Hobby Lobby Goes ‘Over The Cliff’

If you haven’t been following the headlines, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is headed “over the cliff,” today, with respect to its decision to defy the Obamacare mandate covering birth control and “morning after” contraceptives.

Here’s what makes the story interesting.  Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is a privately owned company, founded and operated by David Green.  Green is very well known as an outspoken Evangelical Christian who has publicly professed to building his business based on Biblical principles.   Like the Cathy family who operates the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, Green closes his stores on Sunday.  He also contributes millions of dollars each year to charity.  Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is self-insured, and provides full coverage health insurance to 13,000 of its company’s 21,000 employees.  He runs a clinic that provides free health care to insured employees, and reduced cost health services to others.  Hobby Lobby also sets its starting pay for full time employees at $11.00 an hour, $3.75 more than the Federal minimum wage.

All of these items read like a proverbial wish list of “fair working conditions,” the kinds of things that should elicit strong support from liberals.

But apparently none of this matters any more, for David Green and his family have committed an essentially unpardonable sin in the eyes of liberals: they view morning after pills as simply another form of pharmaceutical abortifacients.*  Consequently, the health insurance that his company offers its employees pays for other forms of birth control, but does not pay for morning after pills.  (Employees are not “prohibited” from using morning after pills – that would be impossible, of course – but if they use them they must pay for them out of pocket.)

This runs afoul of the new Federal employer group health insurance coverage mandates issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, which state that all insureds must be offered the full range of birth control and “morning after” contraceptive treatments, with no co-pay, co-insurance, or deductible charges.

Earlier in the year, the Greens filed suit in Federal Court, claiming that the mandate violated their First Amendment right of free exercise of religion, since it would force them to engage in a practice (providing a drug that might induce abortions) that runs contrary to their religious beliefs.  A lower court ruled that as a privately owned business, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. did not meet the definition of a “religious group” and therefore its religious freedom would not be “substantially burdoned” by the HHS mandate.  Last week, Supreme Court justice Sandra Sotomayor concurred with the lower court’s ruling and denied Hobby Lobby’s request to be included in an injunction given to religious organizations while their own lawsuits are pending.

After the Supreme Court ruling, an attorney for the company issued a statement that David Green has no intention of complying with the HHS mandate, which takes effect on Jan. 1. 2013.  If he does not comply, his business faces a fine of $100 per day for each insured employee, or approximately $1.3 million dollars a day.  Green has vowed to pay the fine until his lawsuit is finally settled.

Unsurprisingly, despite Hobby Lobby’s impressive record as an employer that provides fair working conditions to its employees, it has received zero support from the Left.  Instead, liberals have tried to demonize Hobby Lobby.   They have smeared the Greens as “liars” because their beliefs about morning after pills have been contradicted by recent scientific studies.  And they have accused the Greens of that most dastardly of social sins – they allegedly want to control what goes on inside their employees’ bedrooms.  Oh, the horror.

Consequently, liberals seem perfectly OK with the punitive destruction of an otherwise good businesses simply because its owners publicly defend their traditional Christian beliefs and refuse to worship the politically correct gods of “reproductive choice” offered by the state.  This is, apparently, the new liberal litmus test for social responsibility.  Things that used to serve as markers for “corporate responsibility” and “workplace fairness” no longer seem to be of any consequence.   And this new litmus test has been accompanied by a huge media and entertainment propaganda campaign centered around the lie than anyone who questions the HHS mandate wants to “ban contraception.”

But when you strip away all the noise and trappings, the Left’s position is rather ugly and hard to comprehend:

  1. The guarantee of free birth control supersedes the right of a company to stay in business and keep its workers employed and compensated with pay and benefits
  2. A company has no right to stay in business if they question a government mandate, even one they find morally objectionable
  3. Punitive and silly sanctions against such a company are perfectly acceptable (e.g. including single male employees in the tabulation of a fine directly related to morning after pills, which are prescribed only to women)
  4. There is little or no concern about whether the money extorted by the government through such means could have otherwise been put to better use

So here’s a challenge to our liberal friends: instead of the usual boilerplate arguments about “reproductive choice” and “right to privacy”, why not defend the positions I’ve outlined above?   I’d like to know why being obedient to government mandates regarding employee benefits supersedes a company’s right to remain in business.  Then you could explain how putting a company out of business because it doesn’t pay for morning after pills benefits the common good.  Or, how outrageous fines levied by the government constitute the most beneficial use of private money.

Come on – the Greens are worth over $2 billion, so you’ve got some time to think about it.


*When the FDA originally approved the ‘Plan B’ pill in 1999, it published the following statement: “Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation).”   Even though subsequent research involving ‘morning after’ drugs like Plan B (now called Plan B One Step) and Ella has failed to validate all of these claims, and the manufacturer of Plan B has petitioned the FDA many times, the FDA has declined to retract this statement.  Consequently, conservative religious groups, both Protestant and Catholic, consider ‘morning after’ pills to be the equivalent of an abortifacient, since they might prevent a fertilized egg from thriving.  Because many ardent pro-lifers define human life as beginning at fertilization, they argue that they are, at worst, erring on the side of caution by opposing the use or funding of Plan B.

If you want to support Hobby Lobby Stores, there is already a plan underway to make Saturday Jan. 5 “Hobby Lobby Day.”  Visit the stores (if there is one near you) and buy something.  Or buy something online at http://www.hobbylobby.com.

Bank of America Sues Customer, What Happened to Acting Like Humans?
House GOP Now Regrets Not Pushing "Plan B"
  • I’d rather see them tell Obama to go Fuxx himself and then close all the stores. Put all those workers on the Unemployment rolls. Many others will be following suit shortly due to Obamacare.

    • jim_m

      I’m waiting for the presidential order calling for the seizure of assets for companies failing to comply with the obamacare act.

      • We’ve got just a bit over 4 years to see that happen.

        • jim_m

          I admire your confidence that obama will step down in 4 years.

          • Of course Obama will step down during the 2017 presidential inauguration. Only someone with Obama Derangement Syndrome would believe that he wouldn’t.

          • jim_m

            He has stated publicly that he does not believe in our constitution and that it is seriously flawed. Other dems (Bev Perdue) have called for suspension of elections. Still others have called for making him a dictator so he “can just get things done”.

            It’s not that I really think he won’t go. It’s just that I will believe it when I see it. Certainly if there were enough voices calling for him to stay his ego would never allow him to not accede to those demands.

          • LiberalNightmare

            I seem to remember more than a few liberals claiming that Bush would suspend elections.

          • jim_m

            True, but then no one on the right was actually advocating for such a thing. As in most cases, what the left accuses the right of is what they are desiring to do themselves.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Id prefer that they layoff the obama voters.

  • cindy ingram

    Believe me, I’m not the ANTI-CHRIST, but have ANY of you thought about the LOGICAL question – WHY IS IT OKAY TO SUPPORT COMMUNIST CHINA AND MAKE BILLIONS TO LINE YOUR POCKET – A COUNTRY WHERE, IF YOU ARE LUCKY, YOU ARE ABORTED AS A FEMALE??? CHINA HAS A TENDANCY TO KILL FEMALE INFANTS – Do you think David Green just figures, they’re JUST CHINESE BABIES? Seriously, do you think JESUS would do that?

    • jim_m

      I’d back off on whatever you’re taking.

      • Or maybe take something completely different…

        • JWH

    • LiberalNightmare

      The logical question?

      • retired.military

        Yeah the logical question – why a proabortion supporter brings up China’s abortion policy when speaking against a company who is fighting forced abortion coverage by the US govt

    • JWH

      … not to mention that the new Knight Rider sucked because there was no David Hasselhoff.

    • retired.military

      i am quite certain cindy has no problems with american female fetuses being aborted.

      Funny how someone wants to bring up China’s policies, ignores the US policies and wants to rant against a company which is antiabortion. Liberalism = Hypocracy at its core.

      • Poo Flingin Monkey

        You make absolutely no sense. Hobby Lobby makes a ton of money stocking cheap junk from China thereby supporting the economy of a government that provides abortions to women. When it comes to religious beliefs or worshipping the almighty dollar, religion walks and the dollar talks. THAT’S hypocrisy.

    • JWH

      Also, aardvark.

      • Mmmm…. that’s some good eatin’ on one of those things…

    • Poo Flingin Monkey

      She’s right. Abortion is legal in China and is provided BY THE GOVERNMENT to any woman who wants one. Greens religious beliefs play second fiddle to the almighty dollar. He’s a hypocrite.

  • Once again, ‘perfect’ as defined by the left is the enemy of ‘really, really pretty darn decent conditions for lower-level workers’.

    “Consequently, the health insurance that his company offers its employees pays for other forms of birth control,</i/ but does not pay for morning after pills. (Employees are not “prohibited” from using morning after pills – that would be impossible, of course – but if they use them they must pay for them out of pocket.)”

    And what’s the out of pocket expense for that, anyway? Drugstore.com has a “Plan B” morning after pill for $50. Is it realistic to expect that a company which DOES already pay for birth control for its employees have to foot that too?

    How much longer until the government decides a business has to ALSO provide its employees a certain amount of calories per pay period? Maybe 2 of these per week per employee?


    Yeah, you might laugh at the idea now – but mandating an employer pay for free birth control was laughed at a decade ago.

  • herddog505

    Waiting for our resident lefties to thunder that Hobby Lobby isn’t above THE LAW.

    If they can throw in some gratuitous slurs against the Catholic Church and Christians generally while they’re at it, that’s just the cherry on top.

    • Commander_Chico

      Supreme Court already ruled Obamacare is a tax. So Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay a tax.

      How is this different from pacifists withholding a proportion of their taxes according to the defense / Afghan war / nuke weapon budget, or “sovereign citizens” who refuse to recognize the authority of the government to tax at all.

      Before you answer, consider that many pacifists and even some “sovereign citizens” are following their religious beliefs.

      Also consider that any discrimination by the government on the basis of religious viewpoints would be against the First Amendment.

      • jim_m

        Historically, organizations and individuals have been exempted from laws that would force them to violate religious belief. So what you are really saying is that you believe that the tax code should be used to regulate and oppress religious belief and practice.

        Your bullshit example of pacifism does not require the pacifist to go out and directly buy weapons. The tax in obamacare is a tax levied only if you refuse to buy healthcare that pays for abortion. There is a difference.

        As for the 1st amendment violation that is obamacare, it has not yet been ruled on by the Supreme Court so don’t go telling me that it is constitutional. Plus, we know already that Kagan and Sotomayor will vote that it is constitutional because they don’t believe in the constitution to begin with, being leftists.

        • Commander_Chico

          Historically, organizations and individuals have been exempted from laws that would force them to violate religious belief.

          Not in the case of taxes, and only in limited cases otherwise. Conscientious objection to military service is the only thing I can think of.

          The religious pacifist example is directly analogous. Hobby Lobby is also not being forced to go out and directly buy birth control pills. Just as with defense, they have to pay a tax which goes to a government contractor.

          • jim_m

            The difference is that they are paying for insurance that does everything BUT pay for abortion. They are being forced to pay for abortion. THAT violates their religious principles. The choice is to either violate those beliefs or to be fined for not doing so.

            There is no other analogous situation. The reality is that you don’t care about violating other people’s religious beliefs.

          • Commander_Chico

            That’s like pacifists who pay taxes for everything BUT nukes.

          • Gail Finke

            No, it’s not.

          • What about the employees who may not share the beliefs of the company owner? Lets say I start a company, but I only believe in faith healing, can I deny all medical coverage in that case to employees who may not share my belief? If you dont believe in contraception, don’t use it, but you cannot force your employees in line with your personal beliefs, that violates the constitution. I respect everyones right to personal beliefs, but they do not hold when trying to take away options to others who may believe somthing different.

          • What ever happened to the concept of doing something for yourself? Birth control isn’t expensive. Keeping your pants zipped is free. Plan B is about $40-50. Condoms aren’t expensive.

            As far as the faith-healing stuff goes – I think it should be your right to start a company and not provide insurance. I sure wouldn’t work for you, but there’d be some who’d come for the paycheck (I’m assuming you’d pay your employees the insurance money you’re not paying otherwise, right?) for a time – and then go elsewhere.

            And apparently you missed the point where Hobby Lobby is paying for contraception – just not the ‘Plan B’ kits. So – why the outrage, bub?

          • Nah I saw that, it just wasnt a major talking point down here. I am not saying hobby lobby is evil, or am i that upset, I just believe that a company owner should not be able to force personal beliefs on employees by denying what are now legal benifits. would not make this argument unless it was now law. So the law protects individuals who have differeing beliefs than an employer and I am perfectly comfortable with that.
            And the faith healing was just an example, I can start a 1099 if I desire, but all I was framing is that my personal beliefs should have no say over the coverage of my employers. I’ll buy a morning after pill if one is needed, but the law may not favor religions, and if that insurance coverage is law, then it must be respected and you cannot offer less because you believe somthing different.
            They may be a cool employer but putting themselevs out of business to make some point would not be intelligent or be of any benifit to anyone, I might go as far as to say it is not very christian of them, since christianity is supposed to be all about putting others needs before your own.

          • jim_m

            , I just believe that a company owner should not be able to force personal beliefs on employees

            But you believe that employees should be able to force their beliefs on their employers.

            You’re an ignorant hypocrite. And you know very little about Christianity if you believe that it says that a Christians must enable sin.

          • Dude I am trying to be polite and have a good discussion why must the name calling start?
            Explain to me how employees force beliefs on employers, in the context of contraception anyway. That would be like me saying if you owned a gun, and I took it or you sold it to me, and I killed someone, then you have enabled my sin.
            I am not citing a specific biblical quote here or anything, just using logic for my christanity statement. I would presume from my understanding of Christanity that a core tennant would be selflessness, being able to put others before ones self. So figureing that when faced between going against a personal belief or ensuring the employment of 23,000 people, the obvious choice for a good Christian would be ensureing the employment at the expense of personal belief. Hell I am an athiest and I would give up my personal belief, at least in this context, to ensure the employment of 23,000 people, since all I am doing is “enabling” sin.
            I am not going to get into the massive contradictions that exist within Christanity, as I don’t believe it is important here, and like I said before I would rather have polite intelligent conversation, in the hopes of achieving mutual understanding, than I would to incite name calling or being a jerk.

          • jim_m

            Explain to me how employees force beliefs on employers

            You stated that it is forcing your beliefs on your employees to make them buy their own contraception. By not paying for contraception the employer does not force his beliefs upon the employee. The employee still has the right to get contraception on his own. It doesn’t cost that much.

            However, when you force the employer to pay for contraception which is against his religious beliefs, you are imposing your beliefs on him. The employer has no recourse but to violate his beliefs and enable what he believes to be a sin.

            You think you are being polite? Not hardly. You trample over other people’s religious beliefs and then you demand that we say thank you. You think that your rights to be a parasite are more important than anyone else’s religious beliefs. Just because you do not agree with these beliefs is no reason to say that they do not deserve the same protection of the 1st amendment. But you do that.

            You point out that there are varying beliefs in Christianity. So? That is not the point. The point is that religious belief is protected in this country. The point is that you do not believe that this should be so and you are willing to trash the constitution because it doesn’t infringe on YOUR freedoms.

          • Ok, so enabling sin is bad, well I bet a few of those employers get drunk on that money, or buy things like pornography. So lets not pay them because then we are enabling sin right? I don’t understand the logic, I really don’t, and believe me I am trying.
            I am not trying to trample over anyones beliefs, I personally would love if we could co-exist without all the hate, I do not believe religion has a place in govt or govt funded institutions like public schools, but i will fight for the right of every kid in that school to pray on his own, just not for the school to anction or mandate it. You claim I am a parasite yet know nothing about me, I do not live off the system, I have a job, I pay my own bills, and recieve no subsidaries, I am fortunate enough to be in this position, others are not, and I believe we need social reforms to give them an opportunity, not a free ride.
            We protect religious belief to the extent of the law, would you fight to protect the beliefs of Muslims? Including those beliefs against the law? The only real problem I find with religious beliefs in this country, is everyone jumps to defend the Christians, but if its a Muslim belief, nope no religious freedoms.

          • Nice derail. You get de train to go with it under detree in de living room?

            “I believe we need social reforms to give them an opportunity”

            We’re $16 trillion the the hole and digging. How many more reforms can we stand? And why haven’t the current crop of ‘reforms’ produced a better result?

            And if you could please explain how making ‘Plan B’ an obligatory expense for an employer that already provides insurance covering contraception costs to his employees gives them ‘an opportunity’, I’d sure like to hear it.

          • jim_m

            So you are going to say that since no person is sinless that it is no big deal to force someone to enable sin. It is no big deal to force a person to violate their religious beliefs because they do not strictly adhere to those beliefs in all circumstances at all times.

            Again, I reiterate my statement that you are anti-religious and a bigot.

            Your statement is an argument for elimination of all religious liberty. Period.

          • jim_m

            So you are going to say that since no person is sinless that it is no big deal to force someone to enable sin. It is no big deal to force a person to violate their religious beliefs because they do not strictly adhere to those beliefs in all circumstances at all times.

            Again, I reiterate my statement that you are anti-religious and a bigot.

            Your statement is an argument for elimination of all religious liberty. Period.

          • Poo Flingin Monkey

            You’re the ignorant hypocrite. In China, abortios are legal and PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Hobby Lobby stocks thir stores with cheap junk from China supporting the economy of a government that supports the very thing they object to on a religious basis. Obviously, money is more important that religious beliefs. He can afford to make a point..and score points with other conservatives..because he makes a fortune going to the Chinese.

          • As has been posted elsewhere… “How did we come to the point that religious liberty was worth violating in order to satisfy some people’s demand to be subsidized $3-6 per month for birth control?”

            You said: “I might go as far as to say it is not very christian of them, since christianity is supposed to be all about putting others needs before your own.”

            No, that’s suicidal altruism. To put others needs before your own requires that you have resources you (a) can spare, and (ii) want to do something with that (3) YOU get to decide how they’re used.

            Saying that someone MUST do something, should be forced to do something, because YOU think they should is simply you wanting to override their ability to decide for themselves whether they think it’s worth the expense.

            As it is – they pay for everything but ‘Plan B’. Seems to me there’s not much to kick about there – and the law is overreaching.

          • Gail Finke

            But as the writer said, the “legal benefit” is STUPID. It is stupid for the US government to force companies to offer this. That’s the entire point of the essay. The HHS, having found a group of doctors to declare completely elective drugs and procedures for healthy people “vital preventative healthcare” made them mandatory. And so now a company that was doing nothing wrong is suddenly breaking the law. According to you, if the government said something wrong or impractical or stupid was suddenly mandatory, citizens of the United States had no right to complain or vow civil disobedience. The government would never do that, you say? THEY JUST DID.

          • Fred

            Yah I’ll start a company called White Power and refuse to hire any Black people, I’m sure you’ll come rushing to my defense then right JLawson?

          • Garymother Freekincoleman

            It can also be divisively construed that if you can declare yourself a non-profit organization, which these corporations lawyers are probably seriously eying, you then get to push your personal beliefs wholesale on everyone who works for you. You can decide to banish/require anything that go’s against/for your personal beliefs at will, no matter what it may be, whether it’s, contraception,eating pork or bacon, or wearing a burka….the list could go on from there. Christians need to understand if this case takes hold in law…. OTHER religions can use it too, but they don’t want to think about that.

      • herddog505

        We have traditionally made (grudging) accomodations for pacifists if they could prove that they were long-standing members of a church (such as the Society of Friends) that specifically forbids its members participating in war. We also offer “outs” such as letting people serve as medics (cf. Lew Ayres).
        In this case, Uncle Sugar is directly ordering people to violate their conscience, rather like directly ordering pacifists to pay a “war tax”.
        In any event, is this the road we want to travel in our country? If so, what’s next? Where does the power of the government end?

      • Ken in Camarillo

        Wrong. You only have to pay the tax if you don’t provide insurance for your employees. This company is providing insurance for their employees, so they are not in a tax situation.

  • Why so much hate on liberals? It gets super old.

    • Evil Otto

      Y’know what really gets old, Hailey? Their attempts to control our lives.

      • Thank You! Hailey can shut up, among other things. BTW Hate isn’t the half of it, just don’t get me started with that crap! GRRRRRRRRRRRR

        • What’s the matter, ljcarolyne? Why are you telling Hailey to shut up? She has the same freedom of speech that you have.

      • In the above example how are “they” controlling you life? How is offering support for those of many different beliefs controlling your life. Mandating contraceptive and birth control coverage simply adds the option to those who want to use it, it does not force you to use condoms or other birth control. I makes it so your employer cannot control your life, by allowing each individual to choose the lifestyle and belief system that is best for them.

        • Evil Otto

          Do you even know what you’re arguing? You yourself use the word “mandating.” Forcing. By law. Thanks, you answered your own question.

          First of all, birth control is dirt cheap in this country. There is no more need for an employer to be forced to pay for it than there is for an employer to be required by law to provide coffee for the break room.

          And employment is a VOLUNTARY contract. If an employer wants to provide birth control coverage, fine. I have no problem with that. What I object to is for them to be FORCED to do so… which is controlling the life of the employer. Employers have right too, Understudy… not that you mention that (or are even apparently aware of it). If an employer (for religious, or economic, or any other reason) does not wish to do so, that is also their right. If the employee doesn’t like it, let them seek out a company more to their liking.

          Your whole argument is exactly what I’m talking about, Understudy. You don’t even comprehend the idea of leaving people alone, do you? No, employers must be forced to provide birth control simply because you want them to, whether they object or not. And should they resist, you’re cool with using the police power of government to compel compliance. You on the left constantly attempt to control people’s lives, the very sin you accuse the right of.

    • Disagreement isn’t hate, much as many seem to believe otherwise. If you say we should go out and spend much more than we take in, and I disagree, that’s not hate – that’s being fiscally prudent.

      Maybe to you that seems like being hateful because we’re standing in the way of you getting what you want – but the simple fact is that there’s never enough money for everything you might want. There never was, there never will be.

      • herddog505

        “Hate” is the new “NAZI!”

    • LiberalNightmare

      Im sure that if you really tire of your treatment here, you can find someplace where you are more welcome.

      • Disqus ID shows she’s a one-post wonder, most likely in college.

    • Commander_Chico

      next time be naked on your picture.

    • Vagabond661

      Tell that to the guy who wants to drag around NRA members:

      “If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

      • Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.”


      Projection by liberals. It gets super old. Fer sure.

      • But they’re NOT violent, dammit, and they’ll kick the teeth in of anyone who disagrees!

        • Lol crazy hate comes from all sides, usually from the 1% of people who are radicals. As an athiest growing up in a Christian community I’ve felt that hate, I’ve had the shit kicked out of me, but it does not mean I hate all who are religious, or think they are all morons, each person is an individual, and the small radical population gives every social sect a bad name depending on the readers personal belief.

          • jim_m

            As an atheist who became a Christian, I can tell you that you have a cartoon like understanding of Christian faith. You think yourself clever, being able to make allusions to scripture, but you don’t really understand what it is saying.

            You have an ability to recite words without understanding their meaning. You think that it makes you superior in knowledge to people who actually do understand the meaning. What it really does is demonstrate your intolerance and animosity toward religion. You assume that your incomplete knowledge is superior and you then use that incomplete knowledge to criticize others. You are invincible in your ignorance because you know only a part but assume it is complete and no one can instruct you otherwise. You are to be most pitied.

        • Lol crazy hate comes from all sides, usually from the 1% of people who are radicals. As an athiest growing up in a Christian community I’ve felt that hate, I’ve had the shit kicked out of me, but it does not mean I hate all who are religious, or think they are all morons, each person is an individual, and the small radical population gives every social sect a bad name depending on the readers personal belief.

  • Hey, been needing some things from Hobby Lobby, so I’ll be there on the 5th!
    America doesn’t need another Mandate from the Usurper BHO, enough is enough! The only mandate needed is get rid of the Obamanation Regime, whatever it takes. NOW!

    • Brucehenry

      Please tell us how “BHO” “usurped” power. Also, when getting rid of the “Obamanation Regime,” what all is included in “whatever it takes”?

      • Yeah. I’d also like to read an explanation.

        • Brucehenry

          Kook got 3 up votes so far, dude.

          • He was duly elected, so he didn’t surp. Or unsurp. He may have been voted into office by gullible idiots looking for a handout or folks who just plain hate the other party – but it was a legitimate vote, I got my beefs with the guy, but he’s where he is legitimately.

          • herddog505

            Agreed. Barry got elected legally; he didn’t sieze power or get his office in an unconstitutional manner.

  • Chris

    well written, thanks for sharing!

  • countrygirl

    Unfair! just to clarify not every liberal agrees with abortion just as not every conservative is pro-life. No one completely agrees with every view in either party and if they do it’s only because they compromised their own beliefs to become a cookie from the same cutter. I am pro-life, don’t depend on the government to support my family and am a proud liberal. I will support Hobby Lobby’s freedom to make this choice.

  • Iosef Djugashivili

    Are the Greens available to babysit? How on EARTH can anyone blame the government for what happens to Hobby Lobby’s employees, should the Green family choose to put their own company under, in order to make a point about their “religious beliefs”? Blame would lie solely with the Greens for anything negative that happens to their company.

    Of course, since Jesus loves them so much that he gave them a bunch of Mammon, he’ll probably protect them from insolvency also.

    What was that line about a rich man, the kingdom of God, a camel, and a needle? I don’t think it has anything to do with God “blessing” capitalists by making them rich, that’s for sure.

    No corporations should be praised for merely doing the BARE MINIMUM of what they should for their employees. Yes, Hobby Lobby pays better than most retail establishments. Is it a living wage? ABSOLUTELY NOT! I’d like to see David Green live on $13/hr.

    A true Christian business owner would not be making millions of dollars off of the work that others do. PROFIT is the real sin. What do CEOs produce? NOTHING. Thus, they deserve nothing. Employing people is not a canonizable act.

    And, in case no one realized, the Obama administration is treating big business the same way all presidential regimes do: they are making Amerika safe for business, giving workers the bare minimum that they will accept in order to not tear the whole rotten system down. “Obamacare” is a weak excuse for concern over the health of the Amerikan people. It still places profit before people, but that should be no surprise. The entire capitalist system does that.

    If the Greens are STUPID and SELFISH enough to let their company fall apart because of their need to control their employees both in and OUT of work, they deserve what they get. I severly doubt that will happen however…I have a feeling they love their money more than their principles.

    And that, my friends, is the root of all evil.

    • jim_m

      A true Christian business owner would not be making millions of dollars off of the work that others do.

      Being a Christian is not being a communist. One does not take a vow of poverty when one comes to Christ. You have no concept of what the Greens do with their money.

      The Green family buys up distressed property and then resells it to charitable organizations for as little as a dollar. The church I used to go to received an $53 million dollar property from the Greens for next to nothing. They turned the property into a school. The Greens acquired the property for $9 million but it was worth far more. Rather than flipping the property and pocketing the money they gave it to a worthy organization. The Greens make 8 to 10 such donations every year.

      God does not forbid people becoming rich, He just expects you to manage that wealth properly.

      You speak out of ignorance and hate. Envy and hate are sins. Check yourself and get over them.

      • Mark 10:21-27,31 (Jer) Jesus looked steadily at him and loved him, and he said, “There is one thing you lack. Go and sell everything you own and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” But his face fell at these words and he went away sad, for he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were astounded by these words, but Jesus insisted, “My children,” he said to them, “how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” They were more astonished than ever. “In that case,” they said to one another, “who can be saved?” Jesus gazed at them. “For men,” he said, “it is impossible, but not for God: because everything is possible for God… Many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

        Just a thought, the bible is actually pretty against accumulation of mass wealth, but its cool, the bible is full of contradictions so I get how people can be so confused by its teachings.

        • jim_m

          I think that there is ample evidence that the Green family is using what it has been given wisely. What you are doing is displaying your intolerance and hatred for Christians who are successful in business. As I said before Christianity is not communism. I have found that most of the people who bring up these issues are deeply anti-Christian and extremely bigoted.

          Plus Christ is talking about Rich people hearing the gospel and changing, not about people who are already saved, who then become prosperous.

          If you are going to say that success in business is a sign that you cannot be saved you are just ignorant.

          If you are going to claim that a person can lose their salvation (because a rich person cannot go to heaven), then I would point out that such a belief is contrary to the main of protestant theology.

          • So without inciting more hate, how am I being the intolerant one here. Back up your statement, show me some proof from your bible, give me an intelligent argument other than “you are intolerant and full of hate” I hold no hate, and attempt to be tolerant and open minded (although I admit I like everyone else is skewed through a shade of perception). Back up your words lest you come off as exactly what you are calling others. He who casts the first stone and all that 🙂

          • jim_m

            Your position as stated below is that if a person does not follow all their religious tenets at all times, perfectly, that there is therefore no reason not to force them to violate those beliefs in one circumstance, all the time, forever.

            You are saying that because you do not understand religious beliefs. This is an intolerant position. You take a pose as being tolerant, but in reality you are not tolerant at all. You discount the importance of religious belief to be equal with any other beliefs when they are not.

            As for perseverance of the Saints…

            The Westminster Confession of Faith has defined perseverance as follows:

            They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. ─Westminster Confession of Faith (chap. 17, sec. 1).

            I would also point you toward the parable of the talents. this demonstrates that it is not wealth that God despises, but foolish handling of wealth. In fact this parable teaches that having access to wealth and choosing to not use it for the benefit of His kingdom is a sin.

        • jim_m

          The point of the story you quote is that for this specific individual the issue was that he loved his money and possessions more than he really loved God. The point was that he was not really committed to following Christ and not that having money was itself a problem.

          The issue is that God looks at the heart. People, yourself included, look at the externals. You look at a person’s wealth and say, “That person cannot possibly love God because they have more money than I think they ought to.” You have no idea about the condition of their heart. You condemn them without even bothering to find out anything about them.

    • Evil Otto

      Nice DISQUS avatar, Joe. What, couldn’t find a good Hitler avatar, or did you want to go with the even greater mass murderer?

    • Vagabond661

      You sound like an unmarried marriage counselor.

    • Gail Finke

      What planet do you live on? The Green family isn’t trying to control their employees. They are simply refusing to pay for their employees to kill their own children — said employees are free to do so on their own.

      • Iosef Djugashivili

        FYI…no one is asking them to cover infanticide as a medical procedure. It has not even been proven that the morning after pill keeps fertilized eggs from implanting. The majority of fertilization takes place over 24 hours after the sex takes place. And, if it does prevent implantation, who cares? A fertilized egg is about as much a human being as a white blood cell is.

        NO ONE is asking anyone to pay for their abortions. That’s the bottom line. And the hypocrisy is that the men who go around spouting their love of single-celled individuals are the first ones to sneak their pregnant daughters to the clinic, lest their “Christian” friends think said daughter is a whore.

    • Gail Finke

      What planet do you live on? The Green family isn’t trying to control their employees. They are simply refusing to pay for their employees to kill their own children — said employees are free to do so on their own.

    • Gail Finke

      What planet do you live on? The Green family isn’t trying to control their employees. They are simply refusing to pay for their employees to kill their own children — said employees are free to do so on their own.

  • herddog505

    Let me see if I understand our new anti-Christians:

    It’s now the government’s job to ensure that Christians live up to their beliefs (or, at least, what lefties THINK their beliefs are).

    Is that about it?

    “Yeah, you’re supposed to give all your money to the poor if you’re a christian, so we get to TAKE it from you, and you’re a HYPOCRITE if you object!”

  • Quite a nice little tub of hate you righties got going on, huh? With just the right amount of delusion. Obama staying in office after this term – it’s just positively ridiculous. Even all of my Texas Republican friends are smart enough to not believe something so stupid.

    So let’s play a little game: Would you rather pay for that Welfare baby, or the pills to prevent it? Me? I’m a pragmatist – so get that woman a Pill and/or Plan B. Because I DO NOT want to be paying for her baby for the next 18 years.

    As for Hobby Lobby – Their stand is ridiculous. Plan B is like 5 regular pills. IF they were successful in opting out of this coverage for their employees, it just adds the red tape of having a doctor prescribe a full course of pills and instructing the woman to take 5 at one time. It’s a waste of resources – both the wasted pills, and the wasted time and effort for the doctor and woman to go through to circumnavigate the red-tape. (Red tape! It’s a pun – I just noticed that. How blanking PERFECT!)

    • jim_m

      That’s right. You don’t believe in religious rights so you are willing to sell them out for a few pennies. Sorry, if the rest of us don’t believe that selling out the human rights of others is a good practice. Some day they will come for your rights. I only hope that you have someone left to defend them for you.

    • Evil Otto

      Look everyone, we’re being accused of hate by a hater.

      Let’s play another game, Lauren… it’s called “personal responsibility.” The Welfare mother (who we already pay for) should shell out the few dollars a month those pills cost herself rather than burden the taxpayer with another child, and use them to make sure she doesn’t need Plan B. Never seems to work out that way, does it? Of course, heartless bastard that I am, I’d cut the Welfare queen off entirely, resulting in an even greater savings for those taxpayers you care so deeply about. Hey, there’s a compromise we can both get behind, eh Lauren? With my plan, neither you nor I have to pay for her or her baby.

      As for your beliefs about Hobby Lobby, if it’s such a trivial thing for Hobby Lobby to pay for 5 pills, then why don’t you demand that the employee do so herself? The amount of “red tape” in getting the prescription is utterly insignificant… and, by the way, there’s much more paperwork involved in having insurance pay then there is if the woman simply goes and does it herself.

      The issue here, Lauren, is freedom. You cookie-cutter liberals don’t seem to have even a basic understanding of that concept anymore, if you ever did. The owners of Hobby Lobby have a religious objection to being forced to pay for something against their faith. Since their employees are not slaves and employment is a voluntary contract, they can seek employment elsewhere if it means so much to them to have their employers pay for their birth control. There are companies that already do so. You would FORCE Hobby Lobby’s owners to violate their beliefs for the sake of what you yourself acknowledge is a trivial cost. If they refuse, if they stand up for their rights, you would use the police power of government to compel compliance.

    • jim_m

      Why would I have to pay for a “welfare baby” when the mother is gainfully employed at Hobby Lobby and therefore is ineligible for welfare? I would rather that Hobby Lobby not pay these ridiculous fines and use that money to employ more people.

      Unfortunately, hateful ideologues like yourself believe that they should be punished for holding to religious beliefs instead.

  • Plan B is not an abortion pill. Read your biology textbooks oh wait you don’t believe in them.

    • jim_m

      Contraception is still against Catholic doctrine. Read your Aquinas, oh wait, you don’t think you have anything to learn from dead white men.

      Just a word for the unwise: It’s really useful to understand what people think and why they think it, even if you disagree yourself.

  • I have a question… Why haven’t I heard from the employees. I mean, they are the ones who’s supposed rights for full insurance coverage are at stake. By the way, that is in the Constitution, right? The right to full insurance coverage no matter what? Or am I mistaken?
    Nevertheless… I am curious as to what they have to say about it. Is this a serious issue with the employees, or a sole attempt by the liberalists against Hobby Lobby?

  • pz

    Its awesome that Hobby Lobby has so many benefits, a rare thing for part-time employees. But disagreement with a law does not mean they don’t have to comply. Hobby Lobby is doing the right thing and challenging the law in court if they believe it infringes on their rights, but they still have to follow the law in the meantime. If they go out of business because of the fine, they did that to themselves. They can avoid the fine at any time.

    • jim_m

      But disagreement with a law does not mean they don’t have to comply.

      Actually, they don’t. They understand that they will have to pay a penalty and are preparing to do just that. It’s called civil disobedience – disobeying a law and taking the punishment in order to demonstrate the unfairness and immorality of the law.. The left used to understand that. Now all the left understands is coercion and intimidation.

      • pz

        Agreed. They are inflicting damage to themselves to make a statement, kind of like a hunger strike.

  • Pingback: The Paradoxical Meanness of the Minimum Wage()

  • Richard Obermayer

    Being raised a roman catholic by 2 awesomely Christian parents, I fully understand and David Greens opinion on the ACA Laws. However I cant seem to find anywhere in the Bible or my conscience where it says any employer or person on this earth for that matter, is allowed to dictate the religious beliefs of their employees, servants or any person. The ACA only says that the medication in question is to be covered. It does not say it must be used by any of Mr. Greens employees. That decision is like all medical decisions, up to the person it involves. I certainly must commend Mr. Green for all the good things he has done, around the world, and for his employees. However, I believe in my heart, that all people must answer for their own decisions in this life, only to themselves, and their lord. Who ever they believe that is. Does Mr. Green ask his employees if they are Christians before he hires them. If he does, he is going against his own Bible. Jesus never asked if a person had firm beliefs and faith in god before he performed his miracles on them. He usually chose the non believers, or sinners to help teach us that all people deserve his grace.

    • jim_m

      You miss the point of the complaint and the point of the recent court ruling which is that employers cannot be forced to pay for something that violates their religious convictions. The court also ruled that merely having an insurance company make those payments is not a sufficient excuse because ultimately the employer will still be paying for it indirectly.

      Only a dishonest ass like you is complaining that Hobby Lobby is attempting to keep their employees from using contraception. They have never done or claimed the right to do any such thing. Their employees are free to do whatever they want to on their own time, they just should not expect their employer to subsidize that activity.

      I believe in my heart that you know your argument is a lie but you are dishonest enough to keep repeating it because you hate others so much.

  • David Green should take some the funds he gives to those fanatically religious schools and make sure all his employees have decent health ins not just half of them and pay his employees better, $11 is not a living wage, the minimum wage in Australia is $17 and hour with 4 week vacations pay and sick days off.

  • Garymother Freekincoleman

    Green is a hypocrite. He’d rather pretend this about His faith rather
    than the incomes of all the people working in his stores, more Women
    and Men out of work just what a bad economy needs, and for what, silly
    superstitious nonsense.

    Shame on all of you for putting more emphasis on your own personal
    dogmatic beliefs if it harms other people in the process. This is the
    real world, in it are no gods, no pink elephants, no unicorns, NO JESUS,
    no ufo’s, no immortal soul, no angles, no demons, no yaweh, no allah,
    no krishna, none of it….get that through your thick primitive skulls. IT IS
    YOU who believe all the afore mentioned crap who perpetuate this kind of
    real world pain. IT IS YOU who are forcing your beliefs on others who
    may not share them, IT IS YOU violating religious freedom !