What gives you that idea? Especially the overtime pay!
The answer here is based entirely on a number determined by multiplying the number of employees to the yearly profits which is then subtracted from the profit earnings of the firm divided by the ratio of highest earning employee to lowest earning employee and then all of this is multiplied by zero and actually based on how much money you have provided to various campaigns.
Well, why would they be? The Bible says nothing about, wait, where?
Commandment which?
Er⌠let me get back to you.
Well, call it what you will, I guess. Or, perhaps, Cow Is Shit. I like that one from last week.
Cow is the shit? Awwright, awwright, Iâll think of some neutral name and plug it up there nowâŚ
Itâs here: The How much I love Cow thread.
1 Like
I meant the promise of overtime pay, once they turn 18 of course.
You bigot. We vegetarians arenât welcome on that thread, are we? 
You sound just like another troublemaker. Youâll fit right in.
1 Like
Again, what makes you think theyâll get that. Because of course, theyâll be raised with the corporations values, and that means no overtime⌠ALL HAIL GLOBOCHEM!!!
Best short article Iâve read on the decision:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-corporations-can-pray-20140630-column.html
1 Like
Oddly, it appears that Hobby Lobby has no religious qualms against funding their employeesâ recreational penis escapades.
4 Likes
Iâm no law expert, but the distinction the SCOTUS majority makes between âclosely heldâ and âpublicâ corporations in the specific context of religious freedom strikes me as possibly the most specious, pulled-it-out-of-my-ass notion this court has yet produced.
5 Likes
Yep, theyâll happily help you fornicate and prevent accidental procreation . . .
. . . but only if youâre a guy.
Theyâre also more than happy (as @Cowicide correctly referenced - credit where due) to invest heavily in contraception makers. This includes the manufacturers of i.u.d.s, which they specifically oppose. Hereâs a another copy of that link for anyone who missed it.
So, they donât seem to be too terribly concerned about making money from the sale of female contraceptives - including ones they âreligiously oppose usingâ - with the cash they invested after they got it by having those employees that they now donât want to provide fair access to those same FDA-approved meds.
It seems to me that they shouldnât be allowed to invest in those med corporations âfor profitâ if they want to claim an exemption elsewhere. Law is supposed to be applied equally.
Wow. Just whose rights were not being protected again?
Seriously folks.
3 Likes
The argument for investment in unethical organisations goes something like: investment is amoral, because itâs just money. We donate a large amount of our profits to charity so there is a net positive in the world.
I heard this from a conservative relative who, to be fair, is a very kind person who donates a lot of time and money to genuine charities that do actually help people. But they also made a big profit on some investments in tobacco companies and I canât help feeling really uncomfortable about that.
Presumably businesses with religious owners like Hobby Lobby justify their investments the same way (if they even think about it at all): we take the profit from the evil contraception companies and donate to religious organisations that counteract them.
recreational penis escapades.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
4 Likes
Ah, but see thereâs the problem.
(whoops, phone call - saved and it sent it - onto the edit)
A single person making a financial decision for themselves is not the same as an employer making a financial decision for their employees.
One person can donate all they like to people or a cause they religiously donât agree with. They just shouldnât personally expect a tax or other legal break as well. So your relative can invest in tobacco, but shouldnât then expect to be able to claim a sales tax exemption on cigarettes based on religious preferences. They already showed that preference doesnât exist.
What Iâm talking about is the employer - of a for profit business - asking for a financial exemption based on their religious preference, excluding access to the goods of the company for their employees, and at the same time personally profiting from a company that they claim they religiously donât agree with. Thatâs different because itâs their employeesâ money (in the form of benefits) that they are holding sway over. They donât really have the right to choose how an employee spends their wages.
In fact:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
So, an employer canât - as a for-profit company - choose their religion as standing above all others. Under Title VII, âAn employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.â, so it would seem that the religious belief that âbirth control is acceptableâ should be protected. There is no âundue hardshipâ because - as already noted - it costs less to provide birth control than to provide birth care and raise a child.
1 Like
Leviticus has long been my favorite book in the Bible.
Not if youâre tallying the costs TO YOUR ETERNAL SOUL SINNER!!! (please please get that this is sarcasmâŚ)
No argument here! Just wanted to illustrate how this apparent hypocrisy isnât even questioned by the people with those beliefs. This is deeply ingrained stuff and itâs hard to fight.
2 Likes
Sorry I got cut off - didnât mean to sound abrupt - uncle on the phone.
Weâre all good!
1 Like
