The problem with that is it implies that all companies are equal before the law... but some are a little more equal than others. For instance, if a company is run by pacifists, can they refuse to pay the proportion of their taxes which go towards the military? Aren't they being forced to pay for things to kill people? Why is that different? I mean, that's a belief system, isn't it? Or is it that that belief system isn't a christian one so there's no, (or few), votes in it?
the military doesn't just kill people. but beside that, the issue with HL is whether they must offer a method of birth control that is specifically designed to kill people. if a pacifist business owner said, "Figure out what percentage of the military budget is involved in weaponry, ordnance, whatever you want to call it, and allow me to be exempt from paying that amount," i'm not sure i would object that much.
Er.... what? [/quote] Sara Palin reference. (She can "see Russia from" her backyard.) So ... a link ... ?
I've already given links to the grauniad, which is the British printed newspaper, the daily hate-mail, the independent and also some US-based websites that people over here read heavily, like Huffpo. I forget the torygraph I believe, so... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-to-judge-me-on-my-contraception-choices.html There's also the Times but that's paywall stuff so I can't sensibly link to it or even see the complete articles myself... That list pretty much IS the quality British newspaper industry, (plus the daily hate-mail). What I CAN'T link to are the associated strip cartoons and jokes I've seen over the past few years. Neither can I link to the comments and jokes on TV chat shows and suchlike. They provide most of the actual 'laughing material'. If you want to find some more, go ahead but I think I've done enough searching to prove the point. As I say, you could simply search google yourself for news stories...
And 'family planning' isn't just about abortions, is it... No, that's not what it's about at all... and everyone KNOWS it. It's about introducing a pointless and arbitrary 'break point' that has ZERO relevance to the matter, the sole purpose of which is to bollocks up the law and to make it unworkable. It would be like a pacifist, (a quaker, maybe), saying, 'I'll pay for weaponry as long as it's not used to kill people on Sunday because that's the LORDS day'. The whole system breaks down but then... that's the POINT, isn't it. ... and I'm a 'kickarsian'... I will only pay for shit that blows people up and kills them. That shouldn't present a problem, should it? HEY! Don't you oppress us kickarsians... we're a pretty mean bunch y'know! I mean, sorry... are you thinking about what you're posting AT ALL??? You can't have groups selecting which bits of the tax code they're going to pay and which they won't. That's a bloody nonsense.
no, it isn't, but HL doesn't object to any family planning measures that don't kill people. sorry. wrong. oh, goody. you can judge peoples' motives without any investigation. now, i call that open minded and i applaud your acumen,
Well, strictly speaking it doesn't matter what their motives are? It's the affect that matters... but can you honestly say they HAVEN'T got an agenda in the matter? I mean, seriously? Presumably the Koch Brothers are genuinely only interested in furthering democracy and Sheldon Adelson is likewise genuinely interested in pushing American politicians to pursue a middle-east peace process. I mean, come ON!
They can run their business differently from a publicly held corporation because they are privately held. That is one of the benefits of not being publicly traded, you can dictate your rules of operation based on personal convictions (such as not opening the doors on Sunday) without a board of shareholders overriding your decisions.
Could HL decide not to do hire or sell their products to visible minorities? Inquire as to the religious convictions or sexual preferences of applicants?
Well, 'no' is the answer to that I'd imagine. This idea that private businesses are like Ian Smith's Rhodesia and can simply declare UDI is a quite preposterous one. What are we going to hear next? That Google is at war with Mexico and is going to send tanks to invade them? Quite clearly businesses HAVE to respect the rule of law as decided by the rest of society. If they don't like it they have two choices... either stop being in business or buggar off somewhere that WILL let them do what they want to do. It's one thing to have a few exemptions that make little or no difference to the rest of us, (the exemptions to Sikhs from wearing crash helmets, for example... if they WANT to bash their brains out in a crash, that's THEIR lookout), but the idea everyone can decide for themselves what laws they'll comply with and what taxes they'll pay, is ludicrous.
This comparison is beyond silly. HL is complying with the laws and regulations and they’re challenging a specific aspect of the law that they believe would violate they violate their religious beliefs by challenging it in the courts.
And then I gave an example... shutting the doors on Sunday. I didn't say they could ignore the laws of the land, and they don't.
This is an issue that simple generational transfer is going to do away with by the time I'm fifty. I recognize that the Hobby Lobby people are going to die by the time my children need contraception, as will their antiquated notion about religion and contraception. This conversation is in dire need of that kind of perspective.
So, you concede that there are limits on the business exercise of their personal convictions? What if the law of the land mandates they provide medical coverage for employees, including all forms of birth control?
That is why they're at the Supreme Court. If ObamaCare mandated third trimester abortions I'd hope even you could understand that people might think that was taking "health care" too far.
I'll assume this was just a clumsy attempt at humor rather than another case of you not understanding the issue. Hobby Lobby doesn't care if your spawn want to use contraception. In fact, if they worked at HL the company would provide it.
you're claiming they have another motive different from gaining relief from what they consider killing a person. do you have any specific evidence to corroborate your claim. or are you just trolling?
Not so much trolling, but out of ideas. When you have to dig up the Koch brothers you've pretty much entered Harry Reid stupidity levels of debate.
If they lose, will their company obey the law of the land? Mandated abortions? What are you talking about?
if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in the same room, it creates the equivalent of a mental black hole. no ideas can escape.
they might close shop. that will be a victory for Affordable Health Care, for sure. they only have 23K employees. no biggie.