NOT the corporation - they work for it, just like the secretaries and designers do. What part of that is incorrect?


Most of it. I'll not comment further. You wouldn't understand if I did.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Freedom of religion encases its opposite. If one is free to believe in a certain faith, it also means that they need to respect the fact that others may chose to believe very differently. 

So the question is how to live in a pluralist society with many different forms of spiritual connection. The answer simply is that you are free to chose your own beliefs as long as you don't interfere with other people's belief systems. If I chose an abortion, it means you have no right to impose your beliefs on me. You can do what ever you like as long as you do not interfere with my life. At that point your freedom of religion has changed into a bullying, or even a threatening behavior and should be made illegal. Period. 

HL is imposing its religious beliefs on others when it makes workers pray before meetings. It is imposing its beliefs on workers when it wants to alter benefits from what is acceptable to its workers.

HL is totally out of step with the public's choices. But it is part of a minority, but vocal and wealthy lobby to restrict women's access to services and products that pertain to their well-being.

As for sex? The issue is unwanted pregnacies. The data clearly shows that the poorer the woman, the greater likelihood there will be an unwanted pregnancy. This is clearly due to access to b.c. which involves cost. 

And it is repugnant to hear the class based elitism about poor women. I would also bet whenever this is said it refers to women of color. But people are not racist here.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Ya, sure, let's talk about something that happened over 10-12 years ago so you can avoid talking about the topic at hand or the failure of the ACA.
> 
> Certainly, the Dems haven't given you any concrete talking points since they are fighting desperately amongst themselves trying to remove themselves from the success of Obamacare.
> 
> I have no agenda other than to stick to the topic of the thread. I wasn't the one to bring up unrelated topics, you did.


Hogwash. ACA has not failed. Dems like it. It's working. It's lowering costs. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. You've been listening to too much right-wing propaganda.

Actually, I think you brought up how the ACA was "rammed" through congress with supposedly questionable tactics.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Most of it. I'll not comment further. You wouldn't understand if I did.


Only fair to say what is incorrect. Except you can't.


----------



## Madame La Farge (Jan 8, 2014)

The U.S. has one of the worst healthcare systems in the world. It is all about profit for shareholders in big pharma and insurance. It's time for citizens to recognize the rip-off at is our medical system and raise hell about it.

I think all public services from medical care to public utilities and public transportation should be paid for from taxes and that wealthy should pay higher taxes.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Thank you.



tamarque said:


> Freedom of religion encases its opposite. If one is free to believe in a certain faith, it also means that they need to respect the fact that others may chose to believe very differently.
> 
> So the question is how to live in a pluralist society with many different forms of spiritual connection. The answer simply is that you are free to chose your own beliefs as long as you don't interfere with other people's belief systems. If I chose an abortion, it means you have no right to impose your beliefs on me. You can do what ever you like as long as you do not interfere with my life. At that point your freedom of religion has changed into a bullying, or even a threatening behavior and should be made illegal. Period.
> 
> ...


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> I am not judging anyone's sex life, nor do I think I have a right to do so. I have simply stated that there are alternatives.


Those alternatives are discriminatory.

And it's not about whether a woman can, _at that moment_ afford a certain type of contraception.

This is more about a woman and her doctor having the right to decide what medical option is best for HER and HL should have no right to interfere with or complicate that process for her.

I'm sorry, but a person's ability to partake in the pursuit of happiness that is unquestioningly guaranteed them by the constitution is intrinsically bound to their ability to plan their families. Women are not able to FULLY participate in our society when their family planning choices are being usurped by men and corporations.

So, even though I think the 'religious objection" is bullcrap, and just an attempt to stab away at the ACA, even if I were to accept it was a genuine objection, I would still argue that a woman's right to the FULL pursuit of happiness, trumps Hobby Lobby's "right" to force their religious views upon others.

After all, no one is personally asking anyone from Hobby Lobby to have any sort of contraception THEY don't want.

Sometimes people's constitutional rights do come head to head, and we as a society have to choose which is the least intrusive choice.

Since no one who works at Hobby Lobby is going to personally be forced into any medical procedure they don't want, then the right for women to have access to WHATEVER medical procedure she and her doctor deems is right for her... should take precedence.

A human's right to maintain her autonomy during her pursuit of happiness, is a more pressing constitutional matter than is a corporation's "right" to force their religion upon others.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Last time I looked, males do not become pregnant, therefore your argument is illogical.


Bottom line is that be it male or female, they should both have equal rights to get access to/coverage for medical treatment.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Madame La Farge said:


> The U.S. has one of the worst healthcare systems in the world. It is all about profit for shareholders in big pharma and insurance. It's time for citizens to recognize the rip-off at is our medical system and raise hell about it.
> 
> I think all public services from medical care to public utilities and public transportation should be paid for from taxes and that wealthy should pay higher taxes.


I already like you, Madame. You point out the fallacy that the right wing has been repeating over and over - the we have the "best" health care in the world. Repeat it enough to those who think we Americans are superior to the rest of creation and they believe it. Regardless of the truth.

The same people also like to ignore history that tells us when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate the entire economy benefits. It isn't like the Koch brothers are going hungry, or any of the other 1%. When poor people fill their houses with newspapers we call it hoarding. When the rich collect vast amounts of money, the republicans call it creating jobs. And many of the very people who are being hurt gobble up the lies.

Quite amazing.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> Aren't you? You are trying to restrict HL from exercising their constitutional right as granted in the 1st amendment.


I unaware of anyone at Hobby Lobby being forced to have an IUD over another form of birth control.

All Hobby Lobby is doing is CLAIMING they have a "constitutional right" to deny other people medical options.

They don't and shouldn't have that right.

As I said, If I, as a business owner, am not able, based on MY religious principles, to prevent stupid, ignorant conservatives from getting access to the medical care/coverage they need to procreate ... because that would be a discriminatory practice. (_Even though, our country would be much better off for it_)

The difference is, I respect your constitutional right to procreate as you see fit and understand that if you need access to medical care/coverage to do, I will have to bite the bullet and accept it as ultimately, it's more important for people to have _equal protection_ under the law to pursue their happiness, than it is for me to have the "right" to protect the country from more prejudiced, less intellectually-capable people from being born, based on my "religious principle".

There are ALTERNATIVES to denying people their right to equal medical coverage if you don't agree with certain forms of birth control.

If Hobby Lobby wants to change society, then they can create an "anti-IUD" program if it wishes, to help people make the same choices they are.

But, ultimately INDIVIDUAL CHOICE needs to be maintained in this country IF we are ACTUALLY going to respect the Constitution.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

tamarque said:


> Freedom of religion encases its opposite. If one is free to believe in a certain faith, it also means that they need to respect the fact that others may chose to believe very differently.
> 
> So the question is how to live in a pluralist society with many different forms of spiritual connection. The answer simply is that you are free to chose your own beliefs as long as you don't interfere with other people's belief systems. If I chose an abortion, it means you have no right to impose your beliefs on me. You can do what ever you like as long as you do not interfere with my life. At that point your freedom of religion has changed into a bullying, or even a threatening behavior and should be made illegal. Period.
> 
> ...


Well said!


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Most of it. I'll not comment further. You wouldn't understand if I did.


Copping out. Exactly as I expected.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Hogwash. ACA has not failed. Dems like it. It's working. It's lowering costs. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. You've been listening to too much right-wing propaganda.
> 
> Actually, I think you brought up how the ACA was "rammed" through congress with supposedly questionable tactics.


OK, live up to your own words. Prove that the ACA is liked by the Dems and that its working and lowering costs.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. (BTW: trying using your own words instead of the Dems' talking points.)

You'll not prove me wrong on the majority of Americans liking the ACA, that its working or lowering costs because those are NOT the facts.

Keep on spinning.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Only fair to say what is incorrect. Except you can't.


I did; MOST of it. I can and I did.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Madame La Farge said:


> blah, blah, blah


Oh, great. What's the matter Vocal Jody Blighter? Not getting any attention so you had to resurrect another prior identity?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wibdgrfan said:


> You are making assumptions about me when, in fact, you know absolutely nothing about the life I've led, the struggles I've faced or my financial situation.
> 
> Of COURSE there are people in our country who would indeed truly struggle to come up with $10, but they most likely are not employed at HL.


Then, she was right about you living in a bubble.

If you think HL pays enough that things like $10 is not a struggle for people at any given time, then you're got your head in the clouds.



Wibdgrfan said:


> My point is that when something is truly important to a person, they can usually find a way to obtain it.


Agreed. Which is why, if HL does not want to participate in general society and respect the needs of those who may not agree with them religiously, they can always make Hobby Lobby a private club with dues, where they will be legally allowed to discriminate.

But, if they want to be part of America, they have to give up "control" of other people's religious beliefs and participate in general commerce which PROHIBITS discriminatory practices via the civil rights provided in the US Constitution.

In the meantime, there isn't ONE PERSON at Hobby Lobby that will EVER be forced into using something like an IUD if it's against their religious principles.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> OK, live up to your own words. Prove that the ACA is liked by the Dems and that its working and lowering costs.
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. (BTW: trying using your own words instead of the Dems' talking points.)
> 
> ...


Excuse me, but you flatly stated my comments on how corporations work was erroneous, then claimed I wouldn't understand if you pointed out where I was inaccurate. Put your money where your mouth is.

I suspect the point you can't prove is that corporations are actually real people who actually can have a religion. I've sure never seen a corporation in church.

I don't need to prove you wrong about the ACA. Won't even try because no source I cite would satisfy you - unless it was Limbaugh or his minions and it agreed with your preconceived notions.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Copping out. Exactly as I expected.


Here ya go: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations

Get back to me when you can speak intelligently to the taxes and merits of a Corporation.

Otherwise, as I've said prior, I'm not wasting any more of my time teaching you what you do not know.

Your post was wrong in how corps are organized and how the tax liabilities are paid and how they run. My dissent wasn't focused on whether or not a Corp = people. I already know that answer and couldn't care less that you do not know that even though I've explained it ad nauseam to you.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Oh, great. What's the matter Vocal Jody Blighter? Not getting any attention so you had to resurrect another prior identity?
> 
> :shock:


:yawn:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Excuse me, but you flatly stated my comments on how corporations work was erroneous, then claimed I wouldn't understand if you pointed out where I was inaccurate. Put your money where your mouth is.
> 
> I suspect the point you can't prove is that corporations are actually real people who actually can have a religion. I've sure never seen a corporation in church.
> 
> I don't need to prove you wrong about the ACA. Won't even try because no source I cite would satisfy you - unless it was Limbaugh or his minions and it agreed with your preconceived notions.


Copping out. Exactly as I expected.

You cannot disprove the ACA is a dismal and fatal failure, that it has only uninsured more Americans than prior to its enactment and that a majority of Americans do not like it.

I've never listened to Limbaugh and my education, knowledge and professional credentials allow me to be confident in what I've said to you.

You do not understand corporations and their income taxes.

Get over it.

Tell me what you assert you know about the ACA and put YOUR money where your mouth is.

I predict you won't because you cannot also refute the facts I presented.

Again, I bid you good day. You are wasting my valuable time with ridiculous banter.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

BlueJay21 said:


> What do you call abortion if it is not the killing of a child?


A medical procedure upon something that is not yet a child.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

> People can have sex or not have sex....poor people, rich people, middle class people, smart people, stupid people, all people can make their own decision regarding this. If they don't want to become pregnant, they should use some form of birth control. If they truly can't afford birth control and their insurance doesn't pay for it, they most likely can obtain it for free from some government agency or Planned Parenthood. If they're too lazy to find out where that is, they have no one to blame but themselves should an unwanted pregnancy occur.


Would those be the Planned Parenthood clinics that Republican-run states are closing left, right, and down the center?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Copping out. Exactly as I expected.
> 
> You cannot disprove the ACA is a dismal and fatal failure, that it has only uninsured more Americans than prior to its enactment and that a majority of Americans do not like it.
> 
> ...


Evading the question again. Wasting your time? You're on the computer and free to sign off at will. Bye.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> Would those be the Planned Parenthood clinics that Republican-run states are closing left, right, and down the center?


Excellent point. Women in many places no longer have the right to abortion because they have no access. What the religious right could not do one way, they do another. And the HL lawsuit is just another strategic move in the war on women.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Evading the question again. Wasting your time? You're on the computer and free to sign off at will. Bye.


Are you at all intelligent? Read the IRS website I linked for you if you must understand Corporations.

I'm not taking hours upon hours to explain to you the nature of a Corp, how it is formed, why it is formed, how they determine their tax liability, file returns, inform those who are liable for tax liabilities on flow-through returns, and the laws regarding same.

If you want to pay me my hourly rate, contact me and hire me to do so.

Otherwise, speaking to you about your lack of understanding of corporate tax returns is a gross waste of my valuable time.

I am free to chose how I spend my time as do you.

I'm sorry you cannot stop insulting me and asking things of me that you, when asked to reciprocate in kind on simple questions, are unable and unwilling to do so.

Ask someone else who is willing to teach you on their time. I'm not interested.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

grandmasheryl said:


> I know I am late to the conversation but the poster who said she shouldnt have to pay for insulin because "someone" can't control their sweetooth is RUDE....


I think that person was being facetious to prove a point.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that someone will use "religious principle" to deny medical coverage for people with diabetes (no matter the type) because _THEY_ believe that too often diabetes is a result of one of the seven deadly sins, gluttony, and therefore will argue, like Hobby Lobby is, that it's against their religious principle to help pay for medical care/coverage for people who engage in sinful activity that could lead them down the path of diabetes.

Yes, that would be rude and discriminatory and we could not function realistically, in a society in which Theocratics will refuse to participate in general commerce based on their "religious principles'.

Today, with Hobby Lobby, it's women who want the option to use IUDs..

Tomorrow, it'll be your grandson. The "reasoning" that juvenile diabetes is not caused by gluttony/sweets doesn't necessarily prevent him from being a target of uninformed "religious principle".

Just as Hobby Lobby and some people here don't actually know (or care) that the reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work *only as contraceptives.* Since Ella is new to the market, it has not been studied as extensively. But as of now, there is no scientific proof that Ella acts as an abortifacient, either. There is only one drug approved to induce abortion. It is called RU-486 (mifepristone) and is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception. It is available only by prescription and no employer is forced to pay for it as part of an employee health plan.

But science and facts don't necessarily inform religious people when they're deciding who to discriminate against. So, if you think your grandson would be safe from people like HL because type 1 isn't caused by sweets... don't be so sure.

And that's one of the reasons something like this is so dangerous.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Yikes -- here they all are again, some of the same bad actors posting gibberish and lies about Obamacare -- when the pupose of this thread (according to its title): HOBBY LOBBY and the Supreme Court.

I was going to post this in its own thread but decided to add it here when I saw this thread. Not so sure it's a great idea to post it here, but at least those who, like me, don't appreciate our suppliers using their money against the interests of their customers, ought to know. I need some more of their yarn to finish a project I'm currently working on and after that, no more Hobby Lobby for me.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Are you at all intelligent? Read the IRS website I linked for you if you must understand Corporations.
> 
> I'm not taking hours upon hours to explain to you the nature of a Corp, how it is formed, why it is formed, how they determine their tax liability, file returns, inform those who are liable for tax liabilities on flow-through returns, and the laws regarding same.
> 
> ...


No one is interested in the intricacies of corporate tax returns. And I'm not interested in being dazzled by your professional credentials. I have not insulted you - you are the one questioning my intelligence.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Here you are.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

Nor is the Bible the Constitution.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

BlueJay21 said:


> And round and round and round we go. I have been reading most of these posts and putting in my two bits worth here and there. Perhaps I should keep out of the fray as I am not and American and do not know very much about Obamacare. Living in Canada as I do, we have universal health care. It doesn't cover everything everywhere. Each province has a right to cover whatever drugs it desires to.


Not based on religious principle and discrimination. But based on the logistics and mathematics and costs and specific needs of the community.

And TODAY, HL is saying it's "ok" with some birth control, and not with others.

But they're not Catholics.

What if there's a "Hobby Lobby" that's owned by Catholics and they want to deny ALL contraception based on "religious principle?

It's simply not practicable or reasonable or realistic or RIGHT to have corporations making medical decisions for women or any other group they wish to discriminate against.

Should I have the right do deny my conservative employees medical care for their pregnancies because it's against my "religious principles" to be populating the world with people prone to hate and ignorance?

And no, as outrageous and offensive an example as that is, it's really NOT different from what HL is trying to do. I think denying poor women the help that they need to make the medical choices she and her doctor decide is best for her, is equally horrendous and offensive.

Once you say that corporations can deny people equal rights and protection under the law if they use the buzzword "religious principle"... there are ALLLLL kinds of outrageous discriminatory things like that that will become "legal" to do to people.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Madame La Farge said:


> blah, blah, blah












My sentiment exactly. You have insulted and alienated every single person on KP, Left, Center, and Right with your vicious and personal attacks in so much as no one cares to read or respond to you.

Congratulations. I, for one, cannot wait to see your new identifiers and avatars. NOT.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Not based on religious principle and discrimination. But based on the logistics and mathematics and costs and specific needs of the community.
> 
> And TODAY, HL is saying it's "ok" with some birth control, and not with others.
> 
> ...


People do not understand the Pandora's box this would open if validated. It would be setting a dangerous precedent.

Personally, I think the overpopulation of the world is extremely irresponsible. Maybe the insurance companies should cover only two pregnancies.

For those of you who say that a company should be able to run it's company as it sees fit -- really? What about Wall Street? Hasn't that been just swell? How about those companies who are polluting our environment?

There is no end to corporate greed and it is the undoing of Mother Earth, along with overpopulation. The earth was not meant to sustain the population is has now.

The more available birth control, the better for families and our lifestyles.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> OK, live up to your own words. Prove that the ACA is liked by the Dems and that its working and lowering costs.
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. (BTW: trying using your own words instead of the Dems' talking points.)
> 
> ...


You know, I think a really key ingredient is pointed out here:



> You'll hear many polling companies report that ObamaCare has a low approval rating. While it does lack approval from the majority of Americans a startling fact is uncovered when you dig deeper. Those who don't understand the program are the ones saying they don't like it. *The more a person understands the law, the more they tend to approve of ObamaCare. Past ObamaCare polls also show that the parts of the program that people do understand almost all got over a 50% approval rating.* The issue is simply that people don't understand some of the provisions contained within the thousand plus page law and what they really do to help Americans.
> http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-poll.php


Lots of really good non-partisan polling info at that site, btw.

So naturally, the Republicans have done everything they possibly could to prevent the ACA from being implemented and to prevent people from signing up and in fact to prevent people from even knowing about it or, failng that, knowing the truth about it. It's been appalling and -- well, I think it's criminal (speaking figuratively, tho a case could be made it's sedition on their part, IMO).

This has extended so far as to preventing -- banning!! -- some state agencies from even telling people about their rights !!! (it's really bad when the government takes steps to _prevent_ you from even knowing your rights and entitlements): 


> The Florida Department of Health has barred outreach workers known as navigators from trying to help people sign up for federally subsidized health insurance while at county health departments.
> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130912/ARTICLE/130919851


And then, of course, there were those dreadful, ugly, frankly sick videos with a sneering "Uncle Sam" about to perform medical exams, the purpose of which was to steer young people away from ACA. Sick, sick.

And the lies. The endless stream of lies. Not a single case that I'm aware of where the rightwing gins up Obamacare horror stories has been found to be true. Not a single one. They've all been struck down as just so many lies. Here's the latest:



> *They Stole Her Photo, Then Claimed She Hated Obamacare. She Doesnt*
> 
> Helene isnt having the best week. The Texas blogger was visiting Las Vegas for a bachelorette party this past weekend, and woke up on Saturday to find that shed become the latest anti-Obamacare posterchild. The thing is, Helene never signed up for the job.
> 
> ...


How bad has it been? Well, here's 
*Blow By Blow: A Comprehensive Timeline Of The GOPs 4-Year Battle To Kill Obamacare*
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/23/3417482/gop-opposition/

But when it's given a chance to work, it can be truly amazing:



> *She couldn't stop crying and hugging everyone in sight . . .*
> by Old *******
> We Democrats in my rural, very red Virginia county are sponsoring ACA sign-up clinics 22 and 29 March at our local library. In preparation for the clinics, several of us volunteers spent a few hours helping our regional navigator as he worked with uninsured people to help them get insurance.
> 
> ...


I have to say I can empathize with her little fantasy.

Oh, and btw: How's it doing? For an "unpopular program," Obamacare enrollments are nevertheless perking right along: 
*BREAKING: Obamacare Enrollment Tops 6 Million * http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/27/3420001/breaking-obamacare-enrollment-tops-six-million/


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Colorado knits said:


> People do not understand the Pandora's box this would open if validated. It would be setting a dangerous precedent.
> 
> Personally, I think the overpopulation of the world is extremely irresponsible. Maybe the insurance companies should cover only two pregnancies.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Not based on religious principle and discrimination. But based on the logistics and mathematics and costs and specific needs of the community.
> 
> And TODAY, HL is saying it's "ok" with some birth control, and not with others.
> 
> ...


You have expressed the core of the matter well.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

DGreen said:


> The corporation pays it's taxes. When they file their tax returns, the check that pays the taxes is written on the corporate account. For example: When IBM or General Motors pays their corporate taxes, some "person" in the company signs a check. Written on the IBM or General Motors' corporate bank account. Not the president's account, not the CEO's account, not the payroll account. Taxes are an expense - a cost of doing business. A corporation is not a person. It doesn't show up for work at 8:00, it doesn't actually accomplish any tangible work such as bookkeeping, sweeping the floors, manufacturing a computer. People do those things. A conglomerate group of people who work FOR the corporation carry out the goals and activities of the corporation. The people who direct those activities are NOT the corporation - they work for it, just like the secretaries and designers do. What part of that is incorrect?


I must thank you, you got KPG to say she is quitting.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Knitry said:


> I have to say I can empathize with her little fantasy.
> 
> Oh, and btw: How's it doing? For an "unpopular program," Obamacare enrollments are nevertheless perking right along:
> *BREAKING: Obamacare Enrollment Tops 6 Million * http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/27/3420001/breaking-obamacare-enrollment-tops-six-million/


Excellent research. Thank you for your contribution.

You know, though, that knitpresentsgifts won't believe a word of it. She has drunk the Kool-Aid and is beyond hope.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Knitry said:


> I have to say I can empathize with her little fantasy.
> 
> Oh, and btw: How's it doing? For an "unpopular program," Obamacare enrollments are nevertheless perking right along:
> *BREAKING: Obamacare Enrollment Tops 6 Million * http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/27/3420001/breaking-obamacare-enrollment-tops-six-million/


A lot of people hate, hate, hate Obamacare but would support ACA...just sayin'.

Some people get a little hate in them and can't get past it. There is no explanation, no logic, no written proof that will change their minds.
A dose of them can be hazardous to ones health.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitry said:


> I have to say I can empathize with her little fantasy.
> 
> Oh, and btw: How's it doing? For an "unpopular program," Obamacare enrollments are nevertheless perking right along:
> *BREAKING: Obamacare Enrollment Tops 6 Million * http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/27/3420001/breaking-obamacare-enrollment-tops-six-million/


Thanks, Knitry, for your continued supply of information about a variety of subjects.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Oh, MY!

I just learned that the Libs of KP have been arguing and fighting amongst themselves for WEEKS racking up hundreds of posts on the War on Women thread! Shocking reading I say, shocking. :shock:

So, hilarious; it's a true war on women by Lib women!









No one but the Libs have been posting on that thread for weeks, so because they had no one to fight with they all turned on one another and traded barbs at each other.

That is what they *always* do! Not one, not *one!* post included anything of substance, and the Libs were at each other's throats.

What fun.

Shout out to all reasonable, intelligent, good, non Libs, KPers. I say we blow this joint and engage and respond with one another other and leave the Libs to fight, argue and implode amongst themselves as they always do.

They say they prefer that, so let's accommodate them.

Apparently several of the Libs tried to recruit non Libs to post on that hijacked thread (like many others), but no one took them up on the offer. I've learned I was explicitly recruited and discussed many times, and you may have been as well. Better check it out for reading when you cannot fall asleep.

As you probably well know, the Libs on KP are not known for starting or originating any threads of substance or intelligent thought. They only settle in on a thread of interest begun by a non Lib, hijack the thread and thereby ruin it with their falsehoods, lies, personal attacks and accusations.

I say we leave them to themselves to abort each other and allow them to continue their own demise.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Since I've been on ACA, my monthly premium has been reduced by $311.00. Speaking from personal experience, it has helped me a lot.


knitpresentgifts said:


> Understood. However, you also have socialized health care, or a one-payer system for health care in your country as I understand it.
> 
> The USA does not presently and our health insurance costs are not taxable income.
> 
> ...


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

lins said:


> A lot of people hate, hate, hate Obamacare but would support ACA...just sayin'.
> 
> Some people get a little hate in them and can't get past it. There is no explanation, no logic, no written proof that will change their minds.
> A dose of them can be hazardous to ones health.


I laughed when I first read polling info that showed people hating obamacare, but when asked about a health care program described with some detail as the ACA they loved it.
The bias and prejudice in all this is off the top!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knovice knitter said:


> Since I've been on ACA, my monthly premium has been reduced by $311.00. Speaking from personal experience, it has helped me a lot.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

This is another point of view that many of us have been talking about.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No one but the Libs have been posting on that thread for weeks, so because they had no one to fight with they all turned on one another and traded barbs at each other.


That's because you all lost the argument and were afraid to come back.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Colorado knits said:


> This is another point of view that many of us have been talking about.


 :thumbup:  :thumbup:


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> That's because you all lost the argument and were afraid to come back.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Madame La Farge (Jan 8, 2014)

I like you, too, D.! It is refreshing to read your posts.

Isn't it rich, aren't we a pair, you in Arizona, me in Utah....

I think the best thing that has happened in the U.S. in a while is the Occupy Movement. Did you hear about an Occupy group which recently pooled it funds, bought some toxic mortgages and then forgave the debts?

I recommend David Graeber's book, "The Democracy Project."

Also, have you seen the documentary, "Dirty Wars"?

Madame


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> That's because you all lost the argument and were afraid to come back.


Oh God, Lisa, don't make her think it is a challenge, we will have to see her stupid avatar a hundred times a day.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Madame La Farge said:


> I like you, too, D.! It is refreshing to read your posts.
> 
> Isn't it rich, aren;t we a pair, you in Arizona, me in Utah....
> 
> ...


The next project is student loans, YAHOO!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> who are seeking the laws afforded them by the Constitution of the USA are followed.


Discrimination is NOT afforded them in the constitution. Discrimination is actually UNconstitutional.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Anyone who doesn't support HL in their lawsuit, are trying to force their personal beliefs upon others.


Nope, there is not ONE Hobby Lobby owner OR employee who is being forced to use an IUD. Not one.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

I am not finding any new ideas here in awhile, just many good ways of pointing out some reality about the prejudice of the HL lawsuit.

What I will add here is my thought about how little focus has been on the war on women in all this. The fight for abortion rights was heavily argued as self-determination for women and the freedom from men controlling our bodies. The right wing has been trying to undo the freedom of our right to chose ever since Roe v Wade. The hubris of the GOP and Tea Partiers and Religious right is at a boiling point. 2 presidential elections lost despite their best anti-women rhetoric! 

The HL case is one of the efforts to accomplish this feat. I dislike Hilary Clinton, but if she were to run for office, we know the rageful attacks to expect. Look at what is going on with Wendy in Texas. The boys down there are just beside themselves. Let them continue as they have a great case of foot-in-mouth disease. of course when you add this to their blatant racism and classism, the only way they can win is by fraudulent voting tactics, gerrymandering, and creating false felon records to dismantle the Black vote. 

But this is about male control over women's bodies and the total lack of respect for a woman's ability to make her own decisions. Controlling reproductive rights has been a big issue for men under patriarchy. It is one thing they cannot do--create life. 

The lawsuit may not focus on this, but in a public discussion, it seems we should address the level of sexism in this whole legal mess.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> That is NOT the issue. The question is whether a corporation is allowed the rights and protections afforded them by the USA Constitution...


People are afforded Constitutional rights.

No one is forcing the corporation to use an IUD.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

tamarque said:


> I am not finding any new ideas here in awhile, just many good ways of pointing out some reality about the prejudice of the HL lawsuit.
> 
> What I will add here is my thought about how little focus has been on the war on women in all this. The fight for abortion rights was heavily argued as self-determination for women and the freedom from men controlling our bodies. The right wing has been trying to undo the freedom of our right to chose ever since Roe v Wade. The hubris of the GOP and Tea Partiers and Religious right is at a boiling point. 2 presidential elections lost despite their best anti-women rhetoric!
> 
> ...


And how so many women are complicit?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

tamarque said:


> ...
> 
> *But this is about male control over women's bodies and the total lack of respect for a woman's ability to make her own decisions. Controlling reproductive rights has been a big issue for men under patriarchy. It is one thing they cannot do--create life. *
> 
> The lawsuit may not focus on this, but in a public discussion, it seems we should address the level of sexism in this whole legal mess.


I agree with you.

And although you are probably too polite to say this, it's also about stupid people who aren't willing or able to accept or intellectually capable of understanding scientific fact such as an IUD is not an abortifacient and it's also about women like KPG who are self-loathing and have absorbed the paternalistic sexism within themselves.

It's bad enough that male sexists are trying to control women's bodies, but they do it so often based on ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Why don't you tell us about it. Seriously - I think people should know that Christians are not as powerful or numerous as they think.


I have a good understanding of the generalities, but hesitate to tell anyone about them because I'm not as well versed in the specifics as I could be. Neither do I think people learn as well when they don't do their own research. Too many simply parrot what their friends and neighbors, including church congregations, pastors, and priests, have to say, and are not interested in the realities with which they don't agree. For instance, the idea of a "George Washington prayer" is repeated on the internet in many different versions, and most Christians tend not to question its validity in any of them. George Washington himself, however, is highly unlikely to have been a Christian, let alone authored a prayer. It is assumed that the founding fathers were all Christians simply because allowances were made for religious freedom. If one does the research, one would find that some founding fathers were likely agnostics or atheists who were fair-minded--not at all what current Christians want to hear.

No doubt what I have written here will make me a target once again. All I can say is that people should do their own research. I do mine.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Unfortunately the the Theocratic nuts are doing the opposite of understanding the Constitution and are willfully twisting and distorting it in an effort to deny the Constitutional rights of people.
> 
> They are arguing to deny basic civil rights and equal protection under the law that the Constitution already guarantees them.


You're right.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I have a good understanding of the generalities, but hesitate to tell anyone about them because I'm not as well versed in the specifics as I could be. Neither do I think people learn as well when they don't do their own research. Too many simply parrot what their friends and neighbors, including church congregations, pastors, and priests, have to say, and are not interested in the realities with which they don't agree. For instance, the idea of a "George Washington prayer" is repeated on the internet in many different versions, and most Christians tend not to question its validity in any of them. George Washington himself, however, is highly unlikely to have been a Christian, let alone authored a prayer. It is assumed that the founding fathers were all Christians simply because allowances were made for religious freedom. If one does the research, one would find that some founding fathers were likely agnostics or atheists who were fair-minded--not at all what current Christians want to hear.
> 
> No doubt what I have written here will make me a target once again. All I can say is that people should do their own research. I do mine.


Everything you say is supported by history. You're right.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> And although you are probably too polite to say this, it's also about stupid people who aren't willing or able to accept or intellectually capable of understanding scientific fact such as an IUD is not an abortifacient and it's also about women like KPG who are self-loathing and have absorbed the paternalistic sexism within themselves.
> 
> It's bad enough that male sexists are trying to control women's bodies, but they do it so often based on ignorance and stupidity.


Of course I agree with you vocallisa.

I really like to understand the dynamics that go on in a dialogue, or a movement or political campaign. One social science concept that I mention over and over is Cognitive Dissonance. Are you familiar with it? It is a powerful concept to understand as we see it all the time here on KP.

Simply put, *Cognitive Dissonance* describes how people react when you give them information that contradicts deeply held beliefs.

When you provide such information to people they will react with anything from simple disagreement to bullying, to name calling, to physical violence or walking away. Ad hominems are very common, as is mocking people. Does this sound familiar here?

And let me note that belief systems are not all about religion. Patriarchy is a belief system, too, and just as profound as religious beliefs.

So internalized sexism is very profound and it is like a belief system. Rattle that cage and the claws come out as they have with the right wingers here. Whooping and back slapping with each other with every attempt at put down of their opposition as if they have really accomplished something. Ignore them and they take it as a win instead of the dismissal with which they have been dealt. They cannot allow anything to shatter their faith based belief systems. And nastiness when pushed; even violence. Here we are reaching a level of verbal violence with them. We could save this dialogue and do an entire analysis of Cognitive dissonance and how it works. Not sure it is worth the time unless someone needs a good example for a paper or some organizer training.

But this lawsuit is totally immersed in sexism and male control over women. It is an attack on Roe v. Wade. It is part of the picking away at the legal right to abortion. It is the form of attack that is popularly being used. Lots of rhetoric, lies, hyperbole, lies and more lies and fear mongering. Then the efforts to get right wingers, pro-lifers on decision-making boards and committes, or elected as political officials. This is followed by new laws and lawsuits attacking pieces of the freedom hard won. The game is to whittle away at our freedoms until there is nothing left. This is not reserved for reproduction rights; it is a common tactic on many issues.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

DGreen said:


> You're right.


Always interesting to see how people read 'red' when the word is 'green.'


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Madame La Farge said:


> I like you, too, D.! It is refreshing to read your posts.
> 
> Isn't it rich, aren't we a pair, you in Arizona, me in Utah....
> 
> ...


I have not followed the Occupy movement, though I like the idea a lot. Buying, then forgiving mortgages is a spectacular idea. Love it.

I have not seen "Dirty Wars." Where can I find it?

Thanks!


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> And although you are probably too polite to say this, it's also about stupid people who aren't willing or able to accept or intellectually capable of understanding scientific fact such as an IUD is not an abortifacient and it's also about women like KPG who are self-loathing and have absorbed the paternalistic sexism within themselves.
> 
> It's bad enough that male sexists are trying to control women's bodies, but they do it so often based on ignorance and stupidity.


Yes...just take an aspirin and place it, where?? 
OMG! It's all just so, I dunno' backwards, yes, we're going backwards faster than we went forward before.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

tamarque said:


> Of course I agree with you vocallisa.
> 
> I really like to understand the dynamics that go on in a dialogue, or a movement or political campaign. One social science concept that I mention over and over is Cognitive Dissonance. Are you familiar with it? It is a powerful concept to understand as we see it all the time here on KP.
> 
> ...


Very instructive. Thanks for your comments. Yes, all too familiar. I instinctively understood the dynamic and now I have a name for it.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

tamarque said:


> Always interesting to see how people read 'red' when the word is 'green.'


LOL


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

tamarque said:


> I am not finding any new ideas here in awhile, just many good ways of pointing out some reality about the prejudice of the HL lawsuit.
> 
> What I will add here is my thought about how little focus has been on the war on women in all this. The fight for abortion rights was heavily argued as self-determination for women and the freedom from men controlling our bodies. The right wing has been trying to undo the freedom of our right to chose ever since Roe v Wade. The hubris of the GOP and Tea Partiers and Religious right is at a boiling point. 2 presidential elections lost despite their best anti-women rhetoric!
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Haven't seen Dirty Wars yet but do know about the Occupy Democracy Project. It is ongoing in several localities, not sure how many. But it is a great venture in collective democratic practice--as opposed to collective corporatism, which is known as fascism.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

tamarque said:


> Of course I agree with you vocallisa.
> 
> I really like to understand the dynamics that go on in a dialogue, or a movement or political campaign. One social science concept that I mention over and over is Cognitive Dissonance. Are you familiar with it? It is a powerful concept to understand as we see it all the time here on KP.
> 
> ...


This is what I call cutting right down to the knitty-gritty. Thank you, Tamarque, it is beautifully, wonderfully said.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I've just gone through pages and pages and more pages of comments.....and I find myself just skipping over everything. So much blather about details that don't count. Boring.



Janet Cooke said:


> Then, please, stop responding to my posts.
> You seem to forget that the KP world was happily rolling along for quite some time without your joy kill surrounding every thread I post on.
> Just go away. Don't waste our time...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

If she just disappears, I'll be happy.



DGreen said:


> Copping out. Exactly as I expected.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I thought you said good bye.



knitpresentgifts said:


> OK, live up to your own words. Prove that the ACA is liked by the Dems and that its working and lowering costs.
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. (BTW: trying using your own words instead of the Dems' talking points.)
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Now, if she'd actually do it.



Janet Cooke said:


> I must thank you, you got KPG to say she is quitting.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

damemary said:


> I thought you said good bye.


She has a lot to say - most of which is nonsensical. A real goodbye would be nice, indeed.


----------



## Mercury (Apr 12, 2012)

Would you ladies kindly stop acting like children and get off the subject. This is all a waste of time and accomplishing nothing. Grow up.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Mercury said:


> Would you ladies kindly stop acting like children and get off the subject. This is all a waste of time and accomplishing nothing. Grow up.


What do you mean?

We are on the subject of this thread.

Don't read it if you don't like it.


----------



## Judithlynn (May 13, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> Who asked them to pay for abortion?


President Obama when he did his health care.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

tamarque said:


> But this lawsuit is totally immersed in sexism and male control over women. It is an attack on Roe v. Wade. It is part of the picking away at the legal right to abortion. It is the form of attack that is popularly being used. Lots of rhetoric, lies, hyperbole, lies and more lies and fear mongering. Then the efforts to get right wingers, pro-lifers on decision-making boards and committes, or elected as political officials. This is followed by new laws and lawsuits attacking pieces of the freedom hard won. The game is to whittle away at our freedoms until there is nothing left. This is not reserved for reproduction rights; it is a common tactic on many issues.


A quotation from George Washington seems appropriate here -

Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

Mercury said:


> Would you ladies kindly stop acting like children and get off the subject. This is all a waste of time and accomplishing nothing. Grow up.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 
I feel like I'm reading junior high girls' diaries, or today, childish girlie facebook posts... Some of you ladies' time would be better spent doing some real research.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Hey flyovercindy--I don't know what you are referring to at all. Some of us have done our research and others just dont like it.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is one of several/many conceptualizations which propose to explain why people decide as they do or perceive as they do. 

For another example, people tend to have difficulty believing something could ever happen because it has never happened before. Think of assumptions such as (in WW II) "A bomb could not destroy a whole city," then Hiroshima, or* (before Viet Nam) "America wins all wars."

All kinds of irrational processes enter into our perceptions and decisions. This psychological phenomenon is not unique to any individual or political party. If we are committed to using our minds for the benefit of others, ourselves, the world, we should learn about how emotions skew our thinking *and* how we ourselves can avoid being exploited by others who do not truly have our best interests at heart.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

taborhills said:


> COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is one of several/many conceptualizations which propose to explain why people decide as they do or perceive as they do.
> 
> For another example, people tend to have difficulty believing something could ever happen because it has never happened before. Think of assumptions such as (in WW II) "A bomb could not destroy a whole city," then Hiroshima, or* (before Viet Nam) "America wins all wars."
> 
> All kinds of irrational processes enter into our perceptions and decisions. This psychological phenomenon is not unique to any individual or political party. If we are committed to using our minds for the benefit of others, ourselves, the world, we should learn about how emotions skew our thinking *and* how we ourselves can avoid being exploited by others who do not truly have our best interests at heart.


Did you think I was saying only one class of people were subject to cognitive dissonance? Please do not go there. I never even hinted at that. But will say I have seen much of it in this discussion.

Years ago I read a little book titled the Sociological Imagination. The title stayed with me more than the book's content. But what stayed was the idea that one needs to be able to conceptualize societal dynamics and understand how the different social institutions fit to together. This is something that most people have trouble doing. Not being able to see the whole culture in all its dynamic interconnects results in weakened ability to really understand what is happening around us.

To be truly independent means to be truly honest with oneself as far as I can see. I was pointing out a particular problem that presents itself on a regular basis. Our culture does not support that kind of introspection or encourage struggle against those subjective realities.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Some people here might like reading this article that came in this evening. It seems like the timing was perfect for this discussion

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_secret_agenda_how_its_secretly_funding_a_vast_right_wing_movement/


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Judithlynn said:


> President Obama when he did his health care.


Link, please.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Finally someone who knows what a corporation is. A small business (individual) can be a LLC (Limited Liability Company). Since that could be a single individual, how could they loose their religious beliefs?


The person can believe anything they choose, the business does not have the ability to have faith. 
It really isn't all that difficult to grasp.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Some people here might like reading this article that came in this evening. It seems like the timing was perfect for this discussion
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_secret_agenda_how_its_secretly_funding_a_vast_right_wing_movement/


Yes, I read that earlier. Interesting.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Hmm. Following your logic, insurance corporations are perfectly in their right denying coverage for all kind of health conditions. You may spend $5000/yr for health coverage but all you get is what the insurance corporations want to pay for and what the drug corp want to sell. So when your doctor says all the common treatments dont work and a different one is recommended but your insurance doesn't cover it, you can spend the $10 or $20,000 for that treatment. You are perfectly free to do so. But you only make $35,000/yr. But you are free to spend this out of pocket expense even tho you pay $5,000/yr for medical coverage. If this scenario floats your boat, go and be happy. But about 75% of bankruptcies in the US are due to excess medical expenses. So what is wrong with this picture? Can you work another 20 or 30 hr/week more? But you are sick and can barely move already. This scenario leads to one place only and that is death.


----------



## Judithlynn (May 13, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> A medical procedure upon something that is not yet a child.


That is a matter of opinion. The only scientists who believe this are those who don't follow the Lord.


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Some people here might like reading this article that came in this evening. It seems like the timing was perfect for this discussion
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_secret_agenda_how_its_secretly_funding_a_vast_right_wing_movement/


...wow, evil incarnate... supporting their Christian values, and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family. Thanks for the warning....
Here's another one - although you'll probably regard it as propaganda, which is how I regard much of what comes from Salon
http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/26/faith-and-work/


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Judithlynn said:


> That is a matter of opinion. The only scientists who believe this are those who don't follow the Lord.


It is not a matter of opinion at all, if you deliver prior to viability you have no baby. 
Scientists do not believe things, they test theories and prove or disprove them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

flyovercindy said:


> ...wow, evil incarnate... supporting their Christian values, and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family. Thanks for the warning....
> Here's another one - although you'll probably regard it as propaganda, which is how I regard much of what comes from Salon
> http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/26/faith-and-work/


Please, tell us where a corporation has guarantee of religious liberty. 
I have already read that piece it doesn't even meet the criteria of propaganda, propaganda has to appear to be the truth. This gentleman does the same, tired lie about some birth control methods masquerading as abortions and that the law suit is about not paying for abortions. It is bogus, a bogus blog.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

tamarque said:


> 1. Freedom of speech applies to one, single individual person. Not a corporate structure. Each dollar they contribute is not for a single voice but for a corporation that gives millions. They do not have millions of individual voices. Citizens United was bought and paid for my corporate moghuls. That class of people have been working for decades to undo all the social gains for the mass of the public which has all profited regardless of their political persuasions.
> 
> 2. There is a 'they.' It is only the mass of public that has been led to believe in their individualism, another belief system. It has served the 'they' people well as it is a divide and conquer strategy. "they" do meet and make collective decisions. "they" do divide the pie amongst themselves. Did you know that Rockefeller, during the Nazi era, taught the German corporate magnates how to organize cartels in order to control the country and its wealth. They worked with Hitler, for sure, but they did it in concert with each other. Breaking up the German cartel I.G.Farben after the war did not end that experience of mutual collusion. And the Rockefellers were not alone in this country. Even the AMA developed with Rockefeller chemical money. It was that effort to foist chemicals on the public in the arena of health. They funded the failing medical associatio n of the late 19c and turned it into a powerful trade organization designed to control all health care and turn it into a medical/chemical industry at the total expense of the public and the public's right to freedom of health choice.
> 
> ...


Oh does that bring back memories. My textbooks were Abeka book and Bob Jones books


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Please, tell us where a corporation has guarantee of religious liberty.
> I have already read that piece it doesn't even meet the criteria of propaganda, propaganda has to appear to be the truth. This gentleman does the same, tired lie about some birth control methods masquerading as abortions and that the law suit is about not paying for abortions. It is bogus, a bogus blog.


LOL - and Salon is not biased at all...
Try this one too, although after 50-odd pages, I don't think the real issue has been understood by many. "It's just bogus"

Praying for your souls, like it or not. Good night.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/14932/hobby-lobby-case-shows-government-control-matter-outcome/


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

tamarque said:


> Some people here might like reading this article that came in this evening. It seems like the timing was perfect for this discussion
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_secret_agenda_how_its_secretly_funding_a_vast_right_wing_movement/


It looks like my gut feelings were right again. Why am I not surprised? I suppose some of those three billion dollars come from the fact that its website sells on Sundays. I tested that theory out a couple of years ago by buying something there on a Sunday. I haven't dealt with HL since because I don't like hypocrisy, i.e., making a big deal out of closing its retail stores on Sundays because they're so religious while continuing to sell online on Sundays. Let's just say it turned me off. A dictatorship hiding behind "religion" is still a dictatorship, and that appears to be the goal. I don't call that Christianity.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It is not a matter of opinion at all, if you deliver prior to viability you have no baby.
> Scientists do not believe things, they test theories and prove or disprove them.


Exactly. And adults do not base their thinking on emotion. Even the Bible invokes that when we become adults, we put away childish things (learn to use reason as much as possible as opposed to emotional responses).


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

flyovercindy said:


> LOL - and Salon is not biased at all...
> Try this one too, although after 50-odd pages, I don't think the real issue has been understood by many. "It's just bogus"
> 
> Praying for your souls, like it or not. Good night.
> ...


Okay, I sent an article that listed sources of intent behind HL's lawsuit. It exposed motives that I already surmised in a previous post of mine. Aren't I the clever one.

This article you sent is not journalism. It is a personal essay, an opinion paper by a business owner. These articles are not comparable.

The fact that a business may not want to provide benefits has little to do with the duplicity of HL in its lawsuit.

Now this business owner's paper does raise some questions that people have avoided. Under Capitalism, the idea clearly stated here, is that business if free to exploit labor in any way they can. This owner/writer says it is his way or the highway for a worker. Pretty arrogant attitude in my book. It is all about him. He owns the business and feels he owns labor to boot. His only perks are the ones mandated. Ethics has nothing to do with it.

Now Capitalism is antithetical to Democracy. It has nothing in it that promotes ethical or honest behavior. Quite the contrary, it is a system based strictly on greed and power--profit by any means that you can get away with. Capitalism without strong legislative controls does exactly what we saw in the 1929 crash and now have seen again with the 2007 crash. We saw it in the 1989 S & L debacle where banks operated without boundaries or even 'good' business practices.

This article claims there are 4 left radicals on the bench. Oh, really? I would love to see just one! That statement says that there is no mediation betw business interests and those of the people who make the business work. The author thinks workers have no vested interests and are at the mercy of the owners. The quotes of the SC judges indicate a perspective that includes the needs and interests of the workers. Therein lies the basic contradiction. Capitalism today does not even make pretenses about what it is.

HL's lawsuit is frivolous except for their very real subversive goal of inserting their religious precepts into secular law. Maybe I should say to them, if they want to live in a theocracy let them live elsewhere. There are some fundamentalist States they can move to if that if what they like. The US, as a reminder, is a secular state and there is separation of church and state for a very good reason.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I'm sure that is coming to the US soon. Now most large companies report the cost of health benefits they have paid on the employees behalf on the W-2 (the earnings statement reported to the IRS.) It would take little for Congress to pass a law that would make the benefits taxable. It would be devastating to a person with an income of $40,000 having to pay tax on $15,000 health benefits with no additional income.


Single payer is the only way out. But only if insurance corp and drug corps are kept out of it.


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Please, tell us where a corporation has guarantee of religious liberty.
> I have already read that piece it doesn't even meet the criteria of propaganda, propaganda has to appear to be the truth. This gentleman does the same, tired lie about some birth control methods masquerading as abortions and that the law suit is about not paying for abortions. It is bogus, a bogus blog.


Oh, and I just had to call out a lie here, this writer says nothing in this article or past essays that refers to a "tired lie about some birth control methods masquerading as abortions and the law suit is about not paying for abortions", or refers to any such thing. 
so... IF you read it, you didn't absorb much, and you have mislead any other potential reader about what this conservative writer has to say. 
Good liberal tactic, way to go...


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Okay, I sent an article that listed sources of intent behind HL's lawsuit. It exposed motives that I already surmised in a previous post of mine. Aren't I the clever one.
> 
> This article you sent is not journalism. It is a personal essay, an opinion paper by a business owner. These articles are not comparable.
> 
> ...


I feel sorry for you - praying for your soul too.
Good night


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Sorry, but fact and belief sometimes don't exist in the same universe. It is completely meaningless to me that a fertilized egg isn't a complete human being. Viability is not the standard on which my beliefs rest, either. You know good and well that many people here don't care about the factual definition of a life. You've probably stirred up a lot of feeling because I'm remarking on something you said on page 36 of this topic and still have 17 pages to catch up on, if I decide I can survive the attempt.

The biggest problem I have with the pro-lifers, as I have said a zillion times, is that they are only concerned that a baby be born and never bother to address what happens after that. This leaves me reluctant to say I'm one of those bozos even though I believe a life begins at the moment of conception and that person is ensouled at the same time. I also believe a human's life ends when the last brain cell dies. My intellect isn't deaf to what you have to say. My heart is.

HL and every other health insurance provider should provide birth control care to all its members. The individual makes the choice about using those services or not. This seems as simple as adding 2+2 and getting 4. The real problem is that HL, as you say, "want the corporate tax deductions while imposing their anti-woman ideology on the workers." A good first step would be to take health care coverage out of employers' hands and put it solely in the hands of individuals.


tamarque said:


> I know this will fall on pro-life deaf ears, but the definition of a life, is one that can survive independently of the mother's womb. That is why a somewhat arbitrary cut off point at about 7 mos is used since a fetus can be extracted and live, but typically only with life support technology to simulate the womb conditions. This in itself raises questions about this arbitrary 7 mos standard.
> 
> However, accepting this standard, you do not have a baby at conception. Nor do you have a baby at 4 mos. It is only the possibility of one. Think about your vegebles or fruits. My tomato plants put out flowers galore and then they are fertilized. But they are not fruit at that stage. And even when they begin to develop, they are still not fruit because they cannot be eaten and do not have the development to be a fruit. It is only when they reach a certain size that they can be picked and allowed to ripen; ie, com,plete their development under specific conditions. This is the same for humans. We are all on the same life path with the same need for a process to occur to produce a living organism. Before that stage is reached, there is only an idea, a possibility. But it is not a reality.
> 
> This idea that a cell is a baby at conception is just a crock of malarky with no factual basis. And the HL case is based on this same erroneous concept. But more so, it is dishonest and fraudulent. They want the corporate tax deductions while imposing their anti-woman ideology on the workers.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> It looks like my gut feelings were right again. Why am I not surprised? I suppose some of those three billion dollars come from the fact that its website sells on Sundays. I tested that theory out a couple of years ago by buying something there on a Sunday. I haven't dealt with HL since because I don't like hypocrisy, i.e., making a big deal out of closing its retail stores on Sundays because they're so religious while continuing to sell online on Sundays. Let's just say it turned me off. A dictatorship hiding behind "religion" is still a dictatorship, and that appears to be the goal. I don't call that Christianity.


Just to clarify, they close on Sundays to give their employees the day off. The website can sell any day of the week 24/7 without any human interaction. Do you think just because you buy something from a website on a Sunday that a real, live person is sitting there taking that order? And what a pain in the a$$ it would be every week to disable the website just for one day. Who would do that? Would you?

When my website is finished and up and running, it will sell to you any hour of any day, but I certainly won't be working 24/7. What a wonderful thing technology is! :mrgreen:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

tamarque said:


> Some people here might like reading this article that came in this evening. It seems like the timing was perfect for this discussion
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_secret_agenda_how_its_secretly_funding_a_vast_right_wing_movement/


Perfect, indeed. I'm going to print it and take copies to my next Democratic Party meeting. Motivating.

But it won't phase the right-wingers. So long as Hobby Lobby promotes what they like, they can't see the dangers of buying politicians.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Sorry, but fact and belief sometimes don't exist in the same universe. It is completely meaningless to me that a fertilized egg isn't a complete human being. Viability is not the standard on which my beliefs rest, either. You know good and well that many people here don't care about the factual definition of a life. You've probably stirred up a lot of feeling because I'm remarking on something you said on page 36 of this topic and still have 17 pages to catch up on, if I decide I can survive the attempt.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with the pro-lifers, as I have said a zillion times, is that they are only concerned that a baby be born and never bother to address what happens after that. This leaves me reluctant to say I'm one of those bozos even though I believe a life begins at the moment of conception and that person is ensouled at the same time. I also believe a human's life ends when the last brain cell dies. My intellect isn't deaf to what you have to say. My heart is.
> 
> HL and every other health insurance provider should provide birth control care to all its members. The individual makes the choice about using those services or not. This seems as simple as adding 2+2 and getting 4. The real problem is that HL, as you say, "want the corporate tax deductions while imposing their anti-woman ideology on the workers." A good first step would be to take health care coverage out of employers' hands and put it solely in the hands of individuals.




How nice to hear from a pro-lifer who is also a thinker. I really appreciate you sharing your perspective.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

flyovercindy said:


> ...wow, evil incarnate... supporting their Christian values, and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family. Thanks for the warning....
> Here's another one - although you'll probably regard it as propaganda, which is how I regard much of what comes from Salon
> http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/26/faith-and-work/


How about buying legislation to promote their agenda? They are as bad as the Koch brothers.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> That is the one thing that has been forgotten on this thread. Hobby Lobby is self insured. Hobby Lobby is the insurance company. They determine what they will cover in the insurance. There maybe or not be a co-pay. They may have a company that does the paperwork for claims, but Hobby Lobby Pays.


They still have to comply with the ACA.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> And the ACA states that every insurance company and every plan has to provide all medications? I think not!


The ACA sets out minimum standards for what policies must cover. Things like insurance companies can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they can't set limits on lifetime coverage, they must cover birth control.

That is what the lawsuit is about. Hobby Lobby objects to "paying" for some of the birth control that the ACA says all insurance companies must offer.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Finally someone who knows what a corporation is. A small business (individual) can be a LLC (Limited Liability Company). Since that could be a single individual, how could they loose their religious beliefs?


Remember ladies who we're talking to. Those arguing a point who haven't read the lawsuit and don't understand tax laws or accounting. They just like making their opinions known on the issue determined by what the hear from Left Wing bloggers and editorials.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Do *all* insurance policies have to offer* every* cancer drug available? I think not!
> 
> So why do they *all* have to offer* all* 20 contraceptive and morning after pill type drugs?
> 
> BIG double standard!


Why don't you just read the law.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> It looks like my gut feelings were right again. Why am I not surprised? I suppose some of those three billion dollars come from the fact that its website sells on Sundays. I tested that theory out a couple of years ago by buying something there on a Sunday. I haven't dealt with HL since because I don't like hypocrisy, i.e., making a big deal out of closing its retail stores on Sundays because they're so religious while continuing to sell online on Sundays. Let's just say it turned me off. A dictatorship hiding behind "religion" is still a dictatorship, and that appears to be the goal. I don't call that Christianity.


Please explain to me if there is a retail website on-line for the convenience of shoppers or the owner, exactly how does the owner serve the customers by closing down the website business on Sundays.

Furthermore, how is that even done (shutting down a website every Sunday) logistically and efficiently?

Do you know or are you just voicing an opinion?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I'm sure that is coming to the US soon. Now most large companies report the cost of health benefits they have paid on the employees behalf on the W-2 (the earnings statement reported to the IRS.) It would take little for Congress to pass a law that would make the benefits taxable. It would be devastating to a person with an income of $40,000 having to pay tax on $15,000 health benefits with no additional income.


Yet that is what the Dems are salivating over. Wait until they do that and see what it does to further destroy the economy, families and the Dem voting base.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Very obvious you have no idea of what is on a form 1040. If you have earned health insurance it needs to go on a 1040, not a schedule A.


But Joey! She says she knows the answer and has told it to me repeatedly. She says it is so darn easy to understand. Yet, she doesn't.

She claims it is part of her earned compensation, and I assume therefore, taxable!

In addition, if she lists or deducts her health insurance costs on a Sch A, I can predict she didn't have the right to do so and her return will be corrected because of her error. Perhaps she'll be audited; that'll be interesting and a learning experience for her arrogance.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Remember ladies who we're talking to. Those arguing a point who haven't read the lawsuit and don't understand tax laws or accounting. The just like making their opinions known on the issue determined by what the hear from Left Wing bloggers and editorials.


I see you're back on-line, flinging insults.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

flyovercindy said:


> Oh, and I just had to call out a lie here, this writer says nothing in this article or past essays that refers to a "tired lie about some birth control methods masquerading as abortions and the law suit is about not paying for abortions", or refers to any such thing.
> so... IF you read it, you didn't absorb much, and you have mislead any other potential reader about what this conservative writer has to say.
> Good liberal tactic, way to go...


Her standards; don't know, don't comprehend, and lie.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

peachy51 said:


> Just to clarify, they close on Sundays to give their employees the day off. The website can sell any day of the week 24/7 without any human interaction. Do you think just because you buy something from a website on a Sunday that a real, live person is sitting there taking that order? And what a pain in the a$$ it would be every week to disable the website just for one day. Who would do that? Would you?
> 
> When my website is finished and up and running, it will sell to you any hour of any day, but I certainly won't be working 24/7. What a wonderful thing technology is! :mrgreen:


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Another voice of reason.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> That is the one thing that has been forgotten on this thread. Hobby Lobby is self insured. Hobby Lobby is the insurance company. They determine what they will cover in the insurance. There maybe or not be a co-pay. They may have a company that does the paperwork for claims, but Hobby Lobby Pays.


Come on Joey, you know these Libs have no interest in the truth or facts. Don't spoil it for them.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Do *all* insurance policies have to offer* every* cancer drug available? I think not!
> 
> So why do they *all* have to offer* all* 20 contraceptive and morning after pill type drugs?
> 
> BIG double standard!


She is starting to change her stripes; perhaps she has done some researching or leaned something from those telling her the truth and will now she can start spinning faster to reverse what she has already stated incorrectly.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Come on Joey, you know these Libs have no interest in the truth or facts. Don't spoil it for them.


You're raving again. She just restated what has already been established. So...?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> That is really funny since it is not* IN* the law. If you can find it please give me the page and line number.


She'll not admit she was wrong earlier today. Sounds like she conferenced with someone (probably from her corporation), and learned the truth so is now trying to test you.

Tamarque did the same thing - started out not knowing what the lawsuit was about. Learned to check at least part of the suit, and changed slightly her propaganda posts.

I stopped reading them long ago, but did notice the shift before doing so.

They crack me up with their antics. It always dissolves to hurling insults and personal character attacks when they're proven wrong.

from the famous movie quote, "You can't handle the truth."


----------



## Quirky (Aug 14, 2013)

This is a country that stands for freedom of choice. If I sacrificed everything to start my own business and the government stepped in and told me that I had to provide healthcare that I was morally opposed to then I would feel that my right to choose was taken away. It's MY company and I am the boss. If you don't like it go somewhere else to work. This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You know you have no right to chastise everyone else, right? I guess I have the right to tell you to add to the discussion or myob.



Mercury said:


> Would you ladies kindly stop acting like children and get off the subject. This is all a waste of time and accomplishing nothing. Grow up.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I look at it this way, if they add nothing to the discussion, they show what they are like. No proof needed.



flyovercindy said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
> I feel like I'm reading junior high girls' diaries, or today, childish girlie facebook posts... Some of you ladies' time would be better spent doing some real research.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That's right. So I say 'thank you' for the information and 'I see' to the childish bloggers.



tamarque said:


> Hey flyovercindy--I don't know what you are referring to at all. Some of us have done our research and others just dont like it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for something to think about.



taborhills said:


> COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is one of several/many conceptualizations which propose to explain why people decide as they do or perceive as they do.
> 
> For another example, people tend to have difficulty believing something could ever happen because it has never happened before. Think of assumptions such as (in WW II) "A bomb could not destroy a whole city," then Hiroshima, or* (before Viet Nam) "America wins all wars."
> 
> All kinds of irrational processes enter into our perceptions and decisions. This psychological phenomenon is not unique to any individual or political party. If we are committed to using our minds for the benefit of others, ourselves, the world, we should learn about how emotions skew our thinking *and* how we ourselves can avoid being exploited by others who do not truly have our best interests at heart.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank YOU for much to think about.

"This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." William Shakespeare



tamarque said:


> Did you think I was saying only one class of people were subject to cognitive dissonance? Please do not go there. I never even hinted at that. But will say I have seen much of it in this discussion.
> 
> Years ago I read a little book titled the Sociological Imagination. The title stayed with me more than the book's content. But what stayed was the idea that one needs to be able to conceptualize societal dynamics and understand how the different social institutions fit to together. This is something that most people have trouble doing. Not being able to see the whole culture in all its dynamic interconnects results in weakened ability to really understand what is happening around us.
> 
> To be truly independent means to be truly honest with oneself as far as I can see. I was pointing out a particular problem that presents itself on a regular basis. Our culture does not support that kind of introspection or encourage struggle against those subjective realities.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm a 'some.' Thanks for posting. I am in AZ.



tamarque said:


> Some people here might like reading this article that came in this evening. It seems like the timing was perfect for this discussion
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_secret_agenda_how_its_secretly_funding_a_vast_right_wing_movement/


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

tamarque said:


> Okay, I sent an article that listed sources of intent behind HL's lawsuit. It exposed motives that I already surmised in a previous post of mine. Aren't I the clever one.
> 
> This article you sent is not journalism. It is a personal essay, an opinion paper by a business owner. These articles are not comparable.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Hear. Hear.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

flyovercindy said:


> I feel sorry for you - praying for your soul too.
> Good night


I'd prefer that you myob.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Your technological naive is amusing.



peachy51 said:


> Just to clarify, they close on Sundays to give their employees the day off. The website can sell any day of the week 24/7 without any human interaction. Do you think just because you buy something from a website on a Sunday that a real, live person is sitting there taking that order? And what a pain in the a$$ it would be every week to disable the website just for one day. Who would do that? Would you?
> 
> When my website is finished and up and running, it will sell to you any hour of any day, but I certainly won't be working 24/7. What a wonderful thing technology is! :mrgreen:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for the facts and thoughts.



MaidInBedlam said:


> Sorry, but fact and belief sometimes don't exist in the same universe. It is completely meaningless to me that a fertilized egg isn't a complete human being. Viability is not the standard on which my beliefs rest, either. You know good and well that many people here don't care about the factual definition of a life. You've probably stirred up a lot of feeling because I'm remarking on something you said on page 36 of this topic and still have 17 pages to catch up on, if I decide I can survive the attempt.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with the pro-lifers, as I have said a zillion times, is that they are only concerned that a baby be born and never bother to address what happens after that. This leaves me reluctant to say I'm one of those bozos even though I believe a life begins at the moment of conception and that person is ensouled at the same time. I also believe a human's life ends when the last brain cell dies. My intellect isn't deaf to what you have to say. My heart is.
> 
> HL and every other health insurance provider should provide birth control care to all its members. The individual makes the choice about using those services or not. This seems as simple as adding 2+2 and getting 4. The real problem is that HL, as you say, "want the corporate tax deductions while imposing their anti-woman ideology on the workers." A good first step would be to take health care coverage out of employers' hands and put it solely in the hands of individuals.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Quirky said:


> This is a country that stands for freedom of choice. If I sacrificed everything to start my own business and the government stepped in and told me that I had to provide healthcare that I was morally opposed to then I would feel that my right to choose was taken away. It's MY company and I am the boss. If you don't like it go somewhere else to work. This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion.


Granted a balance is needed between the private issues and the public ones. Currently I see more value in keeping religion(S) out of government.

You have every right to practice your faith in any way you choose......until it oversteps into my life. IMHO


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

flyovercindy said:


> LOL - and Salon is not biased at all...
> Try this one too, although after 50-odd pages, I don't think the real issue has been understood by many. "It's just bogus"
> 
> Praying for your souls, like it or not. Good night.
> ...


1. Prayers sent in nastiness are the work of the devil, aren't they? 
2. Salon is what it is, it presents facts with a liberal spin, which is quite different than creating information and presenting it as fact. 
3. Playing "I know you are, but what am I?" smacks of PeeWee Herman. We all know where he ended his career. Be careful.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Granted a balance is needed between the private issues and the public ones. Currently I see more value in keeping religion(S) out of government.
> 
> You have every right to practice your faith in any way you choose......until it oversteps into my life. IMHO


Exactly, Damemary, that would seem to be the case especially when the "facts" that people base their case on are faulty.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Quirky said:


> This is a country that stands for freedom of choice. If I sacrificed everything to start my own business and the government stepped in and told me that I had to provide healthcare that I was morally opposed to then I would feel that my right to choose was taken away. It's MY company and I am the boss. If you don't like it go somewhere else to work. This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion.


1. The Greens didn't sacrifice anything, they risked $600. and became multi-billionaires. 
2.The corporation has been providing birth control for its employees for years. 
3. "I" is not involved. "I" separated from the business when it became a corporation. 
4. Family Time Hobbies, LLC does not have protection under the US Constitution as a person. 
As a US citizen, I feel that any company that doesn't want to do business under the laws of the USA should go sell their wares elsewhere. 
5. This nation was developed with dual view of the religion/state relationship...no religion in the government, no gov't in the religion.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Quirky said:


> This is a country that stands for freedom of choice. If I sacrificed everything to start my own business and the government stepped in and told me that I had to provide healthcare that I was morally opposed to then I would feel that my right to choose was taken away. It's MY company and I am the boss. If you don't like it go somewhere else to work. This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion.


 :thumbup: Correct you are.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

To those of you who are weary of knitpresentgifts rants, I apologize. She consistently engages in hateful comments, insults and slurs, which can be taken with a grain of salt. However, she has made several statements regarding the nature of corporations and "earned compensation" that are completely erroneous, all the time insisting that she and she alone, has the professional expertise and understanding to instruct us on the "facts" as she sees them. I notice that she uses IRS tax forms as the basis for many of her arguments - as if a line on a tax form is proof of a concept. Perhaps, in this season where she evidently is immersed in such things, she can be forgiven for her obsession with tax law.

But she can't be forgiven for spreading nonsense and falsehoods. 

To knitpresentgifts - 

First, I take issue with your interpretation of earned compensation. For some reason this concept has been drawn into the argument. It is your DEFINITION that I find absurd and misleading. You said: 

Please point out the IRS form on which I report my "earned compensation" called health insurance.

This statement in the context of the thread, was that health insurance is not compensation unless you report it on your tax return. Your interpretation is flawed. Health insurance, when provided by an employer, is not taxed. That does not mean it has no value to the employee or that it is not compensation. If I were in the ideal situation where I was being offered two or three positions and had to decide which was the best, the insurance benefits would weigh heavily along with the actual taxable wages. This is known as the "compensation package." If you can't understand that simple concept I wonder what else you don't grasp.

As to the matter of corporations and who pays corporate taxes. You insist that "You have no knowledge of how and why a corporation is formed, who or how their tax liabilities are paid nor how to prepare a corp tax return." Further, you say, "Corporations ARE nothing more than a group of people who file different tax forms than a sole proprietor. Every entity being tax is a human being."

Let's see. EVERY ENTITY BEING TAX(ED) IS A HUMAN BEING."

You are ignoring the fact that there are many kinds of corporations. The corporation under discussion is Hobby Lobby. It is not a sole proprietorship, it is not a limited liability corporation, it is not a professional corporation, all of which have their own tax rules. HL is a regular, straightforward corporation like Intel, IBM, General Motors; a company that is in retail trade to make a profit. The following applies to them:

"What is a corporation?
What sets the corporation apart from all other types of businesses is that a corporation is an INDEPENDENT LEGAL ENTITY, separate from the people who own, control, and manage it. In other words, corporation and tax laws view the corporation as a legal "person" that can enter into contracts, incur debts, and pay taxes APART FROM ITS OWNERS. Other important characteristics also result from the corporation's separate existence: A corporation does not dissolve when its owners (shareholders) change or die, and the owners of a corporation have limited liability -- that is, they are not personally responsible for the corporation's debts."

I don't need to know how to prepare a corporate tax return to understand this concept. 

I described this structure to you and you told me I was absolutely wrong, mistaken and incapable of understanding what a corporation actually is. Your comments were demeaning and insulting and I'm calling you out on them. You are the one who is either uninformed, incapable of understanding, or who just wishes to misinform others.

Corporations pay taxes separate and apart from their shareholders. Corporate entities have tax liabilities that are paid BY THE CORPORATION. Not actual living, breathing, individual human beings on their personal tax returns as you clearly imply. 

I am left to wonder whether your claim of superior knowledge and credentials is a fabrication. 

I'm leaving home for the day so I'll let you chew over this post - no doubt you will have plenty of vitriol to spew before the day is over. 

To everyone else, try not to take knitpresentgift too seriously. She's all noise and no substance.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

DGreen said:


> To those of you who are weary of knitpresentgifts rants, I apologize. She consistently engages in hateful comments, insults and slurs, which can be taken with a grain of salt. However, she has made several statements regarding the nature of corporations and "earned compensation" that are completely erroneous, all the time insisting that she and she alone, has the professional expertise and understanding to instruct us on the "facts" as she sees them. I notice that she uses IRS tax forms as the basis for many of her arguments - as if a line on a tax form is proof of a concept. Perhaps, in this season where she evidently is immersed in such things, she can be forgiven for her obsession with tax law.
> 
> But she can't be forgiven for spreading nonsense and falsehoods.
> 
> ...


We know that, we also know it is best to ignore her as difficult as that may be. 
You notice that people don't respond to her rants, I should say people who she doesn't taunt specifically. 
When have you seen anybody other than those libs whom she targets interact with her?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> To those of you who are weary of knitpresentgifts rants, I apologize....try not to take knitpresentgift too seriously. She's all noise and no substance.


Au contraire...some of us understand KPG perfectly and find your rants tiresome!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> To those of you who are weary of knitpresentgifts rants, I apologize. She consistently engages in hateful comments, insults and slurs, which can be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> To everyone else, try not to take knitpresentgift too seriously. She's all noise and no substance.


You have, once again, multiple times in this one ridiculous post of "yours", misinterpreted my words, twisted my words to suit your purposes, lied, and attempted to put your words into my mouth. You did none of this well, either, I'll add.

I know now, that you are not able to challenge, debate or enter into intelligent conversation with me.

It is not my fault your are not capable enough or studious enough to understand or learn from my words, or to know what you are talking about. I do know what I explained to you, I'm correct and can prove it both in the law, in life and in the IRS Tax Code.

I acknowledge I've bested you in your lack of knowledge and inability to post without personally attacking someone who knows more than you do on the topic at hand.

I never implied, nor said *anything* as you interpreted it.

Try slamming someone else who cares for your kicks next time.

I was correct, accurate and competent in what I've posted.

You, on the other hand, were not, and have an agenda to defame me or anyone who is NOT a Liberal or Democrat.

Learn about corporations, taxes and libel before you get back to me. I, for one, am not impressed with your book definitions and explanation after what was probably hours of you studying or asking advice of someone. Well, you learned poorly or need better council.

I told you repeatedly during the discourse, you aren't comprehending what I wrote, that I'd not waste more time explaining it to you unless you paid me for that time, and that I'd not explain anything further to you. So, instead, you determined what I said. Your actions are foolish and frankly, stupid.

You will not be forgiven for your intentional libel of me nor from your intended defamation of me.

BTW: *You* don't speak for me, you can barely speak for yourself.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Au contraire...some of us understand KPG perfectly and find your rants tiresome!


Hi Gerslay! Nice to see you again.

I hope you enjoyed your trip.

We'll talk.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You have, once again, multiple times in this one ridiculous post of "yours", misinterpreted my words, twisted my words to suit your purposes, lied, and attempted to put your words into my mouth. You did none of this well, either.
> 
> I know now, that you are not able to challenge, debate or enter into intelligent conversation with me.
> 
> ...


I don't seek your forgiveness.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

DGreen said:


> I don't seek your forgiveness.


Where do you suppose she comes up with this silliness?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> I don't seek your forgiveness.


I never said you did. Another of your inaccurate interpretations.

Want to kick me again? I'll never fall.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Quirky said:


> This is a country that stands for freedom of choice. If I sacrificed everything to start my own business and the government stepped in and told me that I had to provide healthcare that I was morally opposed to then I would feel that my right to choose was taken away. It's MY company and I am the boss. If you don't like it go somewhere else to work. This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion.


You are very confused here. Where in the Constitution does it say a business is free from govt regulations? And since when is a business a religion? Oh, yes when it want to avoid paying taxes! But there are those who think they can live in a society, accrue the benefits, but owe nothing back. There are many people who are like this and they run the country. They are sociopaths. Is this what you support?


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Quirky said:


> This is a country that stands for freedom of choice. If I sacrificed everything to start my own business and the government stepped in and told me that I had to provide healthcare that I was morally opposed to then I would feel that my right to choose was taken away. It's MY company and I am the boss. If you don't like it go somewhere else to work. This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion.


This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion?

It was founded on keeping religion out of government but still allowing personal freedom for anyone to practice their religion but not to bring it in to effect the lives of others who do not share in their views.
We can plainly see what damage is being done by elected officials trying to bring religion into government decisions.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Judithlynn said:


> That is a matter of opinion. The only scientists who believe this are those who don't follow the Lord.


A real, trained scientist does not allow his/her religion get in the way of scientific process.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Hi Gerslay! Nice to see you again.
> 
> I hope you enjoyed your trip.
> 
> We'll talk.


Good to see you again, too.

My trip was great, thanks!

I'm hoping the Supreme Court does the right thing here and supports Hobby Lobby's position. They must uphold religious liberty; without this liberty there is no security and religious persecution gets more and more entrenched.

Fight the good fight!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Good to see you again, too.
> 
> My trip was great, thanks!
> 
> ...


I agree, courage, my friend, courage. I certainly hope the Supreme Court rules correctly. Lately, I wonder.

Have to run, but glad to see you back.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

lins said:


> This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion?
> 
> It was founded on keeping religion out of government but still allowing personal freedom for anyone to practice their religion but not to bring it in to effect the lives of others who do not share in their views.
> We can plainly see what damage is being done by elected officials trying to bring religion into government decisions.


Its the 1st Amendment: Freedom OF Religion FROM the State making or enforcing laws that impinge on religious freedom.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Sorry, but fact and belief sometimes don't exist in the same universe.......
> 
> The biggest problem I have with the pro-lifers, as I have said a zillion times, is that they are only concerned that a baby be born and never bother to address what happens after that. This leaves me reluctant to say I'm one of those bozos even though I believe a life begins at the moment of conception and that person is ensouled at the same time. I also believe a human's life ends when the last brain cell dies. My intellect isn't deaf to what you have to say. My heart is.
> 
> HL and every other health insurance provider should provide birth control care to all its members. The individual makes the choice about using those services or not. This seems as simple as adding 2+2 and getting 4. The real problem is that HL, as you say, "want the corporate tax deductions while imposing their anti-woman ideology on the workers." A good first step would be to take health care coverage out of employers' hands and put it solely in the hands of individuals.




Well, I have to agree with your first comment about facts and belief not existing in the same universe for many people. Faith based learning is never about facts--quite the contrary. This is usually a dangerous thing,not something I tend to support when such faith based beliefs are used to hurt others.
And I consider the manipulation of people with emotional conditioning to be hurtful as it takes away an individuals power to question and make personal decisions.

Second, I do appreciate your honesty in recognizing the difference betw intellectual understanding and, as you say, the heart. It is that conflict that makes dealing with erroneous teaching so difficult to change. I deal with this fact on issues of racism on a daily basis. Intellectual understanding never changes racist feelings; all it can do is help control the rotten behavior.

Third, I think you focus on the very important point that pro-lifers are never concerned with what happens to a baby once it is born. They would force a women into having the baby but then blame the woman for doing so and tend to have very punitive attitudes. I find this very hypocritical, to say the least. It seems to me that we are dealing more with internalized sexism when this attitude is promoted by women. It is understandable when this is done by men who are raised in our very patriarchal culture. They are always looking for ways to control women and demean their importance and right to self-determination. When women become the mouthpieces for male dominance, that is a heart breaker.

Fourth, HL does not have to provide medical insurance, but they sure would need to up the salaries so their workers could afford it. On $9/hr this cannot happen. But what can happen is that we have a national, Single Payer system which completely avoids this whole problem and ensures that every person has access to medical care if they want it.

Of course there will be problems with such a system as it still wont cover all health options which means it will not provide me with coverage of any significance. I do not use drugs of any sort and lobby heavily against them for many reasons. I will still be paying out of pocket for the holistic protocols that I use so would not get coverage. But at least I won't be forced to purchase private corporation product which I do not want. But I do support a Federal system for more equity. There will still be standards set up for what gets paid and what is not covered.

The problem with HL is they want to control what gets covered which is non-compliant with standards set. They also lie about the issue as they claim the b.c. options they oppose cause abortions. They do not cause abortions. The lawsuit, as I have written before, is part of a bigger effort by bit monied right wingers to destroy women's reproductive health care. It is totally sexist and illegal.

The fact that HL has its own policy is meaningless. They still need to conform to the standards of coverage that have been established. Using religion as an excuse is bogus and will only succeed due to appointments made to the courts based on a willingness to be activist judges in support of the neo-con and fundamentalist agendas. The majority of the public would disagree with any restrictive rulings.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Its the 1st Amendment: Freedom OF Religion FROM the State making or enforcing laws that impinge on religious freedom.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."


Get a grip girl. There is no law being made regarding an establish religion. It is the religion that has an agenda of imposing itself into law. And that is the corollary of this freedom.

No one cares what your belief system is. The document I sent clearly states how HL is part of a larger monied collective trying to impose itself into law. It is trying to create a theocracy and that is illegal. I am not impressed with the HL cheap tricks being used to move their agenda forward. Buying votes is not very spiritual in my book.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lins said:


> This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion?
> 
> It was founded on keeping religion out of government but still allowing personal freedom for anyone to practice their religion but not to bring it in to effect the lives of others who do not share in their views.
> We can plainly see what damage is being done by elected officials trying to bring religion into government decisions.


I agree - Quirky is mis-reading the first amendment and displays a lack of understanding on the basic issues of the HL lawsuit.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Get a grip girl. There is no law being made regarding an establish religion. It is the religion that has an agenda of imposing itself into law. And that is the corollary of this freedom.
> 
> No one cares what your belief system is. The document I sent clearly states how HL is part of a larger monied collective trying to impose itself into law. It is trying to create a theocracy and that is illegal. I am not impressed with the HL cheap tricks being used to move their agenda forward. Buying votes is not very spiritual in my book.


It is hard to believe, these people really do buy the idea that someone/anyone is interested in persecuting those who believe in a certain way. Most likely this is due to an awry translation a century ago.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Its the 1st Amendment: Freedom OF Religion FROM the State making or enforcing laws that impinge on religious freedom.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."


The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I never said you did. Another of your inaccurate interpretations.
> 
> Want to kick me again? I'll never fall.


You are obviously deranged.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Having sex is part of being a human being and is a medical necessity, therefore what you just said is that poor people are not allowed to live as human beings.
> 
> Yes, being celibate CAN be done, just like many other forms of medical self-harm CAN be done, but it's not healthy. I suppose someone can learn to not sneeze when they need to also, but that doesn't erase the fact that their body needs to sneeze and it would be harmful to them in the long-run if they are continually prevented from sneezing.
> 
> It's sick and inhuman and literally unAmerican to suggest that human beings don't have the right to equal protection under the law or to live as full human beings with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which indubitably includes sexual intercourse.


How does celibacy cause medical self-harm? What makes sex a medical necessity? Having sexual intercourse may cause feelings of happiness, but not having it doesn't necessarily mean someone isn't actively pursuing happiness. Am I un-American just because I don't have a sexual relation ship right this minute? That sounds like complete nonsense to me.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

dGreen,

I consider telling someone she is "deranged" to be rude, silly, and unnecessarily potentially hurtful. You owe an apology.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

taborhills said:


> dGreen,
> 
> I consider telling someone she is "deranged" to be rude, silly, and unnecessarily potentially hurtful. You owe an apology.


Rude? Have you read her posts? Get off your high horse. I owe her nothing.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The pertinent clause here is "or prohibiting the free exercise therof"

The Supreme Court will decide if this clause pertains to Hobby Lobby's position of not wanting to provide, without a co-pay, for birth control pills and devices that are used after conception which, they believe, equates to an abortificient. Or not!

Patience, girls and ladies, patience!


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Actually, the basic concept of religious freedom (or freedom from religion) is pretty easy to understand. Others have read documentation and commentary on the subject, too. Your version of "accuracy" may not represent a consensus.


While it's true the First Amendment doesn't specifically say we have freedom from religion, but it seems to me if I have freedom of religion I can choose to have no religion whatsoever. That would equal freedom from religion, in case I haven't been clear enough for some of you.

The Constitution supports freedom from religion as well by not requiring citizens to swear oaths on the Bible. If we choose to, we can make an "attestation", which is considered as equal to swearing an oath on the Bible.


----------



## jessieleone (Feb 6, 2013)

I vote to boycott!!! No business should decide what I can or can't do. If they are so concerned about women,they should lower their prices be more giving to women. Donate a percentage of their profits to homeless,starving children,women,veterans and seniors.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> How does celibacy cause medical self-harm? What makes sex a medical necessity? Having sexual intercourse may cause feelings of happiness, but not having it doesn't necessarily mean someone isn't actively pursuing happiness. Am I un-American just because I don't have a sexual relation ship right this minute? That sounds like complete nonsense to me.


There have been many studies about the benefits of human sexual contact. 
They may or many not be definitive. 
We do know how important touch is.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

jessieleone said:


> I vote to boycott!!! No business should decide what I can or can't do. If they are so concerned about women,they should lower their prices be more giving to women. Donate a percentage of their profits to homeless,starving children,women,veterans and seniors.


I would guess that they give the requisite 10% to their church, I don't know where the Baptist Church spends their tithes.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

jessieleone said:


> I vote to boycott!!! No business should decide what I can or can't do. If they are so concerned about women,they should lower their prices be more giving to women. Donate a percentage of their profits to homeless,starving children,women,veterans and seniors.


If you read the article link I sent you will see that HL does a lot of donations, but all in name of prosyletizing, and gaining tax deductions. And most importantly, is the millions they contribute to 'influence' votes by law makers. This makes them a major part of the problem of the demise of democracy in this country and it doesn't impress me one iota.
To the contrary, reading about them makes me want to join forces with others to stop them along with the Koch bros others who truly despite democracy and the freedoms it promises. HL is not a democratic organization.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> While it's true the First Amendment doesn't specifically say we have freedom from religion, but it seems to me if I have freedom of religion I can choose to have no religion whatsoever. That would equal freedom from religion, in case I haven't been clear enough for some of you.
> 
> The Constitution supports freedom from religion as well by not requiring citizens to swear oaths on the Bible. If we choose to, we can make an "attestation", which is considered as equal to swearing an oath on the Bible.


Yup, there was a time I almost had to go to court for a labor case, I swore I was going to give my oath on the union agreement.


----------



## Madame La Farge (Jan 8, 2014)

We found the movie "Dirty Wars" on Netflix. I think it might also be available on DVD at your local library.


----------



## jessieleone (Feb 6, 2013)

Hobby Lobby give churches and charitable organizations a 10% discount in their stores. This does not impress me. They make about 33 billion. They are number 135 on Forbes biggest businesses. Where in the bible does it say greed is goot? This is only my opinion. I expect no one to feel the same as me.


----------



## jessieleone (Feb 6, 2013)

In 2009 and in 2011 Hobby Lobby spent $50,000 to lobbyists. In 2013 the lobby money was to lobby against the affordable health care act.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> I must thank you, you got KPG to say she is quitting.


Don't count on that lasting more than a few minutes. KPG can't live without gracing us with her remarks. "Quitting" for her means she's taking a short break to get a cup of coffee, answer the call of nature, answer the phone, or some other thing like that.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Rude? Have you read her posts? Get off your high horse. I owe her nothing.


One wrong does not justify another.


----------



## jessieleone (Feb 6, 2013)

This has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with a business(not a church) telling women what they should and should not have. The only thing Hobby Lobby would loose in this is the almighty dollar. Which seems to be very important to the billionaires that Hobby Lobby . They not only want your money,they want your voice also. But this is just my opinion.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

jessieleone said:


> This has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with a business(not a church) telling women what they should and should not have. The only thing Hobby Lobby would loose in this is the almighty dollar. Which seems to be very important to the billionaires that Hobby Lobby . They not only want your money,they want your voice also. But this is just my opinion.


Not quite...this is not about telling women what they should and should not have...it is about telling women if you want 'all of the above' (in terms of birth control) we think you should have a co-pay.

When did co-pays become a bad thing?


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

tamarque said:


> If you read the article link I sent you will see that HL does a lot of donations, but all in name of prosyletizing, and gaining tax deductions. And most importantly, is the millions they contribute to 'influence' votes by law makers. This makes them a major part of the problem of the demise of democracy in this country and it doesn't impress me one iota.
> To the contrary, reading about them makes me want to join forces with others to stop them along with the Koch bros others who truly despite democracy and the freedoms it promises. HL is not a democratic organization.


Democracy, capitalism, freedom, freedom of choice... I do not think some people here understand what they mean...
Oh, and your evil Koch brothers are small potatoes compared to unions and many others in influence peddling - except most of the "peddling" goes to the other side... oops...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Don't count on that lasting more than a few minutes. KPG can't live without gracing us with her remarks. "Quitting" for her means she's taking a short break to get a cup of coffee, answer the call of nature, answer the phone, or some other thing like that.


My guess would be cleaning the rim of the toilet bowl in one of her commercial endeavors.


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

taborhills said:


> One wrong does not justify another.


Then KPG equally owes DGreen an apology.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Please explain to me if there is a retail website on-line for the convenience of shoppers or the owner, exactly how does the owner serve the customers by closing down the website business on Sundays.
> 
> Furthermore, how is that even done (shutting down a website every Sunday) logistically and efficiently?
> 
> Do you know or are you just voicing an opinion?


They don't seem to be all that concerned about serving the convenience of locals who have only Sundays available to shop and don't like to shop online. One would think it would be more consistent with their stance not to have a website (which does business on Sundays and services their income as well as their customers who use the site on Sundays). I'm voicing an opinion.


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Au contraire...some of us understand KPG perfectly and find your rants tiresome!


 :thumbup: Thank you


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

jessieleone said:


> In 2009 and in 2011 Hobby Lobby spent $50,000 to lobbyists. In 2013 the lobby money was to lobby against the affordable health care act.


That's because they can afford the best health care for themselves and their families and being the charitable and caring religious organization they claim to be, they simply don't care about anyone but themselves.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

flyovercindy said:


> Democracy, capitalism, freedom, freedom of choice... I do not think some people here understand what they mean...
> Oh, and your evil Koch brothers are small potatoes compared to unions and many others in influence peddling - except most of the "peddling" goes to the other side... oops...
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php


You are kidding, right? 
Unions don't have nearly the cash to spread around that some of these folks do. 
Sheldon Adelson is accountable to no one and can hide his "donations" anywhere. 
The Koch Brothers the same, and the same with George Soros. 
Unions are accountable to their membership for the money and resourches they use. They also represent more than one voice when they get people out to volunteer and when they do their donations. 
Not all unions are liberal, check out who the police and fire organizations suppport.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

flyovercindy said:


> Democracy, capitalism, freedom, freedom of choice... I do not think some people here understand what they mean...
> Oh, and your evil Koch brothers are small potatoes compared to unions and many others in influence peddling - except most of the "peddling" goes to the other side... oops...
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php


Having been required to be on a management team where a union was active for employees, and having later been required to be a union member as a condition of employment in another work situation, I find the Koch brothers far more intrusive than I ever did either the United Steel Workers or the United Auto Workers unions. Since I'm not suggestible, I had no problem with anyone's "influence peddling." It's called do your own thinking, a lifelong habit of mine.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

painthoss said:


> Then KPG equally owes DGreen an apology.


Sure, both owe each other an apology, and should also apologize to all of us who would have liked to have a logical informed and informative discussion instead of watching a cat-fight.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

flyovercindy said:


> Democracy, capitalism, freedom, freedom of choice... I do not think some people here understand what they mean...
> Oh, and your evil Koch brothers are small potatoes compared to unions and many others in influence peddling - except most of the "peddling" goes to the other side... oops...
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php


And, you know, this is a much more interesting list...

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/incdec.php


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> You are kidding, right?
> Unions don't have nearly the cash to spread around that some of these folks do.
> Sheldon Adelson is accountable to no one and can hide his "donations" anywhere.
> The Koch Brothers the same, and the same with George Soros.
> ...


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/evil-koch-brothers-rank-59-in-political-donations-behind-18-different-unions/


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I have a good understanding of the generalities, but hesitate to tell anyone about them because I'm not as well versed in the specifics as I could be. Neither do I think people learn as well when they don't do their own research. Too many simply parrot what their friends and neighbors, including church congregations, pastors, and priests, have to say, and are not interested in the realities with which they don't agree. For instance, the idea of a "George Washington prayer" is repeated on the internet in many different versions, and most Christians tend not to question its validity in any of them. George Washington himself, however, is highly unlikely to have been a Christian, let alone authored a prayer. It is assumed that the founding fathers were all Christians simply because allowances were made for religious freedom. If one does the research, one would find that some founding fathers were likely agnostics or atheists who were fair-minded--not at all what current Christians want to hear.
> 
> No doubt what I have written here will make me a target once again. All I can say is that people should do their own research. I do mine.


You bring up a good point, especially about the "George Washington Prayer". *Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists.*

Deism (diː.ɪzəm/ or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenmentespecially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United Statesamong intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and did not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

flyovercindy said:


> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/evil-koch-brothers-rank-59-in-political-donations-behind-18-different-unions/


Do you think you are talking to someone who doesn't understand the game?
Do you maybe not understand?
Please, go study the Citizens United decision and then come back with a realistic view of political donations and how they work since that decision.

BTW, here is a bio for the great (koff, koff) Jim Hoft. 
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jim.hoft


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> You bring up a good point, especially about the "George Washington Prayer". *Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists.*
> 
> Deism (diː.ɪzəm/ or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenmentespecially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United Statesamong intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and did not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.


Thanks, MIB, for posting that. So many don't understand.


----------



## Quirky (Aug 14, 2013)

The separation of church and state was to keep the government out of the church. This country is the most desired place to live because capitalism gives everybody a chance to become successful. Hard work is rewarded here. Capitalism breeds competition which in turn creates more jobs. Not everyone will reach the same heights of success but everyone has the opportunity to try.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

I'm starting to believe very seriously that health insurance should be completely taken out of employers' hands and put directly in the individual's hands. Not only that, but health insurance plans should all offer the same services. That includes family planning and sexual and reproductive health. Individuals could then make their own personal, private decisions about using those services. Also, everyone who pays for their plan should be able to make those payments a tax deduction.


tamarque said:


> Well, I have to agree with your first comment about facts and belief not existing in the same universe for many people. Faith based learning is never about facts--quite the contrary. This is usually a dangerous thing,not something I tend to support when such faith based beliefs are used to hurt others.
> And I consider the manipulation of people with emotional conditioning to be hurtful as it takes away an individuals power to question and make personal decisions.
> 
> Second, I do appreciate your honesty in recognizing the difference betw intellectual understanding and, as you say, the heart. It is that conflict that makes dealing with erroneous teaching so difficult to change. I deal with this fact on issues of racism on a daily basis. Intellectual understanding never changes racist feelings; all it can do is help control the rotten behavior.
> ...


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Do you think you are talking to someone who doesn't understand the game?
> Do you maybe not understand?
> Please, go study the Citizens United decision and then come back with a realistic view of political donations and how they work since that decision.
> 
> ...


Seriously? a "bio"? I get grief for offering articles of differing opinions because they are considered "blogs", and this is considered a "bio"? ...and certainly not from an unbiased website...(eye roll)
We are all, apparently, products of the sources we choose to believe.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> My guess would be cleaning the rim of the toilet bowl in one of her commercial endeavors.


Good one. Thanks! :twisted: :XD:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Thanks, MIB, for posting that. So many don't understand.


You are impressively right about that. This fact is often left out of the standardized textbooks used in public schools, along with a lot of other facts. Teaching an "idealized" version of American history is worse than teaching nothing about American history.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Quirky said:


> The separation of church and state was to keep the government out of the church. This country is the most desired place to live because capitalism gives everybody a chance to become successful. Hard work is rewarded here. Capitalism breeds competition which in turn creates more jobs. Not everyone will reach the same heights of success but everyone has the opportunity to try.


Want to show all of us where it is written that capitalism gives everybody a chance to become successful?
All of the studies I have seen document that if you are born poor you have a 90% chance of staying poor...as you can see with this study those who begin and grow in poverty may claw their way out, the tendency is for them to slip back in.

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412126-child-poverty-persistence.pdf


----------



## mojave (Oct 14, 2011)

Quirky said:


> The separation of church and state was to keep the government out of the church. This country is the most desired place to live because capitalism gives everybody a chance to become successful. Hard work is rewarded here. Capitalism breeds competition which in turn creates more jobs. Not everyone will reach the same heights of success but everyone has the opportunity to try.


Capitalism works with limited success. Uncontrolled capitalism creates an unhealthy society and economy. Historically, businessmen/women who seek maximum profits generally use cutthroat and/or outright immoral tactics to undermine competition until there is no competition; thereby creating no incentive to keep prices at a point where the average consumer can afford to purchase the commodity produced by the business. Hence we have the anti-trust and regulated monopoly laws to protect the public from unscrupulous businesses.
The other way historically and currently used by businesses to maximize profits is cut wages/salary and reduce or remove benefits. This creates a labor force unable to purchase goods and as we have seen since 2007, this has a disastrous effect on the American economy.


----------



## Quirky (Aug 14, 2013)

The opportunity is there. Parental responsibilities unfulfilled do not negate the fact that the opportunity is there. There are many poor people who have climbed out of poverty and have been grateful for the opportunity to succeed. The model is there. Whether people take advantage of it is their choice


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Quirky said:


> The opportunity is there. Parental responsibilities unfulfilled do not negate the fact that the opportunity is there. There are many poor people who have climbed out of poverty and have been grateful for the opportunity to succeed. The model is there. Whether people take advantage of it is their choice


A well regulated economy may assist citizens with financial growth. 
We don't have full on capitalism, so it is very difficult to determine the result. And yes, I do note that you provide nothing to back up your pronouncements.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Quirky said:


> The opportunity is there. Parental responsibilities unfulfilled do not negate the fact that the opportunity is there. There are many poor people who have climbed out of poverty and have been grateful for the opportunity to succeed. The model is there. Whether people take advantage of it is their choice


Really? Do you have 40 billion dollars like Sheldon Adelson?


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Quirky said:


> This is a country that stands for freedom of choice. If I sacrificed everything to start my own business and the government stepped in and told me that I had to provide healthcare that I was morally opposed to then I would feel that my right to choose was taken away. It's MY company and I am the boss. If you don't like it go somewhere else to work. This country was founded on the principles of keeping government out of religion.


So, do you ask your potential employees their religious views before you hire them? Would you like that if you were looking for a job?


----------



## Quirky (Aug 14, 2013)

It is against the law to ask about religion. Work requires maximum effort for a task. Benefits are extras supplied to an employee. If you do not agree with the benefits then don't use them. It should have nothing to do with the work offered. This is not supposed to be a discussion about corporate greed. This is a discussion about whether a business owner can choose what benefits they will offer their employees.


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

Quirky said:


> The opportunity is there. Parental responsibilities unfulfilled do not negate the fact that the opportunity is there. There are many poor people who have climbed out of poverty and have been grateful for the opportunity to succeed. The model is there. Whether people take advantage of it is their choice


Well said, thank you


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Quirky said:


> It is against the law to ask about religion. Work requires maximum effort for a task. Benefits are extras supplied to an employee. If you do not agree with the benefits then don't use them. It should have nothing to do with the work offered. This is not supposed to be a discussion about corporate greed. This is a discussion about whether a business owner can choose what benefits they will offer their employees.


Of course benefits, especially health insurance, are connected to the work. Benefits are not extras. Read your WWII economics, that is when the offerings of benefits exploded.

Corporate greed has everything to do with this case before the SCOTUS.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Quirky said:


> It is against the law to ask about religion. Work requires maximum effort for a task. Benefits are extras supplied to an employee. If you do not agree with the benefits then don't use them. It should have nothing to do with the work offered. This is not supposed to be a discussion about corporate greed. This is a discussion about whether a business owner can choose what benefits they will offer their employees.


You wrote 'It's MY company and I am the boss. If you don't like it go somewhere else to work.'

...so the discussion would have to come up, right?


----------



## Quirky (Aug 14, 2013)

What discussion?


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Quirky said:


> What discussion?


The morally opposed health care that you don't want to cover.
...sorry, this got posted twice.


----------



## Keepmeinstitches (Feb 21, 2011)

You do not have the right information.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Quirky said:


> What discussion?


The morally opposed health care that you don't want to cover.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Quirky said:


> What discussion?


The morally opposed health care that you don't want to cover.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

I am just wondering if this argey bargey (English term for insane arguing) is going to continue until the SCOTUS brings down its decision in June. No one's mind is going to be changed no matter what information is brought to the table.

I am not a US citizen and therefore really have no right to enter into this discussion. I don't even know where my nearest Hobby Lobby is in the US. But I have followed each and every page. Page 61 now. As usual with these "reg flag" discussions, the vitriol begins to fly and it ends up a snapping match.

Each of us has her own take on this situation and snapping at each other (while fun for me to watch, LOL) is not getting anybody anywhere. I will continue to watch the fun if it continues, even though I say to myself that it takes up far too much of my time.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> I am just wondering if this argey bargey (English term for insane arguing) is going to continue until the SCOTUS brings down its decision in June. No one's mind is going to be changed no matter what information is brought to the table.
> 
> I am not a US citizen and therefore really have no right to enter into this discussion. I don't even know where my nearest Hobby Lobby is in the US. But I have followed each and every page. Page 61 now. As usual with these "reg flag" discussions, the vitriol begins to fly and it ends up a snapping match.
> 
> Each of us has her own take on this situation and snapping at each other (while fun for me to watch, LOL) is not getting anybody anywhere. I will continue to watch the fun if it continues, even though I say to myself that it takes up far too much of my time.


Ah, but you are entitled to discuss anything you wish. I think this is a hugely better reality show than anything I've ever seen under that category on the television :~D!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

tamarque said:


> Of course I agree with you vocallisa.
> 
> I really like to understand the dynamics that go on in a dialogue, or a movement or political campaign. One social science concept that I mention over and over is Cognitive Dissonance. Are you familiar with it? It is a powerful concept to understand as we see it all the time here on KP.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you say. Excellently stated.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Mercury said:


> Would you ladies kindly stop acting like children and get off the subject. This is all a waste of time and accomplishing nothing. Grow up.


Despite there being some puerile posts in this thread, there's also lot's of informative posts.

If you're too lazy and/or "slow" to manage to filter through them, then that's your issue and you need to resolve that for yourself.

Expecting the world to spoon feed you is equally childish and a waste of time.


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

BlueJay21 said:


> I am just wondering if this argey bargey (English term for insane arguing) is going to continue until the SCOTUS brings down its decision in June. No one's mind is going to be changed no matter what information is brought to the table.
> 
> I am not a US citizen and therefore really have no right to enter into this discussion.* I don't even know where my nearest Hobby Lobby is in the US.* But I have followed each and every page. Page 61 now. As usual with these "reg flag" discussions, the vitriol begins to fly and it ends up a snapping match.
> 
> Each of us has her own take on this situation and snapping at each other (while fun for me to watch, LOL) is not getting anybody anywhere. I will continue to watch the fun if it continues, even though I say to myself that it takes up far too much of my time.


That would be:
19310 60th Avenue West 
Lynnwood, WA 98036

Smeagol is good, always helps!


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Despite there being some puerile posts in this thread, there's also lot's of informative posts.
> 
> If you're too lazy and/or "slow" to manage to filter through them, then that's your issue and you need to resolve that for yourself.
> 
> Expecting the world to spoon feed you is equally childish and a waste of time.


You won't get any argument from me on that!


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Quirky said:


> The opportunity is there. Parental responsibilities unfulfilled do not negate the fact that the opportunity is there. There are many poor people who have climbed out of poverty and have been grateful for the opportunity to succeed. The model is there. Whether people take advantage of it is their choice


You are correct Quirky. It is the choices people make that will either steer them towards the opportunity or away from it. Depending on the person, different levels of success will be achieved through other choices made along the way.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

flyovercindy said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
> I feel like I'm reading junior high girls' diaries, or today, childish girlie facebook posts... Some of you ladies' time would be better spent doing some real research.


There's LOTS of posts here that contain quite a bit of research and facts. If you're not capable of figuring out which ones are which, then _that_ is your real problem.

Yup, there are lots of foolish ignorant people in the world that we unfortunately have to come into contact with if when we step outside our isolated bubbles.

Grow up and deal with it.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

painthoss said:


> That would be:
> 19310 60th Avenue West
> Lynnwood, WA 98036
> 
> Smeagol is good, always helps!


Thank you, painthoss. I don't cross the border much. I don't believe in cross-border shopping. If I am in that part of the States, I will take a look, maybe. If most of their items are from China, though, then I will probably give it a pass. But thanks for the info.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

taborhills said:


> COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is one of several/many conceptualizations which propose to explain why people decide as they do or perceive as they do.
> 
> For another example, people tend to have difficulty believing something could ever happen because it has never happened before. Think of assumptions such as (in WW II) "A bomb could not destroy a whole city," then Hiroshima, or* (before Viet Nam) "America wins all wars."
> 
> All kinds of irrational processes enter into our perceptions and decisions. This psychological phenomenon is not unique to any individual or political party. If we are committed to using our minds for the benefit of others, ourselves, the world, we should learn about how emotions skew our thinking *and* how we ourselves can avoid being exploited by others who do not truly have our best interests at heart.


Cognitive dissonance happens with racists a lot too.

They have their negative preconceived notions about how and what "Others" are, sometimes because people NEED to belittle and disrespect Others to make themselves feel better about themselves.

This is happening a lot with Obama now. The amount of irrational conspiracy theories that pop up is, IMO directly related to their NEED to keep, what they perceive as, those uppity black people in their place.

It scares the hell out of some white people to even consider that some black people are smarter and more talented than they.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

tamarque said:



> Did you think I was saying only one class of people were subject to cognitive dissonance? Please do not go there. I never even hinted at that. But will say I have seen much of it in this discussion.
> 
> Years ago I read a little book titled the Sociological Imagination. The title stayed with me more than the book's content. But what stayed was the idea that one needs to be able to conceptualize societal dynamics and understand how the different social institutions fit to together. This is something that most people have trouble doing. Not being able to see the whole culture in all its dynamic interconnects results in weakened ability to really understand what is happening around us.
> 
> To be truly independent means to be truly honest with oneself as far as I can see. I was pointing out a particular problem that presents itself on a regular basis. Our culture does not support that kind of introspection or encourage struggle against those subjective realities.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Do it again, do it again, harder harder.


You can say that again!
:thumbup:


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

BlueJay21 said:


> Thank you, painthoss. I don't cross the border much. I don't believe in cross-border shopping. If I am in that part of the States, I will take a look, maybe. If most of their items are from China, though, then I will probably give it a pass. But thanks for the info.


No, I didn't really expect you to go visit, and I understood your point when commenting that you didn't even know where one was. You were demonstrating that as a Canadian you are not affected by this court case, but as a member of the world you are affected by these huge companies that get their products from China, supporting that exploitative government. You bring well thought out perspective to the argle bargle.

I was just channeling my inner Gollum.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

tamarque said:


> Some people here might like reading this article that came in this evening. It seems like the timing was perfect for this discussion
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_secret_agenda_how_its_secretly_funding_a_vast_right_wing_movement/





> But a document published here for the first time reveals Hobby Lobby appears to be going much further than protecting freedom, providing funding for a group that backs a political network of activist groups deeply engaged in pushing a Christian agenda into American law.


Exactly. Why are these Christian groups often so sneaky and dishonest about what they're doing?

This is ANOTHER thing that's giving American Christiandom a bad name.

These are people who would like to turn our nation into a sort of Theocracy, and since corporations have more power in this country than our own government does, they are trying to do it via lawsuits like this.

Give corporations more power to force individuals into the owner's and board's religious beliefs. It is the intentional merging of Church and State by corporate proxy.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> Finally someone who knows what a corporation is. A small business (individual) can be a LLC (Limited Liability Company). Since that could be a single individual, how could they loose their religious beliefs?


... and?

What a corporation/LLC etc is, is not new information to any of us.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Judithlynn said:


> That is a matter of opinion. The only scientists who believe this are those who don't follow the Lord.


Thanks for admitting that the scientists who don't believe that are not using science to form their opinions and instead upon the "Word" of something that probably doesn't even exist.

Of course, that makes them THE OPPOSITE of scientists.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

flyovercindy said:


> ...wow, evil incarnate... supporting their Christian values, and advocating for religious liberty,


No, that's not what they're doing. They are trying to turn this country into a Theocracy and deny people civil rights and go against the separation of church and state principles of the US Constitution and doing so in a nefarious sneaky way.

So, yes, that's is someone evil and a gross violation of true Christianity.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Good ones. Love how your mind works.



Janet Cooke said:


> 1. Prayers sent in nastiness are the work of the devil, aren't they?
> 2. Salon is what it is, it presents facts with a liberal spin, which is quite different than creating information and presenting it as fact.
> 3. Playing "I know you are, but what am I?" smacks of PeeWee Herman. We all know where he ended his career. Be careful.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

flyovercindy said:


> Here's another one - although you'll probably regard it as propaganda, ..
> http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/26/faith-and-work/


I don't know if it's propaganda, but I will let Greta Van Susteran provide you with some perspective on it's author:



> *We are a big nation with different viewpoints. We wont always agreebut a strong debate is helpful when we disagree. Sometimes if you are smart in your debate, you persuade someone who otherwise had disagreed with you.
> 
> And then there are the creeps who take cheap shots because they are too ignorant and small to engage in an important discussion. The best they can do is make themselves look really bad. No one should pay any attention to them  they are not persuasive, they are noise, and in some instances boorish and obnoxious. I suspect this guy feels that he makes himself relevant or even important if he says or tweets like this. I just roll my eyes and wonder what is going on in his head!
> 
> I dont care how much you disagree or agree with Texas Wendy Davis, you have to agree that this guy, Erick Erickson, is a real jerk and is really lousy at being a spokesperson for his views*


If Erick Erickson is the best you got, you got nothin sweetie.

Seriously. Why do "Christians" keep putting out these kinds of jerks as their spokespeople ... and then whine and complain when people like me point out that there's something very ANTI-Christian going on in American Christianity these days?

Can't you people find anyone half-decent to speak for you?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put!



Janet Cooke said:


> 1. The Greens didn't sacrifice anything, they risked $600. and became multi-billionaires.
> 2.The corporation has been providing birth control for its employees for years.
> 3. "I" is not involved. "I" separated from the business when it became a corporation.
> 4. Family Time Hobbies, LLC does not have protection under the US Constitution as a person.
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Something I learned just today....Until 2012, when Obamacare was enacted, HL offered employees the very same contraceptive choices, IUDs and the morning after pill, through their health care plan. The hatred for President Obama's health care plan and for the President himself would appear to be the reason for the sudden change of heart, not a so-called Christianity


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

flyovercindy said:


> LOL - and Salon is not biased at all...


Who said they weren't biased?

The point is that what you posted was an opinion piece which is different from an article written via sources and reporting.

You always seem to have to resort to fantasy, faith and conjecture and you consistently don't seem to know how to discern the difference between the two as I suspect your response to this post will reveal.

For instance, the article that tamarque posted was an article that contained links and sources to support it's reporting.

And what do you do... you post an editorial piece as if it's the same thing?

Seriously, you don't know the difference between an opinion editorial piece and an article that involves reporting and SOURCING?

I have no problem with "bias" as long as they don't pretend to be unbiased and then use solid facts to support the justification for their bias.

But, you can't even tell the difference between an opinion column and a sourced reporting??

This is why we have a problem in our country debating things.

*If you are dealing with people who can't even discern between reporting and editorializing, then you're dealing with people who clearly lack the intellectual capacity to UNDERSTAND complex issues.*


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you so much for clarifying the discussion. Very pertinent information well presented.



DGreen said:


> To those of you who are weary of knitpresentgifts rants, I apologize. She consistently engages in hateful comments, insults and slurs, which can be taken with a grain of salt. However, she has made several statements regarding the nature of corporations and "earned compensation" that are completely erroneous, all the time insisting that she and she alone, has the professional expertise and understanding to instruct us on the "facts" as she sees them. I notice that she uses IRS tax forms as the basis for many of her arguments - as if a line on a tax form is proof of a concept. Perhaps, in this season where she evidently is immersed in such things, she can be forgiven for her obsession with tax law.
> 
> But she can't be forgiven for spreading nonsense and falsehoods.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And, I find you a bunch of sheep. Perfect avatar.



Gerslay said:


> Au contraire...some of us understand KPG perfectly and find your rants tiresome!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Of course not. Never apologize for facts and always ignore a blow-hard. That's my mantra.



DGreen said:


> I don't seek your forgiveness.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It's the only thing in that silly, little brain.



Janet Cooke said:


> Where do you suppose she comes up with this silliness?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put.



tamarque said:


> You are very confused here. Where in the Constitution does it say a business is free from govt regulations? And since when is a business a religion? Oh, yes when it want to avoid paying taxes! But there are those who think they can live in a society, accrue the benefits, but owe nothing back. There are many people who are like this and they run the country. They are sociopaths. Is this what you support?


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Despite there being some puerile posts in this thread, there's also lot's of informative posts.
> 
> If you're too lazy and/or "slow" to manage to filter through them, then that's your issue and you need to resolve that for yourself.
> 
> Expecting the world to spoon feed you is equally childish and a waste of time.


"When you provide such information to people they will react with anything from simple disagreement to bullying, to name calling, to physical violence or walking away. Ad hominems are very common, as is mocking people. Does this sound familiar here?" tamarque

Ah yes, very familiar - this tactic seems much more prevalent on the side that can't quite understand that HL isn't squashing anyone's freedom, than from those defending HL's freedom.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Wouldn't it be interesting if this Hobby Lobby fiasco ended up ruling that corporations are not protected entities and could be sued? Just a hypothetical question to consider.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

damemary said:


> Of course not. Never apologize for facts and always ignore a blow-hard. That's my mantra.


Don't look in the mirror much, do you?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> Finally a statement I can agree with, "Individual choice."
> Each person can choose what kind of birth control, or morning after pill, or IUD they want. Then if their insurance does not pay for it, they can pay for it themselves.


And that is why it's discriminatory... because they are being "cherry picked" to have to pay for it and being discriminated against because they are women and not of the same religious mindset of the employer.

That's discrimination, and that is against the law.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I think it is a duty to tell the truth when published comments show proof of delusion. She is always right. Anyone who disagrees is always wrong. And many, many more.



taborhills said:


> dGreen,
> 
> I consider telling someone she is "deranged" to be rude, silly, and unnecessarily potentially hurtful. You owe an apology.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And wonder what surprises Pandora's box might release? The legal community, judging from a lack of amicus briefs, is showing caution. Stay tuned.



Gerslay said:


> The 1st Amendment:
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put.



tamarque said:


> If you read the article link I sent you will see that HL does a lot of donations, but all in name of prosyletizing, and gaining tax deductions. And most importantly, is the millions they contribute to 'influence' votes by law makers. This makes them a major part of the problem of the demise of democracy in this country and it doesn't impress me one iota.
> To the contrary, reading about them makes me want to join forces with others to stop them along with the Koch bros others who truly despite democracy and the freedoms it promises. HL is not a democratic organization.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Rats. Now I'm depressed again.



MaidInBedlam said:


> Don't count on that lasting more than a few minutes. KPG can't live without gracing us with her remarks. "Quitting" for her means she's taking a short break to get a cup of coffee, answer the call of nature, answer the phone, or some other thing like that.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

taborhills said:


> dGreen,
> 
> I consider telling someone she is "deranged" to be rude, silly, and unnecessarily potentially hurtful. You owe an apology.


Taborhills, thank you for your support, I appreciate your words.

However, don't worry about me. I would first have to respect the poster of the insults and angry words, before her words can have her desired affect on me. I think you'll acknowledge and know no such respect exists!

BTW: Denise stated she doesn't insult me. Since I tend to take people for their word, she didn't insult me right out of the gate; she insulted herself.

Consider: _Envy is an insult to oneself._
Yevgeny Yevtushenko


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Taborhills, thank you for your support, I appreciate your words.
> 
> However, don't worry about me. I would first have to respect the poster of the insults and angry words, before her words can have the affect on me she desires. I think you'll agree that no such respect exists!


 :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

flyovercindy said:


> tamarque said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I sent an article that listed sources of intent behind HL's lawsuit. It exposed motives that I already surmised in a previous post of mine. Aren't I the clever one.
> ...


And I'll be paying for you to develop some sort of brain.

You quite clearly couldn't respond intelligently to tamarque's post because you didn't have the intellectual capacity to understand it.

She, respectfully responded to you and provided additional information, and all you could come up with is a 'prayer'?

Can't you be religious without giving up your brain cells?

Besides, if ANYONE'S soul needs praying for, it's the souls of the Green family who are quite clearly twisting the true meaning of Christianity into something gross and ugly.

Christ predicted this would happen. False profits.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And interactive at that. Very interesting. Arte Johnson.



Janet Cooke said:


> And, you know, this is a much more interesting list...
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/incdec.php


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

damemary said:


> Wouldn't it be interesting if this Hobby Lobby fiasco ended up ruling that corporations are not protected entities and could be sued? Just a hypothetical question to consider.


Are you somehow thinking that corporations are immune to lawsuits? They get sued every day. In fact, attorneys always go after the deep pockets in their complaints and most often that is a corporation.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Could you be only looking at one side of Capitalism and Religion? I can't think of anything without good and bad.



Quirky said:


> The separation of church and state was to keep the government out of the church. This country is the most desired place to live because capitalism gives everybody a chance to become successful. Hard work is rewarded here. Capitalism breeds competition which in turn creates more jobs. Not everyone will reach the same heights of success but everyone has the opportunity to try.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Taborhills, thank you for your support, I appreciate your words.
> 
> However, don't worry about me. I would first have to respect the poster of the insults and angry words, before her words can have the affect on me she desires. I think you'll acknowledge and know no such respect exists!


The same holds true for your disrespect for the truth and decency, and you disregard those things in the same manner you disregard those who speak the truth to you.

That's how you're able to stay in your bubble of ignorance and never learn anything of value or truth.

When someone creates dissonance for you cognitively, you disregard them, because you don't WANT to understand the truth.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jessieleone said:


> Hobby Lobby give churches and charitable organizations a 10% discount in their stores. This does not impress me. They make about 33 billion. They are number 135 on Forbes biggest businesses. Where in the bible does it say greed is goot? This is only my opinion. I expect no one to feel the same as me.


How much do you give to churches, what % discount do you give your employees and how much do you do or give to charitable organizations? Impress me.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And a single payer plan would be simplest and have savings attached......buying costs, administrative costs, same set of offerings to choose, same procedures to place a claim or appeal etc. So what's wrong with that idea? Compare the plusses and minuses in a T-chart and see what you come up with.



MaidInBedlam said:


> I'm starting to believe very seriously that health insurance should be completely taken out of employers' hands and put directly in the individual's hands. Not only that, but health insurance plans should all offer the same services. That includes family planning and sexual and reproductive health. Individuals could then make their own personal, private decisions about using those services. Also, everyone who pays for their plan should be able to make those payments a tax deduction.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

taborhills said:


> One wrong does not justify another.


Hi Tabor! I only engaged with her for the first time yesterday. The minute she began using me as her punching bag, I reciprocated in kind.

Stay in your saddle and don't lower yourself to her/their standards. I prefer the view from the top, not from the gutter looking up. Don't you?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And how much do we learn about the rest of the planet, much less beyond?



MaidInBedlam said:


> You are impressively right about that. This fact is often left out of the standardized textbooks used in public schools, along with a lot of other facts. Teaching an "idealized" version of American history is worse than teaching nothing about American history.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jessieleone said:


> This has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with a business(not a church) telling women what they should and should not have. The only thing Hobby Lobby would loose in this is the almighty dollar. Which seems to be very important to the billionaires that Hobby Lobby . They not only want your money,they want your voice also. But this is just my opinion.


And your opinion is not based on the facts of the case, only on the incorrect knowledge you explained.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just your knowledge of the facts.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

peachy51 said:


> Just to clarify, they close on Sundays to give their employees the day off.


Just to clarify, the seventh day sabbath is supposed to be abstention from worldly activities, and just because the internet makes those worldly activities"an automatic function doesn't mean that they are not STILL engaging in worldly activities.

Per usual, the rules are different FOR THEM, when it's convenient _for them_.... especially when it comes to the almighty buck which is, IMO their only God they actually worship consistently.

And I highly doubt, that if the site went down on a Sunday, they wouldn't get their webmaster and other's "on it" asap.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Blaming the victim perhaps?



Quirky said:


> The opportunity is there. Parental responsibilities unfulfilled do not negate the fact that the opportunity is there. There are many poor people who have climbed out of poverty and have been grateful for the opportunity to succeed. The model is there. Whether people take advantage of it is their choice


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bullfeathers.



Quirky said:


> It is against the law to ask about religion. Work requires maximum effort for a task. Benefits are extras supplied to an employee. If you do not agree with the benefits then don't use them. It should have nothing to do with the work offered. This is not supposed to be a discussion about corporate greed. This is a discussion about whether a business owner can choose what benefits they will offer their employees.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Despite there being some puerile posts in this thread, there's also lot's of informative posts.
> 
> If you're too lazy and/or "slow" to manage to filter through them, then that's your issue and you need to resolve that for yourself.
> 
> Expecting the world to spoon feed you is equally childish and a waste of time.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

Good-bye friends and best wishes to all.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Just to clarify, the seventh day sabbath is supposed to be abstention from worldly activities, and just because the internet makes those worldly activities"an automatic function doesn't mean that they are not STILL engaging in worldly activities.
> 
> Per usual, the rules are different FOR THEM, when it's convenient _for them_.... especially when it comes to the almighty buck which is, IMO their only God they actually worship consistently.
> 
> And I highly doubt, that if the site went down on a Sunday, they wouldn't get their webmaster and other's "on it" asap.


I believe you've missed my point. They close on Sundays not because they don't believe in doing business on Sundays. They close so that their employees can observe the Sabbath and attend church, if they wish, and spend the Sabbath with their families.

For the website to be running on Sundays, does not require an employee to work on Sunday to accomplish that.


----------



## flyovercindy (Jan 24, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> And I'll be paying for you to develop some sort of brain.
> 
> You quite clearly couldn't respond intelligently to tamarque's post because you didn't have the intellectual capacity to understand it.
> 
> ...


There is no answering someone who is indoctrinated so well in the disinformation and tactics of the left. As for respect? I have seen very little respect shown to anyone by the mean girls club here. A lot of cheer-leading, "good one!" support for each other's not-so-nice comments, but respect? No.
I have a life, a good, very happy life, and I couldn't imagine having such anger and hate in my heart and soul that I've felt from some here. So yes, I do pray that the selfishness and hate don't win - I don't believe they will, and I know what is false.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

DGreen said:


> What a bunch of right-wing spin. Your views on the "whys" and "hows" of the ACA have no bearing. Why don't we talk about how Bush lied to us about WMDs? Dredge up the old hot button topics. You evidently have quite an agenda.


Welcome to the world according to KnitPresentsGifts, Mrs. Green. Thank you for your voice of intelligence and reason.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And I'm such a cynical soul that I wonder if people are using affinity to lure gullible people into trusting them and working for unknown goals. Anyone know what I'm talking about? I'm having trouble describing it.



VocalLisa said:


> Thanks for admitting that the scientists who don't believe that are not using science to form their opinions and instead upon the "Word" of something that probably doesn't even exist.
> 
> Of course, that makes them THE OPPOSITE of scientists.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

BINGO. Thanks. 
'


pardoquilts said:


> Something I learned just today....Until 2012, when Obamacare was enacted, HL offered employees the very same contraceptive choices, IUDs and the morning after pill, through their health care plan. The hatred for President Obama's health care plan and for the President himself would appear to be the reason for the sudden change of heart, not a so-called Christianity


----------



## jessieleone (Feb 6, 2013)

So then Viagra would have a co-pay alsK. But how sad it is Insurance companies,and businesses never fought approving viagra.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Then why is Exxon still thriving? What if individual corporate executives were held to be personally responsible?

I'm talking about huge corporate disasters not bad drug or liability suits.



peachy51 said:


> Are you somehow thinking that corporations are immune to lawsuits? They get sued every day. In fact, attorneys always go after the deep pockets in their complaints and most often that is a corporation.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> They don't seem to be all that concerned about serving the convenience of locals who have only Sundays available to shop and don't like to shop online. One would think it would be more consistent with their stance not to have a website (which does business on Sundays and services their income as well as their customers who use the site on Sundays). I'm voicing an opinion.


Why do you have the right to tell them what day or hours they should be open? Do they tell you what day and what time you may shop?

You are free to place your orders at your convenience any day or hour you choose. You also are free to shop in person any day or time the store is open.

One would think you would enjoy those freedoms rather than complain about not being mandated when you shall shop.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

flyovercindy said:


> :thumbup: Thank you


Thank you! :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

peachy51 said:


> I believe you've missed my point. They close on Sundays not because they don't believe in doing business on Sundays. They close so that their employees can observe the Sabbath and attend church, if they wish, and spend the Sabbath with their families.


And they've claimed themselves through their lawyers that they close on Sundays because of their religious principles.

They've used it as an example of their sincerity in making decisions based on their religion, and this is in part why they should also be allowed to deny women certain birth control options.

So, no, it's not_ just_ to give the employees a day off.

They claim it's part of their religious principle to take that Sunday off.



> But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do *any work*you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.


Quite clearly, they're not supposed to be doing ANY work... even the "slave" or "alien resident" that is their internet website.

They pick and choose which religious principles they're going to foist upon others.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

taborhills said:


> Sure, both owe each other an apology, and should also apologize to all of us who would have liked to have a logical informed and informative discussion instead of watching a cat-fight.


I do apologize to you or anyone that was forced to witness any fight.

I calmly and hopefully clearing explained to the poster what I had knowledge of that I believed she did not.

Instead of continuing the debate with the instigator who continued to insult me and demand I answer her and at least twice declaring in a condescending tone, I was retreating or couldn't answer her questions, I several times stated I would no longer continue the discussion.

The OP continued with her angry words and started in again from last night to this morning.

I do not control her actions.

End of subject from me.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Actually, the case is about a corporation that wants to control the sex lives of its employees while enjoying the cash flow they think they deserve for providing less than adequate choices.
> 
> Back to the payments over time, you seem to have neglected to include in your plan that the IUDs must be removed and replaced either by another IUD or another form of birth control.
> So, yes, decades.


HL is not a corporation that wants to control the sex lives of its employees. The Christian owners do not believe in abortion and are unwilling to pay for something that is against their belief. I firmly commend them for that. They are also closed on Sunday per their Christian belief. Their employees have several options for birth control for which HL will pay. This has nothing to do with controlling the sex lives of their employees.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

flyovercindy said:


> There is no answering someone who is indoctrinated so well in the disinformation and tactics of the left.


You don't even know the difference between an opinion peice and a journalistic article, so quite obviously don't have the capacity to discern between information and disinformation.



flyovercindy said:


> As for respect? I have seen very little respect shown to anyone by the mean girls club here. .


No, actually, tamarque was very respectful towards you (much better than you deserved), and you chose to ignore the facts she provided you and whining that some OTHER people were mean to you is a pathetic excuse.

Evidence that you did not have the facts with which to counter her.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> HL is not a corporation that wants to control the sex lives of its employees. The Christian owners do not believe in abortion and are unwilling to pay for something that is against their belief. I firmly commend them for that. They are also closed on Sunday per their Christian belief. Their employees have several options for birth control for which HL will pay. This has nothing to do with controlling the sex lives of their employees.


Are you an owner? How do you know what the corporate plan is?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Quirky said:


> The separation of church and state was to keep the government out of the church. This country is the most desired place to live because capitalism gives everybody a chance to become successful. Hard work is rewarded here. Capitalism breeds competition which in turn creates more jobs. Not everyone will reach the same heights of success but everyone has the opportunity to try.


 :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Evie RM said:


> HL is not a corporation that wants to control the sex lives of its employees. The Christian owners do not believe in abortion and are unwilling to pay for something that is against their belief. I firmly commend them for that. They are also closed on Sunday per their Christian belief.


Good, so you will have no problem when your and/or your husband's or your adult children's place of employment won't provide health care choices to your family because they believe it's sinful to help stupid conservatives exist and/or procreate thereby ruining the world that God created.

The world would be a MUCH better place if we had less bigotry and gun toting ignoramuses running around. So, it's time the corporations stop helping these people survive if it's against their "principles" to do so.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Are you an owner? How do you know what the corporate plan is?


No, I am a Christian and I understand their beliefs. I, too, am against abortion and would not want to pay for someone to have one. If a person feels it is OK to have an abortion, then that is their choice and they should pay for it themselves.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> No, I am a Christian and I understand their beliefs. I, too, am against abortion and would not want to pay for someone to have one. If a person feels it is OK to have an abortion, then that is their choice and they should pay for it themselves.


It seems you are also against HL then who until the federal government said that they must actually supplied those forms of birth control to their employees. 
BTW, employees do "pay" for their health insurance, it is called work. Do you think that employers just give benefits to be nice?


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Judithlynn said:


> That is a matter of opinion. The only scientists who believe this are those who don't follow the Lord.


In your opinion.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> No, I am a Christian and I understand their beliefs. I, too, am against abortion and would not want to pay for someone to have one. If a person feels it is OK to have an abortion, then that is their choice and they should pay for it themselves.


BTW, can you explain the "beliefs" of Morgan Stanley? General Electric? Duke Energy? 
How did those businesses develop a belief system? How often do they attend church? Do they stay for coffee after the service?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

taborhills said:


> Good-bye friends and best wishes to all.


Taborhills; look into the FF Denim and Pearls thread (perhaps #22 now?)

You'll find intelligent, witty and interesting conversation and friendship there.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

pardoquilts said:


> Something I learned just today....Until 2012, when Obamacare was enacted, HL offered employees the very same contraceptive choices, IUDs and the morning after pill, through their health care plan. The hatred for President Obama's health care plan and for the President himself would appear to be the reason for the sudden change of heart, not a so-called Christianity


It's a sad truth.
I can't for the life of me understand how, that in this world today, we seem to be going backwards to a place best left behind, not forgotten, we should never forget because we always need a little proof to remind us that it was the right move to go forward.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lins said:


> It's a sad truth.
> I can't for the life of me understand how, that in this world today, we seem to be going backwards to a place best left behind, not forgotten, we should never forget because we always need a little proof to remind us that it was the right move to go forward.


Those people bought and paid for by the Koch Bros. said it often enough in 2010. Have you forgotten already?
They want their country back. 
It isn't enough that we have voter suppression and a privatized prison system that is getting rich by mistreating our young, we must create more young so that there will be more grist for the work mill.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

painthoss said:


> Then KPG equally owes DGreen an apology.


painthoss: I'm curious.

Does MaidinBedlam, Janet Cooke and Damemary each owe me an apology for these recent remarks of theirs?

(disregard the fact that I never said I was quitting.)



damemary said:


> I think it is a duty to tell the truth when published comments show proof of delusion. She is always right. Anyone who disagrees is always wrong. And many, many more.





MaidInBedlam said:


> Don't count on that lasting more than a few minutes. KPG can't live without gracing us with her remarks. "Quitting" for her means she's taking a short break to get a cup of coffee, answer the call of nature, answer the phone, or some other thing like that.





JanetCooke said:


> My guess would be cleaning the rim of the toilet bowl in one of her commercial endeavors.





MaidInBedlam said:


> Good one. Thanks! :XD: :evil:


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> HL is not a corporation that wants to control the sex lives of its employees. The Christian owners do not believe in abortion and are unwilling to pay for something that is against their belief. I firmly commend them for that. They are also closed on Sunday per their Christian belief. Their employees have several options for birth control for which HL will pay. This has nothing to do with controlling the sex lives of their employees.


Maybe you ar someone else can explain why such a supposedly Christian company is so happy to do business with a country (China) that uses enforced abortions and child labor in production of the exports that HL so heavily relies upon? I'll wait.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

damemary said:


> Then why is Exxon still thriving?


My ex worked at ExxonMobil the whole time we were married and still does while I worked for attorneys. They are thriving because they bring in unGodly profits (they are one place that I boycott, for my own reasons).



damemary said:


> What if individual corporate executives were held to be personally responsible?


Some of them have been sued in the past and paid if they have gone outside the company guidelines in their actions. Otherwise the purpose of the corporation is to protect the personal assets of the owners.



damemary said:


> I'm talking about huge corporate disasters not bad drug or liability suits.


If you want to talk about huge corporate disasters, then you can research the asbestos suits and all the huge companies who have filed bankruptcy because of those suits. Those suits still didn't reach the individuals behind the corporation.

Rest assured that personal injury attorneys *always* look for a company to sue if possible rather than any individual. Of course, even then, we were usually negotiating with an insurance company.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Those people bought and paid for by the Koch Bros. said it often enough in 2010. Have you forgotten already?
> They want their country back.
> It isn't enough that we have voter suppression and a privatized prison system that is getting rich by mistreating our young, we must create more young so that there will be more grist for the work mill.


Their country? 
No they want it to to be their country, they're trying to take it away from everybody else.

Adelson is rubbing his dirty little hands together now in anticipation of the next president he can hopefully buy. 
He's screening those top upright hopefuls now, Jeb, Chris, Scott...

No one seems to be looking back at a time when freedom was a privilege, not a right, and realizing that equality and fairness was a sensible road to take.

Better wake up folks.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> BTW, can you explain the "beliefs" of Morgan Stanley? General Electric? Duke Energy?
> How did those businesses develop a belief system? How often do they attend church? Do they stay for coffee after the service?


Do they have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Do you? Apparently, the owners of Hobby Lobby do.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

maysmom said:


> Maybe you ar someone else can explain why such a supposedly Christian company is so happy to do business with a country (China) that uses enforced abortions and child labor in production of the exports that HL so heavily relies upon? I'll wait.


I already answered that in an earlier post. They also buy yarn from the USA that also allows abortion. Where would you like them to buy their yarn?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> It seems you are also against HL then who until the federal government said that they must actually supplied those forms of birth control to their employees.
> BTW, employees do "pay" for their health insurance, it is called work. Do you think that employers just give benefits to be nice?


When I worked, I paid for my health insurance and I also paid for my own birth control pills.


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

Evie RM said:


> I already answered that in an earlier post. They also buy yarn from the USA that also allows abortion. Where would you like them to buy their yarn?


Indeed you did, but you ignored my answer to your question, even though it immediately followed it, which was:

"Here's a thought: maybe they should close all their doors, as they have vowed to do if they are not able to do business according to their own religious dictates?"

Please advise.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Do they have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Do you? Apparently, the owners of Hobby Lobby do.


That is exactly my point, a corporation has no relationship with God.

No, I have no relationship with Jesus Christ.

When did Jesus of Nazareth ever suggest to people that they should take advantage of and deny workers freedom of choice?
If they had a relationship with Jesus Christ they would be following his teachings. 
Jesus never said a word about forms of birth control, did he?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> I already answered that in an earlier post. They also buy yarn from the USA that also allows abortion. Where would you like them to buy their yarn?


She didn't say a thing about yarn. Product. 
Much of their yarn comes from Turkey, another proud violator of human rights. 
Surely you see the difference between saying that a medical procedure is legal and forcing them on people? You are aware that when couples in China have more than one pregnancy they are forced to abort? That the nation that HL does so much business with pays for those abortions, right?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> I already answered that in an earlier post. They also buy yarn from the USA that also allows abortion. Where would you like them to buy their yarn?


Correction, if I may. 
They do not buy yarn FROM the US, you see that is the difference. 
In China, people do business with the country, the country that is forcing people to do what some Christians object to. 
When a retailer buys product in the US they are buying from a separate entity. 
China holds interest in most Chinese owned companies.


----------



## Mercury (Apr 12, 2012)

Praying for all you nasty people who call themselves Christians and feel that they can judge others. "Lest ye be judged". May God Bless you all..


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Evie RM said:


> No, I am a Christian and I understand their beliefs. I, too, am against abortion and would not want to pay for someone to have one. If a person feels it is OK to have an abortion, then that is their choice and they should pay for it themselves.


First of all HL isn't paying for the health insurance, it's being EARNED by their employees.

There are lots of other Christians who don't understand their behavior because it's so obviously not in keeping with earnest, kind and loving Christianity. They are of a Christianity that is bigoted and misogynistic among other nefarious things.

I don't believe they are Christians. I think they are of an American cult who uses Christianity to excuse their bigoted needs.

I would not want to pay for medical costs for ignorant Christians who believe that this country should become a theocracy, but here's the thing...

In America, that would be against the law for me to discriminate in that manner, and I respect and admire the intent of the Constitution and understand how it would destroy this country if that sort of bigotry was allowed.

It is AND SHOULD REMAIN against the law for HL to do this to women in their employ.

Seriously, it's so sad to see what used to be a very loving, caring religion turned into something so ugly in this country. No wonder it's been losing traction.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> When I worked, I paid for my health insurance and I also paid for my own birth control pills.


If companies like Walmart paid a fair wage then maybe their employees could pay for their own too.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Taborhills; look into the FF Denim and Pearls thread (perhaps #22 now?)
> 
> You'll find intelligent, witty and interesting conversation and friendship there.


Actually she'll find the opposite of that... but it was at least nice of you to demonstrate the kind of lies she might find.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

KPG said:


> painthoss: I'm curious.
> 
> Does MaidinBedlam, Janet Cooke and Damemary each owe me an apology for these recent remarks of theirs?


No, because they were merely being truthful, that is typically not the case with your brand of nastiness.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> No, because they were merely being truthful, that is typically not the case with your brand of nastiness.


Odd, isn't it that she considers the suggestion that she might be cleaning a toilet an insult.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Evie RM said:


> When I worked, I paid for my health insurance and I also paid for my own birth control pills.


Probably because you were too unskilled or unintelligent to get a better job who would pay you better.

But here's the thing. Everytime FoxNews and the Koch brothers claim there's someone like you who had it better without Obamacare, those claims turn out to be lies.

EVER SINGLE TIME.

So, unless you can offer something other than the typical RW BS ... you're not believable.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

VocalLisa

"what used to be a very loving, caring religion"
Christianity has never been a loving, caring religion. Have you not heard of the inquisition? Have you not heard of people being burned at the stake? Have you not heard of the Crusades? etc., etc., etc.

I used to be religious. I was baptized by total immersion when I was a teenager. I "gave my life to the Lord." As I got older, however, I began to realize just how hypocritical all the so-called "Christians" were.

As I said earlier, we would be much better off without all the organized religions in the world. Then maybe we could become a loving and caring species.

However, each to his/her own.


----------



## KittiPaws (Aug 10, 2013)

I have never worked for an employer whose insurance would pay for my birth control pills. I have ALWAYS had to pay for them myself. Nobody boycotted any of my employers for it. So I'm not getting my undies in a bundle over this. I like Hobby Lobby and I will continue to exercise my right to shop there.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I, hypocritically, went to HL today to make my final purchase. Like another KPer here, I needed one more skein of the yarn I am using. The yarn is located at the back of the store so it wasn't just a little run in and run out trip. As I'm reading lot numbers on the skeins, it dawned on me that the music playing was old Christian standards from my mother's church. I never did shop there often, but I don't remember this before. It seems it was always soft jazz. This was soft gospel and I wondered if it was subliminal. Maybe it was corporate order to play the gospel loop so they could claim "yes, we are a Christian organization. We even play gospel muzak over our PA in all our stores." I looked at it as another reason to not shop there.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> I, hypocritically, went to HL today to make my final purchase. Like another KPer here, I needed one more skein of the yarn I am using. The yarn is located at the back of the store so it wasn't just a little run in and run out trip. As I'm reading lot numbers on the skeins, it dawned on me that the music playing was old Christian standards from my mother's church. I never did shop there often, but I don't remember this before. It seems it was always soft jazz. This was soft gospel and I wondered if it was subliminal. Maybe it was corporate order to play the gospel loop so they could claim "yes, we are a Christian organization. We even play gospel muzak over our PA in all our stores." I looked at it as another reason to not shop there.


Yes I noticed your other post that you needed another skein of their yarn. You don't get too caught up in your principles do you? Boycott unless you need something. LOL


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

jessieleone said:


> So then Viagra would have a co-pay alsK. But how sad it is Insurance companies,and businesses never fought approving viagra.


It is sad but it's the way of things in a patriarchy. Men's sexuality is admired, encouraged, even sacred -- and never to be denied.

Women's sexuality, in contrast, is to be confined, regulated, controlled. I'll never forget one of Rush Limbaugh's rants about Sandra Fluke. He was complaining about young women wanting birth control pills -- which are used for far more than mere contraception, please remember -- and actually decried the possibility of "sex without consequences" when women use them and actually, you know, have sex.

In other words, women are not entitled to have sex unless they are willing to risk the potential consequences of their actions (pregnancy, etc.). What a punitive view of sex-for-women.

So very much of whole impetus of patriarchy, and its attempts to control women, is based on men's fear and jealousy of women's sexuality and ability to give life.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> HL is not a corporation that wants to control the sex lives of its employees. The Christian owners do not believe in abortion and are unwilling to pay for something that is against their belief. I firmly commend them for that. They are also closed on Sunday per their Christian belief. Their employees have several options for birth control for which HL will pay. This has nothing to do with controlling the sex lives of their employees.


The lawsuit is about emergency contraceptives. It is a peculiar (and non-scientific) religious viewpoint that tries to claim those are abortifacients.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Mercury said:


> Praying for all you nasty people who call themselves Christians and feel that they can judge others. "Lest ye be judged". May God Bless you all..


I hate to tell you this but you just judged all the people who call themselves Christians by calling them nasty. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but to call someone out for doing what you are doing in the very same post is ridiculous.
Everyone judges more time in an hour than you would admit to doing in your lifetime. That includes you. You judge whether or not you like someone, whether you like a certain food or product. You judge everything anyone says. How else would you decide to like something or not, or like someone or not. I think what you probably meant to say is you do not like it when someone judges someone negatively, I think you would be okay if someone judged you positively. Right?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Knitry said:


> It is sad but it's the way of things in a patriarchy. Men's sexuality is admired, encouraged, even sacred -- and never to be denied.
> 
> Women's sexuality, in contrast, is to be confined, regulated, controlled. I'll never forget one of Rush Limbaugh's rants about Sandra Fluke. He was complaining about young women wanting birth control pills -- which are used for far more than mere contraception, please remember -- and actually decried the possibility of "sex without consequences" when women use them and actually, you know, have sex.
> 
> ...


So many of you would be so much better off if you actually stopped seeing yourselves as 'victims'. Wow I don't think men are afraid of women for any reason. This whole war on women thing is a made up reason to hate white republican men. Never mind it was one of your own that used a woman in the white house and all the dems came to his side to support him. Talk about Hypocrasy!


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yes I noticed your other post that you needed another skein of their yarn. You don't get too caught up in your principles do you? Boycott unless you need something. LOL


No, she said "like *another* KPer here," she needed yarn to finish a project. That other KPer would be me.

Yeah, my project will be ruined without the additional yarn. But I will be foregoing all the other projects I might have liked to have done with "I Love This Yarn," not to mention some of their jewelry supplies (not bad when they're on sale), and some of their rather attractive decorative junk, and quite a few other things I can think of and have bought in the past.

So, what companies do you boycott and why? IOW, where are YOUR principles?? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Why do you have the right to tell them what day or hours they should be open? Do they tell you what day and what time you may shop?
> 
> You are free to place your orders at your convenience any day or hour you choose. You also are free to shop in person any day or time the store is open.
> 
> One would think you would enjoy those freedoms rather than complain about not being mandated when you shall shop.


In the sense that I have only Sundays to shop, and they are not open on Sundays, I'd say they are definitely sending me and those in similar circumstances a message. To be honest, I lost interest in Hobby Lobby and in doing business with them some time ago for this and other reasons which have already been discussed here, i.e., their business practices with China.

The message I get from you is that you assume my personal situation is identical to yours. I have no idea why you assume we are all peas in the same pod. What could you possibly know about my freedoms or lack thereof, and why would you preach to me about enjoying freedoms you apparently have? It's a big world out there, and we are not all alike or living under identical circumstances.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Knitry said:


> No, she said "like *another* KPer here," she needed yarn to finish a project. That other KPer would be me.
> 
> Yeah, my project will be ruined without the additional yarn. But I will be foregoing all the other projects I might have liked to have done with "I Love This Yarn," not to mention some of their jewelry supplies (not bad when they're on sale), and some of their rather attractive decorative junk, and quite a few other things I can think of and have bought in the past.
> 
> So, what companies do you boycott and why? IOW, where are YOUR principles?? Inquiring minds want to know.


Hey it's your business where you buy your stuff. I just think it is funny that you all are such in a tizzy about Hobby Lobby but not so much as to let it get in your way of your projects! 
I don't boycott anything and if I did I wouldn't tell you. I don't trust people like you as far as I could throw you.
I said exactly what I wanted to say on the post you quoted. She had said she was going to get another skein of yarn to finish a project on a different post of hers.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Do they have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Do you? Apparently, the owners of Hobby Lobby do.


That is not at all apparent to me.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yes I noticed your other post that you needed another skein of their yarn. You don't get too caught up in your principles do you? Boycott unless you need something. LOL


I'm shocked at her words. I visited HL twice last week. The yarn was at the front to mid section of the store. The music playing was beautiful and reminded me that I was in a store with Christian values. I found myself singing along in my head.

The staff was helpful, friendly and knowledgable.

I cannot wait to return.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Knitry said:


> No, she said "like *another* KPer here," she needed yarn to finish a project. That other KPer would be me.
> 
> Yeah, my project will be ruined without the additional yarn. But I will be foregoing all the other projects I might have liked to have done with "I Love This Yarn," not to mention some of their jewelry supplies (not bad when they're on sale), and some of their rather attractive decorative junk, and quite a few other things I can think of and have bought in the past.
> 
> So, what companies do you boycott and why? IOW, where are YOUR principles?? Inquiring minds want to know.


Please be sure to donate all your unused yarn, craft supplies and findings, decor, etc., to someone who appreciates an act of kindness and a giving heart so that you can remove those offending items from your house. If you dare. Only, then, will you enjoy your boycott in its totality.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I hate to tell you this but you just judged all the people who call themselves Christians by calling them nasty. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but to call someone out for doing what you are doing in the very same post is ridiculous.
> Everyone judges more time in an hour than you would admit to doing in your lifetime. That includes you. You judge whether or not you like someone, whether you like a certain food or product. You judge everything anyone says. How else would you decide to like something or not, or like someone or not. I think what you probably meant to say is you do not like it when someone judges someone negatively, I think you would be okay if someone judged you positively. Right?


You don't know how to read in context. There are nasty people who call themselves Christian. You don't want to see that, though. Change the emphasis, change the meaning.
Deciding that you don't want to spend time with someone is not judging, it is using thinking skills to figure out that the person who is standing there is not for you.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> In the sense that I have only Sundays to shop, and they are not open on Sundays, I'd say they are definitely sending me and those in similar circumstances a message. To be honest, I lost interest in Hobby Lobby and in doing business with them some time ago for this and other reasons which have already been discussed here, i.e., their business practices with China.
> 
> The message I get from you is that you assume my personal situation is identical to yours. I have no idea why you assume we are all peas in the same pod. What could you possibly know about my freedoms or lack thereof, and why would you preach to me about enjoying freedoms you apparently have? It's a big world out there, and we are not all alike or living under identical circumstances.


I have no idea why you did not understand my post to you.

I asked you why you do not enjoy the fact you can shop any time, any day on the HL website. You don't have to even leave the comfort of your own home to do so.

According to your post, you seem to prefer a nanny state that mandates when you should work and shop.

I suggested it is far better to have the freedom to shop as you choose.

Apparently, you prefer to complain and not shop at all.

I never mentioned my preferences nor my ideas, everything I wrote was about you. For you to believe I presumed to know you as compared to me is ridiculous.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> You don't know how to read in context. There are nasty people who call themselves Christian. You don't want to see that, though. Change the emphasis, change the meaning.


You can't read what is right in front of your eyes. I stand by my statement that calling someone out for doing what you are doing in the same post is just hilarious. And we ALL judge things and people every day.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You can't read what is right in front of your eyes. I stand by my statement that calling someone out for doing what you are doing in the same post is just hilarious. And we ALL judge things and people every day.


Don't you find it ever so interesting that Janet Cooke is not a Christian, believes the Bible is a fairy tale, yet knows everything about who is a Christian (or not) and how they are doing it all wrong?


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Quirky was right. Government is to stay out of Religion.
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._


The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.

If the courts allow HL to get their way then their religious beliefs will be preferred over others and that is not how it should be.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Using the argument that you will not shop at HL because they purchase their products from China, Turkey and other countries that wrong their workers??

As I have posted this before will again. 

You all must not have look at the labels and products you buy in other stores high end to Walmart. 

They are all from foreign countries. So you may want to if you feel so strongly about this start boycotting ever business that carries the label made in blank, and only buy products made in the United States. 

Now good lucky with that too as you will find very few.

So unless you are going to boycott every clothing store, grocery store, car dealership, drug stores and your drugs, ect. You are not doing what you are saying that you are.

Yarn only yarn that is made in the US is Lion brand, unless you have someone who makes yarn locally.

Just check the labels next time you purchase something and make sure you boycott them too.

If you do not than that makes you a contributor to the treatment of those people in China and other counties that you worry so about.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Don't you find it ever so interesting that Janet Cooke is not a Christian, believes the Bible is a fairy tale, yet knows everything about who is a Christian (or not) and how they are doing it all wrong?


What I said, and what I recognize from your stupendous example, is that there are nasty people who call themselves Christian.

Anyone else can figure that out.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I would think that a primary use of the 'morning after pill' is when a woman has been raped. Personally I find it disgusting that a woman would be denied any procedure in that instance.



Knitry said:


> It is sad but it's the way of things in a patriarchy. Men's sexuality is admired, encouraged, even sacred -- and never to be denied.
> 
> Women's sexuality, in contrast, is to be confined, regulated, controlled. I'll never forget one of Rush Limbaugh's rants about Sandra Fluke. He was complaining about young women wanting birth control pills -- which are used for far more than mere contraception, please remember -- and actually decried the possibility of "sex without consequences" when women use them and actually, you know, have sex.
> 
> ...


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

damemary said:


> I would think that a primary use of the 'morning after pill' is when a woman has been raped. Personally I find it disgusting that a woman would be denied any procedure in that instance.


WOW! One point that you and I actually agree on.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Glad to hear it.



peachy51 said:


> WOW! One point that you and I actually agree on.


----------



## abc123retired (Nov 1, 2011)

jumbleburt said:


> I'm currently boycotting them, and although they aren't losing much business, I would feel I was betraying my beliefs if I contributed in any way to a company that feels they have the right to dictate employees' medical decisions.


They certainly are not dictating their employees medical decisions! If an employee wants an abortifacient they can go and get one on their own outside of their medical insurance or they can go get a different job. Hobby Lobbys policy provides contraceptives but does not want to offer the morning after pill.

What is wrong with young women today that they so want to demean themselves by having unprotected, unmarried sex and then want to kill their babies?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

abc123retired said:


> They certainly are not dictating their employees medical decisions! If an employee wants an abortifacient they can go and get one on their own outside of their medical insurance or they can go get a different job. Hobby Lobbys policy provides contraceptives but does not want to offer the morning after pill.
> 
> What is wrong with young women today that they so want to demean themselves by having unprotected, unmarried sex and then want to kill their babies?


 :thumbup: Beautiful avatar and I agree with you.


----------



## GemsByGranny (Dec 7, 2012)

tenaj said:


> This was the conversation at the knitting bee this week.
> 
> Hobby Lobby does not want to be forced to provide health insurance coverage for birth control products.
> 
> ...


I don't know the issues or the products and have no knowledge of the USA politics, but maybe the group's owners have a moral reason for what they are doing. It's their choice - theirs and their employees, since they have to bargain with them. None of your business or mine. And none of us have the right to tell anyone what their morals ought to be. 'As long as it's not abortion related'. Why put the limits there? Why not go the whole hog and say abortion is OK too?

It's none of our business, but if you want to boycott them that's your choice.

You did ask.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

abc123retired said:


> They certainly are not dictating their employees medical decisions! If an employee wants an abortifacient they can go and get one on their own outside of their medical insurance or they can go get a different job. Hobby Lobbys policy provides contraceptives but does not want to offer the morning after pill.
> 
> What is wrong with young women today that they so want to demean themselves by having unprotected, unmarried sex and then want to kill their babies?


The AMA, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gyn0cologists both say that the morning after pill is NOT, repeat NOT, an abortifacient. HL needs to keep out of the health decisions of their employees.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have no idea why you did not understand my post to you.
> 
> I asked you why you do not enjoy the fact you can shop any time, any day on the HL website. You don't have to even leave the comfort of your own home to do so.
> 
> ...


I thought I had made it perfectly clear in a prior post that I consider HL's having a website hypocritical, having used it only once a few years ago to satisfy my curiosity about whether it was operational on Sundays, so why would I use it when I have had no desire to shop with them since that time?

Once again, your words are so full of assumptions that you apparently pulled out of the air that it has little to nothing to do with anything. You have no grounds to write about me given the fact that you know almost nothing about me. You assumed feelings I don't have, desires I don't have,and preferences I don't have. Since they aren't mine and there are only two of us in this specific conversation, they originated with you, not me, and they are not based on facts. They are assumptions and suppositions. I would say we have no common ground here so further exchange is rather pointless, wouldn't you say? I don't like dealing with people whose ideas have little to do with reality.

By the way, I suppose I could have assumed you were referring to the HL website, but I don't believe you specifically said that, and I go out of my way not to make assumptions because they can do a lot of harm. If you wish to be so judgmental about me for whatever reason or right you think you have to do that, I'd appreciate it if you'd deal with facts rather than your need to strike out at anyone you think doesn't see things the same way you do.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> How will their beliefs be preferred over a Muslim's, Hindu's, Mormans' or Jew's? examples please![/quote
> 
> Preferred over others meaning ALL others. GET IT?
> 
> So if HL get's their way, will it then be okay for Jews to say they don't want to pay taxes on things other people do, Muslims to say, woman of other faith should wear burkas because it offends us if they don't, Mormons should have as many wives as they want and so on and so on and so on.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

lins said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > How will their beliefs be preferred over a Muslim's, Hindu's, Mormans' or Jew's? examples please![/quote
> ...


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

abc123retired said:


> They certainly are not dictating their employees medical decisions! If an employee wants an abortifacient they can go and get one on their own outside of their medical insurance or they can go get a different job. Hobby Lobbys policy provides contraceptives but does not want to offer the morning after pill.
> 
> What is wrong with young women today that they so want to demean themselves by having unprotected, unmarried sex and then want to kill their babies?


What is wrong with 'you' to say such a disgusting thing about women that have circumstances that you obviously know nothing about.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Using the argument that you will not shop at HL because they purchase their products from China, Turkey and other countries that wrong their workers??
> 
> They are all from foreign countries. So you may want to if you feel so strongly about this start boycotting ever business that carries the label made in blank, and only buy products made in the United States.
> 
> ...


Brown Sheep yarn, which is very nice yarn, is made in the U.S. I'm sure there are others besides Lion Brand.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Colorado knits said:


> This reasoning is exactly why HL SHOULD lose their case. Why do some people not see or understand that the door is open to all religions. Once the precedence has been set .... well, get ready.


...because they can't see past their brainwashing.
Scary, isn't it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> I thought I had made it perfectly clear in a prior post that I consider HL's having a website hypocritical, having used it only once a few years ago to satisfy my curiosity about whether it was operational on Sundays, so why would I use it when I have had no desire to shop with them since that time?


This is the first mention to me about the site being hypocritical. You *said* you didn't believe HL was serving its customers (you in particular) by not opening on Sundays as that was the only day *you* could shop. You *said* you don't like shopping online, yet was curious to see if HL's website was operational on Sundays.



SAMkewel said:


> Once again, your words are so full of assumptions that you apparently pulled out of the air that it has little to nothing to do with anything. You have no grounds to write about me given the fact that you know almost nothing about me. You assumed feelings I don't have, desires I don't have,and preferences I don't have. Since they aren't mine and there are only two of us in this specific conversation, they originated with you, not me, and they are not based on facts. They are assumptions and suppositions. I would say we have no common ground here so further exchange is rather pointless, wouldn't you say? I don't like dealing with people whose ideas have little to do with reality.


Your above entire paragraph is complete nonsense. I assumed nothing about you and made no judgments of you. All the info came *from* you. All I asked is if you liked the idea to shop the day and time you wished to or would your prefer it be mandated for you. I also asked why you wouldn't enjoy that freedom if you chose against it.



SAMkewel said:


> By the way, *I suppose I could have assumed you were referring to the HL website, but I don't believe you specifically said that,* and I go out of my way not to make assumptions because they can do a lot of harm. If you wish to be so judgmental about me for whatever reason or right you think you have to do that, I'd appreciate it if you'd deal with facts rather than your need to strike out at anyone you think doesn't see things the same way you do.


This entire thread is about Hobby Lobby, that is obvious, implied *and* I specifically stated I was speaking about the HL website. I deal only in facts. I assumed nothing. It is you who is doing *all* of the assuming and false accusations.

Here are my *exact* words: I was explicit:


knitpresentsgifts said:


> I asked you why you do not enjoy the fact you can shop any time, any day on the HL website. You don't have to even leave the comfort of your own home to do so.


I have made no assumptions nor judgments of you yet you accuse me for the second time of many. I didn't strike out at you either and you have to me multiple times.

I'll not respond to you again since you are in an absolute confused state and cannot exchange ideas to my polite posts to you.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> Quirky was right. Government is to stay out of Religion.
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._


Well, it was to keep government out of religion, but it was also to get away from other religious leaders who were persecuting them.

The Pilgrims didn't just leave due to the government, they left to avoid the CHURCH of England as well.

But, actually only 35 of the 102 Pilgrims were Brownist separatists. The rest were hired to protect the companys interests.

So the crap about separation of Church and State only means keeping government out of church, not church out of government is just hogwash and always was.

The point, in separation of Church and State is to prevent the powerful from wielding their beliefs onto others or preventing others from living by their beliefs.

... whether it's the from the government, or a corporation, or even a business owner with only one employee, neither of them should have the right to deny a woman her medical choices based on religious principle, especially when it's discriminatory.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> This whole war on women thing is a made up reason to hate white republican men. Never mind it was one of your own that used a woman in the white house and all the dems came to his side to support him. Talk about Hypocrasy!


Talk about Hypocrassy!

Riiiiight. As the KKK and White Separatists argue on their platforms, it's really white Christian men who are the true victims of discrimination in society!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Don't you find it ever so interesting that Janet Cooke is not a Christian, believes the Bible is a fairy tale, yet knows everything about who is a Christian (or not) and how they are doing it all wrong?


What makes you think you have to be a Christian to understand what Christianity is or who makes a LOUSY Christian?

The logic you're employing there is absolutely and demonstrably moronic.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Wages/salaries plus benefits equal the whole of the compensation a worker receives.

This is really simple stuff. It seems a pity that you have to try to explain that to anyone, Janet.


Janet Cooke said:


> Of course benefits, especially health insurance, are connected to the work. Benefits are not extras. Read your WWII economics, that is when the offerings of benefits exploded.
> 
> Corporate greed has everything to do with this case before the SCOTUS.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> An example: I think most agree that Hobby Lobby pays more than the minimum wage. Lets say $15.00 an hour. 52 weeks a year including 2 weeks paid vacation and holiday pay will be $31,200. ....
> 
> Lets say they loose at the Supreme Court, and decide to no longer pay for the health care of their employees and pay the government fine(tax) of $2000 per employee. What will the employee now be paid? only $31,200.


Just because the corporations have bought and paid for loopholes that will allow them to not fully compensate and rip-off their employees doesn't mean it wasn't earned.

Oh, I have no doubt that the legalese will allow HL and other corporations to get away with ripping their employees off.

Doesn't mean that they haven't EARNED that health insurance or that PRACTICALLY speaking it's as much a part of their salary/wage compensation as anything else is.

HL will just get away with not paying the employees what they've earned... like the money grubbing NON-Christians they are --- that's all.

Slaves weren't formally "paid" room and board either... but I don't think for one minute they didn't earn that and MORE, immoral laws or not.

And the fact that ignorant bigots like Scalia, Thomas and Alito are prone to corporate fellatio, doesn't erase the fact that the insurance is indeed a part of a worker's compensation.... PRACTICALLY speaking and the insurance is EARNED by those employees.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> What makes you think you have to be a Christian to understand what Christianity is or who makes a LOUSY Christian?
> 
> The logic you're employing there is absolutely and demonstrably moronic.


Well, exactly. Not all Christians are the same. Not all Muslims are the same (no, they don't want to kill all of us); not all Jews are the same; not all atheists are the same.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

Colorado knits said:


> Brown Sheep yarn, which is very nice yarn, is made in the U.S. I'm sure there are others besides Lion Brand.


A lot of Lyon Brand yarn is made in Turkey. You don't have to boycott a store, you only have to boycott the product. I don't buy any yarn made in Turkey, especially wool, because of the way they treat the sheep.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

"They certainly are not dictating their employees medical decisions! If an employee wants an abortifacient they can go and get one on their own outside of their medical insurance or they can go get a different job. Hobby Lobbys policy provides contraceptives but does not want to offer the morning after pill.

What is wrong with young women today that they so want to demean themselves by having unprotected, unmarried sex and then want to kill their babies?


What is wrong with 'you' to say such a disgusting thing about women that have circumstances that you obviously know nothing about."

Hey, it happens. Some women do use abortion as a means of birth control. Some women have unplanned sex, and when they realize what they have done, use the morning after pill.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Hunker down and wear protective gear against the vitriol.:mrgreen: :-D These topics almost always start as or turn into argey bargey and go downhill from there until enough participants get bored and wander off to start another brouhaha or the subject of the topic is solved. Don't worry about not being a US citizen. Your point of view might be refreshing. Americans are terribly America-centric and need the vires of people who live in other countries.


BlueJay21 said:


> I am just wondering if this argey bargey (English term for insane arguing) is going to continue until the SCOTUS brings down its decision in June. No one's mind is going to be changed no matter what information is brought to the table.
> 
> I am not a US citizen and therefore really have no right to enter into this discussion. I don't even know where my nearest Hobby Lobby is in the US. But I have followed each and every page. Page 61 now. As usual with these "reg flag" discussions, the vitriol begins to fly and it ends up a snapping match.
> 
> Each of us has her own take on this situation and snapping at each other (while fun for me to watch, LOL) is not getting anybody anywhere. I will continue to watch the fun if it continues, even though I say to myself that it takes up far too much of my time.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

lins said:


> ...because they can't see past their brainwashing.
> Scary, isn't it.


Religion *is* brainwashing. Cripes, don't drink all of the Kool-Aid; just a sampling should be enough.

Certainly, not all religious teachings are bad or evil, but many are.

Think about the variety of beliefs in just Christianity -- there's an amazing disparity of beliefs and that's just in one religion.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

abc123retired said:


> They certainly are not dictating their employees medical decisions! If an employee wants an abortifacient they can go and get one on their own outside of their medical insurance...


Which is discriminatory, and discrimination is against the US Constitution.

And BTW, and IUD isn't an abortifacient.

It's bad enough that HL thinks that "in the name of Christ" they should not have to abide by the law and NOT discriminate against women, .... but they discriminate with ignorance too?


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Hunker down and wear protective gear against the vitriol.:mrgreen: :-D These topics almost always start as or turn into argey bargey and go downhill from there until enough participants get bored and wander off to start another brouhaha or the subject of the topic is solved. Don't worry about not being a US citizen. Your point of view might be refreshing. Americans are terribly America-centric and need the vires of people who live in other countries.


OK, MaidInBedlam. I have my hard hat on and my protective clothing. Just enjoying the dialogue.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

GemsByGranny said:


> I don't know the issues or the products and have no knowledge of the USA politics, but maybe the group's owners have a moral reason for what they are doing. It's their choice - theirs and their employees, since they have to bargain with them. None of your business or mine. And none of us have the right to tell anyone what their morals ought to be. 'As long as it's not abortion related'. Why put the limits there? Why not go the whole hog and say abortion is OK too?
> 
> It's none of our business, but if you want to boycott them that's your choice.
> 
> You did ask.


I agree that they should not disallow abortion either.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

pardoquilts said:


> The AMA, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gyn0cologists both say that the morning after pill is NOT, repeat NOT, an abortifacient. HL needs to keep out of the health decisions of their employees.


Exactly, not only are their employees subject to their chauvinism, but to their abject stupidity as well?


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

This is a side bar. 

I keep seeing BTW. Can someone tell me what this means? I can usually figure out most of the other shorthand, but this one has me stumped.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> This is the first mention to me about the site being hypocritical. ...


Well then, you blabbered on completely ignorant of her position, yet wailing and moaning as if you knew.

Typical for you.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> This is a side bar.
> 
> I keep seeing BTW. Can someone tell me what this means? I can usually figure out most of the other shorthand, but this one has me stumped.


By the way...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Sorry about that. Maybe a compliment will help. I really like your new avatar.


damemary said:


> Rats. Now I'm depressed again.


----------



## pattiknitter (Feb 26, 2011)

bobctwn65 said:


> you have to get the facts right,,,they are not against birth control ..just the ones that cause abortion of an already fertilized egg,,,MURDER of an unborn child...and I am behind them 100%


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Colorado knits said:


> Well, exactly. Not all Christians are the same. Not all Muslims are the same (no, they don't want to kill all of us); not all Jews are the same; not all atheists are the same.


Right. What we're talking about here are the types of Christians that are particularly hateful and hypocritical and it doesn't take another Christian of any variety to spot them.

In fact, due to this type's penchant for cognitive dissonance, they probably no less about Christianity that most as they're particularly ignorant and in habitual denial about reality.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

One of those double posts. I really do think there's a glitch on this board.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

pattiknitter said:


> bobctwn65 said:
> 
> 
> > you have to get the facts right,,,they are not against birth control ..just the ones that cause abortion of an already fertilized
> ...


.... never mind the fact that a number of the contraceptives they don't want to include in the plan are NOT abortifacients.

And this is ANOTHER part of the problem. The Greens have proven they are too stupid and uninformed to make these decisions wisely anyway.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

damemary said:


> And how much do we learn about the rest of the planet, much less beyond?


Not much unless we are curious enough to do some learning on our own, that is, if our curiosity hasn't been crushed during the mind-numbing years we spend in public schools. Once we get the 3 Rs down, the deliberate numbing ot youthful minds begins.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> First time I have heard "discrimination" ...


The other terms for it is equality under the law, equal protection under the law... etc... That's what anti-discrimination civil laws are.

You didn't know that?

But terms like "special protections" is a term that was coined by white supremacist groups who like to pretend that bigotry no longer exists.

I'm not surprised you in particular are using that term.


----------



## Xay-Zays.auntie (Aug 26, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Right. What we're talking about here are the types of Christians that are particularly hateful and hypocritical and it doesn't take another Christian of any variety to spot them.
> 
> In fact, due to this type's penchant for cognitive dissonance, they probably no less about Christianity that most as they're particularly ignorant and in habitual denial about reality.


Whatever anybody's religious beliefs, this book caught my eye a few years ago. It's available most everywhere: I'm Fine with God...It's Christians I Can't Stand: Getting Past the Religious Garbage in the Search for Spiritual Truth 
I haven't read it completely through, but it was bought mainly as a rebuttal to my MIL buying me a book with a title about 'Prodigals' returning to the flock.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> That is exactly my point, a corporation has no relationship with God.
> 
> No, I have no relationship with Jesus Christ.
> 
> ...


Hobby Lobby does not and I repeat----does not-----deny workers freedom of choice. They have the freedom to choose whatever they want. Just like I chose birth control when I first got married and I paid for my own birth control.

As for the Lord talking about birth control, this is direct from King James version of the Holy Bible:

Jeremiah 1:5 - Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Psalms 127:3 - Lo, children [are] an heritage of the LORD: [and] the fruit of the womb [is his] reward

Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Hobby Lobby does not and I repeat----does not-----deny workers freedom of choice. They have the freedom to choose whatever they want. Just like I chose birth control when I first got married and I paid for my own birth control.
> 
> As for the Lord talking about birth control, this is direct from King James version of the Holy Bible:
> 
> ...


Quotes from a book of fairy tales don't mean much. That is what your Bible is to a non-Christian...Grimm's Fairy Tales...lots of scare tactics to make children learn life's lessons. Sell it somewhere else. That pressure is exactly why we have the US Constitution protecting us from the government favoring the majority religion. 
You don't get to thrust Jesus down my throat.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I admitted it was hypocritical, didn't I? I will never need anything from them again. It wasn't just any skein of yarn, it was to finish a project. Believe me, I considered frogging and donating the yarn I had already knitted.


SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yes I noticed your other post that you needed another skein of their yarn. You don't get too caught up in your principles do you? Boycott unless you need something. LOL


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> I admitted it was hypocritical, didn't I? I will never need anything from them again. It wasn't just any skein of yarn, it was to finish a project. Believe me, I considered frogging and donating the yarn I had already knitted.


So you admitted it............big effing deal. Still really funny how your project is more important than your principles.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Well then, you blabbered on completely ignorant of her position, yet wailing and moaning as if you knew.
> 
> Typical for you.


Yes and how typical for you to make such disparaging remarks. You couldn't be be nice at all in your disagreement? Not if your life depended on it.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

There's that broad brush again. You say "it is funny how you all..." It is just Knitry and I who had to finish a project. We, the two of us, are done with HL after this final hypocritical action. I am speaking only for the two of us. Of others, I do not know, so therefore I don't speak for them. You can get on my case if you must, but don't wipe out everyone else who have been sticking by their convictions.


SometimesaKnitter said:


> Hey it's your business where you buy your stuff. I just think it is funny that you all are such in a tizzy about Hobby Lobby but not so much as to let it get in your way of your projects!
> I don't boycott anything and if I did I wouldn't tell you. I don't trust people like you as far as I could throw you.
> I said exactly what I wanted to say on the post you quoted. She had said she was going to get another skein of yarn to finish a project on a different post of hers.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Hobby Lobby does not and I repeat----does not-----deny workers freedom of choice. They have the freedom to choose whatever they want. Just like I chose birth control when I first got married and I paid for my own birth control.
> 
> As for the Lord talking about birth control, this is direct from King James version of the Holy Bible:


Evie, I'm sorry the way the Libs on this thread treat you and everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Janet Cooke states you don't get to thrust _Jesus_ down her throat, but please recognize she gets to ram her opinions and ideals down everyone else's.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yes and how typical for you to make such disparaging remarks. You couldn't be be nice at all in your disagreement? Not if your life depended on it.


Gird your loins SometimesaKnitter for an all out attack from the poster to whom you refer!


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Talk about Hypocrassy!
> 
> Riiiiight. As the KKK and White Separatists argue on their platforms, it's really white Christian men who are the true victims of discrimination in society!


I never said they were discriminated against..............I don't know what you read. It wasn't anything I wrote. Libs are just as hypocritical as any other group. You would never admit it though.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> Gird your loins SometimesaKnitter for an all out attack from the poster to whom you refer!


I really COULDN'T care less.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

A boycott isn't about the things...it is about the money spent to support a corporation (oops, I forgot HL is a Christian person). The money is spent and the damage is done. The yarn is not offensive. It is the bulldozing of human rights that is.


knitpresentgifts said:


> Please be sure to donate all your unused yarn, craft supplies and findings, decor, etc., to someone who appreciates an act of kindness and a giving heart so that you can remove those offending items from your house. If you dare. Only, then, will you enjoy your boycott in its totality.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Quotes from a book of fairy tales don't mean much. That is what your Bible is to a non-Christian...Grimm's Fairy Tales...lots of scare tactics to make children learn life's lessons. Sell it somewhere else. That pressure is exactly why we have the US Constitution protecting us from the government favoring the majority religion.
> You don't get to thrust Jesus down my throat.


Thrusting Jesus down our collective throats is exactly the intent of Hobby Lobby. I re-read the article about Hobby Lobby's legislative agenda, into which they have invested millions of dollars. I applaud Salon for their research into the bigger picture. They report, "...a document published here for the first time reveals Hobby Lobby appears to be going much further than protecting freedom, providing funding for a group that backs a political network of activist groups deeply engaged in pushing a Christian agenda into American law. "

I have been amused at times and horrified at times at the wildly extraneous arguments posted here. The core question is whether "sincerely held" religious beliefs gives a person (or company or business) the right to impose those beliefs on OTHERS. That religious freedom trumps all other freedoms. I don't care whether you are a pro-choice advocate or a pro-life advocate, whether you are an evangelical Christian or an atheist or anything in between. If Hobby Lobby is successful, human rights will have been rolled back to the 1950's. Or before.

Not just in the insurance case. Hobby Lobby's agenda is to codify their beliefs into law across the country. Their fundamentalist Christian beliefs. They are using the same tactics and Citizen's United to impose their religion on every person in this country. They funded efforts to pass the horrible law here in Arizona that would have made it legal to refuse service to LGBT citizens. They are climate science deniers and are against gay marriage.

Before you Christians get all excited and defend their position, please don't waste the keystrokes. They are entitled to their beliefs. They are entitled to teach their children their beliefs. They don't have to attend any gay weddings. If they want to speak out against those things, they have every right to do so. But they are trying (through the use of tens of millions of dollars) to pass legislation that would make their narrow views the law of the land. Not just for their employees. For each and every one of us. That they hypocritically do business with China is bad enough - that they use their profits to try to undermine democracy is a far better reason to boycott their business.

Central to the conservative, Christian, extreme right-wing belief (promoted by televangelists and other extreme Christian groups) is that the United States needs to return to God as a means of "saving" the country and they are actively seeking to pass laws that would impose their brand of Christianity on everyone. They see this as a good thing. They are so deeply entrenched in being "right" that they truly can't understand, accept, or respect those who have other - more progressive - ideas and beliefs. They see themselves as saviors of some kind.

I agree with you, Janet. Biblical quotes are so much nonsense to me. I was raised in a fundamentalist family and converted to Catholicism when I married. When I came to realize that Mass was a twisted ritualistic celebration of cannibalism I started wondering about the whole package and soon rejected the whole fantasy of god. You Christians can believe whatever makes sense to you and has meaning in your lives. There is no place for god in my life and I object in the strongest possible terms to living under laws that favor your religion.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yes and how typical for you to make such disparaging remarks. You couldn't be be nice at all in your disagreement? Not if your life depended on it.


So you admitted it............big effing deal. Still really funny how your project is more important than your principles.

Kettle, meet pot. 
Speaking of hypocrisy, and aren't you one who makes a big deal of being a Christian, quoting passages at others?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> There's that broad brush again. You say "it is funny how you all..." It is just Knitry and I who had to finish a project. We, the two of us, are done with HL after this final hypocritical action. I am speaking only for the two of us. Of others, I do not know, so therefore I don't speak for them. You can get on my case if you must, but don't wipe out everyone else who have been sticking by their convictions.


All I can say is that I couldn't care less what you do. All I know is that your principles mean nothing to you. The fact that you put your project ahead of your principles tells me that. I don't care whether or not this is the last thing you have to do with HL. I couldn't care less who does what as far as HL is concerned. I will go out of my way to spend more there so your boycott will mean nothing to them either.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Evie, I'm sorry the way the Libs on this thread treat you and everyone who doesn't agree with them.
> 
> Janet Cooke states you don't get to thrust _Jesus_ down her throat, but please recognize she gets to ram her opinions and ideals down everyone else's.


She's not trying to make it law. Big difference.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> So you admitted it............big effing deal. Still really funny how your project is more important than your principles.
> 
> Kettle, meet pot.
> Speaking of hypocrisy, and aren't you one who makes a big deal of being a Christian, quoting passages at others?


No


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> She's not trying to make it law. Big difference.


Yes she is.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> A boycott isn't about the things...it is about the money spent to support a corporation (oops, I forgot HL is a Christian person). The money is spent and the damage is done. The yarn is not offensive. It is the bulldozing of human rights that is.


You go ahead and tell yourself any little fantasy you want to justify what you do. Most libs do anyway.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yes she is.


How, exactly? Specifics, examples, please.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> How, exactly? Specifics, examples, please.


no thanks


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> All I can say is that I couldn't care less what you do. All I know is that your principles mean nothing to you. The fact that you put your project ahead of your principles tells me that. I don't care whether or not this is the last thing you have to do with HL. I couldn't care less who does what as far as HL is concerned. I will go out of my way to spend more there so your boycott will mean nothing to them either.


I hope you do put more and more of your funds into paying for abortions, I love watching someone who knocks others' principles throw their own aside. 
What a hypocrite.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> no thanks


So, you got nothing? If you can't defend your position then why voice it?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I hope you do put more and more of your funds into paying for abortions, I love watching someone who knocks others' principles throw their own aside.
> What a hypocrite.


Sticks and stones...................ah never mind, it's like talking to the wall.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> So, you got nothing? If you can't defend your position then why voice it?


I just don't care to put that much effort into defending what you will inevitably cast aside anyway.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

I agree with you, Janet. Biblical quotes are so much nonsense to me. I was raised in a fundamentalist family and converted to Catholicism when I married. When I came to realize that Mass was a twisted ritualistic celebration of cannibalism I started wondering about the whole package and soon rejected the whole fantasy of god. You Christians can believe whatever makes sense to you and has meaning in your lives. There is no place for god in my life and I object in the strongest possible terms to living under laws that favor your religion.[/quote]

Yes, after years of donating $$$$$ to the Catholic Church, to help the poor and other needs of the misfortunate, it's sad to realize that most of that $$$$ has gone to pay for law suits to pay for the misfortunes of children by the very organization that was there to protect them.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> So you admitted it............big effing deal. Still really funny how your project is more important than your principles.


Great statement! Isn't that the mantra of all Libs?

"Their project is more important than their principles."


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I just don't care to put that much effort into defending what you will inevitably cast aside anyway.


As I said, you've got nothing.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lins said:


> I agree with you, Janet. Biblical quotes are so much nonsense to me. I was raised in a fundamentalist family and converted to Catholicism when I married. When I came to realize that Mass was a twisted ritualistic celebration of cannibalism I started wondering about the whole package and soon rejected the whole fantasy of god. You Christians can believe whatever makes sense to you and has meaning in your lives. There is no place for god in my life and I object in the strongest possible terms to living under laws that favor your religion.


Yes, after years of donating $$$$$ to the Catholic Church, to help the poor and other needs of the misfortunate, it's sad to realize that most of that $$$$ has gone to pay for law suits to pay for the misfortunes of children by the very organization that was there to protect them.[/quote]

A function of their twisted beliefs about sex. And the supremacy of the male of the species, not to mention the supremacy of their priests. Pretty ugly.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Wombatnomore said:


> Gird your loins SometimesaKnitter for an all out attack from the poster to whom you refer!


 :thumbup: Hey ya Aussie!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I really COULDN'T care less.


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> No


She is regularly confused, Sometimes.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I thought you said you didn't care what I do or did or about my weak principles...why have you dissected my tiny little post into smaller pieces so you could keep addressing it? Seems you care a lot and that is just precious.


SometimesaKnitter said:


> You go ahead and tell yourself any little fantasy you want to justify what you do. Most libs do anyway.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yes she is.


and Hobby Lobby isn't. Big difference.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

DGreen, just wanted to say how much I appreciate your thoughtful posts. It is unfortunate that there are folks who believe that their way is the only way to live and that it is okay to try to force their religious beliefs on others. Keep fighting the good fight!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I'm waiting!


You'll always be waiting until Hell freezes over, because DGreen doesn't believe in Hell *and* she's "got nothing." (her ignorant words)


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> DGreen, just wanted to say how much I appreciate your thoughtful posts. It is unfortunate that there are folks who believe that their way is the only way to live and that it is okay to try to force their religious beliefs on others. Keep fighting the good fight!


Thank you very much.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Sticks and stones...................ah never mind, it's like talking to the wall.


This wall has ears, and eyes, we all have read the hateful spewing from your fingertips. 
You disrespected someone for buying one item to finish a long project with as being not principled enough for your standards. 
Now you beg off explaining how you can spend more money than ever to support Family Hobby, LLC in their endeavor to abort lots and lots of chinese embryos. 
It is inexplicable.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Joeysmomma:

This is what was said:

Janet Cooke states you don't get to thrust Jesus down her throat, but please recognize she gets to ram her opinions and ideals down everyone else's.

Janet is not putting millions of dollars behind having her opinions and ideals written into law. Hobby Lobby is.

You then brought up a totally irrelevant post. Which in itself was irrelevant to the fundamental argument.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Joeysmomma:
> 
> This is what was said:
> 
> ...


I don't even have the most popular book ever sold to thrust with.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> I don't even have the most popular book ever sold to thrust with.


Me neither. Got rid of the damned thing.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Joeysmomma:
> 
> This is what was said:
> 
> ...


Hobby Lobby is really suing because they hate Obama care.

This is a quote:

So in September 2012, Hobby Lobby sued the US Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the contraceptive mandate on the grounds that it unconstitutionally and substantially burdens the company's religious beliefs. The company is asking the court to find that it has the same religious-freedom rights as a church or an individual, a finding no American court has ever made.

"By being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow, David Green, Hobby Lobby's founder and CEO, said in a press release when the case was filed. "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate."

On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously. Take for instance Hobby Lobby's argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom. The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

pardoquilts said:



> DGreen, just wanted to say how much I appreciate your thoughtful posts. It is unfortunate that there are folks who believe that their way is the only way to live and that it is okay to try to force their religious beliefs on others. Keep fighting the good fight!


 :thumbup:


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

lins said:


> Hobby Lobby is really suing because they hate Obama care.
> 
> So in September 2012, Hobby Lobby sued the US Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the contraceptive mandate on the grounds that it unconstitutionally and substantially burdens the company's religious beliefs. The company is asking the court to find that it has the same religious-freedom rights as a church or an individual, a finding no American court has ever made.
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lins said:


> Hobby Lobby is really suing because they hate Obama care.
> 
> So in September 2012, Hobby Lobby sued the US Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the contraceptive mandate on the grounds that it unconstitutionally and substantially burdens the company's religious beliefs. The company is asking the court to find that it has the same religious-freedom rights as a church or an individual, a finding no American court has ever made.
> 
> ...


You have gotten down to the nitty-gritty of this lawsuit. How right you are.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lins said:


> Hobby Lobby is really suing because they hate Obama care.
> 
> So in September 2012, Hobby Lobby sued the US Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the contraceptive mandate on the grounds that it unconstitutionally and substantially burdens the company's religious beliefs. The company is asking the court to find that it has the same religious-freedom rights as a church or an individual, a finding no American court has ever made.
> 
> ...


I just hope that the company cannot stay open after they lose. 
Won't that be a kick in the seat to all those who can't see what this suit is really about?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lins said:


> Hobby Lobby is really suing because they hate Obama care.
> 
> So in September 2012, Hobby Lobby sued the US Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the contraceptive mandate on the grounds that it unconstitutionally and substantially burdens the company's religious beliefs. The company is asking the court to find that it has the same religious-freedom rights as a church or an individual, a finding no American court has ever made.
> 
> ...


But it is so much more than the ACA (I refuse to use the pejorative "Obamacare"). They are also climate change deniers and want to discriminate at will against gays, blacks, those of other faiths, anyone who their bible tells them is bad. They truly want the US to be a Christian nation - with all that implies. They are in league with the worst of the worst who promote legislating Christianity into law.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

DGreen said:


> But it is so much more than the ACA (I refuse to use the pejorative "Obamacare"). They are also climate change deniers and want to discriminate at will against gays, blacks, those of other faiths, anyone who their bible tells them is bad. They truly want the US to be a Christian nation - with all that implies. They are in league with the worst of the worst who promote legislating Christianity into law.


The smiley face replaces my keystroke that calls for a close parentheses.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

Colorado knits said:


> By the way...


Thank you.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

DGreen said:


> But it is so much more than the ACA (I refuse to use the pejorative "Obamacare"). They are also climate change deniers and want to discriminate at will against gays, blacks, those of other faiths, anyone who their bible tells them is bad. They truly want the US to be a Christian nation - with all that implies. They are in league with the worst of the worst who promote legislating Christianity into law.


President Obama himself has coopted "Obamacare" by saying he is proud of the legislation, which also takes a lot of the sting out of its use by the Christian Right. That said, I agree with the rest of what you say, and have to confess I'm really tired of their ignorance! There is no understanding of how science works, there is no knowledge of the truth about the religious beliefs of our founding fathers, and it is all just really tiresome!


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

Xay-Zays.auntie said:


> Whatever anybody's religious beliefs, this book caught my eye a few years ago. It's available most everywhere: I'm Fine with God...It's Christians I Can't Stand: Getting Past the Religious Garbage in the Search for Spiritual Truth
> I haven't read it completely through, but it was bought mainly as a rebuttal to my MIL buying me a book with a title about 'Prodigals' returning to the flock.


Sounds like a good book to read. I must get it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

pardoquilts said:


> President Obama himself has coopted "Obamacare" by saying he is proud of the legislation, which also takes a lot of the sting out of its use by the Christian Right. That said, I agree with the rest of what you say, and have to confess I'm really tired of their ignorance! There is no understanding of how science works, there is no knowledge of the truth about the religious beliefs of our founding fathers, and it is all just really tiresome!


I am just waiting to see how long it takes the right wing to stop calling it Obamacare as it proves to be successful.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> President Obama himself has coopted "Obamacare" by saying he is proud of the legislation, which also takes a lot of the sting out of its use by the Christian Right. That said, I agree with the rest of what you say, and have to confess I'm really tired of their ignorance! There is no understanding of how science works, there is no knowledge of the truth about the religious beliefs of our founding fathers, and it is all just really tiresome!


Tiresome, but instructive. There is a vast chasm between the right and the left in politics today. It pays to remember that we have mid-term elections coming up and the tea party and religious right have the support of a lot of people who want a Christian nation. Observe the beliefs expressed on this thread. If the majority is truly to rule, we need to motivate them to the same degree the televangelists and preachers motivate their minority.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> I am just waiting to see how long it takes the right wing to stop calling it Obamacare as it proves to be successful.


They will never admit that so I fear you are looking at a long wait.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

DGreen said:


> They will never admit that so I fear you are looking at a long wait.


Hey now, as a believer in reincarnation, I think it would be really funny to come back and see them still using that term in history books since we will have moved on to single payer.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Thrusting Jesus down our collective throats is exactly the intent of Hobby Lobby. I re-read the article about Hobby Lobby's legislative agenda, into which they have invested millions of dollars. I applaud Salon for their research into the bigger picture. They report, "...a document published here for the first time reveals Hobby Lobby appears to be going much further than protecting freedom, providing funding for a group that backs a political network of activist groups deeply engaged in pushing a Christian agenda into American law. "
> 
> I have been amused at times and horrified at times at the wildly extraneous arguments posted here. The core question is whether "sincerely held" religious beliefs gives a person (or company or business) the right to impose those beliefs on OTHERS. That religious freedom trumps all other freedoms. I don't care whether you are a pro-choice advocate or a pro-life advocate, whether you are an evangelical Christian or an atheist or anything in between. If Hobby Lobby is successful, human rights will have been rolled back to the 1950's. Or before.
> 
> ...


Well said!


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> President Obama himself has coopted "Obamacare" by saying he is proud of the legislation, which also takes a lot of the sting out of its use by the Christian Right. That said, I agree with the rest of what you say, and have to confess I'm really tired of their ignorance! There is no understanding of how science works, there is no knowledge of the truth about the religious beliefs of our founding fathers, and it is all just really tiresome!


I cannot understand why science is considered bogus -- oh yeah, if it wasn't in the Bible, it can't be true.

How can that be considering how long ago the Bible was written and science was nearly nonexistent. I have a sister-in-law who, after my saying that climate change is wiping out thousands of species, "So what? Animals come and animals go." Well, never at the rate it's happening now and the disruption results in the domino effect.

Climate change remark, "It doesn't matter. The Lord will come back before it's a problem."

The earth is approximately 6,000 years old? How quaint. Oh my.

You don't have to be a scientist (I'm certainly not) to read the studies and interpret what is happening. Ninety-nine percent of climate and environmental scientists believe that climate change is human caused. Do you suppose that God wanted us to destroy Mother Earth? Do you think God wanted us to overpopulate the earth?


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

Colorado knits said:


> I cannot understand why science is considered bogus -- oh yeah, if it wasn't in the Bible, it can't be true.
> 
> How can that be considering how long ago the Bible was written and science was nearly nonexistent. I have a sister-in-law who, after my saying that climate change is wiping out thousands of species, "So what? Animals come and animals go." Well, never at the rate it's happening now and the disruption results in the domino effect.
> 
> ...


I think "God" must have been having a seniors' moment when he created man. How else can one explain the disaster man has made of "His" beautiful world.

The quotes are there because I don't believe in "God".


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

I have never had the experience of such openly expressed non-Christian views before in my 75-year lifetime; I want to thank those who have been strong enough to express them, in particular, DGreen and Janet Cooke, not to exclude others who have contributed to the discussion. Over my lifetime, I've watched all kinds of horrors committed in the name of Christianity. History shows that's nothing new. What appalls me is that it continues to this day. Christians as a whole seem to think that they are somehow better and above other religious and non-religious people, but my experience with them has been just the opposite. It's as if they think practicing their rituals absolves them from their inhumanities.

I was a practicing Christian early in my life as an escape from the horrors of my parents and greater family. I left home at 17 expecting to find others who genuinely wanted to make it a better world without stuffing their specific beliefs down the throats of others. The inability to find others who were genuinely interested in doing that finally eroded, not my desire to see that happen and work toward it, but to do that in the name of a Christianity that was corrupt far beyond my expectations, sort of a shield that people hid from themselves behind. They went to church, did the rituals, then returned to real life on Monday, real life having nothing to do with any Christian ideals or beliefs for most, including clergy. It was my observations of reality that convinced me that most religions are empty of true meaning beyond helping individuals feel better about themselves because they belonged to one in name only.

Over the past few years I have become increasingly honest with myself about these matters insofar as my own belief system is concerned. I tend to see most religions as the greatest fairy tales of all, an "acceptable" means of attempting to control the masses. Life is hard. If believing such things helps others get through it, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the insistence of others that we must all subscribe to a religion, in most cases, their religion, in order to be worthy. I disagree, just as they disagree with my point of view. 

Again, I thank those who have had the intestinal fortitude to express their feelings on these issues in an open and honest manner.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

DGreen said:


> But it is so much more than the ACA (I refuse to use the pejorative "Obamacare"). They are also climate change deniers and want to discriminate at will against gays, blacks, those of other faiths, anyone who their bible tells them is bad. They truly want the US to be a Christian nation - with all that implies. They are in league with the worst of the worst who promote legislating Christianity into law.


I used 'Obamacare' to make a point and to attract some 'other' readers here. 

And yes, it runs deep and too many are just blind to it.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

damemary, what did you mean by "affinity" here? Didn;t quite understand.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I just hope that the company cannot stay open after they lose.
> Won't that be a kick in the seat to all those who can't see what this suit is really about?


Unfortunately they will probably attract more misguided customers and make more money.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

lins said:


> I used 'Obamacare' to make a point and to attract some 'other' readers here.
> 
> And yes, it runs deep and too many are just blind to it.


What is the antecedent for "it" here?


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

DGreen said:


> The smiley face replaces my keystroke that calls for a close parentheses.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> I think "God" must have been having a seniors' moment when he created man. How else can one explain the disaster man has made of "His" beautiful world.
> 
> The quotes are there because I don't believe in "God".


 :thumbup:

My belief is that an energy force started the universe, thus the creator, but not a creator who plans our lives.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> The quotes are there because I don't believe in "God".


That's okay, God believes in you and that's all that matters until such a time as you change your mind.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I have never had the experience of such openly expressed non-Christian views before in my 75-year lifetime; I want to thank those who have been strong enough to express them, in particular, DGreen and Janet Cooke, not to exclude others who have contributed to the discussion. Over my lifetime, I've watched all kinds of horrors committed in the name of Christianity. History shows that's nothing new. What appalls me is that it continues to this day. Christians as a whole seem to think that they are somehow better and above other religious and non-religious people, but my experience with them has been just the opposite. It's as if they think practicing their rituals absolves them from their inhumanities.
> 
> I was a practicing Christian early in my life as an escape from the horrors of my parents and greater family. I left home at 17 expecting to find others who genuinely wanted to make it a better world without stuffing their specific beliefs down the throats of others. The inability to find others who were genuinely interested in doing that finally eroded, not my desire to see that happen and work toward it, but to do that in the name of a Christianity that was corrupt far beyond my expectations, sort of a shield that people hid from themselves behind. They went to church, did the rituals, then returned to real life on Monday, real life having nothing to do with any Christian ideals or beliefs for most, including clergy. It was my observations of reality that convinced me that most religions are empty of true meaning beyond helping individuals feel better about themselves because they belonged to one in name only.
> 
> ...


Thank YOU for your support. You point out a very real dynamic of lots of Christians. Not all, but many.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

taborhills said:


> What is the antecedent for "it" here?


Racism.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> That's okay, God believes in you and that's all that matters until such a time as you change your mind.


Please don't condescend to me!


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> That's okay, God believes in you and that's all that matters until such a time as you change your mind.


...and you know this how?


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

lins said:


> ...and you know this how?


With the same reasoning that makes her believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Oops, maybe I shouldn't have told!


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I guess you are unable to defend your position since you have not answered. Or since you cannot find it, maybe you will agree it is not in the law. It is a regulation that Sibelius made after the law was passed to persecute Christian organizations or businesses. I wonder why Obama didn't exempt the few that objected like he did the unions. Oh! that's right, Christian organizations and businesses do not donate money to the Democratic Party. Unions do.


Sure didn't take you long to sift through all that.

The ACA outlines minimum requirements for insurance policies. I've mentioned this before; I assume you missed it. Insurance policies must cover things like birth control, policies cannot refuse to insure those with pre-existing conditions; policyholders must be able to cover their children up to 26 years old. The actual policies are written by individual companies - Blue Cross, Cigna, et al. Policies come with formularies describing the exact prescriptions covered, co-pays, that sort of thing. If you think that the ACA detailed, right down to the brand name, dosage and manufacturer of everything companies had to cover, you are right, it is not in the law.

HL objects to having to include what they term "abortion drugs" in the policy they provide. So they could conceivably raise objections to any drug they did not like, such as Viagra (which they have not, of course).

What you are doing is setting up a "straw man" argument so you can easily shoot it down and then pat yourself on the back for being so clever. I'm not the only one who sees through your nonsense. You are a smart person - try looking at the CONCEPTS and intent in the ACA and you wouldn't have to ask such questions.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

pardoquilts said:


> With the same reasoning that makes her believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Oops, maybe I shouldn't have told!


...speaking of stories.

Maybe she could answer this. It's always bothered about the story of Noah.

Who collected all the animals? 
...and if she says 'God' sent them, then what did he use as transportation, train, plane or automobile?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I tend to see most religions as the greatest fairy tales of all, an "acceptable" means of attempting to control the masses.


Additionally, it is a highly EFFECTIVE way to control the masses. The evangelical christian movement has been extremely successful in convincing women to work and vote against their own self-interest. Quite amazing.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> That's okay, God believes in you and that's all that matters until such a time as you change your mind.


Are you going to tell us how there are no atheists in foxholes??


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Additionally, it is a highly EFFECTIVE way to control the masses. The evangelical christian movement has been extremely successful in convincing women to work and vote against their own self-interest. Quite amazing.


So sadly true.

Also, forever ago, religions invented Hell to keep people in line with their beliefs.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lins said:


> ...speaking of stories.
> 
> Maybe she could answer this. It's always bothered about the story of Noah.
> 
> ...


Don't forget all the forms of life unknown at the time of Noah. Like bacteria and microscopic organisms. They deserve god's mercy, too!


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Colorado knits said:


> So sadly true.
> 
> Also, forever ago, religions invented Hell to keep people in line with their beliefs.


Don't forget original sin. And that even "bad" thoughts will get you into hell.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Don't forget original sin. And that even "bad" thoughts will get you into hell.


Of course, if you don't buy into the whole heaven/hell thing, then you have to develop a moral sense that relies on behavior which enhances society's welfare.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Colorado knits said:


> So sadly true.
> 
> Also, forever ago, religions invented Hell to keep people in line with their beliefs.


Actually the idea of hell is not big in religions besides Christianity - there in some, absent in others.

Jehovah's Witnesses have the most extreme view on eternity as far as I'm concerned.

Heaven for 144,000 chosen Witnesses, eternity on new earth for other Witnesses. All others annihilated. No hell.

They REALLY believe they are specially chosen.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Please be sure to donate all your unused yarn, craft supplies and findings, decor, etc., to someone who appreciates an act of kindness and a giving heart so that you can remove those offending items from your house. If you dare. Only, then, will you enjoy your boycott in its totality.


Oh, yeah, like I take moral advice from you.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> Of course, if you don't buy into the whole heaven/hell thing, then you have to develop a moral sense that relies on behavior which enhances society's welfare.


But that requires critical thinking. Might be too difficult for some who likes the rules spelled out.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> An example: I think most agree that Hobby Lobby pays more than the minimum wage. Lets say $15.00 an hour.


I really, really doubt they pay more than the minimum wage, but if in fact they do, it's for darn sure nowhere near $15/hour.

And if it weren't Sunday, I'd get in my car and go ask one of them.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

abc123retired said:


> What is wrong with young women today that they so want to demean themselves by having unprotected, unmarried sex and then want to kill their babies?


1. Sometimes that choice isn't left to them.

2. Sometimes birth control fails.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Additionally, it is a highly EFFECTIVE way to control the masses. The evangelical christian movement has been extremely successful in convincing women to work and vote against their own self-interest. Quite amazing.


Sad, but true.

I have a former classmate from K-12 who currently resides in AZ. She is a "Charismatic Catholic," whatever that is. She had kept my inbox full of racist and GLBT rants for a few years, knowing full well that my son was gay and died of AIDS, all the time proselytizing her particular brand of cruel and inhuman. It was with great relief that she finally took me off her torture list following my pointing out to her just how insensitive she has become. These are the kinds of things I simply cannot tolerate any longer. What I find mind-boggling is that anyone would think there is any excuse for this kind of behavior. I wouldn't dream of bombarding anyone with my views several times a week for years, even if I knew that person agreed with me.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

lins said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > How will their beliefs be preferred over a Muslim's, Hindu's, Mormans' or Jew's? examples please!
> ...


Yeah, and most of what we do with our national defense is against my religious beliefs, and that includes the entirety of the NSA, so I want to stop paying those taxes too.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Colorado knits said:


> Brown Sheep yarn, which is very nice yarn, is made in the U.S. I'm sure there are others besides Lion Brand.


Not all Lion Brand yarn is US-made. In fact, I'd be a bit surprised to learn that any is.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> Sad, but true.
> 
> I have a former classmate from K-12 who currently resides in AZ. She is a "Charismatic Catholic," whatever that is. She had kept my inbox full of racist and GLBT rants for a few years, knowing full well that my son was gay and died of AIDS, all the time proselytizing her particular brand of cruel and inhuman. It was with great relief that she finally took me off her torture list following my pointing out to her just how insensitive she has become. These are the kinds of things I simply cannot tolerate any longer. What I find mind-boggling is that anyone would think there is any excuse for this kind of behavior. I wouldn't dream of bombarding anyone with my views several times a week for years, even if I knew that person agreed with me.


I am profoundly sorry for your loss and for someone who had once been a friend to do such a cruel thing to you. I'm sure you know that not all Christians are like that, but those whose minds are full of hate can do a lot of damage.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Knitry said:


> I really, really doubt they pay more than the minimum wage, but if in fact they do, it's for darn sure nowhere near $15/hour.
> 
> And if it weren't Sunday, I'd get in my car and go ask one of them.


I read recently in a report on the events in the Supreme Court revolving around HL that they pay $9.00 an hour. I can't verify that, but I think that's pretty realistic. If you check it out with one of them on a weekday, let us know :~).


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Yeah, and most of what we do with our national defense is against my religious beliefs, and that includes the entirety of the NSA, so I want to stop paying those taxes too.


Give it a try and see what happens. I haven't heard from one KPer who likes war, so you're not alone in that. But we all have to pay. It's called democracy.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Knitry said:


> Yeah, and most of what we do with our national defense is against my religious beliefs, and that includes the entirety of the NSA, so I want to stop paying those taxes too.


And what usually starts a conflict? Religion and/or greed?
What would we do without the protection of the NSA and the Pentagon?
You might be bowing to Allah by now.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> March 29, 2014, Sunday?????


I think that was a *joke*.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Hobby Lobby does not and I repeat----does not-----deny workers freedom of choice. They have the freedom to choose whatever they want. Just like I chose birth control when I first got married and I paid for my own birth control.
> 
> As for the Lord talking about birth control, this is direct from King James version of the Holy Bible:
> 
> ...


None of that says anything about birth control.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I am profoundly sorry for your loss and for someone who had once been a friend to do such a cruel thing to you. I'm sure you know that not all Christians are like that, but those whose minds are full of hate can do a lot of damage.


I don't condemn all members of any religion, just as I don't condemn those of no religion. I'm not familiar with "Charismatic Catholics," which is what she calls herself, so I don't know if she even fits within their "norm." I do have a great deal of difficulty, having known her family and friends to a point, understanding how she became so hateful. She was considered a scholar in high school, so I would have expected her to do a little more thinking than she seems to have done. Some of our other classmates excuse her on the grounds that she has "had a tough life." Haven't we all in one way or another?


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> Sad, but true.
> 
> I have a former classmate from K-12 who currently resides in AZ. She is a "Charismatic Catholic," whatever that is. She had kept my inbox full of racist and GLBT rants for a few years, knowing full well that my son was gay and died of AIDS, all the time proselytizing her particular brand of cruel and inhuman. It was with great relief that she finally took me off her torture list following my pointing out to her just how insensitive she has become. These are the kinds of things I simply cannot tolerate any longer. What I find mind-boggling is that anyone would think there is any excuse for this kind of behavior. I wouldn't dream of bombarding anyone with my views several times a week for years, even if I knew that person agreed with me.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

Very sorry, Sam. Sorry, too, for the loss of your son and the grief he went through before his death. He did not intend that, I am sure. Like you, I do not understand all the hate in the world and on this thread.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Please don't condescend to me!


I was responding to BlueJay.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Page and line number please, for the birth control. It does say that HHS can set up rules, but nothing specific. It definitely does not say that every policy has to provide every birth control possible *free*. So why is Hobby Lobby required to? They are all ready providing 16 of 20.


Give it a rest for crying out loud.

It does not say "EVERY BIRTH CONTROL POSSIBLE". You want to define the questions (irrelevant as they may be) as well as the answers.

Now pat yourself on the back for knocking down the straw man. Which you built, by the way.

None of this is the issue. Repeat after me:

Should Hobby Lobby's religious rights be favored over those of its employees?

That is what the Supreme Court will consider (among a few other constitutional issues). The formulary and what is on it, is a side issue that pro-lifers are using to obfuscate the real point of the discussion.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

lins said:


> ...and you know this how?


I was responding to Blue Jay...but I'll return your question:

How is it that you don't know this?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I don't condemn all members of any religion, just as I don't condemn those of no religion. I'm not familiar with "Charismatic Catholics," which is what she calls herself, so I don't know if she even fits within their "norm." I do have a great deal of difficulty, having known her family and friends to a point, understanding how she became so hateful. She was considered a scholar in high school, so I would have expected her to do a little more thinking than she seems to have done. Some of our other classmates excuse her on the grounds that she has "had a tough life." Haven't we all in one way or another?


She needs to get over it. I had an abusive husband who used the same excuse to hurt me.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> None of that says anything about birth control.


What the bible says doesn't impress the supreme court. The constitution is what they are sworn to read and uphold.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Sad, but true.
> 
> I have a former classmate from K-12 who currently resides in AZ. She is a "Charismatic Catholic," whatever that is. She had kept my inbox full of racist and GLBT rants for a few years, knowing full well that my son was gay and died of AIDS, all the time proselytizing her particular brand of cruel and inhuman. It was with great relief that she finally took me off her torture list following my pointing out to her just how insensitive she has become. These are the kinds of things I simply cannot tolerate any longer. What I find mind-boggling is that anyone would think there is any excuse for this kind of behavior. I wouldn't dream of bombarding anyone with my views several times a week for years, even if I knew that person agreed with me.


I'm very sorry for your loss and how you were treated.

Please accept my apologies on behalf of all ignorant people everywhere (in whatever guise they claim to profess) who would behave in such an unthinkable manner.

Peace.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> I was responding to BlueJay.


The statement is condescending no matter who you were addressing.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> The statement is condescending no matter who you were addressing.


I agree with pardoquilts.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> The statement is condescending no matter who you were addressing.


God loves you too! And you as well, Diane!

If you don't believe in God, then why does it bother you so much that this non-existant being should love you?

Hmmmm


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> I was responding to Blue Jay...but I'll return your question:
> 
> How is it that you don't know this?


...because science is not a fairy tale.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

lins said:


> ...because science is not a fairy tale.


Neither is God.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> God loves you too! And you as well, Diane!
> 
> If you don't believe in God, then why does it bother you so much that this non-existant being should love you?
> 
> Hmmmm


You are fooling yourself, but that is your choice. I prefer to live in the real world, not Fantasyland. The statement was condescending because it assumes that you have the answers for everyone, which you don't. When you tell a grown adult that you know what is right and best for them, you assume they are incapable of living their own life in a productive, caring manner.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Neither is God.


Believe as you like, but please don't expect me to buy into your delusion!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> You are fooling yourself, but that is your choice. I prefer to live in the real world, not Fantasyland. The statement was condescending because it assumes that you have the answers for everyone, which you don't. When you tell a grown adult that you know what is right and best for them, you assume they are incapable of living their own life in a productive, caring manner.


Good grief! I never told anyone that I know what is right and best for them, neither do I assume they are incapable of being productive and caring. You're reading much to much into a simple statement:

I said "God loves you!"

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it is not true.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Neither is God.


You obviously haven't read 'the book'.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Good grief! I never told anyone that I know what is right and best for them, neither do I assume they are incapable of being productive and caring. You're reading much to much into a simple statement:
> 
> I said "God loves you!"
> 
> Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it is not true.


I do not want nor need your "simple statement." And, your original statement indicated that I would someday change my mind. Chances of that? None!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lins said:


> Racism.


Naturally. Isn't "it" always for Libs and Dems?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Actually the idea of hell is not big in religions besides Christianity - there in some, absent in others.
> 
> Jehovah's Witnesses have the most extreme view on eternity as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> ...


You shouldn't have thrown away that darned book. You wouldn't look quite the fool had you understood what you might have read in "it." Instead, you're on pace of "it" as defined by another Lib.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It is not a side issue. Or there would not be such a heated a discussion.
> 
> Hobby Lobby *IS NOT* controlling or trying to control any ones sex life. When are you going to get it.


No, they are trying to control a health decision that should be between a woman and her doctor.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Knitry said:


> Oh, yeah, like I take moral advice from you.


I see you've missed the point, again. At least you are consistent.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Knitry said:


> I really, really doubt they pay more than the minimum wage, but if in fact they do, it's for darn sure nowhere near $15/hour.


Today is Saturday if you are in the USA. Do you know where you are?

It has been widely reported Hobby Lobby pays approximately 15,000 of its full-time (I believe retail) employees nearly double the minimum wage.

How much do you pay yours?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> God loves you too! And you as well, Diane!
> 
> If you don't believe in God, then why does it bother you so much that this non-existant being should love you?
> 
> Hmmmm


As long as she can bully, fight, and argue, she likes Him to exist; it's her straw man. :XD:


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It is between a woman and her doctor. She can do whatever she wants. And *SHE* can pay for it if it is not included.


They want take some of the options off the table.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> What the bible says doesn't impress the supreme court. The constitution is what they are sworn to read and uphold.


I'm not convinced this is true. It SHOULD be true.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

pardoquilts said:


> They want take some of the options off the table.


Nope, more like Obama's govt wants control over everyone's body, rights and freedoms as against those granted by the laws of our Country.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> God loves you too! And you as well, Diane!
> 
> If you don't believe in God, then why does it bother you so much that this non-existant being should love you?
> 
> Hmmmm


You are disrespecting my beliefs as if to say, "you are wrong not to believe so I am superior to you."

It's beating non-believers over the head with in-your-face Christianity.

To be fair, I understand you are probably not intending it in an unkind or insulting way. It's probably very hard for you to imagine anyone NOT believing. I really do understand that because I have a hard time imagining anyone who does believe.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Colorado knits said:


> I'm not convinced this is true. It SHOULD be true.


I am clinging to that hope.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

DGreen said:


> She needs to get over it. I had an abusive husband who used the same excuse to hurt me.


I'm glad he is in the past tense, but sorry for your pain. In my case an abusive set of parents kind of preconditioned me to put up with the same thing for a time--until I came to my senses :~). I don't consider it an excuse for me to continue an unwanted legacy, either.

The interesting thing about my son is that he was the kindest, most caring person I've ever known. No doubt that's why I still feel like my right arm is missing 12 years after his death. This is not to say he wasn't able to stand up for himself in fine fashion. I wish everyone could be as kind and thoughtful as he was. He thought I would be shocked that he had no use for organized religion; I guess I didn't express myself too well back then, but as a parent I tried not to be overly influential, especially since I was a single parent for a number of years.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The $15.00 an hour was an "example." To show that the employees would be paid the same even if they did not have insurance. Those that are complaining missed that word. $15.00 an hour was convenient since McDonald workers want to get that.


I know. However, it has been often reported that HL does pay its staff retail employees nearly double the minimum wage.

Knitry doubts that - without justification, of course.

No worries, though. Obama with the stroke of his pen, has or will soon increase, illegally, the mandated minimum wage and further sink the USA economy.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Neither is God.


Perhaps not, but science has proofs for its contentions.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Nope, more like Obama's govt wants control over everyone's body, rights and freedoms as against those granted by the laws of our Country.


The misinterpretation of the Constitution and our founding fathers intentions, combined with a complete lack of interest in reading history is an unfortunate attribute of conservatives in this country.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You shouldn't have thrown away that darned book. You wouldn't look quite the fool had you understood what you might have read in "it." Instead, you're on pace of "it" as defined by another Lib.


I threw away the books I read in kindergarten, too.

Your arrogance is profoundly offensive. Why don't you say what you mean, that I am a fool because I haven't read the bible, and that I'm also a racist?

If you really want to get into an argument about the merits of Christianity, we can go there. I would prefer not to because I feel no need to proselytize. If you have read my posts I have repeatedly said I respect your right to your beliefs. Try to respect mine.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> Perhaps not, but science has proofs for its contentions.


What is the source of truth? That's an impossible one to solve on this site or perhaps ever! To say that science has proofs though the Bible does not means that one is choosing to deify principles of proof, of evidence and logic. I personally like science and proof and logic, but we have no proof that proof is Better than other ways to decide what is true, do we? Probably best for each person to decide for him/herself. Or understand that this is one question which canNOT be answered. Certainly not here or on this site or in our lifetimes.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Naturally. Isn't it always for Libs and Dems?


...and that is why President Obama was elected, twice, because it's not about race.

It's about the best person for the job, unlike the nitwit network masquerading as the GOP, who have done everything in their power to destroy anything fair,
from poverty, to women's issues, health care, education, fair pay, environmental laws, etc., while making some very 'alarming' jokes and statements along the way. 
Jokes and statements that were heard in the front seats of the bus, a long, long time ago.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I'm glad he is in the past tense, but sorry for your pain. In my case an abusive set of parents kind of preconditioned me to put up with the same thing for a time--until I came to my senses :~). I don't consider it an excuse for me to continue an unwanted legacy, either.
> 
> The interesting thing about my son is that he was the kindest, most caring person I've ever known. No doubt that's why I still feel like my right arm is missing 12 years after his death. This is not to say he wasn't able to stand up for himself in fine fashion. I wish everyone could be as kind and thoughtful as he was. He thought I would be shocked that he had no use for organized religion; I guess I didn't express myself too well back then, but as a parent I tried not to be overly influential, especially since I was a single parent for a number of years.


Then we have a lot in common! My parents were not abusive but there was alcoholism and patriarchy and an example of "submission" of women. Common enough, I'm afraid.

You son sounds a lot like many gay friends I know. I have often observed remarkable examples of tolerance and love in the gay community. Maybe they don't want to hurt others as they have been hurt. A thought.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lins said:


> ...and that is why President Obama was elected, twice, because it's not about race.
> 
> It's about the best person for the job, unlike the nitwit network masquerading as the GOP, who have done everything in their power to destroy anything fair,
> from poverty, to women's issues, health care, education, fair pay, environmental laws, etc., while making some very 'alarming' jokes and statements along the way.
> Jokes and statements that were heard in the front seats of the bus, a long, long time ago.


You are totally confused. You said "it = Racism." Now you state that "racism" got Obama elected twice * but * you also ended you comment with " ... it's not about race."

Please let me know when you decide what you think.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Nope, more like Obama's govt wants control over everyone's body, rights and freedoms as against those granted by the laws of our Country.


If you believe that you need a brain transplant. Are you covered? You still have a few days.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

taborhills said:


> we have no proof that proof is Better than other ways to decide what is true, do we?


What other way to determine truth than through proof?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lins said:


> If you believe that you need a brain transplant. Are you covered? You still have a few days.


I do not require nor do I have any interest in Obamacare for me personally.

IF you believe you need a brain transplant, let me know if you need my help wading through all the paperwork.

BTW: Obama, on his 38th illegal executive stroke of his dictator pen, extended the March 31st date again. You, therefore, have approximately another two weeks.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

I have read the bible--it is contradictory and shows intolerant and sadistic acts & beliefs. I was forced to go to church as a child as well. Both lead me to atheism at quite a young age. 

A lot of Christians hold some odd ideas. One once said to me, "I can't believe you're such a nice person." When I asked him why, he said "Because you don't believe in God." !! For crying out loud, as if Christians or believers of other faiths have a monopoly on niceness... Now there's arrogance for you.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I do not require nor do I have any interest in Obamacare for me personally.
> 
> IF you believe you need a brain transplant, let me know if you need my help wading through all the paperwork.
> 
> BTW: Obama, on his 38th illegal executive stroke of his dictator pen, extended the March 31st date again. You, therefore, have approximately another two weeks.


I hope you also aren't on Medicare or Medicaid, both government programs. Oh, or Social Security, either. If you are fortunate enough to have decent healthcare insurance through your job, I hope you don't ever lose that job.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

DGreen said:


> What other way to determine truth than through proof?


Truth can be proven to some individuals' satisfaction by appeal to Authority or to personal experience. Most of us actually just chose our validation of truth by what somehow makes us in some way comfortable.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Regarding the Bible, I've been thoroughly indoctrinated by three different protestant religions, but it is through reading it and comparing its lack of proofs, its rather outrageous stories, and its messages of treating us as we are children that caused me to turn away from it as I would from anything that goes beyond common sense and into fantasy. It leaves itself open to interpretation to a degree that gives no two denominations in agreement as to what it says. If others are comfortable with that, it does not affect my life one way or the other, but I am not comfortable with that. 

Regarding the "God loves you" idea, I have no understanding of how it could be that a loving god rewards some who are evil, if in fact he/she has any control at all, and allows terrible things to happen to innocents, including babies and children. That idea isn't consistent with the reality in which we find ourselves, in my opinion. I'm not capable of having faith in something that is not predictable and reliable to some small degree. If that's a personal failing in someone else's opinion, so be it. I call it the result of my lifelong seeking and failing to find anything of substance in it. My parents and others in my lifetime have been master emotional manipulators. Having that behavior duplicated by organized religion does not change its nature for me, and I'm comfortable with the choices I have made.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

taborhills said:


> Truth can be proven to some individuals' satisfaction by appeal to Authority or to personal experience. Most of us actually just chose our validation of truth by what somehow makes us in some way comfortable.


I'd rather find truth through a system that makes me a bit uncomfortable!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

pardoquilts said:


> 1) I hope you also aren't on Medicare or Medicaid, both government programs.
> 
> 2) Oh, or Social Security, either.
> 
> ...


1) none - I know what those programs are btw

2) nope

3) no again

4) I am self-employed and purchase and pay for 100% of my own health insurance.

Thank you for your concerns, however, I am blessed. I empathize with the millions of Americans who lost their insurance because of Obamacare, those who will be affected when the employer mandate is allowed by Obama to finally kick in, and the greater number of millions of Americans than before the ACA was passed who will still be without health insurance and many without the services, doctors and conveniences they had prior.

I'm disgusted to know the costs (and deductibles) are skyrocketing and such will continue particularly for a law called The *Affordable* Care Act.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

taborhills said:


> Truth can be proven to some individuals' satisfaction by appeal to Authority or to personal experience. Most of us actually just chose our validation of truth by what somehow makes us in some way comfortable.


My comfort level with what has been proven has no bearing on truth. Are we talking about science here or something else? If you are referring to politics, I have to agree. That's why the tea party panders to mindless prejudices. So many are comfortable with them.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> 1) none - I know what those programs are btw
> 
> 2) nope
> 
> ...


You really shouldn't get all your news from Faux News.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Pardoquilts, you're talking to a wall. That needs pointing.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Pardoquilts, you're talking to a wall. That needs pointing.


I know, but sometimes I just can't stand the unfounded rhetoric any longer.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

pardoquilts said:


> You really shouldn't get all your news from Faux News.


They are the facts of my life. Where should I get them, pray tell? From you?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I know, but sometimes I just can't stand the unfounded rhetoric any longer.


Neither can I. Talking to libs is like talking to a wall.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I do not want nor need your "simple statement." And, your original statement indicated that I would someday change my mind. Chances of that? None!


I really don't care if you want or don't want my simple statement. I wasn't posting to you in the first place. You interjected yourself in the topic in order to be confrontional and now you want me to stop speaking the truth?

Fat chance of that!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> I really don't care if you want or don't want my simple statement. I wasn't posting to you in the first place. You interjected yourself in the topic in order to be confrontional and now you want me to stop speaking the truth?
> 
> Fat chance of that!


It is only truth as you see it,, and yes, I think confronting condescending claptrap is a good idea.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I have read the Bible. It is not contradictory. I have found no examples. People are inherently immoral and evil. God allowed them to wallow in their evil ways when they disobeyed him. He would punish them for their evil ways, then God would send a prophet to bring them back to God. Sooner or later they would turn back to their evil ways.
> 
> God will not tolerate sin, but he loves the sinner. That is why He sent His Son to be our Saviour, if you only accept Him.


People are good...or bad...or smart...or stupid. They are just people, trying to get along as best they can. If you want to believe that garbage, go right ahead. Just stop trying to make others go along with it.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> You are disrespecting my beliefs as if to say, "you are wrong not to believe so I am superior to you."
> 
> It's beating non-believers over the head with in-your-face Christianity.
> 
> To be fair, I understand you are probably not intending it in an unkind or insulting way. It's probably very hard for you to imagine anyone NOT believing. I really do understand that because I have a hard time imagining anyone who does believe.


And vice versa...you're beating believers over the head if you expect them to not speak their beliefs just to satisfy your non-belief. If you don't believe in God then my comment should be like vapor to you.

That it offends you and sticks in your craw has more significance than you think. IMHO


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> It is only truth as you see it,, and yes, I think confronting condescending claptrap is a good idea.


As do I!


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

DGreen said:


> My comfort level with what has been proven has no bearing on truth. Are we talking about science here or something else? If you are referring to politics, I have to agree. That's why the tea party panders to mindless prejudices. So many are comfortable with them.


Your comfort level has no effect on Truth -- so far as we know.
But your view of what will make you comfortable does affect your choices, in what to do and what to believe. We often turn out to be wrong. A certain political position or religion may later disappoint us, but we tend to believe what we *think* will make us satisfied and happy. We may think that hearsay, prejudices or assumptions will make us happy. Usually they do not eventually bring happiness or satisfaction. But we ALL tend to accept assumptions, theories, "what everyone knows," "what 99% of scientists say," and most only too late discover that we were on the wrong page! that we drank the wrong kool-aid. Thank goodness we live in a country where we are relatively free (so far) to seek and explore, question widely and reflect.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> I'd rather find truth through a system that makes me a bit uncomfortable!


One could put it that you are comfortable with a path which makes you just the right amount of uncomfortable! This is probably useful, because life will always bring its sufferings, its discomforts, so one needs some kind of belief system which
can embrace and deal with the unsatisfactoriness of life!

It's only through rootedness in the muck of life that one is able to blossom into a flower. *IMHO.*


----------



## Augustgran (Apr 16, 2011)

Knitry said:


> 1. Sometimes that choice isn't left to them.
> 
> 2. Sometimes birth control fails.


I have a 40 year old son to prove that the "pill" did not work 100% and no I did not miss any!!!


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

joeysomma wrote:
I have read the Bible. It is not contradictory. I have found no examples.

Which of the biblical creation stories is the right one?


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I do not require nor do I have any interest in Obamacare for me personally.
> 
> IF you believe you need a brain transplant, let me know if you need my help wading through all the paperwork.
> 
> BTW: Obama, on his 38th illegal executive stroke of his dictator pen, extended the March 31st date again. You, therefore, have approximately another two weeks.


Nope, my brains just fine, thanks all the same.

Yes, and isn't it good that it's extended? 
There were just so many people signing up at once that they needed to give them more time to pick the right options, suited for their needs.

And I suppose you know that the ACA has been reducing the medical costs and people are getting better coverage at less cost overall.
Better yet, people won't go broke anymore because they are sick.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

taborhills said:


> joeysomma wrote:
> I have read the Bible. It is not contradictory. I have found no examples.
> 
> Which of the biblical creation stories is the right one?


Some people say that there are two accounts of creation but that is a misunderstanding.

Genesis 1 describes the six days of creation (and a seventh day of rest), 
Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation weekthe sixth dayand there is no contradiction.


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> 1) none - I know what those programs are btw
> 
> 2) nope
> 
> ...


We'll wait and see.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I already answered that in an earlier post. They also buy yarn from the USA that also allows abortion. Where would you like them to buy their yarn?


I'd venture to say that the vast majority of their stock comes from China with an enforced abortion policy. If the Green family is so devoted to doing business in a fair and equitable (read: godly) fashion, maybe they'd operate in fair-trade mode.

Then again, most likely not. Not enough money there.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lins said:


> Unfortunately they will probably attract more misguided customers and make more money.


The Chinese Abortionist in Chief has said that Hobby Lobby will have to close due to their principles of only aborting foreign embryos and keeping all Americans alive to be disrespected in life. 
There will be no misguided customers cuz the corporate office, good Christian that it is, can't abide losing a lawsuit.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> And vice versa...you're beating believers over the head if you expect them to not speak their beliefs just to satisfy your non-belief. If you don't believe in God then my comment should be like vapor to you.
> 
> That it offends you and sticks in your craw has more significance than you think. IMHO


I have to point out that one can hardly go 5 minutes anywhere without hearing about god. It's a constant in our culture and Christians have a really bad habit of assuming everyone around them is Christian and wants to hear their profession of faith and agrees with them. I ignore most of it. I never suggested you not speak your beliefs. Just don't direct them at me. I would not dream of answering every reference to god by saying "there is no god." That would be disrespectful.

If you are suggesting that the "significance" of this indicates some doubt about my beliefs, please don't presume.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

taborhills said:


> Your comfort level has no effect on Truth -- so far as we know.
> But your view of what will make you comfortable does affect your choices, in what to do and what to believe. We often turn out to be wrong. A certain political position or religion may later disappoint us, but we tend to believe what we *think* will make us satisfied and happy. We may think that hearsay, prejudices or assumptions will make us happy. Usually they do not eventually bring happiness or satisfaction. But we ALL tend to accept assumptions, theories, "what everyone knows," "what 99% of scientists say," and most only too late discover that we were on the wrong page! that we drank the wrong kool-aid. Thank goodness we live in a country where we are relatively free (so far) to seek and explore, question widely and reflect.


Evidently I misread your earlier post. Your observations are pretty accurate.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

lins said:


> ...and you know this how?


Because the Bible tells her so...:thumbdown:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

taborhills said:


> joeysomma wrote:
> I have read the Bible. It is not contradictory. I have found no examples.
> 
> Which of the biblical creation stories is the right one?


None of the above.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

pardoquilts said:


> People are good...or bad...or smart...or stupid. They are just people, trying to get along as best they can. If you want to believe that garbage, go right ahead. Just stop trying to make others go along with it.


You know the problem for them, pardoquilts, they are losing membership. Christian belief is slipping, it comes as no surprise as they show themselves in the glaring, ugly light of hatred, who can blame anyone for not wanting to associate with them in an organized religion?


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

DGreen said:


> But it is so much more than the ACA (I refuse to use the pejorative "Obamacare"). They are also climate change deniers and want to discriminate at will against gays, blacks, those of other faiths, anyone who their bible tells them is bad. They truly want the US to be a Christian nation - with all that implies. They are in league with the worst of the worst who promote legislating Christianity into law.


Just curious--was HL or the Green family ever supportive of the Westboro Baptist Church, even covertly?


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Colorado knits said:


> I cannot understand why science is considered bogus -- oh yeah, if it wasn't in the Bible, it can't be true.
> 
> How can that be considering how long ago the Bible was written and science was nearly nonexistent. I have a sister-in-law who, after my saying that climate change is wiping out thousands of species, "So what? Animals come and animals go." Well, never at the rate it's happening now and the disruption results in the domino effect.
> 
> ...


Allegedly, god gave us free will, so, whatever. Humans have done lots of things that god didn't want us to do.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> I have never had the experience of such openly expressed non-Christian views before in my 75-year lifetime; I want to thank those who have been strong enough to express them, in particular, DGreen and Janet Cooke, not to exclude others who have contributed to the discussion. Over my lifetime, I've watched all kinds of horrors committed in the name of Christianity. History shows that's nothing new. What appalls me is that it continues to this day. Christians as a whole seem to think that they are somehow better and above other religious and non-religious people, but my experience with them has been just the opposite. It's as if they think practicing their rituals absolves them from their inhumanities.
> 
> I was a practicing Christian early in my life as an escape from the horrors of my parents and greater family. I left home at 17 expecting to find others who genuinely wanted to make it a better world without stuffing their specific beliefs down the throats of others. The inability to find others who were genuinely interested in doing that finally eroded, not my desire to see that happen and work toward it, but to do that in the name of a Christianity that was corrupt far beyond my expectations, sort of a shield that people hid from themselves behind. They went to church, did the rituals, then returned to real life on Monday, real life having nothing to do with any Christian ideals or beliefs for most, including clergy. It was my observations of reality that convinced me that most religions are empty of true meaning beyond helping individuals feel better about themselves because they belonged to one in name only.
> 
> ...


You have understood it all perfectly!


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> That's okay, God believes in you and that's all that matters until such a time as you change your mind.


You have been thoroughly indoctrinated.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

maysmom said:


> Just curious--was HL or the Green family ever supportive of the Westboro Baptist Church, even covertly?


Never heard that they were. I really believe most Christians are repulsed by their activities.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

maysmom said:


> You have been thoroughly indoctrinated.


She is a champ at portraying the nice Christian lady while slinging the arrows in such a way as to play "Deny, Deny, Deny", God bless her.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I have read the Bible. It is not contradictory.


PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Quotes from a book of fairy tales don't mean much. That is what your Bible is to a non-Christian...Grimm's Fairy Tales...lots of scare tactics to make children learn life's lessons. Sell it somewhere else. That pressure is exactly why we have the US Constitution protecting us from the government favoring the majority religion.
> You don't get to thrust Jesus down my throat.


I didn't thrust Jesus down your throat. I simply answered your question. Sorry you feel that way and I will pray for you even though that doesn't mean anything to you, it does to me. This post has degenerated from the original topic as to Hobby Lobby's being able to support their religious beliefs. Freedom of religion (all religion) is one of the inalienable rights in our constitution. Since this topic has degenerated so much, I think it has played out and I will click the unwatch button.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Neither is God.


The existence of god has been neither proven nor disproven, but up to the individual. Therefore, to insist that god exists to a person who does not believe is rude.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> I'd rather find truth through a system that makes me a bit uncomfortable!


I'd guess you're younger than I. I've already paid my dues through the schools of discomfort :~).


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I have to point out that one can hardly go 5 minutes anywhere without hearing about god. It's a constant in our culture and Christians have a really bad habit of assuming everyone around them is Christian and wants to hear their profession of faith and agrees with them. I ignore most of it. I never suggested you not speak your beliefs. Just don't direct them at me. I would not dream of answering every reference to god by saying "there is no god." That would be disrespectful.
> 
> If you are suggesting that the "significance" of this indicates some doubt about my beliefs, please don't presume.


You brought it on yourself by interjecting yourself into a post that was between myself and BlueJay. That's when, and only when, I included you in my reply. Otherwise, I really don't care who or what you believe in.

Seems to me like you asked for, you got it, you don't like it, you want me to do 'what' about it?


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> Some women do use abortion as a means of birth control.


Excuse me, and don't take this personally because you're not the one who came up with this utterly lame-brained meme that drives me up a wall, but:

OF COURSE WOMEN USE ABORTION FOR BIRTH CONTROL. ALL WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS USE IT FOR BIRTH CONTROL. That's what abortion is: controlling whether or not a standard live birth happens.

What you're trying to say -- and it's as false as the use of the particular words you chose -- is that there are some women who choose not to use standard forms of contraception, relying instead on abortion exclusively for their "family planning." That's utter hogwash. I'm not saying it's never happened, I'm saying the incidence is about as common as false rape charges (2% or less of all rape charges, about the same as for false reports of any crime).

Please don't demean all women by buying into and repeating any of the anti-woman myths, lies and distortions about them. This particular meme is intended to promote the sexist stereotype that women are flighty, irresponsible, not to be trusted with decisions about their own bodies -- and therefore deserve to be forced to go through full-term pregnancy and have a child they don't want.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Excuse me, and don't take this personally because you're not the one who came up with this utterly lame-brained meme that drives me up a wall, but:
> 
> OF COURSE WOMEN USE ABORTION FOR BIRTH CONTROL. ALL WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS USE IT FOR BIRTH CONTROL. That's what abortion is: controlling whether or not a standard live birth happens.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> So you admitted it............big effing deal. Still really funny how your project is more important than your principles.


Well, at least we HAVE some -- principles, that is. All you've apparently got, from the looks of things, is taunting and judgmentalism.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Tiresome, but instructive. There is a vast chasm between the right and the left in politics today. It pays to remember that we have mid-term elections coming up and the tea party and religious right have the support of a lot of people who want a Christian nation. Observe the beliefs expressed on this thread. *If the majority is truly to rule, we need to motivate them to the same degree the televangelists and preachers motivate their minority.*


Amen. When our people show up, we win. When WOMEN vote, we win.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

maysmom said:


> Just curious--was HL or the Green family ever supportive of the Westboro Baptist Church, even covertly?


Certainly not! No Christian and no Baptist claims Phelps as one of their own...his church had 50 members and almost all of them his family. However, what you probably didn't know was that Phelps was a long-time left-leaning, and voting, gay-hating DEMOCRAT!

Interesting how the media left that part out, eh?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

maysmom said:


> The existence of god has been neither proven nor disproven, but up to the individual. Therefore, to insist that god exists to a person who does not believe is rude.


I agree with you that it is rude. I am a Christian and I do not "push" my Christianity onto anyone. If someone asks me about my religion I will answer their questions to the best of my ability or find out the answer for them. I will witness to them of how I was healed by prayer. I would not have lived if not for the power of prayer. I walk the walk. True Christians are hurt by those that call themselves Christians, but do not live the life of a Christian. Going to church does not make a person a Christian. When I worked, my co-workers knew I was a Christian, not because I pushed my faith at them, but because I lived my life the way a Christian should and they could see that. There is a saying, "your actions are speaking so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying." I am sorry there are those out there that cause true Christians such grief by not really having the relationship with Jesus that they should have and their actions make others look at Christianity incorrectly. I am a Christian and I do not look down at anyone as being inferior. I have friends of all religions. I will close by saying that I would rather believe in God and die and find out there isn't one than not believe in God and die and find out there is one.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Give it a try and see what happens. I haven't heard from one KPer who likes war, so you're not alone in that. But we all have to pay. It's called democracy.


Well, yes, although lately with the historic and increasing income inequality, it's more like democracy for some, special breaks and tax cuts for others.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I have to point out that one can hardly go 5 minutes anywhere without hearing about god. It's a constant in our culture and Christians have a really bad habit of assuming everyone around them is Christian and wants to hear their profession of faith and agrees with them. I ignore most of it. I never suggested you not speak your beliefs. Just don't direct them at me. I would not dream of answering every reference to god by saying "there is no god." That would be disrespectful.
> 
> If you are suggesting that the "significance" of this indicates some doubt about my beliefs, please don't presume.


I'm surprised that you hear so many religious comments; I guess I'm much more fortunate in that I don't hear it very often. I do hang out at the LYS somewhat but have heard it only once. Perhaps it's because I work with animals more than with people. We seriously considered relocating to Arizona, but then decided the political climate wasn't all that healthy for us. I'd love to have your weather, for the most part, though.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

maysmom said:


> You have been thoroughly indoctrinated.


<<< Bible-believing, but not bashing, born-again, Christian! Blessed of it, grateful for it, wouldn't change a thing!

Yup...thoroughly!

:thumbup:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

DGreen said:


> PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
> 
> JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.


Yup, that's the way I read it, too.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> You brought it on yourself by interjecting yourself into a post that was between myself and BlueJay. That's when, and only when, I included you in my reply. Otherwise, I really don't care who or what you believe in.
> 
> Seems to me like you asked for, you got it, you don't like it, you want me to do 'what' about it?


You seem to like saying "you interjected yourself." Gee, I didn't know this was a private conversation.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> You need to read more than one verse to understand the Bible. The context is what is important.
> 
> If you want to be picky. "Judas went out and hung himself" "Go ye therefore and do likewise." Makes a lot of sense!
> 
> Picking one or two verses here and there only shows a depraved mind. You will go to any links to show God is a liar. But every word in the Bible was written by inspiration of God. There may be some translations (written by man) that have some differences. But God will never be a liar.


I see. When Christians provide quotes without context it is perfectly reasonable and irrefutable.


----------



## dijewe (Mar 1, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> I have never had the experience of such openly expressed non-Christian views before in my 75-year lifetime; I want to thank those who have been strong enough to express them, in particular, DGreen and Janet Cooke, not to exclude others who have contributed to the discussion. Over my lifetime, I've watched all kinds of horrors committed in the name of Christianity. History shows that's nothing new. What appalls me is that it continues to this day. Christians as a whole seem to think that they are somehow better and above other religious and non-religious people, but my experience with them has been just the opposite. It's as if they think practicing their rituals absolves them from their inhumanities.
> 
> I was a practicing Christian early in my life as an escape from the horrors of my parents and greater family. I left home at 17 expecting to find others who genuinely wanted to make it a better world without stuffing their specific beliefs down the throats of others. The inability to find others who were genuinely interested in doing that finally eroded, not my desire to see that happen and work toward it, but to do that in the name of a Christianity that was corrupt far beyond my expectations, sort of a shield that people hid from themselves behind. They went to church, did the rituals, then returned to real life on Monday, real life having nothing to do with any Christian ideals or beliefs for most, including clergy. It was my observations of reality that convinced me that most religions are empty of true meaning beyond helping individuals feel better about themselves because they belonged to one in name only.
> 
> ...


Oh Wow, you have very eloquently expressed my own perspective on this issue. Thank you.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> You seem to like saying "you interjected yourself." Gee, I didn't know this was a private conversation.


Actually I do like saying it, and no it wasn't a private conversation but because of that you don't get to complain when you get included inadvertently in something that wasn't meant for you.

Me thinks you're just a troublemaker.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Beautiful


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I know. However, it has been often reported that HL does pay its staff retail employees nearly double the minimum wage.
> 
> Knitry doubts that - without justification, of course.
> 
> No worries, though. Obama with the stroke of his pen, has or will soon increase, illegally, the mandated minimum wage and further sink the USA economy.


Well, I don't have to call or go there after all (Google really is fabulous):


> Arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. announced on Monday that effective immediately, the minimum wage for its full-time hourly employees at its stores and affiliate Hemisphere was increased to $14. The hourly wage for part-time employees was also increased to $9.50.


Well, I was wrong -- but it's noteworthy that they pay their full-time employees much better than part timers. Having worked in human resources for large retail organizations, I don't see the logic in that and find it as abysmal as if they didn't offer the higher salaries at all since retail organizations that I know of always employ far fewer full time employees as part time. The duties are the same; the skills required are the same. It's just a great way to sound like a great company while saving a huge lump of cash on labor costs. Cheap, cheap, cheap.

And this site is fascinating to show all the different jobs and the average of the reported wages for those jobs:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Hobby-Lobby-Salaries-E7537.htm

Framer, for example -- that takes some training and some skill (talent would be nice, too). And yet, it rates very little more pay than mere hourly cashiers.

Curiously, NONE of the average wages reported come anywhere near the reported hourly minimum wage, other than for managers, of course, and ten you have to realize that if there are ANY fulltimers reported in there, they would skew the average upwards a bit.

No, they don't seem quite so generous when you look a little closer.

And as for "without justification," that's an unfounded and baseless opinion on YOUR part, KPG. I know something about retail companies, hiring and salaries. And I know that they are inveterate, unredeemed, incorrigible cheapskates.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> No contradiction, they are talking about different things or events.
> 
> You need to read more than one verse to understand the Bible. The context is what is important.
> 
> ...


Joey and Gerslay what fun we can have!

Since DGreen likes to pull quotes out of different chapters, verses and even different books of The Bible, and state emphatically they are contrary to one another, I think we should do likewise with some of her quotes.

Let's pull a quote from one page on one thread on KP and *prove* by re-quoting from another of her posts on a completely different thread on KP, how Diane contradicts herself all the time.

Let's Party!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Actually I do like saying it, and no it wasn't a private conversation but because of that you don't get to complain when you get included inadvertently in something that wasn't meant for you.
> 
> Me thinks you're just a troublemaker.


 :thumbup:


----------



## dijewe (Mar 1, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I see. When Christians provide quotes without context it is perfectly reasonable and irrefutable.


 Most people don't know the history of the Bible or the history of Christianity. Pointless even providing references as they won't see the research with an open mind. Most don't even bother, so discussions are totally pointless.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Joey and Gerslay what fun we can have!
> 
> Since DGreen likes to pull quotes out of different chapters and even different books of The Bible, and state that are emphatically contrary to one another, I think we should do likewise with some of her quotes.
> 
> ...


Interesting...I'll have to do some research! Maybe later, after a glass of wine...or two!

:XD:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> BTW: Obama, on his 38th illegal executive stroke of his dictator pen, extended the March 31st date again. You, therefore, have approximately another two weeks.


What I think is really interesting is that I'm not hearing a lot of squawking on the right about this. You know why? I think it's because this is of tremendous benefit to the INSURANCE COMPANIES, their patrons.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Interesting...I'll have to do some research! Maybe later, after a glass of wine...or two!
> 
> :XD:


Nooooooo research allowed. You requote one of DGreen's statements, Joey and I each requote one also. Then we show her everything she says is contrary to herself. :XD:

That is what she did, we cannot do anything differently.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> Interesting...I'll have to do some research! Maybe later, after a glass of wine...or two!
> 
> :XD:


Is this what real Christians do for fun? play Gotcha with
others? Is this Fun? "Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only."


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Just saying how stupid it is to provide only two statements to disprove the Bible.
> 
> Mat 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.9NKJV)
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: Totally stupid what she attempted to do.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

taborhills said:


> Is this what real Christians do for fun? play Gotcha with
> others? Is this Fun? "Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only."


Of course not. That is, however, all that many of the Libs and DGreen in this case will understand.

Diane wrote the rules, per se, so we must use the same playing field to show her how illogical and ridiculous her logic process, or lack thereof, was.

She'll only understand how ridiculous her comparison was if we show her using the exact same tactics as she did.

Diane believes context doesn't matter. Do you?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

taborhills said:


> Is this what real Christians do for fun? play Gotcha with
> others? Is this Fun? "Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only."


Isn't this whole thread just one big game of GOTCHAS?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup: Totally stupid what she attempted to do.


No one can disprove the bible, it is a matter of belief. Someone stated that there are no contradictions in the bible. There are many. They don't bother Christians in the least.

One does not have to believe in the bible to have knowledge of what it says.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I have to point out that one can hardly go 5 minutes anywhere without hearing about god. It's a constant in our culture and Christians have a really bad habit of assuming everyone around them is Christian and wants to hear their profession of faith and agrees with them. *I ignore most of it.* I never suggested you not speak your beliefs. Just don't direct them at me. I would not dream of answering every reference to god by saying "there is no god." That would be disrespectful.


Not ignoring it today that's for sure!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> No one can disprove the bible, it is a matter of belief. Someone stated that there are no contradictions in the bible. There are many. They don't bother Christians in the least.
> 
> One does not have to believe in the bible to have knowledge of what it says.


OK, then. Show me and prove to me ONE contradiction by comparing equally yoked verses that are discussing the same thing. Christians are not bothered by contradictions within The Bible, because there are none.

You cannot compare an apple to an orange and say they contradict which is what you attempted to do.

You are correct when you said, "No one can disprove the Bible." Your statement includes you.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Knitry said:


> . And I know that they are inveterate, unredeemed, incorrigible cheapskates.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Not ignoring it today that's for sure!


 :-D


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> OK, then. Show me and prove to me ONE contradiction by comparing equally yoked verses that are discussing the same thing. Christians are not bothered by contradictions within The Bible, because there are none.
> 
> You cannot compare an apple to an orange and say they contradict which is what you attempted to do.
> 
> You are correct when you said, "No one can disprove the Bible." Your statement includes you.


I'm not trying to disprove the bible. Your assumption is incorrect.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> I'm not trying to disprove the bible. Your assumption is incorrect.


You said there are many contradictions in the Bible.

I asked you to prove one. I didn't assume anything. I quoted you.

We'll wait.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

Yes, context matters. What is the context of our conversations, every one of them? of our lives?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> Not ignoring it today that's for sure!


 Note the word "most." No points for you, Gerslay.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Note the word "most." No points for you, Gerslay.


Still waiting and curious on any "one" of the contradictions you claim exist.

I realize you don't believe in the Bible, but, you, yourself said one doesn't have to in order to understand it.

So, please, show us who are curious, one such contradiction.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I have to point out that one can hardly go 5 minutes anywhere without hearing about god. It's a constant in our culture and Christians have a really bad habit of assuming everyone around them is Christian and wants to hear their profession of faith and agrees with them. I ignore most of it. I never suggested you not speak your beliefs. Just don't direct them at me. I would not dream of answering every reference to god by saying "there is no god." That would be disrespectful.
> 
> If you are suggesting that the "significance" of this indicates some doubt about my beliefs, please don't presume.


DGreen, my dear, I do believe this particular meme may appeal to you as much as it does me, though I do apologize in advance for the somewhat crude presentation:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Well, Joey, Gerslay and others who are engaged in this discussion.

It seems that DGreen has once again, become incapable of even one suggestion, never mind proving, her claim that many contradictions exist within the Bible.

In her words, "she's got nothing."


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You said there are many contradictions in the Bible.
> 
> I asked you to prove one. I didn't assume anything. I quoted you.
> 
> We'll wait.


You'll be waiting a long time, then. I've seen more than enough of your BS and game-playing and I understand perfectly what your opinion is of anyone who disagrees with you or doesn't say "amen" to your statements. No argument or evidence is good enough for you. Read your own posts.

You demean, degrade and ridicule. Then accuse others of doing so. When asked for documentation or substantiation for your claims, you INVARIABLY fall back on one of two phrases, "you are incapable of understanding," or some version of "I'm so superior to you that I don't need to prove anything."

These are characteristics of most teabaggers and right-wing religious fanatics. Funny, you claim to be a devout Christian but display none of the characteristics I associate with the loving Christians I know and respect.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Just saying how stupid it is to provide only two statements to disprove the Bible.
> 
> Mat 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.9NKJV)
> 
> ...


The Holy Bible is a piece of fiction, what is there to disprove? It is a group of stories intended to teach people how to treat others. 
Those people who claim to study it miss that part of the lesson, they think it is to be used as a sledge hammer.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> You'll be waiting a long time, then. I've seen more than enough of your BS and game-playing and I understand perfectly what your opinion is of anyone who disagrees with you or doesn't say "amen" to your statements. No argument or evidence is good enough for you. Read your own posts.
> 
> You demean, degrade and ridicule. Then accuse others of doing so. When asked for documentation or substantiation for your claims, you INVARIABLY fall back on one of two phrases, "you are incapable of understanding," or some version of "I'm so superior to you that I don't need to prove anything."
> 
> These are characteristics of most teabaggers and right-wing religious fanatics. Funny, you claim to be a devout Christian but display none of the characteristics I associate with the loving Christians I know and respect.


Your colors are showing DGreen. You made the statement there are many contradictions in The Bible.

I've waited patiently and asked you to show or prove or even discuss one such contradiction.

You went silent.

Guess you were just bloviating again on a topic of which you know nothing.

But wait! You broke your silence and inability to justify your statements to name call me, bully and for character assassination.

Which was precisely your conviction all along.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Knitry said:


> DGreen, my dear, I do believe this particular meme may appeal to you as much as it does me, though I do apologize in advance for the somewhat crude presentation:


I love it. The suggested crudeness makes it even better. I'm no prude.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

DGreen said:


> You'll be waiting a long time, then. I've seen more than enough of your BS and game-playing and I understand perfectly what your opinion is of anyone who disagrees with you or doesn't say "amen" to your statements. No argument or evidence is good enough for you. Read your own posts.
> 
> You demean, degrade and ridicule. Then accuse others of doing so. When asked for documentation or substantiation for your claims, you INVARIABLY fall back on one of two phrases, "you are incapable of understanding," or some version of "I'm so superior to you that I don't need to prove anything."
> 
> These are characteristics of most teabaggers and right-wing religious fanatics. Funny, you claim to be a devout Christian but display none of the characteristics I associate with the loving Christians I know and respect.


A wonderfully expressed comprehensive description of her behavior, DGreen, you really are growing on me.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Your colors are showing DGreen. You made the statement there are many contradictions in The Bible.
> 
> I've waited and asked you to show or prove or discuss one such contradiction.
> 
> ...


You should know about that.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> You should know about that.


Ya got nothin' *and* proved it.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> A wonderfully expressed comprehensive description of her behavior, DGreen, you really are growing on me.


Why, thank you Janet. I applaud your comments regularly.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Ya got nothin' *and* proved it.


Your perception of proof is remarkable. But typical of your mindset. Now do a nice high five with your buddy and call it a day. Don't forget to pat yourself on the back for being superior.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Your perception of proof is remarkable. But typical of your mindset. Now do a nice high five with your buddy and call it a day. Don't forget to pat yourself on the back for being superior.


What a character you are.

You made statements, claimed them to be facts, when asked to show or discuss your claims, you resort to bullying and name calling.

Who is the adult in the room, Diane?

BTW; rhetorical ?

Next time, if you'd like an honest and intelligent discussion, bring something to the table please.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> bully and for character assassination.
> 
> Which was precisely your conviction all along.


That I think you are a bully? At least you got that right.


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

taborhills said:


> Is this what real Christians do for fun? play Gotcha with others? Is this Fun? "Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only."


Amen, taborhills. Good for you. You are speaking up for your beliefs, and I honor you.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I have read the Bible. It is not contradictory. I have found no examples. People are inherently immoral and evil. God allowed them to wallow in their evil ways when they disobeyed him. He would punish them for their evil ways, then God would send a prophet to bring them back to God. Sooner or later they would turn back to their evil ways.
> 
> God will not tolerate sin, but he loves the sinner. That is why He sent His Son to be our Saviour, if you only accept Him.


The Bible is contradictory from Day One.

Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light 
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!) 
Day 3: Plants 
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids) 
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.) 
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time) 
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty) 
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth) 
Plants 
Animals 
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

How orderly were things created? 
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days." 
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

How satisfied with creation was he? 
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied. 
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#order

Quite an interesting read.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Dgreen:
What a character you are.

You made statements, claimed them to be facts, when asked to show or discuss your claims, you resort to bullying and name calling.

Who is the adult in the room, Diane?

BTW; rhetorical ? 

Next time, if you'd like an honest and intelligent discussion, bring something to the table please.

BTW:
I really like this quote of yours, it fits this occasion:

"So, you got nothing? If you can't defend your position then why voice it?"


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

taborhills said:


> joeysomma wrote:
> I have read the Bible. It is not contradictory. I have found no examples.
> 
> Which of the biblical creation stories is the right one?


None of them.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You made statements, claimed them to be facts, when asked to show or discuss your claims, you resort to bullying and name calling.





DGreen said:


> That I think you are a bully? At least you got that right.


How sweet of you to, once again, edit my words so you sound remarkable.

I appreciate context and the ability to defend your own words means nothing to you and is not in your skill set.

I'm flattered you must use my words and bastardize my quotes by falsely quoting me to suit your purposes as you have done so above.

I never asked if you thought I was a bully. You plagiarized my words and it remains archived. Congrats on your foolishness.

Alas, you failed at that, too, miserably.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> The Bible is contradictory from Day One.
> 
> http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#order
> 
> Quite an interesting read.


Yes, it is well-researched and fascinating. I can predict the answers to your post - that the humans who recorded this event were not perfect in recounting the details, though the basic idea is correct because god was behind the writing. Or the story in this case is allegorical so doesn't have to be consistent - it's the lesson that counts. Personally, I really don't give a crap about WHAT the bible says - I reject it in it's entirety. Funny how a handful of words can get some people apoplectic.

KPG is at this moment feverishly writing something she thinks will bait me into engaging her again. She lies in wait, looking for some reason to vent and rage and call people names. Never far from the surface.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Yes, it is well-researched and fascinating. I can predict the answers to your post - that the humans who recorded this event were not perfect in recounting the details, though the basic idea is correct because god was behind the writing. Or the story in this case is allegorical so doesn't have to be consistent - it's the lesson that counts. Personally, I really don't give a crap about WHAT the bible says - I reject it in it's entirety. Funny how a handful of words can get some people apoplectic.


Just a curiosity question for you.

You claim to not be a Christian, to deny the bible and to deny God, but it seems that you do celebrate Christmas??? How does that work?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> KPG is at this moment feverishly writing something she thinks will bait me into engaging her again. She lies in wait, looking for some reason to vent and rage and call people names. Never far from the surface.


Hilarious, desk slapping hilarious.:-D

You are the only one to have bullied and name called. I've politely asked questions to you based on what you posted.

I don't suffer fools.

Pump yourself up if you must, plenty of back slappers around to help you.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> It seems either you did not read or are able to understand what I wrote.
> 
> Find the word "discrimination" in the Constitution. you said "discrimination is against the US Constitution."


Who ever claimed the specific word "discrimination" was literally in the constitution?

You seem to not understand the grade school level concept of synonymy, metonymy, polysemy adequation etc....

Do you really need to be spoon-fed THAT too? Evidently, yes.

And I REPEAT, discrimination is against the US Constitution.

And yes, there are "protected classes".

Those "classes" are those who are habitually and/or historically disenfranchised and discriminated against usually and historically by ignorant conservatives like Dixiecrats/modern GOPTBaggers.

They are not "special protections" though, as you were quite obviously implying, they instead are classes who have been "specially targeted" for discrimination. "Special protections/rights" is an argument habitually made by those in the white supremacist/white martyrdom community... and therefore I'm not surprised, you in particular, engaged in such rhetoric.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

Just dropped in before going out this afternoon, will be back later and will post contradictions then. Before I have to leave the house, I do have say that it is interesting that my statement about bible contradictions was taken up vociferously, but not one person addressed bible intolerance and sadism. So you accept that, but refute contradictions?


See you later.


----------



## irishsmitty (Apr 20, 2011)

KatieRose said:


> There is a business in our area that is Mennonite owned (somewhat Amish, but a little more "modern") that has a case before the United States Supreme Court on this very issue. They will be forced to include birth control in their health plan, but are opposed to it. They think that it is a form of abortion. Decision won't be made until later in the summer. My thought - just because you have access to it, doesn't mean that you have to do it.


I agree,their are many things that one might agree with

just done use them.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

peachy51 said:


> Just a curiosity question for you.
> 
> You claim to not be a Christian, to deny the bible and to deny God, but it seems that you do celebrate Christmas??? How does that work?


I readily admit this is an apparent contradiction. Apparent.

Relationships have been sealed and commemorated since we crawled out of the cave by giving and receiving gifts. It is a very basic human thing to do. Christians did not invent it. If you know about Jehovah Witnesses' beliefs, for example, they do not celebrate Christmas because they correctly believe it was originally a pagan holiday. Gotta give them cred for walking the walk.

I enjoy giving gifts to my loved ones and I treasure the time we spend together pleasing one another with gifts and sharing traditional foods. I love trying to come up with just the right thing for each of them, or putting my love and effort into making things. They are mostly Christian - the kind of Christians who accept me and who I am as I accept them and who they are. So, our celebration looks a lot like any other except I don't do the "praise god" thing. I see no hypocrisy in this.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> So sad for you!


Why would it be sad that someone doesn't allow themselves to be deluded?


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

taborhills said:


> What is the source of truth? That's an impossible one to solve on this site or perhaps ever! To say that science has proofs though the Bible does not means that one is choosing to deify principles of proof, of evidence and logic. *I personally like science and proof and logic, but we have no proof that proof is Better than other ways to decide what is true, do we?* Probably best for each person to decide for him/herself. Or understand that this is one question which canNOT be answered. Certainly not here or on this site or in our lifetimes.


Well, NOW I understand how science can be so vilified by certain types of Christians these days. I had been worried that it was due to too many of the uneducated among us, to their ignorance. Now I realize that it's apparently far worse than that: it's due to education that is instead indoctrination and brainwashing, precisely what some of the anti-religion posters here have claimed. I'm aghast and horrified. Ignorance is being held up as superior to true education and learning. There's always been a certain anti-intellectual strain running through American culture, but this takes it to a whole new level.

It can only be because those who are running the religions these days have run out of ways to keep people "believing" in the literal Bible and all the other nonsense that Christianity dumps on people to keep them controlled and complacent, so they have to resort to tying to destroy the rue source of their difficulties: rational thought, science, logic and reason, education, and so forth. It's an abomination.

And this:


> Probably best for each person to decide for him/herself.


 Oh yes, that'll work: each and every person coming up with their own version of what is "real" or not, a good many of them led (or misled) by certain Christian religious sects. The only ones who win will be the fascists, including the Christofascists.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

lins said:


> The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.
> 
> If the courts allow HL to get their way then their religious beliefs will be preferred over others and that is not how it should be.


Well, I've got some good news. It's an opinion from a prominent attorney and leftie pundit named Mike Papantonio:



> *Papantonio: Hobby Lobby Is DOA*
> snip
> 
> Mr. Papantonio has but one question: Where are the amicus briefs? Gobs were filed in Citizens United by every Big Corporate Governance entity from the Chamber of Commerce to Americans for Saving Cute Kittens from Liberal Scum. Inc. But Hobby Lobby?
> ...


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> I readily admit this is an apparent contradiction. Apparent.
> 
> Relationships have been sealed and commemorated since we crawled out of the cave by giving and receiving gifts. It is a very basic human thing to do. Christians did not invent it. If you know about Jehovah Witnesses' beliefs, for example, they do not celebrate Christmas because they correctly believe it was originally a pagan holiday. Gotta give them cred for walking the walk.
> 
> I enjoy giving gifts to my loved ones and I treasure the time we spend together pleasing one another with gifts and sharing traditional foods. I love trying to come up with just the right thing for each of them, or putting my love and effort into making things. They are mostly Christian - the kind of Christians who accept me and who I am as I accept them and who they are. So, our celebration looks a lot like any other except I don't do the "praise god" thing. I see no hypocrisy in this.


Hmmmm ... interesting ...

Don't know why the JW's got drug into this discussion, but yes, I do know quite a bit about their belief system, having had family members who were followers, a best friend who married into their belief system and staff members who were followers. They don't celebrate Christmas, birthdays, nor any other mainstream holidays. But most of them are a little hypocritical about that too. They won't celebrate a birthday on the day, but it's okay for them to give their child a party (they don't call it a birthday party tho) the week after and invite all the child's friends and expect gifts and play the normal birthday party games.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Judyh said:


> Why should Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs? If someone does not agree with their policy, they should shop or find a job elsewhere.What happened to religious freedom?


What happened to the employees religious freedom? Shouldn't they be free from their employers religion?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Knitry said:


> Well, NOW I understand how science can be so vilified by certain types of Christians these days. I had been worried that it was due to too many of the uneducated among us, to their ignorance. Now I realize that it's apparently far worse than that: it's due to education that is instead indoctrination and brainwashing, precisely what some of the anti-religion posters here have claimed. I'm aghast and horrified. Ignorance is being held up as superior to true education and learning. There's always been a certain anti-intellectual strain running through American culture, but this takes it to a whole new level.
> 
> It can only be because those who are running the religions these days have run out of ways to keep people "believing" in the literal Bible and all the other nonsense that Christianity dumps on people to keep them controlled and complacent, so they have to resort to tying to destroy the rue source of their difficulties: rational thought, science, logic and reason, education, and so forth. It's an abomination.
> 
> ...


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

peachy51 said:


> Hmmmm ... interesting ...
> 
> Don't know why the JW's got drug into this discussion, but yes, I do know quite a bit about their belief system, having had family members who were followers, a best friend who married into their belief system and staff members who were followers. They don't celebrate Christmas, birthdays, nor any other mainstream holidays. But most of them are a little hypocritical about that too. They won't celebrate a birthday on the day, but it's okay for them to give their child a party (they don't call it a birthday party tho) the week after and invite all the child's friends and expect gifts and play the normal birthday party games.


There are lots of JW's in my extended family. They are good people and I love them. They try to live their lives well and do what is best for them. Just like me.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are the only one to have bullied and name called.


Oh, please, everyone here knows you're the queen of the ignorant nasties here.

And you quite OBVIOUSLY suffer fools as you have worked so hard at BEING one and it's the ONLY thing you've been successful at.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Oh, please, everyone here knows you're the queen of the ignorant nasties here.


With one notable exception.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

peachy51 said:


> Just a curiosity question for you.
> 
> You claim to not be a Christian, to deny the bible and to deny God, but it seems that you do celebrate Christmas??? How does that work?


Are you so grossly informed or silly enough to think Christmas is purely a religious holiday, regardless of what the original pagan ritual is called now-adays?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

So if Hobby Lobby wins, what is next. A company owned by a Jahovah Witness that says insurance won't pay for blood transfusions. A company owned by a someone of the Christian Science faith that says no medical or hospitalization insurance. Can't you see all the law suits coming.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Who ever claimed the specific word "discrimination" was literally in the constitution?
> 
> You seem to not understand the grade school level concept of synonymy, metonymy, polysemy adequation etc....
> 
> ...


Don't forget Title VII of the Equal Rights Amendment. It talks a lot about discrimination. Doesn't have to be stated explicitly in the constitution to be law. We have LOTS of laws we have to abide by that were not mentioned in the constitution. Of course, the right wing wants only to refer to the constitution as if anything written into law after that was a conspiracy and government overreach. Except the stuff they like.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

peachy51 said:


> Donnie --- Hobby Lobby *does* provide health insurance and it does include birth control. They are only against the 4 kinds of birth control that all have a similarity to the morning-after pill that is construed by some as a type of abortion.
> 
> As for me, I will continue to shop there and I don't really care how many people choose not to shop there ... I was there yesterday and if there had been less shoppers, I would not have had to stand in line so long to check out.


The woman employee should be able to choose what she and her Dr want to use for birth control. As far as I can tell Mr Green is not in the employees bedroom and therefor he or his religion should not get to decide.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> So if Hobby Lobby wins, what is next. A company owned by a Jahovah Witness that says insurance won't pay for blood transfusions. A company owned by a someone of the Christian Science faith that says no medical or hospitalization insurance. Can't you see all the law suits coming.


Yep. Don't forget equal housing and things like that. There would be no limit on "expression of sincerely held religious beliefs."


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

margoc said:


> I posted this yesterday from an article posted by Yarnie.One http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/corporations_are_people_and_that_s_why_hobby_lobby_should_lose_at_the_supreme.html
> 
> "What the owners want is for the Supreme Court to pierce the corporate veillegalese for looking behind the corporations legal identity and basing a ruling on the interests and desires of the owners of the firm. But Hobby Lobbys owners only want to pierce the veil for this one issue. They want the court to vindicate their personal beliefs on birth control, yet they still keep the protections of the corporate form for everything else, including limited liability."
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Evie RM said:


> Hobby Lobby does not and I repeat----does not-----deny workers freedom of choice.


Of course it does. If it's in someone's religion or belief system to use whatever means they deem personally appropriate/necessary to plan their families, then putting up road blocks for their employees to do so is indeed denying, or at least attempting to deny workers their freedom of choice.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Cool, eh? I'll bet he's right. We'll see.


I read that there were 80 amicus briefs filed in this case, but there was no breakdown as to who was supporting the opposing sides.

I hope HL is DOA. According to HL, they will close all their stores if they lose. Which would mean DOA for sure.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yes and how typical for you to make such disparaging remarks.


If you, or others don't want to be disparaged, then stop giving me so much justification to do so.

I'm not going to lie and pretend you're respectable, when you're not.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Are you so grossly informed or silly enough to think Christmas is purely a religious holiday, regardless of what the original pagan ritual is called now-adays?


I don't recall addressing you and my question was answered ... civilly by the person it was addressed to.

I didn't not ask for nor request your stupid spouting off.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Evie, I'm sorry the way the Libs on this thread treat you and everyone who doesn't agree with them.


No libs don't treat EVERYONE who disagrees with them negatively, just the ignorant stupid ones.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wombatnomore said:


> Gird your loins SometimesaKnitter for an all out attack from the poster to whom you refer!












And the Whiney Wombat whimpers like the wussy It is.

Did you ever hear of this band?:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I really COULDN'T care less.


Good for you. No need to be as whiny as our little wombat is.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I love it. The suggested crudeness makes it even better. I'm no prude.


LOL.

In truth, while I'm not a prude, I did find that distasteful (polite company and all that) -- however, I've grown to understand that that reference is precisely the most appropriate to drive home the point.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> All I can say is that I couldn't care less what you do. All I know is that your principles mean nothing to you.


Buying a little bit of yarn to finish off a project is not indicative of what her principles mean to her.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Janet Cooke said:
> 
> 
> > So you admitted it............big effing deal. Still really funny how your project is more important than your principles.
> ...


Yes


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Yes she is.


No she isn't.

It's ALREADY against the law to discriminate.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> You go ahead and tell yourself any little fantasy you want to justify what you do. Most libs do anyway.


The world is not as black and white as simple conservative minds make it out to be.

Oh, and BTW, I'm sure Hobby Lobby will "survive" because of all that "extra business" you're gonna give 'em. LOL!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> DGreen said:
> 
> 
> > How, exactly? Specifics, examples, please.
> ...


Thanks for confirming that you have no legitimate facts, specifics or examples to offer.

It's what we all suspected, but it's nice to see you confirm that you have no ability to support your contentions.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> I hope you do put more and more of your funds into paying for abortions, I love watching someone who knocks others' principles throw their own aside.
> What a hypocrite.


Studies have shown that abortions are more numerous in places like the "bible belt".


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I don't see any reference to the arguments made before the Supreme Court yesterday, but they are very interesting in terms of what the court will actually consider when making their decision. There is also the very real subject of the sweeping ramifications their decision will have should HL prevail.
> 
> First of all, there is a question of whether the CORPORATION has a religion or even CAN have a religion. Remember, the corporate structure HL has chosen instead of remaining a private company, affords any number of benefits under the law. That individual shareholders are shielded from liability is one of the main benefits. So individual religious beliefs are rendered immaterial when considering HL's legal status. It is the corporation that wants to claim a religious belief. (Sketchy in my view).
> 
> ...


Thank you DGreen, great response, makes so much sense.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> Thank you DGreen, great response, makes so much sense.


Thank you. The constitutional issues that the court will actually consider have been lost on this thread. Or were never understood in the first place.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

taborhills said:


> Hobby Lobby does not want to take away access to birth control; it just does not want to be forced to pay for it through their provision of health insurance.  Employees who want birth control can pay for it themselves or work somewhere that the employer insurance does provide it. Should you or I be forced to pay for medicines or procedures, that is, to financially support, acts of which we disapprove? This is not about abortion or birth control access, it's about freedom of religion. Is it logical or fair to require an entity to buy certain items they do not wish to buy?


You say it's about freedom of religion. Shouldn't an employee also have freedom from their employers religion?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> This case is about a corporation wanting to make choices for one gender of its employees which should only be made by the employee and her doctor. HL wants to take advantage of rules for religious institutions instead of abiding by rules for profit making bodies. What next, exemption from paying tax on their profits?


If they prevail, the flood gates will be open for many more lawsuits.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I read that there were 80 amicus briefs filed in this case, but there was no breakdown as to who was supporting the opposing sides.


ACK! You're right -- 84, actually. I was crestfallen to see that and wondered how Pap got it so wrong?

*Amicus History: Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Amicus Briefs Among Record Levels *
http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobbyamicus/

Until I took a closer look, Pap didn't get it that wrong, he just didn't make his meaning clear: there's not a single CORPORATE amicus brief among them (that I saw). Whew!!



> I hope HL is DOA. According to HL, they will close all their stores if they lose. Which would mean DOA for sure.


Well, I'd hate to see the job losses -- all those high-paying double-minimum wage $15 an hour-for-all-employees wages -- but pfft! if that's the way they want to play, let 'em.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Certainly not! No Christian and no Baptist claims Phelps as one of their own...his church had 50 members and almost all of them his family. However, what you probably didn't know was that Phelps was a long-time left-leaning, and voting, gay-hating DEMOCRAT!
> 
> Interesting how the media left that part out, eh?


I learned that from the media, so they couldn't have left it out. No political party is immune from hateful people, nor is any religion, so I'm not certain what you're implying. I also noted that one of his sons apologized for his father's church and attitudes following his recent death.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

taborhills said:


> Is this what real Christians do for fun? play Gotcha with
> others? Is this Fun? "Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only."


I'll vote for this.....


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Until I took a closer look, Pap didn't get it that wrong, he just didn't make his meaning clear: there's not a single CORPORATE amicus brief among them (that I saw). Whew!!


Thank you for checking into that. Does put a different spin on the case.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

DGreen said:


> I readily admit this is an apparent contradiction. Apparent.
> 
> Relationships have been sealed and commemorated since we crawled out of the cave by giving and receiving gifts. It is a very basic human thing to do. Christians did not invent it. If you know about Jehovah Witnesses' beliefs, for example, they do not celebrate Christmas because they correctly believe it was originally a pagan holiday. Gotta give them cred for walking the walk.
> 
> I enjoy giving gifts to my loved ones and I treasure the time we spend together pleasing one another with gifts and sharing traditional foods. I love trying to come up with just the right thing for each of them, or putting my love and effort into making things. They are mostly Christian - the kind of Christians who accept me and who I am as I accept them and who they are. So, our celebration looks a lot like any other except I don't do the "praise god" thing. I see no hypocrisy in this.


That is what those who want to back non-Christians into a corner and batter us with their Holy Book don't seem to understand. 
We live in a world of Christians and do quite well. 
Those people who live as Christians are not interested in pretending that a book, even THE Book, is more important than people. 
I have an idea that even that narcissist who claims to be running three businesses manages to work with people who are not Christian if she can make a buck from it. Money seems to be very important to these people.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Of course not. That is, however, all that many of the Libs and DGreen in this case will understand.
> 
> Diane wrote the rules, per se, so we must use the same playing field to show her how illogical and ridiculous her logic process, or lack thereof, was.
> 
> ...


What you seem to be saying is that you think it's okay, then, to do whatever you think others different from yourself understand. Is that part of "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? Or is it a way to excuse yourself for doing the same thing you think someone else wrongly or stupidly did? I'm just trying to understand your thinking here. While I'm not stupid, I'm not above being mind-boggled.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

thumper5316 said:


> There is no implication regarding religion in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The language is very specific and straightforward. It is freedom _*OF*_ religion. There is nothing regarding 'from' religion, implied or otherwise. That verbiage is a recent morph and hijacking by wishful thinking and uninformed citizens in an attempt to have it read the way _they_ would want it to read.


Makes so difference. Freedom of religion means the employee also has freedom of religion and the freedom to believe differently than their employer.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I readily admit this is an apparent contradiction. Apparent.


And really, Christmas is completely and entirely secular anyway, for anyone who isn't Christian but celebrates the holiday (as even many Jews do). IMO, the fact that it's a national holiday proves its secular nature.

As for its roots, they are thoroughly pagan with that heavy veneer of Christianity laid over the top when the marauding hordes (aka: Christians) realized it might be easier to "adopt" and adapt the going thing, the well-beloved and celebrated for MILLENNIA before Christians ever thought of a religious holiday known as Winter Solstice or Yuletide. Many of those European pagan rituals and trappings survive including gift-giving, greenery brought into the home including the Christmas tree, feasting (especially on foods specially preserved for long-term storage like fruitcake), caroling and other merriment, etc.

After having been raised Catholic (and throwing them over when I was in the 7th grade), I was spittin' mad much later in my life -- mid-30s -- when I happened upon a couple of books that began to reveal to me how MUCH of the Catholic rituals and practices were "borrowed" from pagans and other traditions -- something the Catholic church didn't even let us know, let alone educate us about the real meaning and purpose behind such things as incense, candles, special garments, etc. Heck, I'm still mad about it.

Anyway, IMO, you have absolutely nothing to explain or apologize for celebrating Christmas without being a Christian.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

peachy51 said:


> Hmmmm ... interesting ...
> 
> Don't know why the JW's got drug into this discussion, but yes, I do know quite a bit about their belief system, having had family members who were followers, a best friend who married into their belief system and staff members who were followers. They don't celebrate Christmas, birthdays, nor any other mainstream holidays. But most of them are a little hypocritical about that too. They won't celebrate a birthday on the day, but it's okay for them to give their child a party (they don't call it a birthday party tho) the week after and invite all the child's friends and expect gifts and play the normal birthday party games.


Also, they don't believe in giving blood. We are to love one another and what better way to love another than to give the gift of life by giving blood. They say that the Bible is against giving blood, but what they use to back this is a verse in the Bible about blood sacrifices. Nothing to do with giving blood to save a life. Also, they will live in this country and reap all the benefits of living in this country, but will not pay allegiance to this country. They will not say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. I have problems with these kinds of beliefs and they do try to push them on you by going around neighborhoods and knocking on doors. They hand you their literature whether you want it or not.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> Just dropped in before going out this afternoon, will be back later and will post contradictions then. Before I have to leave the house, I do have say that it is interesting that my statement about bible contradictions was taken up vociferously, but not one person addressed bible intolerance and sadism. So you accept that, but refute contradictions?
> 
> See you later.


How about that infallibility thing? God never lies. Well, maybe not "lie" exactly, but he definitely endorses slavery. And raping women. Just a few thoughts...


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Some Christians seem to have a very hard time understanding how to be good citizens in a non-theocratic (secular) society. Thought this might be helpful:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> OK, then. Show me and prove to me ONE contradiction by comparing equally yoked verses that are discussing the same thing. Christians are not bothered by contradictions within The Bible, because there are none.
> 
> You cannot compare an apple to an orange and say they contradict which is what you attempted to do.
> 
> You are correct when you said, "No one can disprove the Bible." Your statement includes you.


My uncle was a United Methodist pastor in good standing, and he often spoke and even preached sermons on the contradictions contained within the Bible. He was not a believer in the "inerrant" bible because he understood the nature of human beings and their many inadvertent, unintentional misinterpretations of all things, including the Bible. I really don't see what your problem with that concept is, unless you believe that all of mankind is on an equal plane with your god.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You said there are many contradictions in the Bible.
> 
> I asked you to prove one. I didn't assume anything. I quoted you.
> 
> We'll wait.


And I'll wait while you prove that there are none :~).


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So sad for you!


What does that mean, exactly?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

NJG said:


> You say it's about freedom of religion. Shouldn't an employee also have freedom from their employers religion?


Their employer is not asking them to join their religion, just to respect what their belief is in respect to abortions. The employee is free to chose his/her own religion and to pay for her own abortion or the pills that cause an abortion.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> And I'll wait while you prove that there are none :~).


Wouldn't that be trying to prove a negative which is impossible??


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Your position is just plain WRONG.
> 
> How in the name of common sense or reality can you possibly believe what you are saying? The first amendment definitely DOES protect me from your religion. I cannot be forced to abide by your, or anyone else's religion. I can't be forced to join a church - any church. The United States was not founded as a theocracy (as in "Christian nation"). It is SECULAR. You can't have freedom OF without freedom FROM religion. You can't pass laws that enforce religious beliefs. How would you like to be subject to Mormon values? Or Muslim values? Or Jewish values? Or any religious values that you don't believe in? Religion is an intensely personal thing and each of us is free to choose religion, or no religion, for ourselves but NO ONE ELSE.
> 
> The founding fathers saw the evils perpetrated by state-sponsored religion and specifically avoided that pitfall to the betterment of everyone. There is no doubt that Christian morality influenced their values, but religious doctrine was never, ever, ever, intended to be allowed as the foundation for law. When are you Christians going to learn that one does not need god in order to be a moral, ethical person?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> How sweet of you to, once again, edit my words so you sound remarkable.
> 
> I appreciate context and the ability to defend your own words means nothing to you and is not in your skill set.
> 
> ...


I certainly regret that I had to work today and missed many comments until now. After reading this particular post, the words that come to my mind are, "Look at the holier than thou attitude!" Do you really expect to be heard when you address anyone that way? It's a put-down, and I'm reasonably certain that that's what it's intended to be. What do you think you gain by addressing people that way?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

NJG said:


> Makes so difference. Freedom of religion means the employee also has freedom of religion and the freedom to believe differently than their employer.


Absolutely correct except you are confusing the fact that HL has no problem with their employees following any religion they want to follow. Their objection is to paying for something that is against their own beliefs and that should be respected by their employees. Their employees are free to choose their own religion, to choose what birth control method they want to choose and what company they want to work for.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Yes, it is well-researched and fascinating. I can predict the answers to your post - that the humans who recorded this event were not perfect in recounting the details, though the basic idea is correct because god was behind the writing. Or the story in this case is allegorical so doesn't have to be consistent - it's the lesson that counts. Personally, I really don't give a crap about WHAT the bible says - I reject it in it's entirety. Funny how a handful of words can get some people apoplectic.
> 
> KPG is at this moment feverishly writing something she thinks will bait me into engaging her again. She lies in wait, looking for some reason to vent and rage and call people names. Never far from the surface.


I can't help but smile at this; you don't need any assistance in getting your point across :~D!


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Their employer is not asking them to join their religion, just to respect what their belief is in respect to abortions. The employee is free to chose his/her own religion and to pay for her own abortion or the pills that cause an abortion.


For what I wish were the last time, the pills and IUD that are the subject of this lawsuit are not, according to the AMA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, abortifacients! This has to do with science, not religious misinformation.

And, before 2012 HL offered the very items they now claim they are opposed to in their health care plan. So, either they changed their "religious" perspective or, perhaps it is a political move.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Anyone who believes that Hobby Lobby should be allowed to control what kind of coverage their employees receive on their health plan based on the employers Christian beliefs should also believe that a company owned by Muslims should be allowed to treat their employees with Sharia law.

If H.L. wins, what other things will suddenly be found to go against corporate religious beliefs to the detriment of real people? We use to have unions to protect us, but they are disappearing too. In the end we the working people will be the losers.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Some Christians seem to have a very hard time understanding how to be good citizens in a non-theocratic (secular) society. Thought this might be helpful:


It is not illegal to eat pork, but if one feels it is an issue of the legality of eating pork, then don't ask that person to pay for your pork. You can buy it yourself.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> For what I wish were the last time, the pills and IUD that are the subject of this lawsuit are not, according to the AMA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, abortifacients! This has to do with science, not religious misinformation.
> 
> And, before 2012 HL offered the very items they now claim they are opposed to in their health care plan. So, either they changed their "religious" perspective or, perhaps it is a political move.


Or, perhaps they did not know the facts regarding those items until recently.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Or, perhaps they did not know the facts regarding those items until recently.


The fact is these items DO NOT cause abortions. They only objected when ACA was passed. that makes it political, in my eyes.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> The fact is these items DO NOT cause abortions. They only objected when ACA was passed. that makes it political, in my eyes.


Maybe the passing of the ACA was what caused them to look more closely at what it entailed. I think it was that they were just misinformed.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> Bravo, Theresa, that's where the "choice" is! I whole-heartedly support Hobby Lobby and I don't think that the government should interfere with how companies conduct business.


No the government shouldn't interfere. BUT if my employer doesn't follow safety rules or fair wages, or fair hiring practices or till I am wronged and then they better come and help me. No one wants the government involved until it concerns them, then they complain because the government isn't there fast enough. We want smaller government until we want to impose more rules and control over "other" people.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Maybe the passing of the ACA was what caused them to look more closely at what it entailed. I think it was that they were just misinformed.


By who? They can certainly afford to pay for advisors who actually know the facts. Oh, wait, they are not interested in the truth anyway...just whatever supports their conservative agenda.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

pardoquilts said:


> By who? They can certainly afford to pay for advisors who actually know the facts. Oh, wait, they are not interested in the truth anyway...just whatever supports their conservative agenda.


By whom? Maybe by their own advisors. Your assumption that they are not interested in the truth is exactly that. An assumption.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> And the Whiney Wombat whimpers like the wussy It is.
> 
> Did you ever hear of this band?:
> 
> ...


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> By whom? Maybe by their own advisors. Your assumption that they are not interested in the truth is exactly that. An assumption.


Once again, the AMA, the FDA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all say that the items they want to remove from their health care plan do not cause abortions. Where are they getting their "facts"?


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

peachy51 said:


> Just a curiosity question for you.
> 
> You claim to not be a Christian, to deny the bible and to deny God, but it seems that you do celebrate Christmas??? How does that work?


FYI, Christmas is really a purloined pagan holiday (Yule.) And the bible is indeed a collection of myths and legends.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Absolutely correct except you are confusing the fact that HL has no problem with their employees following any religion they want to follow. Their objection is to paying for something that is against their own beliefs and that should be respected by their employees. Their employees are free to choose their own religion, to choose what birth control method they want to choose and what company they want to work for.


Changing jobs in this day and age can be very difficult so that comment really makes no sense. Anything that is against their religious beliefs, they do not have to do. Very simple. They are not a religious organization, they are a corporation and should not push their beliefs on their employees. They need to just follow the law and respect their employees to make decisions for themselves.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Their employer is not asking them to join their religion, just to respect what their belief is in respect to abortions. The employee is free to chose his/her own religion and to pay for her own abortion or the pills that cause an abortion.


You keep forgetting that this is not a suit between employer and emplyee. This is an employer trying to put forward that they are bigger than the US Constitution.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Their employer is not asking them to join their religion, just to respect what their belief is in respect to abortions.


IOW, to respect their employers' attempts to force them to follow their religion's rules on the subject. IOW, their employer is not asking them to join their religion, just follow what their religion's belief is in respect to abortions.

Yea, that's real religious freedom for ya.



> The employee is free to chose his/her own religion and to pay for her own abortion or the pills that cause an abortion.


And if she finds it increasingly hard to do get the contraceptive choices in question (which are NOT abortions) -- so hard that sometimes it's not even possible to do -- well, too bad. At least she has had the "freedom" to honor her employers' religious beliefs by following them herself, under coercion, and the "freedom" to do what she wanted about her reproductive health if it just wasn't so hard.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

NJG said:


> Changing jobs in this day and age can be very difficult so that comment really makes no sense. Anything that is against their religious beliefs, they do not have to do. Very simple. They are not a religious organization, they are a corporation and should not push their beliefs on their employees. They need to just follow the law and respect their employees to make decisions for themselves.


They are not keeping their employees from making their own decisions.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Knitry said:


> And if she finds it increasingly hard to do get the contraceptive choices in question (which are NOT abortions) -- so hard that sometimes it's not even possible to do -- well, too bad. At least she has had the "freedom" to honor her employers' religious beliefs by following them herself, under coercion, and the "freedom" to do what she wanted about her reproductive health if it just wasn't so hard.


I paid for my own contraceptives.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

peachy51 said:


> Wouldn't that be trying to prove a negative which is impossible??


One of the Christian teachings I remember well: In God, all things are possible. Did that get changed?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

DGreen said:


> I don't see any reference to the arguments made before the Supreme Court yesterday, but they are very interesting in terms of what the court will actually consider when making their decision. There is also the very real subject of the sweeping ramifications their decision will have should HL prevail.
> 
> First of all, there is a question of whether the CORPORATION has a religion or even CAN have a religion. Remember, the corporate structure HL has chosen instead of remaining a private company, affords any number of benefits under the law. That individual shareholders are shielded from liability is one of the main benefits. So individual religious beliefs are rendered immaterial when considering HL's legal status. It is the corporation that wants to claim a religious belief. (Sketchy in my view).
> 
> ...


Thank you so much for that extremely accurate description of what is going on in this case and what is being argued.

Oh, but joeysomma seems to think discrimination is not addressed in the Constitution because the specific WORD was not used. Otherwise, why bother asking "where" in the constitution the word "discrimination" is used?



> I don't think any of us really want to go back 60 years to the good old days of rampant discrimination.


Sadly, I think there are PLENTY of people who want to go back to that.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So who says that any insurance will cover a blood transfusion? The insurance we had from the time we were married until we went on Medicare, ( I have not looked to see if Medicare pays for transfusions), did not cover blood transfusions. If you or a family member gave blood you could get 1 for 1 free. You still had to pay for the administration of the transfusion. No insurance coverage. Since this is a small community, the need went out and people donated blood. I have no idea of the faith of the Family that owned the company. The company was self-insured.


OMG Joey, it was used as an example of things to come if HL wins. I did not check to see if every insurance company covers blood transfusions. Please forgive me.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> One of the Christian teachings I remember well: In God, all things are possible. Did that get changed?


Ahhh ... I see that you want to play both sides of the fence.

Tell us what method you would use to go about trying to prove a negative?


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

Knitry said:


> Cool, eh? I'll bet he's right. We'll see.


Yeah, wow.

This is going to be vedy, vedy interesting.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

The biggest, hardest job of Christians is being Christians.

The most important job of the follower of any faith is living it.

What impression of one's faith is each one of us on this blog?
(Agnostics and atheists also embody their world-views.) 
Does your behavior and speech actually manifest what you *say* you believe in?

One of the few behaviors that angered Jesus was difference between what people said and what they did. "Oh ye hypocrites!"


----------



## Madame La Farge (Jan 8, 2014)

DGreen, once again we agree :!: 

BTW, can you tell me how to make the quote feature work?


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> Changing jobs in this day and age can be very difficult so that comment really makes no sense. Anything that is against their religious beliefs, they do not have to do. Very simple. They are not a religious organization, they are a corporation and should not push their beliefs on their employees. They need to just follow the law and respect their employees to make decisions for themselves.


Amen to this!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> They are not imposing rules on their employees. It is the government imposing the rules on Hobby Lobby.


There is not ONE person in HL that is being forced to use an IUD.

The only "rule" that's being imposed upon HL is that they abide by the law that everyone else does... in that they can't discriminate.... as that's against the US constitution to do so.

The employees have earned the insurance in the same way they've earn the money. And while I understand that there are loopholes that may help a corporation rip-off their employees, PRACTICALLY speaking, the insurance these employees have, they have EARNED.

They should not be able to dictate how they use the insurance any more than they should be able to dictate what they spend their salary/paycheck.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Madame La Farge said:


> DGreen, once again we agree :!:
> 
> BTW, can you tell me how to make the quote feature work?


If you mean how to quote someone's post, simply hit "Quote Reply" instead of "Reply." I'm not DGreen, but I took the liberty as one of her admirers :~).


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Also, they don't believe in giving blood. We are to love one another and what better way to love another than to give the gift of life by giving blood. They say that the Bible is against giving blood, but what they use to back this is a verse in the Bible about blood sacrifices. Nothing to do with giving blood to save a life. Also, they will live in this country and reap all the benefits of living in this country, but will not pay allegiance to this country. They will not say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. I have problems with these kinds of beliefs and they do try to push them on you by going around neighborhoods and knocking on doors. They hand you their literature whether you want it or not.


Evie, there is nothing in the bible about donating or receiving blood. JW's pay their taxes, which accomplishes a lot more than saying the pledge of allegiance. They aren't the only religion that proselytizes, and you certainly don't have to take their literature. And no, I'm not a JW.


----------



## Madame La Farge (Jan 8, 2014)

SAMkewel said:


> If you mean how to quote someone's post, simply hit "Quote Reply" instead of "Reply." I'm not DGreen, but I took the liberty as one of her admirers :~).


Thank you! I'm proud to be part of DG's gang. She (and others) say it so well....


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> It is not illegal to eat pork, but if one feels it is an issue of the legality of eating pork, then don't ask that person to pay for your pork. You can buy it yourself.


Evie, your reasoning is getting goofier. Just how do you expect an empoyer to withhold "pork money" from wages?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> Anyone who believes that Hobby Lobby should be allowed to control what kind of coverage their employees receive on their health plan based on the employers Christian beliefs should also believe that a company owned by Muslims should be allowed to treat their employees with Sharia law.
> 
> If H.L. wins, what other things will suddenly be found to go against corporate religious beliefs to the detriment of real people? We use to have unions to protect us, but they are disappearing too. In the end we the working people will be the losers.


Consider this: HL currently asks its employees to join in prayer daily - the next challenge may be that they only want to "associate" with Christians - including those who work for them. How about a religious test for employment? They have already made a serious attempt to "help" pass a law in Arizona that would make it legal for businesses to refuse service to LGBT people. How about they wont hire gays? It doesn't matter that few LGBT would ever want to work there; people do things out of necessity that they might find objectionable. Once opened, that door would permit all sorts of discrimination. And Hobby Lobby has demonstrated their desire to do just that.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Thanks, Madame! Good to have support when under the sometimes "withering fire" of the KPG bunch.



Madame La Farge said:


> DGreen, once again we agree :!:
> 
> BTW, can you tell me how to make the quote feature work?


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

The biggest job of being a Christian is being a Christian.

That is the most important job of anyone, integrating what they say are their convictions with daily behavior. Agnostics and atheists ALSO embody their
beliefs, or betray them as superficial.

Are we on this blog faithful to what we say are the core of our conviction's our beliefs? What do we in reality represent -- loving care for others or a demand that we win and defeat others? Forgiveness and sacrifice or anger, self-righteousness, arrogance, and competitiveness as blatant as the destructive commercialism we object to?

One of the few behaviors that angered Jesus was that people pretended one thing but manifested another. He saw men corrupting the power of gifts by not behaving with the generosity of spirit he himself embodied. He objected to using one's alleged faith for personal short-term goals. HIS words: "Oh ye hypocrites!"


----------



## Madame La Farge (Jan 8, 2014)

DGreen said:


> Consider this: HL currently asks its employees to join in prayer daily - the next challenge may be that they only want to "associate" with Christians - including those who work for them. How about a religious test for employment? They have already made a serious attempt to "help" pass a law in Arizona that would make it legal for businesses to refuse service to LGBT people. How about they wont hire gays? It doesn't matter that few LGBT would ever want to work there; people do things out of necessity that they might find objectionable. Once opened, that door would permit all sorts of discrimination. And Hobby Lobby has demonstrated their desire to do just that.


A very good point I had not thought of till now.

BTW, I like your new avatar.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> They are not pushing their religious beliefs on their employees. The employees are free to make their own decisions. Decisions have consequences. In this case the employees need to pay for their decision.
> 
> What if your employer will not allow a coffee pot in the lunch room? Does that mean you can not have coffee with your lunch? It just means you will need to bring a thermos of coffee to work!


Coffee - not mandated by the ACA. Birth control - mandated by the ACA.

I've worked plenty of places that would not allow coffee pots. One place wouldn't allow us to heat food in the microwave because the boss didn't like food smells in the office. Oh well. Eat elsewhere. No problem. NOT a violation of the ACA, either.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Madame La Farge said:


> A very good point I had not thought of till now.
> 
> BTW, I like your new avatar.


thanks!


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

maysmom said:


> Evie, there is nothing in the bible about donating or receiving blood. JW's pay their taxes, which accomplishes a lot more than saying the pledge of allegiance. They aren't the only religion that proselytizes, and you certainly don't have to take their literature. And no, I'm not a JW.


Thank you and I try not to, but they shove it in your hand right when you answer the door. I am always polite to them and to the Mormons who also knock on my door from time to time. At least the Mormons do not shove any literature into your hands before you have a chance to say anything. I am not against those religions. I am not against any religion. I just don't want them shoving their beliefs at me when I have my own. Just like those people who are saying Christians are shoving their beliefs on other people. Well, I am a Christian and I do not shove my beliefs on other people.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> So you are in a panic over nothing! This ruling may set a precedent since it will be made by the Supreme Court. So if Obama would have given them an exemption like he did the unions, there would not be a precedent set, and the things you are afraid may happen, just might happen.
> 
> Question: Do Obama care type plans cover dental and vision? I wonder why not, if they do not? At least twice as many people need dental and vision than birth control.


Health insurance is always more important than dental and vision. You might have an accident if you can't see and I will grant that dental care is important to good health. But people die or are ruined financially from not having health care.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So you are in a panic over nothing! This ruling may set a precedent since it will be made by the Supreme Court. So if Obama would have given them an exemption like he did the unions, there would not be a precedent set, and the things you are afraid may happen, just might happen.
> 
> Question: Do Obama care type plans cover dental and vision? I wonder why not, if they do not? At least twice as many people need dental and vision than birth control.


I don't know the answer for these specific benefits, though I believe at least there is vision care for children. However, the reason the law does not cover some things is because there were so many people in Congress who would have done anything to keep this kind of health care law from being enacted. Look at the 60+ times the House has tried to repeal all or part of the law. What a total waste of time. There are real problems to be worked on, but all the Republican controlled House can focus on is trying to repeal a law that is not going to be repealed.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Evie RM said:


> I paid for my own contraceptives.


I'm glad you had the resources to do so. Not everyone is that fortunate.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

taborhills said:


> The biggest job of being a Christian is being a Christian.
> 
> That is the most important job of anyone, integrating what they say are their convictions with daily behavior. Agnostics and atheists ALSO embody their beliefs, or betray them as superficial.
> 
> ...


Well said. I stand convicted.


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

taborhills said:


> The biggest job of being a Christian is being a Christian.
> 
> That is the most important job of anyone, integrating what they say are their convictions with daily behavior. Agnostics and atheists ALSO embody their
> beliefs, or betray them as superficial.
> ...


Again: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: and thank you.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> They are not imposing rules on their employees. It is the government imposing the rules on Hobby Lobby.


Hobby Lobby and every other company that provides insurance for employees. HL is not exactly being singled out. But they are one of the comparatively few who are complaining.

Imposing ACA - well, it is the law, in spite of the republicans' repeated unsuccessful attempts to repeal it. But they keep trying and wasting time and effort. They're pretty thick-headed.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

taborhills said:


> The biggest job of being a Christian is being a Christian.
> 
> That is the most important job of anyone, integrating what they say are their convictions with daily behavior. Agnostics and atheists ALSO embody their
> beliefs, or betray them as superficial.
> ...


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

taborhills said:


> The biggest job of being a Christian is being a Christian.
> 
> That is the most important job of anyone, integrating what they say are their convictions with daily behavior. Agnostics and atheists ALSO embody their
> beliefs, or betray them as superficial.
> ...


Wise words to all of us.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> So you are in a panic over nothing!


No, it's not a panic over nothing.

There's this thing in law that's very REAL and it's called "precedent"

It's not just a hypothetical situation ... what WAS illegal, is now permitted if HL is allowed to do this.

If this goes through, it WILL be legal, from that point on, for Christian Scientists to deny paying for blood transfusions or ANY medical intervention they choose.

THAT is what will happen. It's not a matter of not being able to predict it. The precedent is set, the precedent is real. It is KNOWABLE.

I mean, maybe it isn't to you, because you're a dolt. But, the deductive reasoning is rudimentary and absolute here for anyone with two brain cells to rub together.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> I mean, maybe it isn't to you, because you're a dolt.


Here's an example of rudeness, for anyone who has not yet recognized it here.


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> No, it's not a panic over nothing.
> 
> There's this thing in law that's very REAL and it's called "precedent"
> 
> ...


Irregardless of which way the SC decides, it's just another piece of case law that can be overturned at anytime by a future SC. Even Roe v Wade is subject to repeal should a majority of the SC decide to do so.

And calling someone a "dolt" or any other rude name does not go very far to make you a credible poster.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

maysmom said:


> Allegedly, god gave us free will, so, whatever. Humans have done lots of things that god didn't want us to do.


Well, God gave us free will with out relinquishing His omniscience or omnipresence. Saint Augustine figured out how to reconcile those two things with our free will. Go read him and be boggled.


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

DGreen said:


> That I think you are a bully? At least you got that right.


Another example of rudeness. Not persuasive in any reasonable argument. Or, for that matter, in ANY discussion.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Buying a little bit of yarn to finish off a project is not indicative of what her principles mean to her.


Agreed. I have Snowflake yarn from HL. It's the only yarn I made special trips to get, but now I won't go there at all.

Certainly, I would not toss out the yarn I have already purchased.

Recently and friend and I went to lunch and we usually do a bit of shopping at different places afterwards. She wanted to go to HL, so off we went. I just didn't buy anything.


----------



## Colorado knits (Jul 6, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Studies have shown that abortions are more numerous in places like the "bible belt".


As I understand it, in Utah too.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> If you mean how to quote someone's post, simply hit "Quote Reply" instead of "Reply." I'm not DGreen, but I took the liberty as one of her admirers :~).


and she is Vocal Lisa and knows how the use the quote reply system.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Madame La Farge said:


> Thank you! I'm proud to be part of DG's gang. She (and others) say it so well....


You're welcome!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Health insurance is always more important than dental and vision. You might have an accident if you can't see and I will grant that dental care is important to good health. But people die or are ruined financially from not having health care.


One of my family members had $50,000+ of dental work done. How many middle class families do you think could afford that cost out of pocket vs. being ruined financially.

Oral health is as important, if not more important at the earliest stages of the majority of diseases.

Yet the ACA doesn't mandate oral care does it?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

taborhills said:


> Another example of rudeness. Not persuasive in any reasonable argument. Or, for that matter, in ANY discussion.


Those words are an absolute twisting of my original words to her as well as being rude AFTER she had just raked me over the coals as well before typing that statement.

It was intentional bullying and pathetic.

Furthermore, DGreen was unable to substantiate her repeated statement, so she turned to name calling and bullying instead.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Close but wrong! The law in Arizona was not to refuse service to LGBT people. Only a service that against the business owners conscience. A pharmacist can still refuse to sell the morning after pill because it may cause an abortion. A doctor, nurse, or hospital may refuse to perform a procedure that may cause the death of a fetus, blob of cells or a baby.


Everyone knows it was over gays, particularly since the background on the law and numerous politicians stated clearly it was to preclude what happened a few years ago where a photographer was sued over refusing to shoot a gay wedding. There was something about a cake, as well. Arizona state law already gives business owners the right to refuse service as they choose (as you pointed out) so the law was a "statement."


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> And remember the house wanted to do legally, what Obama has done illegally. Obama would have nothing but a clean bill and he shut down the government. Now with his pen he has done almost everything the Republicans tried to do. And what a mess.


The republicans shut down the government. There is no possible way for you to avoid that truth or to dispute that. Please refresh your memory about who authorizes the spending bills, who threatened to shut down the government and who did it. Of course, I don't expect you to do anything but argue this point, so don't bother dredging up tea party baloney or embarking on a rave about Obama. Others may want to respond to your nonsense, but I won't.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Insurance is a benefit. If it was earned, it would be taxed. For those who have insurance, be thankful you have it and it is not taxed. And quit complaining about what some one else has or doesn't have.


It is earned as part of the overall compensation package regardless of the tax status. Tax status has nothing to do with whether or not it is earned - your definition is invalid.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> One of my family members had $50,000+ of dental work done. How many middle class families do you think could afford that cost out of pocket vs. being ruined financially.
> 
> Oral health is as important, if not more important at the earliest stages of the majority of diseases.
> 
> Yet the ACA doesn't mandate oral care does it?


It sounds like your family member had dental implants; there are less expensive ways to go.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

DGreen said:


> The republicans shut down the government. There is no possible way for you to avoid that truth or to dispute that. Please refresh your memory about who authorizes the spending bills, who threatened to shut down the government and who did it. Of course, I don't expect you to do anything but argue this point, so don't bother dredging up tea party baloney or embarking on a rave about Obama. Others may want to respond to your nonsense, but I won't.


Thanks, DGreen. I thought I was getting senile, forgetting how this stellar situation in the Congress happened.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> It is earned as part of the overall compensation package regardless of the tax status. Tax status has nothing to do with whether or not it is earned - your definition is invalid.


So, when you leave an employer they are responsible by law to pay you what you earned for health insurance as converted into a dollar amount then?

No, it is not earned; it is a benefit, called a benefit, voluntarily decided upon and offered by each and every employer, accepted or denied by the employee and not taxed as regulated by the IRS tax code.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> It sounds like your family member had dental implants; there are less expensive ways to go.


You assume too much yet said you pride yourself in not doing that nor in judging others.

You are wrong in your assumptions. Not one dental implant.

The point I made was not about what procedures were done. The discussion was if dental care is more or less important than health and which is more financially detrimental to middle class or lower income earning citizens.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> And remember the house wanted to do legally, what Obama has done illegally. Obama would have nothing but a clean bill and he shut down the government. Now with his pen he has done almost everything the Republicans tried to do. And what a mess.


1-24-14

John Boehner spilled his guts to Jay Leno Thursday night, candidly outlining the problems he has leading his own caucus.

In his debut appearance on the Tonight Show, the speaker of the House conceded that Republicans were responsible for Octobers government shutdown, saying it was a very predictable disaster.

Listen, I told my colleagues in July I didnt think shutting down the government over Obamacare would work because the president said Im not going to negotiate, Boehner said. And so I told them in August, probably not a good idea. Told them in early September. But when you have my job, theres something you have to learn. When I looked up, I saw my colleagues going this way. You learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk. So I said, do you want to fight this fight? Ill go fight the fight with you.

But it was a very predictable disaster, he continued. And so the sooner we got it over with the better"


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You assume too much yet said you pride yourself in not doing that nor in judging others.
> 
> You are wrong in your assumptions. Not one dental implant.


Your family member, then, must have had a unique situation. My father was a dentist; I still follow dentistry rather closely due to my own interest in the field. I can't imagine what I've missed that would run to $50,000+. Since you appear to be somewhat hostile about it, I'll speak with my own dentist as that amount of money sounds excessive and I want to take every possible step to avoid having that happen to me.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Plus there was no money in it for them.


DGreen said:


> Never heard that they were. I really believe most Christians are repulsed by their activities.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Wombatnomore said:


> Yeah, and how right I was with that warning. So predictable...YAWN...
> 
> Just feeding your veracious appetite sweets. Wouldn't want to deny you the opportunity to rant, scream, rage and get your rocks off! Can't have the shrew starve now can we?


Make that VORACIOUS.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knovice knitter said:


> Plus there was no money in it for them.


I can't imagine anyone supporting those zealots. The additional pain they caused grieving families is shocking to normal people.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Thank you and I try not to, but they shove it in your hand right when you answer the door. I am always polite to them and to the Mormons who also knock on my door from time to time. At least the Mormons do not shove any literature into your hands before you have a chance to say anything. I am not against those religions. I am not against any religion. I just don't want them shoving their beliefs at me when I have my own. Just like those people who are saying Christians are shoving their beliefs on other people. Well, I am a Christian and I do not shove my beliefs on other people.


Koff.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Your character committed suicide years ago.


knitpresentgifts said:


> Your colors are showing DGreen. You made the statement there are many contradictions in The Bible.
> 
> I've waited patiently and asked you to show or prove or even discuss one such contradiction.
> 
> ...


----------



## lins (Jan 8, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are totally confused. You said "it = Racism." Now you state that "racism" got Obama elected twice * but * you also ended you comment with " ... it's not about race."
> 
> Please let me know when you decide what you think.


Reread the whole post.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

peachy51 said:


> Irregardless of which way the SC decides, it's just another piece of case law that can be overturned at anytime by a future SC. Even Roe v Wade is subject to repeal should a majority of the SC decide to do so.
> 
> And calling someone a "dolt" or any other rude name does not go very far to make you a credible poster.


Coming on a thread which has allowed people to discuss all sorts of pertinent points of a SCOTUS case in order to play school marm "doesn't go very far to make you a credible poster."


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Coming on a thread which has allowed people to discuss all sorts of pertinent points of a SCOTUS case in order to play school marm "doesn't go very far to make you a credible poster."


School marm??? Hardly 

Just stating a fact that her post was wrong. No decision of the Court can tie the hands of future Courts. What? You can't take the truth?

And if I refuse to lower myself in the dirt and sling disrespectful names then that makes me not credible?

You tell me what in my post is not credible? If you can.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Madame, allow me. There is a group of options below each post. You click on "quote reply" and the quote is in your post. Someone probably told you this already, but I'm answering a few posts here as I read through the pages I missed while out today.


Madame La Farge said:


> DGreen, once again we agree :!:
> 
> BTW, can you tell me how to make the quote feature work?


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You assume too much yet said you pride yourself in not doing that nor in judging others.
> 
> You are wrong in your assumptions. Not one dental implant.
> 
> The point I made was not about what procedures were done. The discussion was if dental care is more or less important than health and which is more financially detrimental to middle class or lower income earning citizens.


I don't recall ever saying that I pride myself to anyone about anything. That is the furthest thing from my mind. It appears that you resent my asking about your family member's costly dental experience, so I apologize. I will try to make it a point to avoid asking you about anything again since I suspect, not assume, that you don't like it. Are we good on that?


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Vision and dental care are offered, but are not cost-effective for me. I opted out of that package. A friend of mine has some serious dental stuff ahead of her in the near future, so she bought the dental insurance. For her, it makes sense.


pardoquilts said:


> I don't know the answer for these specific benefits, though I believe at least there is vision care for children. However, the reason the law does not cover some things is because there were so many people in Congress who would have done anything to keep this kind of health care law from being enacted. Look at the 60+ times the House has tried to repeal all or part of the law. What a total waste of time. There are real problems to be worked on, but all the Republican controlled House can focus on is trying to repeal a law that is not going to be repealed.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Are you saying Vocal Lisa and Madame LaFarge are one and the same?


knitpresentgifts said:


> and she is Vocal Lisa and knows how the use the quote reply system.


----------



## Madame La Farge (Jan 8, 2014)

knovice knitter said:


> Madame, allow me. There is a group of options below each post. You click on "quote reply" and the quote is in your post. Someone probably told you this already, but I'm answering a few posts here as I read through the pages I missed while out today.


Thank you, KK. What fun this thread has been. It's good to see folks actually thinking (or at least trying to) and arguing and raising some hell....


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

As I promised earlier today:

Genesis 32:30 / Numbers 14:14 / John 1:18 / John 6:46

Ezekial 18:20 / Exodus 20:5

Jeremiah 3:12 / Jeremiah 17:4

Matthew 27:28 / John 19:2


To name a few


----------



## peachy51 (Feb 9, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I see no contradictions when you read the entire chapters, where each of your verses were selected. No matter what book you read you cannot pick out a few sentences, here and there and say the Book is worthless since they seem to contradict each other.
> 
> If you still want to pick some more. also tell me why you think they contradict each other.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> That's okay, God believes in you and that's all that matters until such a time as you change your mind.


How can a mythical being believe in me? I do believe that there was such a person as Jesus, but whether he was "the son of God" remains to be seen. And I will never change my mind. I have been there and done that. I don't have the T-shirt, however.

Please do not ram your belief system down my or anyone else's throat. You have your belief and I have mine. It irritates me no end when people such as you get all smarmy and do-goody about your belief system. Just shut up and go away. Yes, I know I am being harsh. I intend to be.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> I have never had the experience of such openly expressed non-Christian views before in my 75-year lifetime; I want to thank those who have been strong enough to express them, in particular, DGreen and Janet Cooke, not to exclude others who have contributed to the discussion. Over my lifetime, I've watched all kinds of horrors committed in the name of Christianity. History shows that's nothing new. What appalls me is that it continues to this day. Christians as a whole seem to think that they are somehow better and above other religious and non-religious people, but my experience with them has been just the opposite. It's as if they think practicing their rituals absolves them from their inhumanities.
> 
> I was a practicing Christian early in my life as an escape from the horrors of my parents and greater family. I left home at 17 expecting to find others who genuinely wanted to make it a better world without stuffing their specific beliefs down the throats of others. The inability to find others who were genuinely interested in doing that finally eroded, not my desire to see that happen and work toward it, but to do that in the name of a Christianity that was corrupt far beyond my expectations, sort of a shield that people hid from themselves behind. They went to church, did the rituals, then returned to real life on Monday, real life having nothing to do with any Christian ideals or beliefs for most, including clergy. It was my observations of reality that convinced me that most religions are empty of true meaning beyond helping individuals feel better about themselves because they belonged to one in name only.
> 
> ...


I believe your life experience and mine are similar. I too was a believer in my early life. I was baptized by complete immersion. I taught Sunday School. But as I got older I took a hard look at life and realized that Christianity was not for me. Every where I looked the Christians were hypocrites. The history books are full of outrages perpetrated by Christians.

I began to respond to your post but something happened an I lost my text. Probably pressed the wrong key or something. Anyway, I had to go to a meeting to learn all about Mason bees. This to me was much more rewarding than any religious service or ceremony could be. Bees are tangible beings who help our world. God is this mythical being that is "supposed" to help the world. Ha, ha.

Thank you for posting your thoughts, SAMKewel. I am sure that they hit the right note with more than I.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Madame La Farge said:


> Thank you, KK. What fun this thread has been. It's good to see folks actually thinking (or at least trying to) and arguing and raising some hell....


Oh please...


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Those words are an absolute twisting of my original words to her as well as being rude AFTER she had just raked me over the coals as well before typing that statement.
> 
> It was intentional bullying and pathetic.
> 
> Furthermore, DGreen was unable to substantiate her repeated statement, so she turned to name calling and bullying instead.


Not intended as bullying, certainly not intended as hurtful; it was intended to try to get us back on track disussing actual substantive content rather than this back and forth yammering. My apologies.


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I have read the Bible. It is not contradictory. I have found no examples. People are inherently immoral and evil. God allowed them to wallow in their evil ways when they disobeyed him. He would punish them for their evil ways, then God would send a prophet to bring them back to God. Sooner or later they would turn back to their evil ways.
> 
> God will not tolerate sin, but he loves the sinner. That is why He sent His Son to be our Saviour, if you only accept Him.


Horsefeathers!


----------



## taborhills (Sep 8, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I don't recall ever saying that I pride myself to anyone about anything. That is the furthest thing from my mind. It appears that you resent my asking about your family member's costly dental experience, so I apologize. I will try to make it a point to avoid asking you about anything again since I suspect, not assume, that you don't like it. Are we good on that?


Sam, I understood your previous comment about the size of that dental bill as the kind of friendly sympathetic informative chat one might have with a friend or colleague. It is impossible to convey gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice on email, though we try!


----------



## BlueJay21 (Jan 4, 2013)

Knitry said:


> Excuse me, and don't take this personally because you're not the one who came up with this utterly lame-brained meme that drives me up a wall, but:
> 
> OF COURSE WOMEN USE ABORTION FOR BIRTH CONTROL. ALL WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS USE IT FOR BIRTH CONTROL. That's what abortion is: controlling whether or not a standard live birth happens.
> 
> ...


Pay particular attention to the word SOME. There are some who, as you say, do not use the regular forms of birth control. But there are SOME women who use abortion instead. I am not demeaning women. I am a woman myself. Why would I demean myself? SOME women use the pill; SOME, IUDs; SOME, jells; SOME, condoms; SOME, abortion. It takes all kinds.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

To my way of thinking a leader is one who says, "no, this is wrong. Don't do it." and means it.



DGreen said:


> 1-24-14
> 
> John Boehner spilled his guts to Jay Leno Thursday night, candidly outlining the problems he has leading his own caucus.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> How can a mythical being believe in me? I do believe that there was such a person as Jesus, but whether he was "the son of God" remains to be seen. And I will never change my mind. I have been there and done that. I don't have the T-shirt, however.
> 
> Please do not ram your belief system down my or anyone else's throat. You have your belief and I have mine. It irritates me no end when people such as you get all smarmy and do-goody about your belief system. Just shut up and go away. Yes, I know I am being harsh. I intend to be.


There's a reason why those who profess to be nonbelievers get so agitated when a believer expresses words of faith...God is calling them and they are still resisting. It means that God has not given up on that person, yet. At some point the Holy Spirit will give up and leave that person with a hardened heart.

I'm don't know whether this applies to you or not...I'm just sayin!


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Roni Masse said:


> Hobby Lobby is NOT against a woman and her birth control. They only are against 4 products whose side effect or purpose is to cause an abortion (these 4 themselves are not used for conventional birth control). I myself am not boycotting anyone. The nearest HL is 35 miles from me and carries very little I would be interested in.


These 4 products DO NOT CAUSE ABORTIONS!!!!!

This is a phony argument. HL wants to create a theocracy and is part of a movement to do this. This is a dishonest lawsuit. Period!!

And they do despise and devalue women or they would not be even trying this lawsuit. There is not a single white male who does not know that he was given the entitlement of white male privilege. Simply stated, this means the right to own and control and abuse women and people of color. Men have no right to dictate what is acceptable to women's health and choice.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> There's a reason why those who profess to be nonbelievers get so agitated when a believer expresses words of faith...God is calling them and they are still resisting. It means that God has not given up on that person, yet. At some point the Holy Spirit will give up and leave that person with a hardened heart.
> 
> I'm don't know whether this applies to you or not...I'm just sayin!


Wow, it is really nice that you have this inside information! What other voices do you hear?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Wow, it is really nice that you have this inside information! What other voices do you hear?


Really? You're a church goer and you don't know this? Haven't you been listening?


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

SAMkewel--i appreciated your personal story and completely understand your path. Mine, I guess, had similarities. I was not raised in a strongly religious home and it probably gave me the freedom to question what I heard and saw. It became very clear to me when quite young that people who promoted religion were more attached to membership in a hierarchical group that would tell them what to do in life. The belief systems were always betrayed by the actions/behavior of the people. I hated the self-righteousness that I ran into coupled with major hypocricy in all kinds of ways.

And when I looked around when a bit older, there were several things I learned. First, all religions seemed to preach the same message of love and acceptance. They all warned against self-righteousness and coveting what others had. The philosophical/spiritual precepts always seemed to be the same. Second, all organized religions seemed to betray the spiritual precepts. They were all about controlling people and collecting money and power. Third, as I got older still and did some serious study, it became very clear that organized religion was created to serve a purpose: mass social manipulation and control. That was the role of organized religion for many centuries. It was the societal structure for defining the 'right' way to live with others and the environment. This never meant its message was right and we have seen over and over how wrong it has been.

Another thing that I learned is that groups tend to need an outside enemy in order to rally the forces. The communist scare was used very effectively to subdue the American pubic for decades. I still see it used, even here on KP! The churches tend to use fear and guilt to keep people in line and they always preach about the outside evil coming to get you if you don't follow the group. So we now see HL pulling this pro-life, abortion card to rally the troops. No matter that it is a total lie.

And last, no one needs religion to be a spiritual person. These 2 are often mutually exclusive. 

If some people want to be part of a church community that is their choice. But any religion that feels the need to survive based on being able to impose itself on others, is not much of a spiritual base. Personally I found Buddhism and Native American spirituality to be much more genuine than any of the organized religions.

The bible is an interesting work. It provides literature, philosophy, history, and some down right gossip. Lots of mythology. It was written by men (no evidence i am aware that any women did the writing) over many hundreds of years. It was rewritten by different rulers to push their own agenda several times. Many translations and interpretations. Men imposing their own agenda again.

Other cultures had their own spiritual systems. They lost in history so what they believed became called mythology, but it is/was just as relevant as religions today.

But the use of these believe systems for warmongering and hatred and control is also the same all over and it sickens me. It is anti-democratic and certainly not spiritual.

HL is not about spirituality.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I can't help but smile at this; you don't need any assistance in getting your point across :~D!


Thank you, SAM. Some on this thread appear NOT to have a point - except picking out a few words and attempting to repeatedly "prove" those who don't agree with them are wrong, even if the phrase or words they pick are extraneous to the discussion.

"She went to the store in a red dress" would be answered by

IT WAS AN ORANGE DRESS. YOU'RE SO STUPID YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ONE COLOR FROM ANOTHER" instead of saying

"I agree she went to the store, but I think she was wearing an orange dress."

See how that works? One can disagree without being obnoxious.

Thank you again for your kind words. Of course, you know I'll be slammed for this post, as I will have stated something offensive to someone. Oh well.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

pardoquilts said:


> Wow, it is really nice that you have this inside information! What other voices do you hear?


I like your comment. Mine would have been very wordy; yours is so sharp.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> How can a mythical being believe in me? I do believe that there was such a person as Jesus, but whether he was "the son of God" remains to be seen. And I will never change my mind. I have been there and done that. I don't have the T-shirt, however.
> 
> Please do not ram your belief system down my or anyone else's throat. You have your belief and I have mine. It irritates me no end when people such as you get all smarmy and do-goody about your belief system. Just shut up and go away. Yes, I know I am being harsh. I intend to be.


Bluejay--if someone came to you claiming to hear voices that directed them and they talked about knowing the truth because these voices gave it to them, we would want to know what was in that kool-aid and then we would commit them. When people gather round the same voices, whether they hear them or not, and incorporate, they get away with murder.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> There's a reason why those who profess to be nonbelievers get so agitated when a believer expresses words of faith...God is calling them and they are still resisting. It means that God has not given up on that person, yet. At some point the Holy Spirit will give up and leave that person with a hardened heart.
> 
> I'm don't know whether this applies to you or not...I'm just sayin!


No, you were not addressing me directly, so I'll start by saying how awful I am for interjecting a comment where it wasn't invited and save you the trouble. Since your comments were about non-believers in general, I will respond.

Let me see if I have this right. You have expressed words of faith, so you are an instrument of god calling me? And you know that I am resisting god because...you say so? And having resisted god's efforts to love me, I have a hard heart?

Then, after having given unequivocal reasons as to WHY non-believers (not "some", as you did not qualify your statement) object to your expressions of faith, you try to give yourself an "out" so as to appear non-judgmental, as if to say, "oh, I wasn't talking about you specifically..."

Gerslay, give it up. We don't buy your religion. Let it go. This does not hurt you. We don't need to be saved. We don't need you to tell us how we think. We don't need to be told why we are wrong and it's only a matter of time before god's love will overcome our evil ways and hard hearts.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

BlueJay21 said:


> I believe your life experience and mine are similar. I too was a believer in my early life. I was baptized by complete immersion. I taught Sunday School. But as I got older I took a hard look at life and realized that Christianity was not for me. Every where I looked the Christians were hypocrites. The history books are full of outrages perpetrated by Christians.
> 
> I began to respond to your post but something happened an I lost my text. Probably pressed the wrong key or something. Anyway, I had to go to a meeting to learn all about Mason bees. This to me was much more rewarding than any religious service or ceremony could be. Bees are tangible beings who help our world. God is this mythical being that is "supposed" to help the world. Ha, ha.
> 
> Thank you for posting your thoughts, SAMKewel. I am sure that they hit the right note with more than I.


Yes, we certainly had similar early beginnings, as well as later observations. I suspect that other issues are that some of us need something to lean on in life, and others of us, for whatever reason, are more independent. This is not, to my way of thinking, good or bad either way--it's just the way it is. For me, becoming independent at an early age was a necessity if I intended to survive. In the final analysis, for me, religion brought more negatives than positives in that struggle over several decades, so I ultimately abandoned it in favor of other endeavors that had positive meaning for me. Each to his/her own. I'm finding a lot of comfort in finally becoming open about these facts, especially since the absolute law in my family was NEVER TELL ANYONE WHAT GOES ON AT HOME. It was all about pretense and self-delusion, the old "what will people think?" major concern. They never learned that they couldn't control that and that to a large degree it simply doesn't matter. All we can do is the best we can do. Beyond that, what others think is beside the point, in my opinion.

Now I need to look up Mason bees because I'm curious and haven't heard of them before. That's one of the pluses in life for me--always something new and different to learn about :~).


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

ginniknit said:


> As I have been monitoring this thread it has been quite obvious that you can "play with the big dogs" as they say.
> Who is they? Darned if I know ...


Thanks! If you figure out who they is, let me know.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Really? You're a church goer and you don't know this? Haven't you been listening?


I am indeed a church goer, though I hadn't said that in this discussion. I am a Unitarian Universalist, which is the only place I know where I can have the community of a church without being forced to believe a bunch of nonsense. I can be an atheist and a Humanist and still have a place where I can discuss the moral issues of the day.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

damemary said:


> To my way of thinking a leader is one who says, "no, this is wrong. Don't do it." and means it.


Boehner has had his work cut out for him, that's for sure. The extremist are like the 30-mule-team pulling the driver - only that driver has no whip. I doubt anyone could control those zealots.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

DGreen said:


> No, you were not addressing me directly, so I'll start by saying how awful I am for interjecting a comment where it wasn't invited and save you the trouble. Since your comments were about non-believers in general, I will respond.
> 
> Let me see if I have this right. You have expressed words of faith, so you are an instrument of god calling me? And you know that I am resisting god because...you say so? And having resisted god's efforts to love me, I have a hard heart?
> 
> ...


I can express my opinion can I not? If it doesn't mean anything to you just ignore it. If it bothers you so much perhaps you'd like to consider all the possible reasons why. I'm just offering one of those possibilities.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

...double post...


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

...double post...


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

taborhills said:


> Sam, I understood your previous comment about the size of that dental bill as the kind of friendly sympathetic informative chat one might have with a friend or colleague. It is impossible to convey gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice on email, though we try!


I thank you for correctly understanding my intent on that. We try, but we often fail to convey accurately what we mean. I must say I was shocked at the amount of that dental bill given that we all have pretty much the same number of teeth, at least in the beginning. I do love reading and writing, but it ain't perfect either :~).


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> There's a reason why those who profess to be nonbelievers get so agitated when a believer expresses words of faith...God is calling them and they are still resisting. It means that God has not given up on that person, yet. At some point the Holy Spirit will give up and leave that person with a hardened heart.
> 
> I'm don't know whether this applies to you or not...I'm just sayin!


It's certainly your choice to believe that, and it's certainly been taught throughout my lifetime and no doubt before that. If you're comfortable with that for you, we have no problem. If, however, you think we all need to believe that or one of us has a problem, I'll leave it to you to decide which one of us that is.


----------



## admin (Jan 12, 2011)

This is an automated notice.

This topic was split up because it reached high page count.
Please feel free to continue the conversation in the new topic that was automatically created here:

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-249975-1.html

Sorry for any inconvenience.


----------

