Can a company be "Christian"?

[Spec ops Grunt]

Even more interesting would be to see how all the other Christian owned companies are dealing with this. If this is such a trampling on of rights and a BLATENT attack on Christians or even Religion, Why aint the Mega Churchs funding the fight? Where's the Leadership of these great televangelist that get $millions stolen from the safe??

Unless they are just sacrificing HL, which wouldn't be very Christian.

Hobby Lobby is the modern Christ

 

[retrieverman]

Can a company be christian? I say no, BUT a company can be run using christian principles which I whole heartily support. I am on the fence concerning the Hobby Lobby case, and I see a down side to either way the court may decide.

I am personally anti abortion, but I do support a woman's right to choose. I don't believe morality should legislated. If someone were to ask me should they get an abortion, I would do all I can to talk them out of it, but ultimately, a person has to make their own decisions in life and live with them.

 

[henschman]

^^ This case isn't about whether abortion should be allowed -- it is about whether people should be threatened with violence for refusing to offer a particular service to those they voluntarily associate with.

For my view on this, I might as well copy and paste the last paragraph of my post on gender definition:

The answer is clear -- if you want a free society, let people define these things however they want, and act on their beliefs however they want, as long as no one forces his belief on anyone else. It's not a very complicated concept.

I could practically make this my sig line, and just make a blank post in every thread where people are fretting over what some official government definition should be, or what people should be forced to do or not do.

 

[Blinocac200sx]

I could go either way on weather or not a corporation can be Christian, quite frankly I don't care, it really shouldn't matter. What should matter is that the government does not truly have the authority to tell someone how they are to compensate someone else. When they do so, all freedom is abolished.

 

[excat]

^^ This case isn't about whether abortion should be allowed -- it is about whether people should be threatened with violence for refusing to offer a particular service to those they voluntarily associate with.

For my view on this, I might as well copy and paste the last paragraph of my post on gender definition:



I could practically make this my sig line, and just make a blank post in every thread where people are fretting over what some official government definition should be, or what people should be forced to do or not do.

I ask you this question to your quote then...

Which people? The employee's that want the option of having birth control, or the company that doesn't want to pay for it even though they are already making money off those companies? Who should not have the "beliefs" forced upon them? There's 2 groups of people that are effected by the decision.

 

[excat]

Can a company be christian? I say no, BUT a company can be run using christian principles which I whole heartily support. I am on the fence concerning the Hobby Lobby case, and I see a down side to either way the court may decide.

Just like America was founded on Christian values, but we have no "official" religion. ^^^ Pretty spot on.

 

[henschman]

I ask you this question to your quote then...

Which people? The employee's that want the option of having birth control, or the company that doesn't want to pay for it even though they are already making money off those companies? Who should not have the "beliefs" forced upon them? There's 2 groups of people that are effected by the decision.

Two groups, but only one that is having anything FORCED on them. The employer/employee relationship is a voluntary association. If somebody doesn't like a job offer or the benefits associated with it, then he simply shouldn't accept it, and should look elsewhere for terms more agreeable to him. By contrast, the State threatening violence against the owners of HL for not providing this benefit leaves no room for opting out. It is action compelled by force.

 

[excat]

Two groups, but only one that is having anything FORCED on them. The employer/employee relationship is a voluntary association. If somebody doesn't like a job offer or the benefits associated with it, then he simply shouldn't accept it, and should look elsewhere for terms more agreeable to him. By contrast, the State threatening violence against the owners of HL for not providing this benefit leaves no room for opting out. It is action compelled by force.

Fair enough...

 

[Hobbes]

Two groups, but only one that is having anything FORCED on them. The employer/employee relationship is a voluntary association. If somebody doesn't like a job offer or the benefits associated with it, then he simply shouldn't accept it, and should look elsewhere for terms more agreeable to him. By contrast, the State threatening violence against the owners of HL for not providing this benefit leaves no room for opting out. It is action compelled by force.

Disagree completely.

HL can provide their employees with vouchers and allow them to purchase whatever health insurance they want in the market.
Thousands of other companies do it every day.

 

[henschman]

They are still being forced to either offer coverage or provide vouchers. The fact that the State gives them some limited choice in what type of scheme they are being forced to take part in doesn't change the fact at the whole thing is forced.