Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

grey580

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by grey580

 

Actually, by insinuating that a business is a "public place" you are implying that we all somehow, collectively, own every business in the US.

We don't.

It reminds me of when the smoking ban was enacted for businesses in Ohio. The mob was allowed to vote on whether or not business owners could allow smoking in their bars and restaurants.

If we can vote on such matters concerning privately owned businesses, then we can also vote on such matters for privately owned homes. If a business owner has to put up with the tyranny of the majority, then why not home owners?

I'm not insinuating. It's the law. You open a business then you must abide by city, county, state and federal law. I dare you to open a business and not follow any laws that apply to you. See how long you last.

The problem with cigarette smoke is that not only does it kill the people that smoke cigarettes. It kills on the average of 50K people a year that inhale second hand smoke. Personally I hated coming home from a club and smelling like an ash tray. So afaic it's a good move.

Now there are definite differences between a business that's open to the public and a private club that requires a membership. Not all rules apply.

I am sorry. I will forever disagree with you. The collective does not have any rights over another person's property. That's tyranny through and through. If people weren't insufferably whiny, many of them could have simply opened their own smoke-free bars/restaurants. But, instead, the borg thinks they are partial owners (and even if you do not think this, participating in voting to force a business owner to acquiesce to your demands means that you believe it) of all the businesses in the US and would rather use force to coerce people to do what they want.

That's called mob mentality. That's called tyranny of the majority, it's "two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner." Democracy sucks. That is why there were supposed to be things in our republic that people were not supposed to be allowed to vote on. Private property is one of those things. Even if an owner allows people into his business, that is a privilege on their part. They have no rights over his property.

grey580

NavyDoc

grey580

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by grey580

 

Actually, by insinuating that a business is a "public place" you are implying that we all somehow, collectively, own every business in the US.

We don't.

It reminds me of when the smoking ban was enacted for businesses in Ohio. The mob was allowed to vote on whether or not business owners could allow smoking in their bars and restaurants.

If we can vote on such matters concerning privately owned businesses, then we can also vote on such matters for privately owned homes. If a business owner has to put up with the tyranny of the majority, then why not home owners?

I'm not insinuating. It's the law. You open a business then you must abide by city, county, state and federal law. I dare you to open a business and not follow any laws that apply to you. See how long you last.

The problem with cigarette smoke is that not only does it kill the people that smoke cigarettes. It kills on the average of 50K people a year that inhale second hand smoke. Personally I hated coming home from a club and smelling like an ash tray. So afaic it's a good move.

Now there are definite differences between a business that's open to the public and a private club that requires a membership. Not all rules apply.

So instead of simply not going to clubs that allowed smoking because you think its icky, you'd use the coercive force of government to force EVERYONE to comply with your thought process and sensitivities.

So what you're saying.

It's ok for people that work in clubs and don't smoke to work in an environment that might give them cancer?

And I don't get your thought process. We ban things or enforce restrictive laws all the time. Seat belt laws. No drunk driving laws. Now no texting while driving.

Why aren't you complaining about the coercive force of the government to force EVERYONE to comply with no drinking while driving laws?

You drive drunk you put other people right to life in jeopardy and they have no say in it. If you have smoking in establishment people can make the choice to enter or not enter as they see fit. You cannot compare stopping one person from injuring and innocent person with interfering the freedom to choose in an activity that may be unhealthy. Should the government also ban sodas, bunji jumping, and sexual promiscuity because they are not healthy?

How far do you want to do to limit freedom of choice just to satisfy your own dislikes?

Bone75
Here's an idea, why don't all the people who support a woman's right to choose only because of the rape issue, get together and pay for the morning after pills given to rape victims. At about 100k rapes a year and 12 bucks a pill, that comes out to $1.2M divided by about 100M people for a total cost of $1.20 per person per year. Factor in the roughly 50% of those victims who will refuse the pill and we're down to a measly 60¢.

And here's another idea, never let Bone do math after ten o'clock. Lol. It actually comes out to about half a penny.

reply to post by Bone75


Ship some of those stores to the North east. When I was in FL. I loved that store. They had everything for every project if only a hardware store was next store. Anyway I am really surprised by this. I guess spending has changed for a lot of people maybe it'll make 'hobby' products more affordable. $7.00 for one little acrylic paint adds up.

... citing a September, 2012, Forbes profile of David Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder, CEO, and patriarch. Here, Green is valued as a pious hero of capitalism who claims that it’s religious devotion and God’s favor that has raised his capital worth to well over $3 billion. Forbes, being the capitalist cheerleaders they are, could smell Green’s veiled business plan a few thousand miles away. In China, for instance.

It doesn’t take more than a few minutes with the founder, walking through a local Hobby Lobby store, to see the reason he has been able to expand his company into a well-oiled, moneymaking machine without bringing in any outside investors.
Stopping at a display marked 30 percent off, Green explains how a kitschy rooster ornament is produced overseas for pennies on the dollar, then sold as part of an in-house brand of home accents.

China. David Green and Hobby Lobby buy goods from China. China, Fortune reported way back in 2010, is “where much of what Hobby Lobby sells originates, though [Green would] rather not feature that fact.”

Forbes citation

China's "Family Planning Policy" enforces abortion and contraception. (China policy website)



It's not about religious beliefs, it's about money.

NavyDoc


You drive drunk you put other people right to life in jeopardy and they have no say in it. If you have smoking in establishment people can make the choice to enter or not enter as they see fit. You cannot compare stopping one person from injuring and innocent person with interfering the freedom to choose in an activity that may be unhealthy. Should the government also ban sodas, bunji jumping, and sexual promiscuity because they are not healthy?

How far do you want to do to limit freedom of choice just to satisfy your own dislikes?

Just so you know. I agree with you.

IMHO we should only limit freedoms when they infringe upon the freedoms of others or harm other peoples health or life.

LewsTherinThelamon

grey580

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by grey580

 

Actually, by insinuating that a business is a "public place" you are implying that we all somehow, collectively, own every business in the US.

We don't.

It reminds me of when the smoking ban was enacted for businesses in Ohio. The mob was allowed to vote on whether or not business owners could allow smoking in their bars and restaurants.

If we can vote on such matters concerning privately owned businesses, then we can also vote on such matters for privately owned homes. If a business owner has to put up with the tyranny of the majority, then why not home owners?

I'm not insinuating. It's the law. You open a business then you must abide by city, county, state and federal law. I dare you to open a business and not follow any laws that apply to you. See how long you last.

The problem with cigarette smoke is that not only does it kill the people that smoke cigarettes. It kills on the average of 50K people a year that inhale second hand smoke. Personally I hated coming home from a club and smelling like an ash tray. So afaic it's a good move.

Now there are definite differences between a business that's open to the public and a private club that requires a membership. Not all rules apply.

I am sorry. I will forever disagree with you. The collective does not have any rights over another person's property. That's tyranny through and through. If people weren't insufferably whiny, many of them could have simply opened their own smoke-free bars/restaurants. But, instead, the borg thinks they are partial owners (and even if you do not think this, participating in voting to force a business owner to acquiesce to your demands means that you believe it) of all the businesses in the US and would rather use force to coerce people to do what they want.

That's called mob mentality. That's called tyranny of the majority, it's "two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner." Democracy sucks. That is why there were supposed to be things in our republic that people were not supposed to be allowed to vote on. Private property is one of those things. Even if an owner allows people into his business, that is a privilege on their part. They have no rights over his property.

People who cry about business owner's rights, are people who support rampant racism and discrimination and probably want Jim Crow laws to come back. Mainly libertarians, the supporters of the old white guys in charge, party.

nixie_nox

People who cry about business owner's rights, are people who support rampant racism and discrimination and probably want Jim Crow laws to come back. Mainly libertarians, the supporters of the old white guys in charge, party.

LOL, if you want anything to be taken seriously when making allegations against people, 2 things to avoid:

1. racism
2. the words "they probably..."

Both are 1 way tickets to having lost credibility.

technicall true...... but his case went through federal court, at some point it will go to the supreme court (newest update dec 2013) www.snopes.com...

MrSpad
Just a small point here. It is not happening. This would be a HOAX. And an older one.They are not closing any stores and they are not planning on closing any stores. Starting two years ago when people started spreading this Hobby Lobby began saying it was not true. They are in fact opening more and more stores. They also wish people would quit saying they are closing as it is bad for business.

“That is not going to happen. That is on the Internet with my name supposedly signed to it, but we’re not planning on shutting any stores down,” Green said.

www.iwusojourn.com...

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

They have no rights over his property.

This is a fantasy.

I've had a hand in running several businesses over the past 30 years.

I've had the jack hole code inspector come over to complain that my window signage was over the limit because it covered over 20% of the window space. He actually took out a tape measure and figured out the percentage of sign that covered each pane of glass.

I've had the city complain about the sign above the store. They wanted us to get an engineer and build the sign to withstand a cat 3 hurricane. So I went with the existing sign base and vinyl lettering.

I wanted to start a car wash however the regulations about recycling water were insane.

Believe what you want. However the truth is much different than what you believe.

bbracken677



In a sense, it is comparable. Consider the lies we were told about Obummercare before it began. We were offered a service and were given something very different. We cannot keep our previous plans, we cannot keep our personal physician.

More misleading propaganda from conservatives and you guys eat it up hook line and sinker without doing your own research.

First off, you never had this right to begin with. At any point in time, long before ACA, your job can choose to switch insurance companies or insurance plans, and you might have to change your doctor anyways.

If you change jobs, there is no gaurentee that you can keep your pcp.

Oh...I forgot. It is also not affordable nor is it cheaper. LOL

Based on what? the conservative propaganda machine?

So much for the "Affordable Health Care".

Do you even have a remote idea of how it works?

What I dont get is if it is such a great thing, where are all those young liberals when it is time to sign up? Apparently refusing to do so by the millions.

How would you know?

Enrollment doesn't end until the end of March. There are marketplaces in 36 states. Millions have already enrolled. Untill after the enrollment period ends and the numbers come back from the 36 states, it will be awhile before we know.

But you just keep busy sucking down the tea colored kool aid instead of thinking for yourself.

So much for liberalism. It's great as long as it comes out of someone else's pocket. LOL

There is the proof right there.

When you hear these same talking points used over and over, you can almost pinpoint what time they were said on Faux news.

insurance has always been a pool based risk system. You have been paying for other people's healthcare since insurance was invented.

Both the private and the public system work exactly the same.

bigfatfurrytexan

nixie_nox

People who cry about business owner's rights, are people who support rampant racism and discrimination and probably want Jim Crow laws to come back. Mainly libertarians, the supporters of the old white guys in charge, party.

LOL, if you want anything to be taken seriously when making allegations against people, 2 things to avoid:

1. racism
2. the words "they probably..."

Both are 1 way tickets to having lost credibility.

So if he wants a business to have the rights to refuse someone because they are black, what would you call it?


Do you actually have a counter point or are you just deflecting?

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

They have no rights over his property.

This is a fantasy.

I've had a hand in running several businesses over the past 30 years.

I've had the jack hole code inspector come over to complain that my window signage was over the limit because it covered over 20% of the window space. He actually took out a tape measure and figured out the percentage of sign that covered each pane of glass.

I've had the city complain about the sign above the store. They wanted us to get an engineer and build the sign to withstand a cat 3 hurricane. So I went with the existing sign base and vinyl lettering.

I wanted to start a car wash however the regulations about recycling water were insane.

Believe what you want. However the truth is much different than what you believe.

Sounds like you are an example of why government overreach is not a good thing.

grey580

NavyDoc


You drive drunk you put other people right to life in jeopardy and they have no say in it. If you have smoking in establishment people can make the choice to enter or not enter as they see fit. You cannot compare stopping one person from injuring and innocent person with interfering the freedom to choose in an activity that may be unhealthy. Should the government also ban sodas, bunji jumping, and sexual promiscuity because they are not healthy?

How far do you want to do to limit freedom of choice just to satisfy your own dislikes?

Just so you know. I agree with you.

IMHO we should only limit freedoms when they infringe upon the freedoms of others or harm other peoples health or life.

I agree with that.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Yeah. but I understand the reasoning for some rules which make sense.

Certainly in Miami everything has to be hurricane rated. Otherwise it will blow away and possibly hurt someone or cause property damage.

Signage that can only take up 20% of the window space... not so much.

nixie_nox

bigfatfurrytexan

nixie_nox

People who cry about business owner's rights, are people who support rampant racism and discrimination and probably want Jim Crow laws to come back. Mainly libertarians, the supporters of the old white guys in charge, party.

LOL, if you want anything to be taken seriously when making allegations against people, 2 things to avoid:

1. racism
2. the words "they probably..."

Both are 1 way tickets to having lost credibility.

So if he wants a business to have the rights to refuse someone because they are black, what would you call it?


Do you actually have a counter point or are you just deflecting?

edit on 5-2-2014 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

I had nothing to deflect, as your statement hinged on the word "probably", which is a synonym for "my imagination".

The only thing that matters is how wrong it is for the US Government to mandate the purchase of a product. Especially when we could cut our military spending to half, still achieve "world safety" to current standards, and give free healthcare to every human alive within our borders.

Regardless, since we are talking about mandating the purchase of a product, everything that comes afterwards is wrong. The root is rotten, the whole tree is rotten.

Hey, CVS is going to quit carrying cigarettes, what do you guys think?

grey580
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

Especially when it comes to expectations of privacy.

A police officer can not eavesdrop or attempt to enter your private dwelling without your consent.

In a public place or business everything is out in the open and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and a police officer can come into that business and look at whatever you are doing.

so a public business does not equal a private home.

No, but the particular post that you were replying to, unless I am mistaken, was in reference to the rights of business and those of a person and regarding particular situations regarding religious freedom.

I know about "reasonable expectation of privacy" or the lack thereof in public.

My reply (wrong bucko) was relating to a business's right of religious freedom, or the 1st amendment rights. A recent decision by the Supreme Court (the federal one) grants corporations and unions the same rights as those of an individual.

In which case, a business does have the right to exercise religious freedom. That one ruling will have an impact that will resound resoundingly (LOL) over the next few years unless there is a reversal. I dont see that happening for a while.

Since your post didnt include a quote I took it to be a reply to the individual's most recent post. If not, then the wrongo bucko may belong to me if I am totally offtrack.

Stormdancer777
Hey, CVS is going to quit carrying cigarettes, what do you guys think?

Oh how dare them infringe upon my right to do what I want with my body. Federal law says that cigarettes are legal, and CVS is just right down the street. So why should I be forced to drive another half a mile simply because they don't agree with my lifestyle? Where's a good mandate when you need one?
*stomps foot*

nixie_nox

People who cry about business owner's rights, are people who support rampant racism and discrimination and probably want Jim Crow laws to come back. Mainly libertarians, the supporters of the old white guys in charge, party.

Wow...painted with a wide brush there...pot calling kettle black.

That is a statement that rivals / equates most racist statements in it's general indictment of a group of people.

I wont even go into how wrong this statement is...I will just say: hypocritical much?

I fancy myself a libertarian and yet the whole statement neither applies to me nor does it apply to any of my friends.

Personally, I find this statement to be reprehensible and insulting and absolutely has to be coming from a tiny little mind.