Hobby Lobby: Go Ahead and Fine Us, We Won't Comply With 'Morning-After' Mandate

An attorney for Hobby Lobby Stores said Thursday that the arts and crafts chain plans to defy a federal mandate requiring it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill, despite risking potential fines of up to $1.3 million per day. Full Story

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#1043 Jan 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, yeah.
War is sometimes necessary.
Free BC is necessary.......when, exactly?
Any time you have sex with your lover...

“ABORTION KILLS A HUMAN BEING”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1044 Jan 18, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're supposedly "not a Christian," where'd you get YOUR information?
Uh, no I asked you the question, answer please. It was your statement, and supposedly you're catholic, so I'll wait!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1045 Jan 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>I said earlier this week that I think HL will lose. They're a business, no doubt about it.

Spend less time thinking up insults and more time on the facts. You'll be happier.
ROFLMAO!!!

Are you suggesting that what I say insults you? Mighty shallow of you if that's the case.

I'm already happy enough. I have health, money, and a family that loves me and whom I love. No need for anything else.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#1046 Jan 18, 2013
kaylayossi wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof that he ever lived? I'm not even a Christian and I know he lived. Where do you get your information.
Really you have this information..

You have verifiable archeological evidence that is independent of the christian bible..

Please do share, Kay.. As you will be a rich woman..

Honest Kay..

Because to date there is not one piece of archeological evidence that even suggest that jesus ever existed. That this person said anything to any one. Did anything at any time during the period he was said to have lived.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#1047 Jan 18, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
What year did you graduate law school? What law school did you attend? On what jurisdictions are you licensed to practice????
I only ask because you have not shown one g-ddamned thing that's relevant to this argument, which is something even a 1L can see.
In addition, the first time I've read you use the term legitimate government interest has been after I posted about it twice. And if you do know the law (and I'd bet my bar card you don't), you'd know not to use quotation ("") marks, because it would be a term you'd understand and know, and not something you've obviously not seen before and have to quote as if it was a citation from Roe v. Wade.
Moreover, if you really knew the law, you'd know that the protections of the 1st Amendment are very broad and that courts take cases into consideration based on the individual merits of each and every case. And you simply haven't cited any precedent that's on point regarding this matter. All of what you've mentioned is persuasive, but not mandatory authority. The cases you've mentioned refer to a religious entity acting as an employer, which is the very first point that blows your "precedent" out of the water.
You can try to make an argument based on the precedent you've cited, but you'd be as far from making it stick as a kiwi is from flying.
My suggestion is; go to your local law library and take a print out of my post #894 in response to your post. Here's a link to it:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T796...
Then, go find some compelling argument and case law to back up your f*cked up rationale.
When you do, then we can have an "even playing field" discussion.
Until then, STFU ya koos!
He only plays a lawyer on Topix.. LOL

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1048 Jan 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think people should be given everything that they can't afford, because I need a new car and can't afford it.
Ask your husband to buy it for you.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1049 Jan 18, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
When the person can't afford it. Everyone has a right to not have a family, and not have religion.
If you can find precedent to oppose my contention, let's see it.
Plain and simple, if you can't afford it, you don't do it. Nothing give you the 'right' to something you can't afford..
Dan

Omaha, NE

#1050 Jan 18, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course medicaid recipients aren't under an employer-sponsored health plan. They are, however, under a tax-payer sponsored health plan. And, since a corporation has the same rights, under the constitution, as a natural born person, why aren't Catholics, and I mean natural born persons of the Catholic faith, not challenging the medicare/medicaid tax mandate, when medicaid pays for contraceptives at no co-pay?
What makes Hobby Lobby different than you, assuming you're Catholic?
The government isn't a religious entity. I don't get to cherry pick what the feds do with my tax money.
Hobby Lobby is a for-profit business. Catholic schools/hospitals/charities are NFP's.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#1051 Jan 18, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
9 years ago, when I was just an associate at my firm, and an employee, I participated in a committee that decided not only the benefit packages offered, but the medical insurance provider as well.
You were saying????
You were in a committee that decided what benefits your firm offered. Employer picks the benefits. They just made you do the work picking the package.

The guy running the mail cart didn't walk into the partners' office and tell him what benefits he was going to receive.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#1052 Jan 18, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, employers choose the benefit package because they usually want to get the best price they can and it needs to be universal. Employers don't usually approve or disapprove individual items available for coverage.
This article discusses an employer who specifically does not want BC covered. Suppose you tell me why HL doesn't want BC covered? Hmmm?
Didn't you read the article? If not, its in the headline.

I said earlier this week, in a post that no one apparently read, that I believe HL won't win on this. I believe a Catholic suit will win, but not HL.
Annie

Macomb, MO

#1053 Jan 18, 2013
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Annie, what you say is true.. Military pay is not kind on any family that has a spouse under an E6 or E5.
In fact one of the thing in my family does is to tell our youngsters that are enlisting. That if they decide to stay in which ever branch of the military. Not to get married until they have made rank. E4 is the lowest, but even then you are asking for a lot of lean times.
At the same time you are wrong. President Obama is acting on the Pentagon request. It is the Joint Chiefs that are rolling back the military to below World War 2 levels. The nature of war has changed. So has the defense of the country.
The Pentagon has determined that a more compact and leaner military is needed. Not a larger force. That is the budget the Pentagon turned in projecting their needs for the next ten years.
Blame the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs. In this case President Obama is only following the advice of the generals and admirals.
Thanks for the back up on the military pay, most people don't believe that they get paid low wages and that's the reason for the offer of other benefits like the base housing, etc. They need some incentive to get people to sign up and join the military forces cause they do barely get enough to support a family on until they make officer. I understand part of the reason for the cut backs in the military but in a way I don't feel it's good cause we could get caught off guard again like we did with the 9/11 attack. I hope not though so lets just wish for the best and that things stay calm for a long time to come.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1054 Jan 19, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>The government isn't a religious entity. I don't get to cherry pick what the feds do with my tax money.
Hobby Lobby is a for-profit business. Catholic schools/hospitals/charities are NFP's.
Whether for profit or NFP is irrelevant to the argument of constitutional rights. Both are "persons" in the eyes of the law, as are natural persons. Are you suggesting a corporation has more power to challenge the constitution than a natural person?

The same 1st amendment upon which HL is hanging its argument, also provides you, me, and any other natural person with the ability to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So again, why do you think a corporation, for profit or NFP, can do something you don't think you can??

You'd better rethink your position.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1055 Jan 19, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>You were in a committee that decided what benefits your firm offered. Employer picks the benefits. They just made you do the work picking the package.

The guy running the mail cart didn't walk into the partners' office and tell him what benefits he was going to receive.
I knew I recognized the name. You were that guy running the mail cart. LMAO!!

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1056 Jan 19, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't you read the article? If not, its in the headline.
I said earlier this week, in a post that no one apparently read, that I believe HL won't win on this. I believe a Catholic suit will win, but not HL.
The question was rhetorical to support my point.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#1057 Jan 19, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew I recognized the name. You were that guy running the mail cart. LMAO!!
OH Dear Gods another Doc.. Thinks he is a lawyer, but in reality only plays one here on Topix... LOL

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1058 Jan 19, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You were in a committee that decided what benefits your firm offered. Employer picks the benefits. They just made you do the work picking the package.
The guy running the mail cart didn't walk into the partners' office and tell him what benefits he was going to receive.
The insurance is a benefit for the employees. Why should the employer impose his religious dogma on those employees? If the employer does not want to use BC for religious reasons then he/she does not have to...but why should he involve himself in whether or not his employees can get it covered? If I'm paying into an insurance but then my employer says "you can't get this or that because of MY religious beliefs.." then really what benefit is that insurance to me as an employee and why should I pay for the insurance? Why should an employer involve himself in employees decisions about access to BC?

When I work for an employer and he uses the profits (via his salary) he makes from my labor (or employees collective labor) to make donations to his Church do I bitch? No, not my business. That is the basic difference between fundies and non-fundies,

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1060 Jan 19, 2013
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether for profit or NFP is irrelevant to the argument of constitutional rights. Both are "persons" in the eyes of the law, as are natural persons. Are you suggesting a corporation has more power to challenge the constitution than a natural person?
The same 1st amendment upon which HL is hanging its argument, also provides you, me, and any other natural person with the ability to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So again, why do you think a corporation, for profit or NFP, can do something you don't think you can??
You'd better rethink your position.
I think fundies forget one basic reality; if they want the government to be able to curb our freedom then the government will also have the power to curb their freedom.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#1061 Jan 19, 2013
Anyone really shopped at hobby lobby and looked at there products? 80% of what they sell is made in comie china or thug india or cartel mexico.....ONLY TRAITORS SHOP AT STORES THAT SELL MOSTLY FORIEGN SLAVE LABOR JUNK.

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1062 Jan 19, 2013
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>OH Dear Gods another Doc.. Thinks he is a lawyer, but in reality only plays one here on Topix... LOL
LMAO!!!

“2014 TDF”

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#1063 Jan 19, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>I think fundies forget one basic reality; if they want the government to be able to curb our freedom then the government will also have the power to curb their freedom.
Very true LNM. They want to argue how government cannot encroach on their freedoms, but don't want the rest of the world to make the same argument.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lawmakers: Judge in abuse case should resign 4 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 1
N.C. Dunkin' Donuts bakery sued for religious d... 5 hr Zog Has-fallen 48
Massena woman who threatened boyfriend with ste... 5 hr concerned parent 3
Domestic violence likely more frequent for same... 6 hr Belle Sexton 9
Wanted bounty hunter turns himself in (May '10) 6 hr Big Ike 41
Former employee at Sparta shooting complex alle... 7 hr gaytooatIDNRcomplex 6
Retreat is 14th largest mental health provider ... 7 hr Say No To Geoengi... 10
•••

Law People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••