Hobby Lobby CEO open letter: “Honoring God is more important than turning a profit”

posted at 1:01 pm on January 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Normally I’d be inclined to run something like this on a Sunday, when I like to explore more faith-based topics.  However, today is Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day, where consumers who support the Christian ownership’s stand against the HHS mandate that attempts to impose a highly restrictive definition of religious expression can put their money where their mouths are.  Since I don’t really have a hobby at the moment, I’ll instead offer a passage from the open letter written by Hobby Lobby CEO David Green, who explains why he’s decided to spend a lot of money and risk even more to fight the HHS regulation that would force him to act against his religious principles.

We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby – and my family – are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

It’s worth pointing out that the mandate doesn’t exempt actual religious organizations either, such as Catholic charities, Presbyterian hospitals, Lutheran schools, and so on.  Why?  That’s the crux of the issue: the Obama administration is attempting to redefine religious expression to only those activities which take place within the four walls of a place of worship, or those activities restricted only to those of a single faith.  That means that Catholic hospitals would qualify only if they refused to treat and employ any non-Catholics, for instance.  Can you imagine those lawsuits?

The mandate for free birth control, which is already cheap and readily available for anyone who wants it (and has federal subsidies for Medicaid recipients already in place through Title X), is just a Trojan horse in an attack on religious liberty — and even more, for freedom of choice.  If businesses want to offer “free” birth control (which will get funded by premium hikes), they can already do so; no one is stopping them.  Same for schools, hospitals, and private citizens who want to donate money to family-planning clinics on their own.  Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius want to strip that choice from Americans and force everyone to subsidize the procreative choices of everyone else, even those tens of millions whose religious beliefs have heretofore never had to be part of public policy.  That’s the invasion of privacy, and it’s people like David Green who are being exploited.

Update: Added a bit to the second-to-last paragraph, and also wanted to include Hobby Lobby’s online shopping website link.  You can support the company from the comfort of your own home.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

To pick an extreme example, human sacrifice is not permitted under the First Amendment.

Or parents who don’t want their children vaccinated. Or have surgery because it violates their religious views.

SteveMG

Your analogies are inept and inapt.

Forcing someone to do something is different than preventing someone from doing something. That should be obvious but progressives often ignore the obvious, willfully or otherwise.

In the case of the ACA, privately owned companies are forced to provide abortifacients. Forced to provide, not forced to stop providing.

The ACA is unConstitutional, immoral, and should be destroyed.

I’m happy to see Hobby Lobby take a stand and even happier to see the Left’s illiberal position being undermined by civil disobedience.

chimney sweep on January 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

How many of you just a few weeks ago were arguing in favor of people paying for things they don’t believe in when you argue in favor of taxpayer funded Nativity scenes? Not all taxpayers are Christian. So do you support the tyrrany of the majority or not?

Should a business owned by Christian Scientist have to provide any health coverage at all?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Tyranny? Oh, yeah. You have to watch out for us Christians. Especially us Southern Baptists. We might hit you with a piece of fried chicken. And the Methodists’ covered dishes? Oh, man. They’re deadly.

The only tyranny going on in this nation right now, is the Tyranny of the Minority….special interest groups who have made it their mission to shove their secular religion of “sharing the wealth” in a Godless society ruled by a new Politboro, down the throats of average Americans.

Guess what, Skippy? You had better pack a lunch. It ain’t going to be that easy.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Best $32 I ever spent. Wish they would have had more on their website that I needed.

gophergirl on January 5, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Why is it you miserables have to be so passive aggressive?

Just say what you mean and be done with it.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Please tell me how I am being passive agressive. And what makes you think I am miserable? I did day what I meant to say. All I was saying is that I used to love going to Hobby Lobby to purchase a product I liked. Sounds like someone hates capitalism.

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Should a business owned by Christian Scientist have to provide any health coverage at all?
Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

It’s that have to part that makes it problematic. How did it come to be that ANY business has to provide medical coverage to its employees?

That’s a recent development.

Cleombrotus on January 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

A company should not be forced to provide health insurance if the company has a religious objection.

Rose on January 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Sounds like someone hates capitalism.

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…I can’t breathe!…bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Nice attempt at deflection. Try something else.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Hobby Lobby has a lot more than just arts and crafts, hobby-type things. They also have a great selection of home decor items unframed and framed prints, great deals on custom framing, they may still have some Christmas decorations and artificial Christmas trees on sale, although most of those are probably gone, I usually try to hit their after Christmas sale for decorations, but missed it this year. I did go in before Christmas and buy a cart-full of Christmas decorations and candles. I’m not craftsy at all, but I love Hobby Lobby.

mbs on January 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM

A company should not be forced to provide health insurance if the company has a religious objection.

Rose on January 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM

In America, a company should not be forced to do anything except refrain from stealing or cheating!

But this is Amerikka, land of Hope & Change.

itsnotaboutme on January 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Should a business owned by Christian Scientist have to provide any health coverage at all?
Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

No.

mbs on January 5, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Just returned from a shopping spree at Hobby Lobby! I wish I would have made a comment to the checkout person expressing my support for his boss taking a stand-didn’t think of it till I was in my car.

wolverinefan on January 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM

http://www.hobbylobby.com/customer_service/customer_service.cfm

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I’m not particularly hobby oriented, at least of the crafts variety, but I bought something that I can both use and will hopefully encourage Hobby Lobby. I wish the company well, and really detest the vicious mandate of the Administration, and therefore the federal government, that denies people their rights as ratified by the U. S. Constitution.

Kevin K. on January 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

What is your problem with me kingjester? Just say what you mean to say.

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

What is your problem with me kingjester? Just say what you mean to say.

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Just go ahead and say that you don’t care for God or Christians and be done with it.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

My guess is that if the corporation is a religiously oriented one that it does violate their freedom of religion. But a secularly oriented business doesn’t have the same rights even if the owners believe their religious rights are being violated.

[SteveMG on January 5, 2013 at 2:27 PM]

But isn’t your primary argument that the act occurring is the test of whether it is a violation of religious belief and therefore religious liberty? IWO, there is no violation of religious liberty to just have the provision included in the policy and if the provision is in a commercial policy the religious institution is two steps away from the act. Or maybe, it could be argued it is then one step away. Why is two steps away an acceptable measure for requiring it and not one step away?

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

A company should not be forced to provide health insurance if the company has a religious objection.

Rose on January 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I would go even further. A private company should not be forced by the government to provide health insurance.

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:08 PM

To pick an extreme example, human sacrifice is not permitted under the First Amendment.

Or parents who don’t want their children vaccinated. Or have surgery because it violates their religious views.

There are limits.

SteveMG on January 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM

And the state has a very strong interest in preventing human sacrifice, which would be murder, and in preventing parents from making a health choice for their children that exposes them to crippling and fatal diseases. What strong state interest is there in making sure adult, working women don’t have to pay $5 for their monthly birth control? Or $10 for a morning after pill? And even if the state had such an interest, why make the employer pay for it? If the state has determined that society will collapse if adult working women have to pay for their birth control, then the state should provide it to them. I don’t agree with the premise, but I don’t see the logic in forcing an employer to pay for this.

mbs on January 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM

http://www.hobbylobby.com/customer_service/customer_service.cfm

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Thanks for the link – I just sent them a note.

gophergirl on January 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

…rather sensitive today?

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Tyranny? Oh, yeah. You have to watch out for us Christians. Especially us Southern Baptists. We might hit you with a piece of fried chicken. And the Methodists’ covered dishes? Oh, man. They’re deadly.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Weren’t you the guys doing a lot of lynching in the 1930s? Those mobs had all prayed in school. It’s easy to dismiss your religion’s history when you are the hangman.

For the record, I support Hobby Lobby’s right to object and opt out just as I support my right not to have my taxes funding religious nonsense.

But the question remains, is there a line to be drawn? Does a Jehova’s Witness business have the right not to provide health coverage that includes blood transfusions? Does a secular company have the right to demand religious employees show up for work even on their “holy” days?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I agree.

Rose on January 5, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

You sound as if you would have been happier if you had been born in the Soviet Union.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Wishing Hobby Lobby success… but since SCOTUS could have killed this last year but didn’t…

Khun Joe on January 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I wholeheartedly support Hobby Lobby’s position. How does that make me anti Christian? You need to lighten up just a bit.

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 3:19 PM

It all comes down to the government assuming more power than it has the right to.

Rose on January 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM

You heard it here first: Hobby Lobby just did this because they knew those idiots who follow their magic sky being would blindly march in lock step and spend their money supporting that homophobic corporation.

If they have money to spend there they can afford to pay more taxes.

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 3:19 PM

That’s not how you started the thread. I’ve seen your comments on other threads. Your name fits you.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

You sound as if you would have been happier if you had been born in the Soviet Union.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 3:15 PM

So says the hangman.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Does a Jehova’s Witness business have the right not to provide health coverage that includes blood transfusions? Does a secular company have the right to demand religious employees show up for work even on their “holy” days?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Yes and yes.

Any more dumb questions?

CurtZHP on January 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Does a Jehova’s Witness business have the right not to provide health coverage that includes blood transfusions? Does a secular company have the right to demand religious employees show up for work even on their “holy” days?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Yes.

And any company should the right to allow or not into their place of business anyone they choose.

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Weren’t you the guys doing a lot of lynching in the 1930s? Those mobs had all prayed in school. It’s easy to dismiss your religion’s history when you are the hangman.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

You mean the KKK which was supported by democrats?

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

You heard it here first: Hobby Lobby just did this because they knew those idiots who follow their magic sky being would blindly march in lock step and spend their money supporting that homophobic corporation.

If they have money to spend there they can afford to pay more taxes.

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Jesus loves you =) This is about principles and convictions…do you have any at all?

sadsushi on January 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

You heard it here first: Hobby Lobby just did this because they knew those idiots who follow their magic sky being would blindly march in lock step and spend their money supporting that homophobic corporation.

If they have money to spend there they can afford to pay more taxes.

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Jesus loves you =) This is about principles and convictions…do you have any at all?

sadsushi on January 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Ummm.

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Jesus loves you =) This is about principles and convictions…do you have any at all?

sadsushi on January 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

He’s kidding

gophergirl on January 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

So says the hangman.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Are you calling me a RAAACIIIST? The little old black lady at my church who hugs my neck on Sunday mornings and the young Americans, who happened to have been black, who I have worked with and have mentored in the business world over the last 30 years would disagree with you, Skippy.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM

ahhh my apologies davidk..didn’t sense the sarcasm at all

sadsushi on January 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

[SteveMG on January 5, 2013 at 2:27 PM]

How do you define a secular oriented entity? A religious entity, like the Catholic Church concerns itself with not just the spiritual but the temporal, and while the goal is the spiritual, the goal can only be achieved through the temporal and not just for its members but everyone regardless of faith.

Is it based on who the doors are open to and who is invited or welcome? Everyone is welcome at a Catholic Church. Everyone is invited, in one way or another to enter. Everyone is invited to participate in the Mass to one degree or another, and each’s ability is premised your connections to the entity, not unlike having a shopper’s club card.

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

It appears this is no longer a christian nation. Heck of a job there King Obama.

unseen on January 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM

You mean the KKK which was supported by democrats?

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I mean the people with Bibles who had prayer in school regardless of political affiliation.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Yes and yes.

Any more dumb questions?

CurtZHP on January 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Should any company be required to pay at least minimum wage or provide workman’s comp? Should there be any safety standards at all?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

A company should not be forced to provide health insurance if the company has a religious objection.

Rose on January 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM

FIFY

GWB on January 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I just made my purchase. My wife will be receiving some nice candles from Hobby Lobby as part of her Valentine’s Day gift. :) :) :)

I am going to spend my money somewhere; I might as well spend it with a company who is fighting for my rights and my beliefs.

I think this is the main difference between conservatives and liberals:

Conservatives are willing to put up money to support their conservative ideals.
Liberals are willing to put up other people’s money to support their liberal ideals.

Theophile on January 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Are you calling me a RAAACIIIST? The little old black lady at my church who hugs my neck on Sunday mornings and the young Americans, who happened to have been black, who I have worked with and have mentored in the business world over the last 30 years would disagree with you, Skippy.

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM

ahhh my apologies davidk..didn’t sense the sarcasm at all

sadsushi on January 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

…some of these folks don’t read here much…or at least not very often…so… there is that kind of ignorance to the cast of characters here!…
…then of course…there ARE the liberals with short term genetic memories!

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Should any company be required to pay at least minimum wage or provide workman’s comp? Should there be any safety standards at all?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

…where do you live?…on the planet of Anus?

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Does a Jehova’s Witness business have the right not to provide health coverage that includes blood transfusions? Does a secular company have the right to demand religious employees show up for work even on their “holy” days?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Does an employee have the right to blood transfusions because they want it? Does a secular company have the right to demand someone be an employee?

Are you being frivolous in asking questions stripped of all other considerations? Or are you seriously pursuing the limits to the definition of rights?

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Weren’t you the guys doing a lot of lynching in the 1930s? Those mobs had all prayed in school. It’s easy to dismiss your religion’s history when you are the hangman.

****

But the question remains, is there a line to be drawn? Does a Jehova’s Witness business have the right not to provide health coverage that includes blood transfusions? Does a secular company have the right to demand religious employees show up for work even on their “holy” days?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Whoa, there, kiddo – I think you are waaayyy over generalizing and have swallowed too much progressive Koolaid. While it is true that religious people in the south took part in lynchings, so did non-religious people. Oh, yes, and it was non-religious so-called “scientists” who, around that same time period, developed the theory that the black men and women were less “evolved” than a white men and women and therefore subjecting them to things like forced sterilization, forced abortions, harsher education methods, etc., etc. was not only acceptable, but good for their ongoing “evolution.” Google “scientific racism” sometime and open your eyes. Your attempt to blame all the racism of the past on religion is not just naive, it’s willfully idiotic.

It always strikes me as laughably stupid how people like you continually argue that this was never a “Christian nation” and was, instead, founded on Enlightenment principles, but never ackowledge that this means that your so-called “Enlightened” leaders, not just the religious ones, supported and propagated the idea and reality of slavery and racism. Some of the most racist individuals in the history of this country were “enlightened” progressives who scoffed at Christians: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Andrew Carnegie, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, pretty much the entire scientific community that bought into eugenics and phrenology in the late 1800s up until the 1940s. Oh, yes, the blood is on your hands too.

As to the second part of your post: we already do allow employers to say no to an official holiday for particular employees’ holy days. Most companies don’t give off Good Friday, Rosh Hashanna, or Yom Kippor. Christmas is a holdover of tradition but isn’t really about “Christ’s Mass” any more.

Of course, the answer to all of this is for employers to stop offering health insurance. Even under Obamacare, they don’t have to any more – just force all employees to go to the exchanges. That was the idea behind the whole deal anyway – to herd the employees eventually into a government run system.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Yes & yes, given that they are reasonable.

I’ve seen your series of questions. They are drifting further & further from being apt to the discussion.

22044 on January 5, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Yes & yes, given that they are reasonable.

I’ve seen your series of questions. They are drifting further & further from being apt to the discussion.

22044 on January 5, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Ya think :)

gophergirl on January 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Should a business owned by Christian Scientist have to provide any health coverage at all?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

No.

Bobbertsan on January 5, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Does a Jehova’s Witness business have the right not to provide health coverage that includes blood transfusions? Does a secular company have the right to demand religious employees show up for work even on their “holy” days?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Yes. But a Jehovah’s Witness doesn’t believe that a blood transfusion is taking a life. I don’t believe that they care at all if other people get blood transfusions (same thing with Christian Scientists and healthcare that someone raised elsewhere). But employers shouldn’t be forced to provide healthcare for anyone.

As for companies being able to demand religious employees work on holy days…I’m not sure what the point of this question is, they already do unless a union contract or something says they can’t.

29Victor on January 5, 2013 at 4:14 PM

No.

Bobbertsan on January 5, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Of course you’re right, no one should be compelled to offer health insurance. But the question is a red herring (or a straw man, not sure). Christian Scientist don’t see someone else receiving health care as evil, they just don’t believe in doing it themselves. That’s different than forcing a Christian to provide abortion coverage (or birth control coverage or whatever) for employees. In that case the Christian is being forced to participate and pay for an act that they consider to be a great evil.

29Victor on January 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Should a business owned by Christian Scientist have to provide any health coverage at all?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

…?…ok!…I’ll play!…should you have to sit down and pee even if there are urinals available in the bathroom?

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2013 at 4:18 PM

We need a Hobby Lobby day!

The nearest one I know of from here is an hour and a half up north into New York. I think we’ll be making the trip at some point.

JellyToast on January 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

How did it come to be that ANY business has to provide medical coverage to its employees?

That’s a recent development.

Cleombrotus on January 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I will answer that question for you, Cleo.

Back during good old W.W.I.I., when most of our men were off fighting a two-front war and doing things American pu$$ies find unspeakable now (sorry; couldn’t help myself), the union presence was not felt in American industry quite as keenly as it had been since before World War I. With just about all of America’s industrial efforts focused on the war, a Democrat-led government had absolutely zero problem with instituting an across-the-board wage-and-price freeze. When the boys got back, the freeze was still in place and not set to expire for some time since the war itself ended rather abruptly (thank you, Fat Man and Little Boy).

With the American industrial machine turned back to civilian ends, the unions made themselves felt once again and extracted promises of “fringe benefits” such as health insurance, paid vacation, and other non-cash valuables as an end-run around the wage-and-price freeze. Naturally, the freeze didn’t last long, but in the rush for businesses to compete with each other for the influx of post-war labor, fringe benefits never went away. That is why businesses have fringe benefits at all. If you don’t have them at one place, you can always go to work for someone else.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM

It always strikes me as laughably stupid how people like you continually argue that this was never a “Christian nation” and was, instead, founded on Enlightenment principles, but never ackowledge that this means that your so-called “Enlightened” leaders, not just the religious ones, supported and propagated the idea and reality of slavery and racism.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Bingo, bango, boingo!

They use the fact that 90%+ of people in the South at the time considered themselves Christians to try to pin lynching and such on Christianity. Christianity just happened to be the dominant faith in the area at the time, therefore any atrocities committed were probably by Christians. It’s not a matter of theology, it’s a matter of statistics.

As a bonus, these same people will often pretend that the atrocities committed by officially atheist governments cannot be attributed to atheism.

29Victor on January 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM

We need a Hobby Lobby day!

The nearest one I know of from here is an hour and a half up north into New York. I think we’ll be making the trip at some point.

JellyToast on January 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

O guess I should read the whole post before I comment! Today is the day!

JellyToast on January 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Hobby Lobby’s online shopping website link.

Thanks for the link Ed. Hobby Lobby’s online store is being kinda slow, I hope that means tons of people are going there!

29Victor on January 5, 2013 at 4:24 PM

O guess I should read the whole post before I comment! Today is the day!

JellyToast on January 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM

:)

22044 on January 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I will answer that question for you, Cleo.

Back during good old W.W.I.I., when most of our men were off fighting a two-front war and doing things American pu$$ies find unspeakable now (sorry; couldn’t help myself), the union presence was not felt in American industry quite as keenly as it had been since before World War I. With just about all of America’s industrial efforts focused on the war, a Democrat-led government had absolutely zero problem with instituting an across-the-board wage-and-price freeze. When the boys got back, the freeze was still in place and not set to expire for some time since the war itself ended rather abruptly (thank you, Fat Man and Little Boy).

With the American industrial machine turned back to civilian ends, the unions made themselves felt once again and extracted promises of “fringe benefits” such as health insurance, paid vacation, and other non-cash valuables as an end-run around the wage-and-price freeze. Naturally, the freeze didn’t last long, but in the rush for businesses to compete with each other for the influx of post-war labor, fringe benefits never went away. That is why businesses have fringe benefits at all. If you don’t have them at one place, you can always go to work for someone else.

It’s also because businesses are allowed to expense health insurance benefits, thereby allowing these benefits to be used as an accounting trick to lower income in order to decrease the tax burden. Of course, this little trick is most effectively used by … wait for it … public companies like GE, who support large government programs and largess. These are the same companies that, because of accounting tricks like this, pay almost no income tax at all. Smaller and mid-sized businesses offer such benefits because they care about their employees – and in many cases probably still would even if the tax benefit was removed (especially if those employees could not get their own insurance). Be assured that GE, Oracle, et al., (you know, all the companies controlled primarily by liberals) couldn’t give a rat’s behind about their employees’ welfare and would nix this benefit in an instant if it didn’t serve the accounting purpose.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Be assured that GE, Oracle, et al., (you know, all the companies controlled primarily by liberals) couldn’t give a rat’s behind about their employees’ welfare and would nix this benefit in an instant if it didn’t serve the accounting purpose.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Businesses don’t exist for employee welfare, and well they shouldn’t. They exist to turn a profit. The truth of the matter is that fringe benefits were accrued the same way income taxation and withholding were: On falses premises that we’ve forgotten about a mere 2-4 generations later.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Should any company be required to pay at least minimum wage or provide workman’s comp? Should there be any safety standards at all?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Wow, I was just being sarcastic, but you really do have more dumb questions.

CurtZHP on January 5, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Bingo, bango, boingo!

They use the fact that 90%+ of people in the South at the time considered themselves Christians to try to pin lynching and such on Christianity. Christianity just happened to be the dominant faith in the area at the time, therefore any atrocities committed were probably by Christians. It’s not a matter of theology, it’s a matter of statistics.

As a bonus, these same people will often pretend that the atrocities committed by officially atheist governments cannot be attributed to atheism.

29Victor on January 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Also remember that the leadership in the south were primarily made up of non-practicing Anglicans (read “Episcopals” for the modern term), who by-and-large thought that Christian “myths” and theology were largely hooey. Jefferson is the prime example. There was never a more racist man on this planet. His objections to slavery had more to do with the inconsistency with his own beliefs about humanity – yet he kept his slaves and argue vehemently against abolition because of their inferiority.

Oh, yes – you’re right about communism. According to the faithful, it’s never really been tried. Egotist like Stalin and Mao created “cults of personality” that interfered and were supposedly the cause of all the death and destruction. No “real” atheist would slaughter thousands for an ideology. Ugh … the denial is worse than an addict’s.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Should any company be required to pay at least minimum wage or provide workman’s comp? Should there be any safety standards at all?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Wow, I was just being sarcastic, but you really do have more dumb questions.

CurtZHP on January 5, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I’ll say it:

There should be no federal or state minimum wage. I’m against worker’s comp and government safety standards on-principle, but both can be constitutionally enforced at the state level. Ya know, kind of like how I felt about Romneycare?

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Businesses don’t exist for employee welfare, and well they shouldn’t. They exist to turn a profit. The truth of the matter is that fringe benefits were accrued the same way income taxation and withholding were: On falses premises that we’ve forgotten about a mere 2-4 generations later.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM

I don’t disagree with you, but a good business knows to treat its good employees well. The investment of time, training and experience in good working people is invaluable and keeping those employees is of paramount importance. I started my own law firm three years ago with four partners (the second business I’ve formed and not the last) and have had many employees, good and bad. I gladly offer the good employees benefits, just as every good business man and women knows that good employees should be offered benefits (or higher compensation) to reward the value (and profit) they bring to the business.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 4:43 PM

What is your problem with me kingjester? Just say what you mean to say.

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

You’re a gnat or part of a plankton bank.

I meant every word.

Schadenfreude on January 5, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I don’t disagree with you, but a good business knows to treat its good employees well. The investment of time, training and experience in good working people is invaluable and keeping those employees is of paramount importance. I started my own law firm three years ago with four partners (the second business I’ve formed and not the last) and have had many employees, good and bad. I gladly offer the good employees benefits, just as every good business man and women knows that good employees should be offered benefits (or higher compensation) to reward the value (and profit) they bring to the business.

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 4:43 PM

…or you could pay them more in cash. I have no problem with fringe benefits on-principle. What I have a problem with is the idea that businesses feel obligated to provide fringe benefits in order to satisfy some nebulous idea of “fairness” as defined by our progressive overlords.

Think about how odious unions are to movement conservatives today. Then think about how if it weren’t for unions in the particular political climate that occurred in the immediate wake of World War II, most of America would hardly know what “fringe benefits” are.

I believe that employment should be nothing more than a verbal contract between individual employers and employees. My belief in this regard covers the smallest businesses and the largest corporations. It’s not that simple, and it probably never will be, but that is my belief as a conservative.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Should a business owned by Christian Scientist have to provide any health coverage at all?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

No. All a business of any kind should be force to do for their employees is to honor the contract to which they voluntarily agreed. Progressive Republicans (all Republicans) have lost their way.

elfman on January 5, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Are you being frivolous in asking questions stripped of all other considerations? Or are you seriously pursuing the limits to the definition of rights?

Dusty on January 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Yes, I’m asking the limits of the definition of rights. I realize most people here respond based on knee-jerk tribalism so most are not used to having to think about where the lines are drawn. But if there are to be limits, where are they? How far can the government go in regulating business? Businesses still use child labor overseas so it’s not like they care about employees or working conditions. Where should the line be drawn?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM

I would go even further. A private company should not be forced by the government to provide health insurance.

davidk on January 5, 2013 at 3:08 PM

100%

It should be a choice the company makes in order to attract a better selection of workers. If a company wants to not offer something as part of the wage package, then people have the choice not to apply or work there.

kim roy on January 5, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Yes, I’m asking the limits of the definition of rights. I realize most people here respond based on knee-jerk tribalism so most are not used to having to think about where the lines are drawn. But if there are to be limits, where are they? How far can the government go in regulating business? Businesses still use child labor overseas so it’s not like they care about employees or working conditions. Where should the line be drawn?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM

How about this? The rights enumerated in the first ten amendments to the constitution. And yes, that includes the right of the individual states to cover everything that the constitution doesn’t mention.

Your biggest mistake, and what pegs you instantly as a libtarded moron, is that you think people are incapable of handling their own affairs without government intervention. Civil rights given by the stroke of a pen can be taken away just as easily.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM

hatecraft on January 5, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Just curious, I get asked this all the time, so don’t get offended. How did you pick your nom? What led you to pick the word hate as part of it?

Bmore on January 5, 2013 at 5:09 PM

They use the fact that 90%+ of people in the South at the time considered themselves Christians to try to pin lynching and such on Christianity. Christianity just happened to be the dominant faith in the area at the time, therefore any atrocities committed were probably by Christians. It’s not a matter of theology, it’s a matter of statistics.

It still is. So are you saying we weren’t a Christian nation at the time but we are now? Will you at least grant that there was prayer in school at the time?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:10 PM

How about this? The rights enumerated in the first ten amendments to the constitution. And yes, that includes the right of the individual states to cover everything that the constitution doesn’t mention.

Your biggest mistake, and what pegs you instantly as a libtarded moron, is that you think people are incapable of handling their own affairs without government intervention. Civil rights given by the stroke of a pen can be taken away just as easily.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Like slavery, rape, child labor, etc?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Where should the line be drawn?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM

It should be drawn at the point where objective reality meets hypothetical abstractions and moral equivalencies.

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Destroy the economy, the middle class, the family, the church. It’s all there in the manifestos. We saw it all in the 20th century. The Panglossian or plain stupid GOP refuses to see it.

rrpjr on January 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Like slavery, rape, child labor, etc?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Slavery was outlawed by the thirteenth amendment, Chum. AMENDMENT. You know, the process by which we change the constitution? Rape is prosecuted at the state level unless the crime somehow involves crossing state lines.

Now that we have that all out of the way, yes. I do believe that states should be responsible for passing and enforcing child labor laws. The federal government should have nothing to do with it, as it is not an enumerated federal power.

Next question?

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 5:14 PM

And by the by, I find it ironic that Yul would be talking about the evils of slavery considering that I am effectively a slave to the federal government.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Like slavery, rape, child labor, etc?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Sure.
How far do you think a business would get practicing those things?
Times have changed, if you haven’t noticed.

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 5:15 PM

I find Hobby Lobbies letter to be both fair and reasonable. I am personally against the management of my affairs by outside authority. Interference in our lives should be the minimum. That should be the goal. We should not be bothered by an overburdening government. This is why I am proceeding as I am. Removing myself from the public system and the controls over me that it presumes. Hat Tip to these folks for challenging the gov. I hope they succeed. Should they come up short, perhaps they will join the many of us who refuse to support the perverted system of government we now have. May the government authority fail.

Bmore on January 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM

How about this? The rights enumerated in the first ten amendments to the constitution. And yes, that includes the right of the individual states to cover everything that the constitution doesn’t mention.

Slavery was outlawed by the thirteenth amendment, Chum.

So which is it? First you said the first ten then you jump to the thirteenth in which the government realized they needed to step in and draw a line. Oopsie. They forgot to outlaw slavery originally.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:21 PM

studentofhistory on January 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM

That is quite a simplistic view to take of probably the smartest and most well read man that ever held the Presidency. I don’t disagree with a lot of your assertions about the others but to lump TJ in with the others and to call him the most racist man on the planet, that is a bit of a stretch to say the least and he and Wilson, who probably deserves that title more than TJ were so ideologically opposed I am not sure how you would connect them as progressives. I have studied a bit of history myself, TJ had issues with religion sure, but he still understood its ability to impart society with a set of moral values. The racist issue, yes he owned slaves, but as far as being against abolition, his writings say different and in truth, right or wrong he held on to his slaves more for economic reasons, then believing them inferior. Washington was pretty much the same way.

MarshFox on January 5, 2013 at 5:23 PM

How many of you just a few weeks ago were arguing in favor of people paying for things they don’t believe in when you argue in favor of taxpayer funded Nativity scenes? Not all taxpayers are Christian. So do you support the tyrrany of the majority or not?

Should a business owned by Christian Scientist have to provide any health coverage at all?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Dan,

I began reading this thread thinking how sorry I was you in the eay you expressed your thoughts. But when you use terms like “knee jerk tribalism” all sympathy goes away.

For the first part you are an idiot. There is no such thing as a taxpayer funded Nativity scene. You people did away with that idea decades ago. The battle now is for the “right” of Christians to put their creche on the courthouse lawn without getting sued by a bunch of intolerant non-believers. Loudon County(VA) scrapped any sort of display on the courthouse lawn this year after you bastards decided that a crucified Santa was appropriate holiday decor.

You ask the moronic question “should a business owned by Christian Scientist have to provide any health coverage at all?” The better question. The one the squirrel running around in your brain cavity will never ask, is where is it the state’s right to dictate what any company offers in terms of benefits? A company owned by a Christian Scientist could well offer no health coverage or provide a stipend so that employees could find their own coverage. Hobby Lobby’s owners provide healthcare coverage for their employees but not with the mandated baby-killing stuff that is the position of bastards like you. Show me where free aborticants are a right and you might have a case. Otherwise STFU you arrogant narrow-minded douchebag.

Happy Nomad on January 5, 2013 at 5:23 PM

So which is it? First you said the first ten then you jump to the thirteenth in which the government realized they needed to step in and draw a line. Oopsie. They forgot to outlaw slavery originally.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:21 PM

I didn’t forget shit. You asked me where I thought the line should be drawn in legislating rights. And I told you: The Bill of Rights. The Thirteenth amendment didn’t enumerate a right. It specifically forbids the federal government and states from allowing a certain act. To suggest that the thirteenth amendment has anything to do with a “right” is like saying that the sixteenth amendment gives the federales the “right” to tax me without enumeration.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM

But the question remains, is there a line to be drawn? Does a Jehova’s Witness business have the right not to provide health coverage that includes blood transfusions? Does a secular company have the right to demand religious employees show up for work even on their “holy” days?

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Yup.

Because no one is required to work for that employer if they don’t like the conditions.

Same goes for child labor, etc.

And no one is compelled to purchase from that employer either.

This is what freedom means.

northdallasthirty on January 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM

They forgot to outlaw slavery originally.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:21 PM

They couldn’t, even though many wanted to.

They were brilliant enough to create a system that allowed for amendments to accomplish what the times were not ready for.

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Sure.
How far do you think a business would get practicing those things?
Times have changed, if you haven’t noticed.

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 5:15 PM

There are plenty of companies using child labor these days. You’ve heard of sweatshops I take it. In China it’s rumored that there is still slave labor going on, so I think these days not much has changed. We just offshore the unpleasantness.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:27 PM

There are plenty of companies using child labor these days. You’ve heard of sweatshops I take it. In China it’s rumored that there is still slave labor going on, so I think these days not much has changed. We just offshore the unpleasantness.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:27 PM

And the liberal dream of one-world government will not stop it.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Hobby Lobby’s owners provide healthcare coverage for their employees but not with the mandated baby-killing stuff that is the position of bastards like you. Show me where free aborticants are a right and you might have a case. Otherwise STFU you arrogant narrow-minded douchebag.

Happy Nomad on January 5, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Show me a post where I support that. I said earlier that I support Hobby Lobby’s right to opt out.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Actually they did outlaw it, before the 13th was passed, in the NW Ordinance, which was supposed to help starve off slavery all together, obviously it didn’t work, but the founders knew slavery was evil and needed to go, at the time they believed that they didn’t need to specifically put it in the Constitution, the biggest reason being the Constitution would have never passed.

MarshFox on January 5, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Show me a post where I support that. I said earlier that I support Hobby Lobby’s right to opt out.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Then, what’s your point? Simply venting your hatred of the Faith held by 78% of the American people?

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Actually they did outlaw it, before the 13th was passed, in the NW Ordinance, which was supposed to help starve off slavery all together, obviously it didn’t work, but the founders knew slavery was evil and needed to go, at the time they believed that they didn’t need to specifically put it in the Constitution, the biggest reason being the Constitution would have never passed.

MarshFox on January 5, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Ohhh yeah. The Northwest Ordinance was the source of a gigantic pissing match in the south as the cotton plantation owners griped that it would lead to blanket abolition. That pissing match came to a head in what would be known as “The American Civil War.”

gryphon202 on January 5, 2013 at 5:34 PM

I supported Hobby Lobby today! I forgot how cool that store is. :)

ooonaughtykitty on January 5, 2013 at 5:34 PM

We just offshore the unpleasantness.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Thats a non sequitur.

As far as the “sweat shops” goes, in third world countries, the people are happy to work for many times more than they could make in a company belonging to their home country. The “evil sweat shops” schtick is mostly a leftie meme.

As far as China goes, it’s a communist country. They do things the way they do things.
Do you think we should impose our values on them by force..if not force, how?

Do you think a union should be able to force a private business to dance to their tune, or have the business destroyed or move to places like China?

Mimzey on January 5, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Then, what’s your point? Simply venting your hatred of the Faith held by 78% of the American people?

kingsjester on January 5, 2013 at 5:33 PM

My point is to ask where the line should be drawn for what employers can opt out of and on what grounds. Do you people ever think about the unintended consequences of things? Do you not think about what happens when the wind blows from the other direction? With a president who is good buddies with the Muslim Brotherhood you should really keep in mind that it applies to them too, and they will push a lot harder than you.

Dan_Yul on January 5, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5