Hobby Lobby business practices

[CaptDave]

That's a poor argument. Just as we cannot specify exactly what our taxes go to, you cannot specify what the profits of a business go to (either local or foreign). And how do you know that the profits don't go to organizations that fight against those sorts of practices? As for the junk from China, try taking good look around your own home and see exactly what isn't made in china any more. Sadly, I'd wager a good amount of your own possessions are made there. But that's a whole different argument.

The China question is a legitimate one - if HL is standing on their principles as they claim regarding what they want to pay for their company provided / subsidized health insurance to cover for their employees, and if their convictions are so strong as to defy US Federal law, you would think they would be willing to pay a decent price for the goods they sell by moving production to a place that more closely reflects their principles. They are in fact supporting the very thing they claim to abhor in the US by maintaining their production in China.

So is it because they can maximize their profits if they compromise on their principles by using the almost criminally cheap labor in China? Are their principles set in stone until the balance sheet becomes part of the equation? I think the Green family are decent people who honestly believe what they are saying. But if it smells like hypocrisy, it probably is to some degree. Sorry.

[PennyQuilts]

I thought you weren’t employed so isn't hubby paying the bills now?

I am not working as an attorney. I am employed and also have a small business. Paid cash for my house and have a good car left to me by my late mother. Can't say I have much income compared to my attorney salary but I have a boatload of savings I earned and I use that for personal expenses including anything related to my kids and grandkids - including trips back east. Between that and my income, I more than pay for my share of the insurance, friend. I'm a grownup and can't imagine expecting someone else to pay my way on something I can afford, myself. Admittedly, when we go out for dinner, my husband tends to pick of the bill. Oh horrors. Since I pay all our massive vet bills, I think he is coming out ahead, however.

[kelroy55]

I'm happy that you're able to use your savings for your personal and pet expenses. That has to be such a relief to your husband.

[Hawk405359]

I'm happy that you're able to use your savings for your personal and pet expenses. That has to be such a relief to your husband.

Dude... seriously? You're going there?

[PennyQuilts]

I'm happy that you're able to use your savings for your personal and pet expenses. That has to be such a relief to your husband.

And why not since I worked hard and saved for years so I could afford a home? I keep my expenses down to just about nothing (no vacation other than to visit my kids in over twenty years), don't carry debt and don't take any government assistance? Here's a tip - you do the same and after you've worked, scrimped and saved for about thirty-five years, you might be in a position to do the same. Look, I know what it is like to be poor. I was a teen mom, twice (ended up with three kids) and didn't even start college until I was 23. Worked my butt off, went to law school, educated my kids and they are all lawyers, now and NOT a drag on society. If you are so envious that I have managed to also save enough to pay my paltry personal and pet expenses, I honestly feel sorry for you.

[venture]

How has this thread lasted outside of the garbage pit known as Politics?

[kelroy55]

Dude... seriously? You're going there?

Going where? I am happy she has the money to be able to buy the things she wants and able to pay for her pets expenses. It would be a relief for me if my other half was able to do that.

[kelroy55]

And why not since I worked hard and saved for years so I could afford a home? I keep my expenses down to just about nothing (no vacation other than to visit my kids in over twenty years), don't carry debt and don't take any government assistance? Here's a tip - you do the same and after you've worked, scrimped and saved for about thirty-five years, you might be in a position to do the same. Look, I know what it is like to be poor. I was a teen mom, twice (ended up with three kids) and didn't even start college until I was 23. Worked my butt off, went to law school, educated my kids and they are all lawyers, now and NOT a drag on society. If you are so envious that I have managed to also save enough to pay my paltry personal and pet expenses, I honestly feel sorry for you.

Like I said, I'm happy for you. I never said I was envious of you and I applaud you for the hard work you've done. Is that the reason you seem to look down on the less fortunate so much?

[Martin]

let's stick to topic and leave the analysis of people's personal lives out of the discussion. -M

[MadMonk]

The China question is a legitimate one - if HL is standing on their principles as they claim regarding what they want to pay for their company provided / subsidized health insurance to cover for their employees, and if their convictions are so strong as to defy US Federal law, you would think they would be willing to pay a decent price for the goods they sell by moving production to a place that more closely reflects their principles. They are in fact supporting the very thing they claim to abhor in the US by maintaining their production in China.

So is it because they can maximize their profits if they compromise on their principles by using the almost criminally cheap labor in China? Are their principles set in stone until the balance sheet becomes part of the equation? I think the Green family are decent people who honestly believe what they are saying. But if it smells like hypocrisy, it probably is to some degree. Sorry.

No, it's a vacuous argument. Surely you comprehend the difference between direct and indirect expenditures of money? Do you support every use of your taxes, even if some of it is used for things that go against your personal ethos? Of course not. Do you do the same for every penny of profit you give to every company you deal with? Likely not, and I'm sure you don't even know where most of those profits go. Also, if want to keep this line of thinking, where do you draw the line that constitues support? Only secondary beneficiaries of your money? Tertiary and so on? Taken to it's logical conclusion you could argue that most of us support any and all conceivable uses of our money; and the people we get our money from (income, etc) could be said to completely support everything we do with our money. Of course that's as much nonsense as post #252 above.

This is concerning the government forcing a privately-held company to directly expend their money for something that goes against the spiritual beliefs of the company's owners.

[CaptDave]

Hardly a vacuous argument MadMonk. I am not the one attempting to justify violating, or exempting my business from, federal law on religious grounds while simultaneously profiting from doing business with a government who violates those exact convictions that are supposedly the basis of that justification. To answer your question though, yes there are doubtlessly federal and state expenditures I would disagree with, but I do not attempt to reduce my tax payments by a proportional amount. The line is drawn where Hobby Lobby knowingly supports an entity - the Chinese government - that has policies that are also directly in contradiction to their beliefs yet is willing to violate the laws of the United States. Why do they believe in standing on convictions in the US and not in China? The Green family is playing both sides of the same fundamental question - do they, or do they not support abortion in any way, shape, or fashion? It appears the answer depends on geography and economic factors more than beliefs when it comes to their company. I actually agree with their beliefs in more ways than not, but this is a fair question to ask.

[Bunty]

This is concerning the government forcing a privately-held company to directly expend their money for something that goes against the spiritual beliefs of the company's owners.

Then would you have supported businesses who did not want to be forced to serve Blacks back during the 1960s? Maybe they justified the spirit in doing that from the Bible, or their religion.

[MadMonk]

They are not directly buying anything. This argument is perfectly valid. They contributing for employee insurance. They contribute toward retirement. They contribute toward Medicare.

They are not directly buying anything -- except an insurance policy.

Unless I'm wrong, please tell me specifically what they are DIRECTLY buying?

I'm not an insurance expert, but as I understand it, they are self-insured, so they don't contribute to an outside insurance company for their employees. Therefore they are directly paying for the medication, procedures, etc.

And then tell me that what they are directly buying violates their religious principles.

They have clearly stated that what is violating their beliefs is having to pay (directly via their own insurance infrastructure) for medication that has the capability of killing the fertilized egg by not allowing it to attach to the womb.

If you are self-employed and are buying insurance, guess what. You are paying an insurance company to cover procedures you may believe is immoral.

I might agree if they aren't self-insured and paying directly for this medication. Perhaps this is one reason why they are self insured?

[MadMonk]

God only knows what people do with their salary they are directly giving to their employees.

See, now you are getting it. That would be indirectly funding your smoking/drinking, etc. That sort of argument is as invalid as the argument against someone dealing with a Chinese company and saying that they fund abortions.

[MadMonk]

Then would you have supported businesses who did not want to be forced to serve Blacks back during the 1960s? Maybe they justified the spirit in doing that from the Bible, or their religion.

Another non sequitur, but I'm not surprised.

[MadMonk]

I hope no one here is buying insurance from a company that provides coverage to bank robbers. That would be incredibly immoral. That would be like you were stealing.

Exactly. This is the sort of nonsense argument that doesn't work with those who try it with the whole Hobby Lobby/China thing.

[MadMonk]

The line is drawn where Hobby Lobby knowingly supports an entity - the Chinese government - that has policies that are also directly in contradiction to their beliefs yet is willing to violate the laws of the United States.

I hope you don't by gasoline or oil products or you are a terrorist supporter according to that line of thinking. You can't buy many produce items either or you are supporting slave labor condition for illegal aliens.

[CaptDave]

I hope you don't by gasoline or oil products or you are a terrorist supporter according to that line of thinking. You can't buy many produce items either or you are supporting slave labor condition for illegal aliens.

Once again, it is not I that is seeking an exemption from, or openly stating an intent to violate, federal law based on a personal belief. I am not demonstrating selective outrage as is Hobby Lobby.

[MadMonk]

I think that many of you are just not understanding my viewpoint concerning dealing with China in a business relationship.

Neither you nor a company can control where your money goes beyond the point of where you choose to spend it. If hobby lobby uses a source in China that they agree with their business practices (and I know people who confirm that they are careful in this respect), then they have no control over what happens to the money after they spend it, good, bad, or indifferent. That would be like saying you are directly supporting communism or forced abortions by buying stuff from Wal Mart, or Hobby Lobby, or any myriad other companies out there. If you are against these things, yet buy something from a US company that happens to be made in China, that does not mean you a hypocrite. The same thing goes for a company.

It's nonsense and only serves to distract from the main point of the thread. A private company, that provides their own insurance, should not be forced to provide payment for medication that does things that they disgree with based on religious grounds. If you have no problem with the morning after medication, and feel that your company's insurance benefits should include the drug, you are free to find an employer who does or simply pay for it yourself.

[MadMonk]

Once again, it is not I that is seeking an exemption from, or openly stating an intent to violate, federal law based on a personal belief. I am not demonstrating selective outrage as is Hobby Lobby.

I can't make it any clearer for you, that the secondary uses of their money that they disagree with and have no control over in no way makes them hypocritical or "selectively outraged".

[Easy180]

I think that many of you are just not understanding my viewpoint concerning dealing with China in a business relationship.

That would be like saying you are directly supporting communism or forced abortions by buying stuff from Wal Mart, or Hobby Lobby, or any myriad other companies out there. If you are against these things, yet buy something from a US company that happens to be made in China, that does not mean you a hypocrite. The same thing goes for a company.

Kinda does make you a hypocrite

[MadMonk]

Kinda does make you a hypocrite

I don't agree, but if you think that way, you must consider everyone to be hypocrites, except those that have somehow found a way to purge everything from their life that was made in China (or any other country you find objectionable).

[MadMonk]

Isn't that our argument as well though? No company can control what an employee buys with their salary, their unemployment check, their social security check, or their insurance policy.

But they aren't controlling their employees' money, only controlling what they are offering to pay for. Thy aren't saying that the employee is barred from purchasing the drug themselves. In the context of the point i was making with this post (that the company isn't responsible for what the Chinese use their money for), perhaps instead of "control", a better term would be "bear responsibility for".

[Easy180]

I don't agree, but if you think that way, you must consider everyone to be hypocrites, except those that have somehow found a way to purge everything from their life that was made in China (or any other country you find objectionable).

Only those that make money off business dealings in China are hypocrite eligible in this type of situation

[Bunty]

Another non sequitur, but I'm not surprised.

You have got to be kidding. Seriouslyl, in no way, shape or form can it possibly be a non sequitur, if a company claims it should have the right to discriminate against hiring blacks and not get fined as long as it is doing so out of religious conviction.