The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 58 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 1148
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,584

    Default

    I think it is important to note that HL isn't refusing to provide all contraceptive coverage, as many posters here seem to think they are. HL will cover things like the birth control pill, iud, Norplant, etc. HL doesn't want to include a few, very specific types of contraceptive, which are designed to prevent a pregnancy from being viable post-conception. They believe this equates to abortion.

    There are many ongoing legal challenges to Obamacare - HL has one of them. They are currently in the process of working their way through the courts to determine whether it is constitutional for Obacmacare to force them to provide this narrow range of drugs. What they requested was a postponement of the 1/1/13 effective date in light of their pending legal challenge, and SCOTUS denied that stay. I can understand their feeling that, until their case has made its way through the entire process, they should not be forced to comply.

    As for the religious argument - in reality, what you have is a situation where both parties are trying to force their religious beliefs on the other. HL is trying to force compliance with their religious beliefs on employees that want Plan B coverage, and employees who want Plan B coverage provided by the company are trying to force compliance with their religious beliefs on HL.

    From a constitutional standpoint, the case will not be viewed as HL infringing on the employees' constitutional religious freedom. The constitution says that the state shall not abridge a person's religious freedom. HL is not a state actor. Conversely, Obamacare is state action, and the case is in the process of being reviewed to determine whether that state action is infringing on HL's religious freedom.

    And as a side note - I personally loathe evangelical Christians who try to force their religious views on others, so I do not intend for this post to convey support for HL's judgmental religious beliefs.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson


    11 members found this post helpful.

  2. #22

    Default

    How would you feel if the owner was a Jehovah's witness and refused to supply health insurance because they allowed blood transfusions? I think some religions allow no medical intervention and only allow prayer - then what? I also think parents who are exercising their "religious freedom" have had their children taken away fom them in order to provide medical treatment.

    As for the argument that you would not want your money going to support things against your religious belief, I just don't see how that works. Certain religions are vegetarians; therefore, no government funding for slaughter house oversight? Quakers are pacifists; therefore, no support for the military?

    I just can't follow either argument.


    30 members found this post helpful.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    Thanks, Tarheel, that helps. However, surely insurance discrimination on the grounds of religion is an Equal Opportunity law violation? I'm looking right at the EEOC's "Prohibited Practices" page, and it sure looks like that to me:

    Pay And Benefits

    It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee in the payment of wages or employee benefits on the bases of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Employee benefits include sick and vacation leave, insurance, access to overtime as well as overtime pay, and retirement programs.
    [Emphasis mine.]
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief


    7 members found this post helpful.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan. 3, 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    256

    Default

    First, I'll say that some few people may need an abortion for physical health reasions. I believe that number is few. It is abortion with which the company has an issue. HL considers the morning after pill as abortion.

    Most abortions are a result of buyers remorse, not physical health issues.
    Keep your pants on or do what you need to prevent the problem. What happened to personal responsibility.

    I needed some heat on this cold, winter day.


    13 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct. 14, 2003
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnalli View Post
    That makes perfect sense. Why do people want others to pay for their stuff?What happened to personal responsibility?
    Until fairly recently, there weren't policies available that even covered b/c and abortion. That all had to come out of pocket. Why the uproar now?
    I guess much of the uproar is because for the longest time insurance companies would routinely cover drugs like Viagra, but not oral contraceptives.


    13 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,554

    Default

    Birth control is NOT paid for by employer money. It's paid for by benefits WOMEN EARN by performing their job duties. You cannot force your employees to abide by your personal values.

    Once money, and that includes non-monetary benefits, changes hands for services rendered it's no longer the employers' and they have no control over how it's spent--or not--by the employees.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    29 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnalli View Post
    That makes perfect sense. Why do people want others to pay for their stuff?
    Ummm... Because it's a FEDERAL LAW that EMPLOYERS are required to comply with?

    What happened to personal responsibility?
    Yeah, but if you're going to CHOOSE to violate federal law, I hope we can agree that that is YOUR personal responsibility; therefore what RIGHT do you think you have to FORCE all your employees to violate the same law?? Indeed, whatever DID happen to personal responsibility?

    Until fairly recently, there weren't policies available that even covered b/c and abortion. That all had to come out of pocket. Why the uproar now?
    Because Hobby Lobby is attempting to violate a long-standing SET of FEDERAL LAWS that are designed to protect employees.
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief


    14 members found this post helpful.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    22,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetjocky View Post
    Very sad for the employees who will be denied health care. They should have made the fines large enough to not incentivize not providing health care. Big mistake...
    Up to 1.3 million per day. I think that might be a large enough fine.
    Join the Clinton 2016 campaign...Hillary For America. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/



  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2010
    Location
    Westford, Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,697

    Default

    I have two questions:

    1) For those who believe that non-religious companies, owned by adherents to a certain religion, should not be obligated to provide health coverage for things that are against their religious beliefs...does that apply across the board? Could a company owned by Christian Scientists refuse to cover blood transfusions? Those aren't available "cheaply at gas stations".

    2) Back to the "grace alone" argument going on on another thread:

    On this thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by LMH View Post
    No government will force me to do something that in my beliefs means I would jeopardize my salvation.
    On the other thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by LMH View Post
    Grace-you do nothing to earn your way into heaven. It is a free gift for believing Christ is the Savior.

    Grace-works don't count.

    Grace-candlelighting does not get you to heaven

    Grace-prayers after you die do not get you to heaven

    Grace-indulgences do not get you to heaven

    Grace vs. Works-The eternal divide between Catholics and Protestants.
    If grace alone is what leads to salvation, how could complying with a government order to pay for something interfere with your salvation, since "works" don't matter?
    Last edited by Canaqua; Dec. 30, 2012 at 09:14 PM.


    15 members found this post helpful.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May. 12, 2000
    Location
    NE TN, USA
    Posts
    6,213

    Default

    Definitely support them. Big Brother is intruding far too much into our lives already.
    “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.”
    John Adams


    9 members found this post helpful.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Apr. 25, 2011
    Posts
    856

    Default

    Since "Businesses are people too, my friend" as determined by our SCOTUS, the door has swung wide open for such self profiting decision making.

    As I stated before, Progress Energy simply chose not to pay 16 million dollars in taxes in Citrus County, FL, bringing its economy to a standstill.

    I guess I'll choose not to pay my taxes this year and see what happens.

    I can't wait to be forced to sit in meetings promoting my employer's personal political agenda. Perhaps if I skip paying my taxes, I'll be able to skip those meetings.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Oct. 23, 2004
    Location
    Sisters, Oregon
    Posts
    1,929

    Default

    My question...

    I apply to work at a company and it is made clear who they are, what they stand for, what their policies are and what benefits I will receive.
    I accept that job. Only then do I object to all of the above.
    How is that okay?

    I worked for a couple of companies that required random drug testing. Some employees screamed their heads off about what a violation that was.
    Why on earth did you take that job knowing it was a requirement?
    Kanoe Godby
    www.dyrkgodby.com
    See, I was raised by wolves and am really behind the 8-ball on diplomatic issue resolution.


    12 members found this post helpful.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr. 9, 2012
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Firstly, refusing to buy something for everyone is not discrimination. It would only be discriminatory if they provided for some and not for others. Providing the same insurance for everyone is not discriminatory.

    Secondly, refusing to buy something for someone is not forcing your beliefs on them. Hobby Lobby is not telling their employees how to spend the wages that they earn. David Green, Hobby Lobby's CEO, is objecting to the government forcing him, through his company, to pay for something that does violate his religious freedom as guaranteed through the Bill of Rights. It is not possible for David Green to violate someone's constitutional rights because the Constitution is the set of "rules" that the government has to follow. You can argue that what he's doing is illegal, which it technically is, but not that it's "unconstitutional". He's arguing that the law is unconstitutional, which is his right.

    I'm sure David Green's family would survive just fine if Hobby Lobby's doors were closed. Can you argue the same for the rest of the employees? BTW the starting wage at Hobby Lobby is 80% above minimum wage.


    11 members found this post helpful.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Oct. 14, 2003
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Up to 1.3 million per day. I think that might be a large enough fine.
    Evidently not, since they are willing to pay it. The fine should have been larger than the cost of providing health care, whatever that cost was.

    FWIW, I think we should seiously consider a single-payer system for many reasons, many of them economic. I don't have the figures in front of me, but a friend and I were discussing this the other day and he mentioned there was something like $2500 in legacy costs for every GM vehicle before they dumped their pension and health care plans. Who's paying those costs now? We are, through the (forget the agency name, dang old age). If we're going to pay these costs indirectly, why not pay them directly and quit hampering businesses who are trying to compete with firms overseas with much lower production costs. This is similar to the Wal-Mart thread last OT day where they were talking about some Wal-Marts including information on applying for public assistance with their employees' pay stubs.

    On the humanitarian side, making money off someone's ill health has always seemed immoral to me, but that's another thread.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coco070391 View Post
    How would you feel if the owner was a Jehovah's witness and refused to supply health insurance because they allowed blood transfusions? I think some religions allow no medical intervention and only allow prayer - then what? I also think parents who are exercising their "religious freedom" have had their children taken away fom them in order to provide medical treatment.

    As for the argument that you would not want your money going to support things against your religious belief, I just don't see how that works. Certain religions are vegetarians; therefore, no government funding for slaughter house oversight? Quakers are pacifists; therefore, no support for the military?

    I just can't follow either argument.
    The originally attached article states: "Churches and houses of worship are exempt from the regulation and a narrow exemption was added for nonprofit religious employers whose employees "primarily share its religious tenets" and who "primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets."

    Re: the analogy of vegetarians' rights being violate by their money being used to fund the inspection of slaughterhouses, the SCOTUS has addressed this. In cases where there is a compelling government interest (in your example, keeping the nation's food supply free of disease, etc.), the government can infringe on individuals' rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by War Admiral View Post
    Thanks, Tarheel, that helps. However, surely insurance discrimination on the grounds of religion is an Equal Opportunity law violation? I'm looking right at the EEOC's "Prohibited Practices" page, and it sure looks like that to me:

    [Emphasis mine.]
    I totally agree that this is a viable legal theory for the employees who want the coverage. But it would be a separate case from HL's cause of action. Employees that are denied the coverage would have to bring an administrative law proceeding under the EEOC's procedures to challenge the failure to provide the benefit on these grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyinBey++ View Post
    Birth control is NOT paid for by employer money. It's paid for by benefits WOMEN EARN by performing their job duties. You cannot force your employees to abide by your personal values.

    Once money, and that includes non-monetary benefits, changes hands for services rendered it's no longer the employers' and they have no control over how it's spent--or not--by the employees.
    Employee compensation/benefits are something negotiated when you initially accept your position, and they change over time, based on factors such as cost to the employer, employee productivity, etc. There are lots of differences in compensation plans/benefits among employers, and compensation/benefits change over time within a particular employer's organization. For instance, my firm used to include fertility treatments in our health insurance, but as of this year, that benefit was removed from the plans offered by the firm, because it simply got to expensive. I have friends whose employer never offered fertility coverage at all.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson


    4 members found this post helpful.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coco070391 View Post
    How would you feel if the owner was a Jehovah's witness and refused to supply health insurance because they allowed blood transfusions?
    You're not entitled to work at that man's business. Quit and go get another job.

    The sense of entitlement in society today has reached a level that I can scarcely comprehend.


    20 members found this post helpful.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,554

    Default

    Religious practices in the United States are trumped by secular law all the time when there is a conflict. Thus, Native Americans who believe in using peyote as part of their religious rituals were fired from their government jobs for doing so, and the US Supreme Court upheld it in 1990.

    Likewise, traditionalist members of the Sikh religion believe that a man should avoid cutting his hair, and should bind it up in a turban. So what if an orthodox Sikh gets a job as a construction worker? He can’t get a hard hat on over the turban. Does he have the right to forgo the hard hat on the construction site, so as to retain his turban? The question went to the US courts, and they said Sikhs have to wear hard hats. If a brick fell on the turban and killed the Sikh worker, his family could after all sue the construction company for negligence since it did not require him to wear a hard hat.

    Or there are many instances in which Muslim religious laws and practices have been over-ruled in the United States by the courts. American law forbids Muslim-American men to take a second wife, something legal to them in many of their home countries. State law tends to award community property in cases of divorce instead of the much smaller payments men can make to divorced women in Islamic law, even if the couple have specified in their marriage contract that Muslim law (sharia) will govern these issues.

    David Green is claiming that he's being forced to pay for his employees birth control. HE IS NOT. Birth control is part and parcel of health care, the premium of which is paid for by his employees when they perform their job duties for him.

    Despite David Green's personal beliefs (including the false understanding of how BC actually works), Hobby Lobby is NOT a religious organization and cannot be exempted from this law.

    He has every right to then close his doors and put his employees out of a job, but that says far more about David Green's ethics than it does about a health care law that covers birth control pills.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    29 members found this post helpful.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyinBey++ View Post
    He has every right to then close his doors and put his employees out of a job, but that says far more about David Green's ethics than it does about a health care law that covers birth control pills.
    I wish he would do just that then and I would applaud his ethics.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Apr. 9, 2012
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Actually he's objecting to "abortion causing drugs".

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...bby/57759226/1
    Last edited by tbaymare; Dec. 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM. Reason: to add link to letter


    4 members found this post helpful.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,554

    Default

    Women EARN their benefits. David Green is NOT paying out of pocket for ANYTHING. Employees work. Employers pay. Employees spend their earned income and benefits as they see fit.
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    10 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Fall flowers 80% off at Hobby Lobby!
    By NaniLio in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Nov. 17, 2012, 12:17 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Oct. 25, 2011, 02:26 PM
  3. Obamacare And Horseowners
    By Frank B in forum Off Course
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: Sep. 26, 2010, 07:08 PM
  4. Replies: 30
    Last Post: Oct. 7, 2009, 10:05 AM
  5. Spinoff- how do you support your dressage hobby?
    By CatOnLap in forum Dressage
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Jun. 13, 2008, 11:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness