Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[Not2BSubjugated]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

 

[hobelim]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

If you only want to do business with people like yourself you should open up a concession booth in that Christian amusement park, Heritage USA.

You could make millions!


http://io9.com/5882369/jim-bakkers-christian-amusement-park-is-now-a-post-apocalyptic-ghost-town

 

[Moonglow]

Why are their Christian only phone books for business?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Anybody care to address this with an actual argument?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

If you only want to do business with people like yourself you should open up a concession booth in that Christian amusement park, Heritage USA.

You could make millions!


Jim Bakker's Christian amusement park is now a post-apocalyptic ghost town

Did you read my post at all? I specified that I'm not Christian, that I'm generally pro-choice, and generally pro-gay-rights.

Got anything to say that's not startlingly full of shit?

 

[Chuckt]

Anybody care to address this with an actual argument?

If you can be told who to do business with then you can be told how to do business and that is by having the mark and the number of the beast 666.

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

The fact is that it is Satan's kingdom:

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Matthew 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

 

[hobelim]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

If you only want to do business with people like yourself you should open up a concession booth in that Christian amusement park, Heritage USA.

You could make millions!


Jim Bakker's Christian amusement park is now a post-apocalyptic ghost town

Did you read my post at all? I specified that I'm not Christian, that I'm generally pro-choice, and generally pro-gay-rights.

Got anything to say that's not startlingly full of shit?

LOL... Your question is what is full of shit.

If you don't know why business owners can't discriminate perhaps you missed the whole segregation issues of the past where discrimination against people of color was once lawful.

If discrimination against believers of ridiculous religions was lawful believers would be out of work and homeless before the day was over.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Anybody care to address this with an actual argument?

If you can be told who to do business with then you can be told how to do business and that is by having the mark and the number of the beast 666.

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

The fact is that it is Satan's kingdom:

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Matthew 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Oh man, if it turns out the bible is true and the mark of the beast thing is some symbolic reference to open support of gay marriage, I will literally piss myself laughing throughout the entire rapture.

What a mind-fuck!

 

[hobelim]

Anybody care to address this with an actual argument?

If you can be told who to do business with then you can be told how to do business and that is by having the mark and the number of the beast 666.

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

The fact is that it is Satan's kingdom:

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Matthew 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Good post Chuck, but don't you also believe in the practice of anathema?

whats the difference?

 

[Jughead]

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

I fully agree. We should not be forced to renounce our faith for any reason. The first amendment is there for a reason.

Like the case in New Mexico where a judge ruled that a photographer must attend a gay wedding ceremony as part of his job. The judge did indeed say that the photographer was required to abandon his faith and attend the ceremony.

In my case, my faith is first and foremost. I would rather go to jail than renounce my faith.

 

[hobelim]

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

I fully agree. We should not be forced to renounce our faith for any reason. The first amendment is there for a reason.

Like the case in New Mexico where a judge ruled that a photographer must attend a gay wedding ceremony as part of his job. The judge did indeed say that the photographer was required to abandon his faith and attend the ceremony.

In my case, my faith is first and foremost. I would rather go to jail than renounce my faith.

Well then go ahead and open up a business and openly discriminate against everyone who is not like you and I bet you will find more people boycotting you than doing business with you and you would go out of business before you went to jail.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If you only want to do business with people like yourself you should open up a concession booth in that Christian amusement park, Heritage USA.

You could make millions!


Jim Bakker's Christian amusement park is now a post-apocalyptic ghost town

Did you read my post at all? I specified that I'm not Christian, that I'm generally pro-choice, and generally pro-gay-rights.

Got anything to say that's not startlingly full of shit?

LOL... Your question is what is full of shit.

If you don't know why business owners can't discriminate perhaps you missed the whole segregation issues of the past where discrimination against people of color was once lawful.

If discrimination against believers of ridiculous religions was lawful believers would be out of work and homeless before the day was over.

Actually, this response is full of shit. The thing that ended discrimination in the public arena was the Civil Rights Act, which doesn't include sexual orientation as a basis upon which a business cannot discriminate. You either support popular opinion which, in this case, seems to be that discriminating against gays at the counter is wrong, or you support the letter of the law, which still allows for that particular criteria. If you choose popular opinion, though, how do you reconcile reversing voter initiatives to outlaw gay marriage? The letter of the law is either beyond popular opinion or it is not, it can't be both whenever one suits you.

On top of that, even if I were to concede that argument, how is it that you justify demanding that businesses offer a particular form of compensation that may or may not violate their religious standards?

 

[Jughead]

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

I fully agree. We should not be forced to renounce our faith for any reason. The first amendment is there for a reason.

Like the case in New Mexico where a judge ruled that a photographer must attend a gay wedding ceremony as part of his job. The judge did indeed say that the photographer was required to abandon his faith and attend the ceremony.

In my case, my faith is first and foremost. I would rather go to jail than renounce my faith.

Well then go ahead and open up a business and openly discriminate against everyone who is not like you and I bet you will find more people boycotting you than doing business with you and you would go out of business before you went to jail.

I am well aware of the business world, and have a policy of serving everyone. I will however do nothing that is in anyway associated with gay wedding ceremonies or gay parades, as that will put me in direct conflict with my faith. There is nothing that will place me in conflict with my faith by say selling a car to a gay person, or by selling a piece of real estate to a gay person.

As for going bankrupt before going to jail, look at the case of the Colorado baker that declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding ceremony due to his religious beliefs. The judge ruled that he was required to renounce his faith and bake the cake. For obvious reasons, he declined. He is still in business ,and doing well, but there is a possibility that he might go to jail. He would go to jail for refusing to renounce his faith.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

I fully agree. We should not be forced to renounce our faith for any reason. The first amendment is there for a reason.

Like the case in New Mexico where a judge ruled that a photographer must attend a gay wedding ceremony as part of his job. The judge did indeed say that the photographer was required to abandon his faith and attend the ceremony.

In my case, my faith is first and foremost. I would rather go to jail than renounce my faith.

Well then go ahead and open up a business and openly discriminate against everyone who is not like you and I bet you will find more people boycotting you than doing business with you and you would go out of business before you went to jail.

That response, I would agree with, right up until the jail part. With discrimination, the market'll work itself out.

I say, let businesses discriminate against whoever they don't want to serve. If a shitload of bakers decide they don't want to bake cakes for homosexuals, you bet your ass I'm learning to bake and opening Rainbow Delicatessen at my soonest possible convenience. Holy shit, a major demographic-sized hole in the market? You know how fast that shit'd fill up?

There's plenty enough greedy opportunists out there like myself to make sure that anybody who needs a product has a place to spend their money.

If businesses don't want to hire people of certain ethnic backgrounds, our society has moved, culturally, to a point where that business would be publically lambasted on a regular basis until enough of their customers abandoned their racist asses to either put them out of business or give them second thoughts about operating like douche bags.

Just because you don't agree with how someone acts doesn't justify using the weight of society to push your morals on them. That's even more douche baggy than being a racist dick if you're only doing so by denying people you don't like access to your services.

 

[hobelim]

I fully agree. We should not be forced to renounce our faith for any reason. The first amendment is there for a reason.

Like the case in New Mexico where a judge ruled that a photographer must attend a gay wedding ceremony as part of his job. The judge did indeed say that the photographer was required to abandon his faith and attend the ceremony.

In my case, my faith is first and foremost. I would rather go to jail than renounce my faith.

Well then go ahead and open up a business and openly discriminate against everyone who is not like you and I bet you will find more people boycotting you than doing business with you and you would go out of business before you went to jail.

I am well aware of the business world, and have a policy of serving everyone. I will however do nothing that is in anyway associated with gay wedding ceremonies or gay parades, as that will put me in direct conflict with my faith. There is nothing that will place me in conflict with my faith by say selling a car to a gay person, or by selling a piece of real estate to a gay person.

As for going bankrupt before going to jail, look at the case of the Colorado baker that declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding ceremony due to his religious beliefs. The judge ruled that he was required to renounce his faith and bake the cake. For obvious reasons, he declined. He is still in business ,and doing well, but there is a possibility that he might go to jail. He would go to jail for refusing to renounce his faith.

If he suffered for his faith and went to jail for refusing to do business with someone who was gay, he will have a great reward waiting for him in heaven.....if God is a simple minded bigot.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well then go ahead and open up a business and openly discriminate against everyone who is not like you and I bet you will find more people boycotting you than doing business with you and you would go out of business before you went to jail.

I am well aware of the business world, and have a policy of serving everyone. I will however do nothing that is in anyway associated with gay wedding ceremonies or gay parades, as that will put me in direct conflict with my faith. There is nothing that will place me in conflict with my faith by say selling a car to a gay person, or by selling a piece of real estate to a gay person.

As for going bankrupt before going to jail, look at the case of the Colorado baker that declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding ceremony due to his religious beliefs. The judge ruled that he was required to renounce his faith and bake the cake. For obvious reasons, he declined. He is still in business ,and doing well, but there is a possibility that he might go to jail. He would go to jail for refusing to renounce his faith.

If he suffered for his faith and went to jail for refusing to do business with someone who was gay, he will have a great reward waiting for him in heaven.....if God is a simple minded bigot.

This justifies the persecution of any Christian for any reason. "What's the problem? If we persecute you for your faith that just means you get a greater reward in the hereafter, right?"

You Democrats are such tolerant humanitarians.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

They are still free to worship as they choose.
They are not allowed to force their religion on others.
If they want to publicly offer a service they are not free to discriminate against others in the offering of that service. They can choose to operate in a free society or open in a closed one. They do not operate their business in a vacuum apart from the reality that society is not required to abide by their dictums.
No one is forced to use the birth control measures allowed for in a medical plan. Each person is free to make that choice individually. It's availability does not equate to the forcing of anyone to avail themselves of it, but simply provides the option for people to act according to their own code and not be coerced into the decision made for them by a business owner. That decision is their own form of worship, free from artificial constrictions placed on them from someone else.
I have always thought that the freedom to make decisions is the best condition for people of faith, because then the decisions are based on the conviction and not the restriction.
If you don't want to serve the public, open a private club.
It worked in Augusta for years.

 

[hobelim]

I am well aware of the business world, and have a policy of serving everyone. I will however do nothing that is in anyway associated with gay wedding ceremonies or gay parades, as that will put me in direct conflict with my faith. There is nothing that will place me in conflict with my faith by say selling a car to a gay person, or by selling a piece of real estate to a gay person.

As for going bankrupt before going to jail, look at the case of the Colorado baker that declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding ceremony due to his religious beliefs. The judge ruled that he was required to renounce his faith and bake the cake. For obvious reasons, he declined. He is still in business ,and doing well, but there is a possibility that he might go to jail. He would go to jail for refusing to renounce his faith.

If he suffered for his faith and went to jail for refusing to do business with someone who was gay, he will have a great reward waiting for him in heaven.....if God is a simple minded bigot.

This justifies the persecution of any Christian for any reason. "What's the problem? If we persecute you for your faith that just means you get a greater reward in the hereafter, right?"

You Democrats are such tolerant humanitarians.

and many things just go right over your head, whatever you are.........

 

[guno]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

No one is asking for someone to give up their beliefs no matter how ignorant backward and idiotic they are, in addition the employer does not have the right to force his employees to follow his whack nut loon religion and beliefs. What happens when a Jehovah witness who don't believe in blood transfusions doesn't want to cover blood transfusions on their employees medical plan, or how about a christian science practitioner who doesn't believe in doctors? The list can go on and on and on . The entire thing is a phony issue drummed up by right wing christian nuts because they are against the AHC.

Hobby Lobby Invests in Companies That Manufacture Contraceptives. What Hypocrites.

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have stock holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other stock holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...s_in_companies_that_manufacture_the_same.html

 

[guno]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

No one is asking for someone to give up their beliefs no matter how ignorant backward and idiotic they are, in addition the employer does not have the right to force his employees to follow his whack nut loon religion and beliefs. What happens when a Jehovah witness who don't believe in blood transfusions doesn't want to cover blood transfusions on their employees medical plan, or how about a christian science practitioner who doesn't believe in doctors? The list can go on and on and on . The entire thing is a phony issue drummed up by right wing christian nuts because they are against the AHC.

Hobby Lobby Invests in Companies That Manufacture Contraceptives. What Hypocrites.

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have stock holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other stock holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

Hobby Lobby retirement plan invests in companies that manufacture the same forms of contraceptives they are supposed to be morally opposed to.

Hobby Lobby seems to have no qualms funding abortion as long as they can profit from it.

Most of Hobby Lobby's goods are made in China. They are made in large factories by companies that pay taxes and fees to the Chinese government. Hobby Lobby pays the Chinese corporations, (in fact, they actually own one factory in China). They pay the government, and the government uses the money to fund its operations. That's the way it works. One of the things the Chinese government, especially on the provincial and local levels, uses its funds for is to propagate and enforce a one-child policy. Enforcement of this policy leads to forced abortions, sterilization, and infanticide. This is what actually happens; these abortions are real, not what anyone "believes," like the non-existant abortions caused by the morning-after pill or IUD.

Hobby Lobby says on its website that it is committed to "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles." Apparently, those principles end at the borders of the United States for the sake of profit. They could choose to buy their products from American factories, they could have chosen to build their factory here in order not to violate their "beliefs"...but they did not. And that gives the game away.