Imagine
Previous post

Capitalist Hypocrisy, What?

Capitalist Hypocrisy, What?

Oh, sweet, sweet Hobby Lobby, holder of my heart AND my wallet…………….drop the hypocritical outrage.

It’s a little something like this:

Yeah, I’m to the right of Attila politically and fully endorse and support capitalism and the right of man to his ambitions, but I do have a functional brain that is far too wired and in overdrive even while sleeping. So, when I peruse the gilt aisles of cupcake wrappers and floral ribbon, heed the call of the ink on Stationery Row, submit to the siren’s call of the windchimes, I notice but one thing now that Hobbity Lobbity has decided to bellow their outrage at The Man:

THIS SHIT’S MADE IN CHINA!

Yeah, THAT China, the commie pinko land of the forced abortions (13 million abortions in China last year, peeps), where 500 women commit suicide daily, the enrollment of girls in school is ranked 107th worldwide, wages of women are 25% lower than those of men, where religion and speech are governmentally controlled, Han are treated as less-than-equal (to state it mildly), and the list goes on.

But let’s focus on the abortions in China, since that directly correlates to Hobbity Lobbity’s perceived violation of their Christian principles.

An estimated 13,000,000 annually, more than half of which are forced as a result of prenatal sex selection due to the importance placed on male babies. Mandatory periodic pregnancy tests. Mandatory vaginal palpation of rural women’s vaginas to make sure they hadn’t recently given birth. Government-forced sterilization for violation of the One-Child Policy. Mandatory IUD insertion after the first child, with mandatory sterilization if a second is born. Teachers lose retirement benefits for birth quota violatons. Again, the list goes on.

Oddly, that doesn’t prevent Hobby Lobby from obtaining their merchandise from such a country. Awkward…..

So, if you, Hobby Lobby, want to piss and moan that the government is acting out of bounds constitutionally in requiring that you provide certain insurance or be fined, fine. I can and do agree with that. Please, don’t act like your “principles” and “religion” are being violated, however.

To that I say,  Cut the shit, hypocrites. It’s about your wallet, not principle.

Written by

Obsessively grammatically correct and unapologetically politically incorrect Mom, better half, friend, mad scientist, Papist, and bibliophilic conservative hippie with an internet connection.

121 Comments
  • Gulermo says:

    Out of curiosity, what exactly did you think free people with a capitalistic economy would do? Do you think the Chinese should demand structural changes in the U.S. as a pre-condition to trade? You might want to re-think that word conservative in your header.

  • ROS says:

    Perhaps, Sir, you should re-read what I wrote a second and third time.

    Are you denying that Hobby Lobby is lamenting this administration’s levy of the insurance mandate because it violates their “Christian principles” while the country who provides the majority of their products and enables them to profit violates the same?

    • steve says:

      I understand your point, but deny it. Selling products made in other countries is by far much different than the local company being forced to provide weapons of mass baby murder. China’s government forces people to do this? How is hobby lobby’s stopping selling all items from china going to assist with that? They are asking the core company to change what THEY do, not what China does.. your just searching for reasons, you should quit.

  • Squid says:

    Given that you yourself have admitted to handing over your wallet and your heart to Hobby Lobby, I can’t help but ask how you can look yourself in the mirror without seeing an accomplice to murder? Why should any of us be swayed by your words, when you’re an avowed supporter of Chinese gendercide?

    Hypocrite, cut thine own shit.

  • ROS says:

    I’m curious, did you actually read the post, or did your feigned rage-tinted lenses cloud your vision?

    HL may procure their merchandise from whomever they so choose; that is the beauty of this country and capitalism in general. Their protest of the blatantly unconstitutional healthcare mandate on the premise of a violation of their Christian values while doing so is squarely hypocritical, however. It isn’t about standing up to our government, rather it’s about consistency in their outrage, not just when it affects their profit margin.

    I, personally, choose not to purchase items made in China, but that does not prevent me from the purchase of goods made elsewhere, which they also carry.

    I thank you for your response and gentle tone.

  • Gulermo says:

    I only wish it were a comprehension problem on my part.

    Forty years ago, China, open society or not?

    Change in the last forty years, or not.

    Change for the better or worse, (more western, more open, which I might add, seems to be your problem with them now).

    If better, why?

    If worse, why.

    May I suggest that you do what other free men do, vote with your wallet. Make sure you’re informed with that vote, though, you wouldn’t want to destroy the vehicle of change that you seem to desire.

    Forest and trees; some assembly required.

  • Squid says:

    Right. Because a family willing to face a million dollars a day in fines is all about the bottom line.

    And let’s not even go into the false equivalence between buying a product made by Chinese workers and supporting Chinese government policies. Let me ask you: when the Democrats succeed in making abortion and gay marriage the law of the land, will you cast about for goods made somewhere else, because you can’t support a mom-and-pop hardware store that gets their hand tools from an American factory that pays taxes that go toward Progressive policies?

  • Gulermo says:

    “Their protest of the blatantly unconstitutional healthcare mandate on the premise of a violation of their Christian values while doing so is squarely hypocritical,” Now you’re just phoning it in and arguing b assertion is weak tea, at best.

    Somehow you missed the part about one entity as a company of business people juxtaposed next to a GOVERNMENT.

    One of these two is not like the other.

  • ROS says:

    And I am afraid that you also missed the part that says they are protesting the mandate based on their principles, the violation of which they’ve no issues with if they can obtain their products more inexpensively.

    As for the “false equivalence between buying a product made by Chinese workers and supporting Chinese government policies” bent, I will remind you that you just accused me of being an “accomplice to murder” and “supporter of Chinese gendercide” for the same.

  • ROS says:

    Rather, that was your friend. My apologies.

  • Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) says:

    Posted at my blog…

  • Squid says:

    I accused you of nothing. I merely pointed out that your hands are just as dirty as those you would belittle. Frankly, I don’t think that either party is really an accessory to murder, which makes your “principled stand” little more than cheap showboating to prove yourself holier than the rest of us.

    Further, I find it sad and frustrating that you’d pull your support from a family that is actively fighting to resist an overreaching state that threatens to trample you and I, because they bought cheap crap from China, and somehow their helping a Chinese kid go from subsistence farming to a job with a modicum of security is worse than the fact that some small part of that help gets sucked up by a government that’s only marginally worse than the one we’re saddled with (and that margin gets thinner every month, it seems).

    So yeah, go ahead and pull your support from somebody who’s fighting the good fight, because you want to pretend that they’re not pure enough for you. And when they’ve been crushed by the State — their family ruined, their business destroyed, their employees left to join the armies of Obama’s unemployed — you can pat yourself on the back, because they won’t be able to buy cheap crap from China any more, and the people in that factory can go back to their marginal farmland and pray for good weather. And the rest of us can keep looking over our shoulders, wondering which of us will be next in Washington’s sights.

    Bless your heart.

  • Gulermo says:

    Please answer my above questions.

  • ROS says:

    What the both of you fail to comprehend, though I’ve explained ad nauseum, is that this isn’t about the policies of China itself, but the actions on Hobby Lobby’s part in their protestations. I will answer those questions, Gulermo, when they are pertinent to the topic at hand.

    This has everything to do with HL stating that those protests are for the reasons they’ve set forth instead of the fact that it is exactly for those reasons you both have laid out :government overreach. I wholly agree with that assessment and believe that they should not be subject to such. The issue is that they choose not to validate their actions with that, but to attempt to justify them by throwing in the “principle” card when their own business decisions violate them as well. THAT is hypocrisy.

  • Ernst Schreiber says:

    Respectfully, what you’re missing the compulsory aspect. Hobby Lobby is free to do business with China, or not. There decision has no impact on what happens in China. You are free to not buy Chinese manufactured products from Hobby Lobby, or do. Your decision has no impact on what happens in China.

    Hobby Lobby is not free to offer health insurance that doesn’t pay for abortions. The HHS Secretary’s decision has tremendous impact on what Hobby Lobby does.

    • ROS says:

      I’m not missing the compulsory aspect at all, and I fully agree with what you’ve stated, Mr. Schreiber. My point was that they are arguing against it based on moral conviction while turning a blind eye to violations of those same moral convictions when purchasing products made in China.

      Hobby Lobby’s rejection of the mandate, however, has been based primarily on their purported principles, not its illegality or the fact that it’s unconstitutional.

      • Ernst Schreiber says:

        Those principles would be their religious ones that Obamacare’s mandate prohibits them from freely exercising, yes?

        • ROS says:

          Exactly, the same ones that the people from whom they obtain their merchandise violate at length.

          • Ernst Schreiber says:

            Hobby Lobby isn’t responsible for abortions in China.

            Hobby Lobby is being required by law to participate, contrary to their concientious objection, in abortions in the United States. That’s the difference.

          • Ernst Schreiber says:

            Hobby Lobby isn’t violating its pro-life principles, China is, and neither Hobby Lobby nor China is answerable to the other for offenses by one against the principles of the other.

            Hobby Lobby is being required by law to violate it’s own principles, and Hobby Lobby is answerable in Federal Court if they refuse to comply.

            Just to clear up my point.

          • ROS says:

            I’m fully cognizant of the fact that they are being required by law to participate, though I would argue that they are violating their own principles through their support of the Chinese economy. Granted, it’s a negligiible amount monetarily, but we are talking about principle, which is what HL is arguing. You can’t put a price on that.

        • Ernst Schreiber says:

          “I would argue that they are violating their own principles through their support of the Chinese economy. [….] You can’t put a price on that.”

          Actually you can, and Hobby Lobby just did. To the tune of whatever they’re being fined.

          Also, I think you have a rather extensive view of the effective reach of Hobby Lobby’s principles.

          Finally, as the song says, “ain’t no livin’ in a perfect world.”

      • Ernst Schreiber says:

        As to turning blind eyes, I think that’s the wisdom of knowing the difference between accepting the things they cannot change and having the courage to try to change the things they can.

        Now, if China would only agree to do business if Hobby Lobby instituted a one child policy for all it’s employees….

  • Maggie Goff says:

    I had to read the WHOLE THING three times in order to take it all in. I am in complete agreement with the author. It stands to reason.

    • Ernst Schreiber says:

      I never donate to charity. I could only help a few you see, and since I can’t help everybody, it just stands to reason to help nobody.

  • Gulermo says:

    Jane:
    So. That is a no?

    Answer the questions, or if you will, look for the answers to those questions.

    “THAT is hypocrisy.” Pretend outrage, imagine that.

    “When all is said and done, more will be said, than done.” Duke DeKeno

    • ROS says:

      No pretend outrage, only a point that you refuse to see as a result of your belief that I’ve insulted captalism through my criticism of HL.

  • Is this supposed to be a conservative website?

    This is considered to be conservative thoughtful analysis?

    “Let’s mock Hobby Lobby for refusing to bank roll abortions!”

    I hate it when christians stand up against bank rolling abortion. What nerve those christofascist, cousin humpin’, gun totin’, hickbillies have.

    Oh right, I just don’t understand the nuances of this blogpost.

    • ROS says:

      I’ll explain it to you, Mr. Cimmerian.

      Hobby Lobby is being forced to provide insurance coverage including birth control and “medical procedures” by an adminstration overstepping their bounds.They are protesting that mandate under the premise that it violates their Christian principles, yet they purchase the majority of their products and financially support a country who does just that because it is less expensive to procure those products via that avenue. I call that hypocrisy.

      I vehemently disagree with the government mandate and am decidedly conservative, yes. I will not, however, turn a blind eye to hypocrisy, even when shown by a self-professed conservative company.

      Were they to object to the mandate because it’s unconstitutional, that would be one thing. That they are objecting, they say, because of their aversion to the inclusion of birth control and abortion while not caring that they bankroll the same is a bit ludicrous.

      • This Constitution you speak of…Are the rights there given by the government? Are the rights there Natural Rights, aka God given rights?

        So when they refuse to bank roll abortion, on religious freedom grounds, you say they are not objecting on the unconstitutional nature of the mandate?

        That is an interesting argument that you are putting forth.

        • ROS says:

          I’m saying that they’re being dishonest in their reasoning behind their opposition, otherwise they wouldn’t support a country who forces those violations of their religion.

          I actually said that I do back opposition to the mandate as I believe it to be unconstitutional, as do I back fully the opposition to bankrolling abortion, but they are not consistent with that doctrine.

  • ROS says:

    I’m not missing the compulsory aspect at all, and I fully agree with what you’ve stated, Mr. Schreiber. My point was that they are arguing against it based on moral conviction while turning a blind eye to violations of those same moral convictions when purchasing products made in China.

    Hobby Lobby’s rejection of the mandate, however, has been based primarily on their purported principles, not its illegality or the fact that it’s unconstitutional.

  • Gulermo says:

    Jane:

    “that you refuse to see” Stop mis-characterizing me. I both read and write in English. We disagree. I don’t “refuse” your point of view. You are dishonest to conflate two issues to make a political point.

    What changes have occurred in China in the last forty years and why?

    • ROS says:

      You may call me ROS.

      Changes in China have absolutely nothing to do with this, and that you refuse to see. This isn’t a political point at all, but a point that you can’t say one thing and do another.

      Read my above post and see if you can find a bit of clarity.

  • Walmart needs to stop stocking and selling guns and ammo.

    They do the most business with China of just about anyone, and China does not allow the serfs to have guns, therefore, ergo, such, with, and in conclusion….Walmart is a bunch of hypocrites for supporting companies in a country that refuses arms for the serfs, er excuse me, citizens.

    NUANCE!

    That, or perhaps, Walmart is trying to provide the cheapest price stuff to stay competitive and beat their competition. And Walmart knows they have no chance of changing the politics within China,

    • ROS says:

      No, WM doesn’t stand a chance of changing policy in China, nor should they expect to. WM also isn’t declaring any of those policies is contradictory to their principles, then turning around and funding them.

      • Ernst Schreiber says:

        Hobby Lobby isn’t funding abortion in China. Hobby Lobby cancel every order with it’s Chinese suppliers today, and not one abortion would be prevented for lack of funds.

      • Jeff says:

        Is that what they’re doing? Funding the Chinese government? Seems to me they are providing jobs for unaborted Chinese people in exchange for goods that keep them competitive in a tight marketplace.

        Rather, I’d say at this point that it is the Chinese government that is essentially funding us by purchasing our debt. Imagine! (What’s left of) a constitutional republic being keep afloat by ChiComs! I should probably surrender my liberty rather than risk being marked a hypocrite for retaining it at such a cost.

        The point is, there are market realities for running a business. You choose to fixate on the abortions in China while others here suggest to you that one way to help the Chinese people against their government is to provide capital and stoke ideological change using the market system and increases to the standard of living.

        Perhaps Hobby Lobby, rather than being hypocrites, are acting out of Christian charity in both instances.

      • By selling arms and ammo, they are tacitly supporting the right to keep and bear arms. Yet they are doing business with a companies in a country that has a government that will jail and execute those that might try and exercise the Natural Right of bearing arms.

        That does suggest hypocrisy, does it not?

        Of course it does.

        Unless one realizes that there in nothing they can much do to change politics and policy in China. In which case, a company can choose to acquire goods as cheaply as possible and stay in business, or die upon the altar of pure perfect purity of pureness.

        And everybody holds to that pure perfect purity of pureness, correct?

        • ROS says:

          Where is WM arguing with the government based on principle? That is more than a bit of a straw man.

          • Actually, it is in no part or bit, a strawman.

            In fact, Walmart is so down in the gun business, that they were invited to Joe Biden’s sit down with the the NRA, Cabelas, other gun related entities, etc. as a part of that collective group at that meeting.

            Initially they balked at the idea of going to the meeting, then changed their mind.

            Why did they balk? Who knows, but I could speculate that it was because they had no desire to sit down and have unconstitutional limits thrown at them on their selling of arms and ammo (2nd Amendment).

            So, yes, Walmart is the largest seller of arms and ammo in the US. OBVIOUSLY, they are dependent and intertwined with the 2nd Amendment.

            So to say that they are not being hypocrites on some level when they do business with communists is to be willfully blind.

            Unless one is reasonable to understand that they are doing business with China, not blessing China’s policies or politics.

            • ROS says:

              Yes, it is a strawman.

              You are focusing on the opposition of Hobby Lobby instead of their reasoning for that opposition.

              • Ernst Schreiber says:

                And you know what the “real” reason for that opposition is money, not principle, because your a Bene Gesserit Truth Sayer I suppose.

                Good grief.

                • ROS says:

                  Really? Have you not read their own words? Their reason may very well be – and probably is – prnciple, but they don’t apply their principles consistently.

                  You really don’t get that, do you? It’s all a perceived slight on my part against their principles, regardless of the fact that I didn’t do any such thing.

                • Ernst Schreiber says:

                  “the don’t apply their principles consitently”

                  That’s because the two situations, doing business with Chinese manufacturers/suppliers and paying for abortions aren’t the same thing.

                  Thought expirment for you:

                  Person A is a tee-totaler. Person B is an alcoholic. If person A pays person B for some product or service, and Person B spends that money on Devil’s Own Firewater (150 proof), has person A violated his principle?

  • Gulermo says:

    “I will not, however, turn a blind eye to hypocrisy, even when shown by a self-professed conservative company.”

    Sure you will. You ignore the fact that all the westerning of China has come about through the use of market forces and capitalism. Now, “THAT is hypocrisy.” You should look into a copyright or something because you are all about the capitalism.

    • ROS says:

      For the last time, and I am still unclear as to why you just cannot comprehend this, it is not about China. It is about acts that occur in China that HL espouses violates their principles in order to validate their opposition to the healthcare mandate, yet they have no issue supporting through trade.

      They could trade predominantly with Iran for all I care, and that would also be hypocrisy because they are validating their opposition through the use of principle. Why they can’t just come out and say they oppose it because it’s jacked and unconstitutional and the government has stepped far beyond their acceptable scope is beyond me, but they choose to say it’s because of their beliefs while trading with countries who violate those beliefs to the extreme.

  • Kate says:

    Since when did conservatives ascribe to group think? So ROS has a different viewpoint than the rest of you about HL’s boycott and capitalism. Ok. Big deal. Is she still a conservative? OF COURSE SHE IS. And there’s really no need to be disrespectful to her because you can’t flip her opinion. Frankly, she deserves some respect for staying here all day to debate with you conservative knuckleheads. 🙂

    • I don’t see anyone being particularly disrespectful to her.
      Unless, of course, logically defending your argument is now some new form of disrespect. (And, yes, such is a form of disrespect to the decidedly unconservative feminists and their movement)

      • ROS says:

        Hey, I’m not unconservative, bud.

        And where I come from, “bless your heart” is decidedly disrespectful. I do thank you for employing logic with the others who have. Those who have not, a pox on them.

  • Since we agree on the fact that no company in the US is going to be able to change any politics or policy in China, Hobby Lobby can either:
    1. Take the most perfect and pure ideological stance – Not buy products from China and be out competed by anyone and everyone until they go out of business.
    2. Buy from China, and try their best to fight the government mandate in a country where they are headquartered.

    I am sorry, but I am not seeing much of a choice here.
    Until the US bans all business with China, option 1 is a death sentence. Option 2 is the only option left to a company that wishes to remain in business and not directly bank roll abortion.

    • ROS says:

      I’m saying only that I would prefer that they be honest and consistent with why they oppose the mandate and that is because it is unconstitutional.

    • Now, if you wish for the US to cut off all economic ties with countries that are not free and inflict horror in various ways upon their citizenry…Well I think there is an argument to be had there.

      But then that is a whole ‘nuther pig wallow in which to bathe.

  • Once again, is not opposing the mandate for Religious Liberty (religious reasons/purposes) not the same thing as unconstitutional? Or are we going to play semantic games here?

    • excuse me, not opposing to be just opposing

      • ROS says:

        Unconstitutional is not limited to solely violations of religious liberties. It’s unconstitutional for many reasons. HL, though, has chosen to focus on their religious beliefs which oppose crimes against humanity including abortion, which is rampant in the country of origin stamped all along their shelves.

        They focused on that, not I. That is precisely why I said it’s hypocrisy, because they didn’t say it was because it was unconstitutional.

        • I am sorry, but that seems little more than choosing to argue over semantics.

          • ROS says:

            If they were protesting the mandate on anything other than their opposition to abortion and restriction of religious freedoms, I would agree. They narrowed it down to that.

        • Ernst Schreiber says:

          Arguing with you is like arguing with someone who hates Sarah Palin, despite agreeing with everything she says, because that somone can’t stand to hear her twang.

          • If they were protesting the mandate on anything other than their opposition to abortion and restriction of religious freedoms, I would agree. They narrowed it down to that.

            You may think this is some sort of point, but it is not.
            The very fact that they oppose it for those reasons are exactly equivalent to the argument is unconstitutional.

            To simplify it for you:
            If they oppose it for religious reasons, they are opposing it on 1st Amendment grounds…They are opposing it in Constitutional grounds…That is, it is unconstitutional. They are opposing it on the exact grounds that you state are acceptable, ie CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.

            1. Opposing for religious purposes
            2. Religious Purposes is Freedom of Religion
            3. Freedom of Religion = Constitutional grounds.
            4. Thus opposing for religious purposes = opposing on Constitutional Grounds, ie it is unconstitutional.

            • ROS says:

              No, it is a point you refuse to see.

              Using your logic, I like naked mole rats.

              1. I like animals.
              2. A rodent is an animal.
              3. A naked mole rat is a rodent.
              4. I like naked mole rats.

              They’re hideous and look like chihuahuas that are 7 seconds old.

              While religious grounds as reason for refusal to follow a mandate would be considered refusal on constitutional grounds, the constitution is not just about religion. You’re generalizing a bit there, big guy.

  • Gulermo says:

    “Well I think there is an argument to be had there.” Well there goes the Great State of Illinois.

    “I’m saying only that I would prefer that they be honest and consistent”

    An educated person, such as yourself, would know that the Chinese army has it’s own factories and does, in fact, use prison and slave labor to produce products for foreign markets. Often those products are exactly like the products produced in the free trade zones. So may I suggest that you, as a principaled moral person take a consistant stand and not purchase anything made there. See, simple your moral dilemma is solved.

    Mote, beam, eye, you figure it out.

  • happyfeet says:

    chinese are really good at crafts and stuff they made a whole army out of terra cotta

    a whole freaking army!

  • Ernst Schreiber says:

    As far as the issue of hypocrisy goes, if Hobby Lobby had chosen to stop offering health insurance as a benefit to its employees altogether, and instead simply paid the fines, you’re argument would be on much firmer ground.

  • Gulermo says:

    “You may call me ROS.” Sorry, no can do. To close to POS and I don’t want to be misconstrued. May I call you Ernestine instead? I mean, you have the face, you should at least use the name that goes with it.

  • Ros: You do understand that a female can advocate for the equality of women and be pro-life, pro-2A, and otherwise conservative as well, right?

    Equality is a loaded term, conceptually.

    Are men and women equal? No. In fact they are quite qualitatively different. They are not the same, and they are not fungible.

    Should women be treated the same as men under the law? Yes in most circumstances. But, there will be some differences here due to the fact that men and women are qualitatively different and some differences in law will naturally exist due to those differences.

    Please do some in depth research into the foundations of feminism and the evolution of feminism. The roots, trunk, and branches are not conservative, liberty oriented, or anything of that nature.

  • happyfeet says:

    if they ever make a musical about hobby lobby and its fight against the fascist obama regime’s efforts to impose top-down health insurance requirements I hope they don’t cast anne hathaway cause she too damn skinny

  • Gulermo says:

    “Sugar.” Wow twice in one week.

    You don’t like Jane and you don’t like Ernestine but you use her image as an avatar.

  • Dana says:

    When I wrote about Hobby Lobby’s problems, it should have occurred to me that they were selling items manufactured in China, but it did not; thanks for “the rest of the story.”

    Hobby Lobby could, now that this has been pointed out to them, change their purchasing policies. It would be virtually impossible to find a source from a country which did not permit abortion, but I’m certain that they could find products from countries which don’t compel abortions. That might change their pricing structure, but perhaps not too much: products from Guatemala are reasonably competitive with products from China.

    • ROS says:

      Thank you for posting logically and actually reading what I wrote as it was intended.

      I support fully Hobby Lobby’s decision to not provide coverage of the morning-after pill based on not only their religious beliefs, but because it is unconstitutional for the government to force an entity, be it a business or individual, to purchase a good or service, especially when it violates their 1st Amendment rights as well. This quote sums it up for me:

      “The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”

      That was from Kyle Duncan, representative of the company. It is my personal opinion that they are not remaining true to their faith through their support of industry in a country which not only does the same, but forces it. While China is (obviously) a huge supplier of goods in our country, its (predominant) culture is contrary to exactly that which Hobby Lobby is using to substantiate their opposition to the unconstitutional mandate. We could also go into their protestation of the morning after pill and its erroneous label as an abortifacient, but we’ll save that for another day.

      • Ernst Schreiber says:

        “[‘]The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,[‘] Duncan said. [‘]To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.[‘]

        “That was from Kyle Duncan, representative of the company. It is my personal opinion that they are not remaining true to their faith through their support of industry in a country which not only does the same, but forces it. While China is (obviously) a huge supplier of goods in our country, its (predominant) culture is contrary to exactly that which Hobby Lobby is using to substantiate their opposition to the unconstitutional mandate.”

        I’m sorry I missed this from earlier in the day. I might have saved myself some effort.

        Look, if and when China tells Hobby Lobby that, the dollar not being what it used to be these days, henceforth they want to be paid in abortion-inducing drugs, and Hobby Lobby were to agree to supply those drugs in exchange for chinese manufactures, then you will have a point about Hobby Lobby acting hypocritically.

        But right now, they aren’t, and you don’t.

  • Dana says:

    Ros, Kate, someone: whenever a commenter uses the i html code for italics, the site appears to kick it into a blockquote.

  • So.

    If I am against abortion, and I have bought products made in China, then I am hypocrite.

    And I have bought a ton of Chinese cr@p. It seems it is everywhere.

    I guess I am one great, big hypocrite.

    • Dana says:

      Kind of like all of those people screaming about shopping locally, and then buying from WalMart; see John Edwards about this issue. 🙂

      It is true enough that Americans have been choosing to buy imported goods for so long that many American manufacturers have lost out and disappeared, so it make take more diligence — and possibly more money — to buy not Chinese, but it is possible.

  • LD Jackson says:

    You make a very compelling argument. I believe I understand the point you are trying to make, ie. that Hobby Lobby is saying they are standing on the principles of their Christian faith, yet they are at the same time, violating those principles by purchasing goods from China, which country forces abortion upon its citizens.

    For many of the reasons already stated, I would disagree that Hobby Lobby is being hypocritical about this. They are being forced to participate in Obamacare and its mandates and are refusing to do so because of their Christian faith. This is something they can do to help affect change in America.

    As for China, nothing they can or are able to do will make a single effective change in that country’s policy on abortion. I tend to believe there is a big difference between the two instances, but one could also argue that Hobby Lobby should be willing to stand on its principles in the case of China.

    Personally, I’ll still come down on the side of Hobby Lobby and their stand against the federal government and its mandates.

  • I’m late to the party, but I’m so disheartened to see an ostensible “conservative woman” as ROS engage in the Left’s favorite pastime

    Telling people of faith how they should demonstrate that faith and, if they don’t follow ever Left-defined jot & tittle, then BY GOLLY FAUX-CHRISTIAN!!!

    Bovine excrement, dear ROS. Our own Government is forcing them to directly provide money for the express purpose of funding access to abortifacients.

    Maybe you also believe nurses and doctors be forced to perform abortions? If not, why not, since they may be getting part of their salaries via medicare or Obamacare $$?

    This is just sad and disheartening. The first freedom of the Bill of Rights is being torn asunder and you’re cheering it on.

    #doomed

  • Gulermo says:

    One quick question; can you please look on the bottom or back of your computer and read to me where your computer was manufactured? Thanks.

  • Gulermo says:

    Or your Iphone, if you happen to have one. Thanks, again.

  • Maybe, too, ROS you should consider that while Jesus certainly went among the sinners, traded with them and even broke bread with them, He wasn’t forced to pay for a disciple’s choice to commit sin.

  • Gulermo says:

    Jane:

    “No, it is a point you refuse to see.” Because, you said. Not good enough.

    “You’re generalizing a bit there, big guy.” Because, you said. Where exactly do your rights, (as enumerated), spring from?

    Self awareness, look into it.

  • Dana says:

    Ros, are you sorry now that Kate worked hard to promote your article? 🙂

    • ROS says:

      Not at all. 😀

      I don’t mind so much that people disagree with me, more so that my words aren’t received as I intended and the focus lost. That means I’ve failed to articulate my thoughts clearly enough for everyone to understand, and that is enough to make me throw produce. 🙂

  • Gulermo says:

    Jane:

    “Thank you for your logical and reasonable response.”

    Minimize all you want. Positing something as the “truth” doesn’t make it thus.

    Do you ascribe to the propostion that you may point at what you believe to be some third parties behavior and describe said behavior a sub-optimal , while holding your own behavior above suspect and reproach? Maybe a quick email to HL might be in order to assertain their “true” intent. Just so’s theres no mis-understanding. That way the “focus” won’t be lost.

    Who knows; you might make some new friends, or at least score some coupons for cheap broches made by slave labor in Central America, (where I have been informed they don’t have a forced abortion policy, yet).

  • rb325th says:

    So… Seems pretty simple to me.
    A Company that Stands on its Christian Beliefs and Principles of course is justified in refusing to being forced to pay for their employees abortions via morning after pills… I get that, seems logical to me…
    Yet, if their beliefs are so strong against abortion that they would take on the US Government over it, why on earth then would they do business with the biggest mass murders on the planet when it comes to abortion?
    Maybe I am just not over thinking this like so many others appear to be. It is hypocritical of them to on the one hand stand on the bully pulpit and denounce the US Government for forcing them to pay for abortions via health insurance coverage in violation of their beliefs, while on the other they pay China a boatload of money for their products. Arguably some of that money in turn goes to promoting/supporting/enabling China to continue its repressive and inhumane treatment of woman and program of forced abortions. Yet they express no outrage and have no problem spending their money in that country…

    • Ernst Schreiber says:

      “Maybe I am just not over thinking this like so many others appear to be. It is hypocritical of them to on the one hand stand on the bully pulpit and denounce the US Government for forcing them to pay for abortions via health insurance coverage in violation of their beliefs, while on the other they pay China a boatload of money for their products.”

      Or maybe you’re underthinking it. Or it could be that you’re so accustomed to thinking according to present conventions that you really do think Hobby Lobby has a universal right to dictate to their chinese suppliers what happens outside of the terms of their business contract.

      • rb325th says:

        Did I say that they had a right to dictate to China what their policies should be? No. I stated that if they (Hobby Lobby) should stand on its priciples and beliefs and refuse to spend money in China.

        • Ernst Schreiber says:

          “[T]hey (Hobby Lobby) should stand on its priciples and beliefs and refuse to spend money in China.”

          Because choosing to buy chinese made cupcake wrappers, floral ribbon, ink and stationery, and, of course, windchimes for resale in the United States is the exact same thing as being forced to provide abortion coverage as part of its employee benefit health insurance.

  • Gulermo says:

    “bully pulpit”

    Exercising one’s inalienable right is now described as a “bully pulpit” Did you even bother to think this through?

    “Arguably some of that money in turn goes to promoting/supporting/enabling China to continue its repressive and inhumane treatment of woman and program of forced abortions. ”

    As does the money from your Ipad, Iphone and numerous CONSUMER products that you have laying around your house as we speak, (how’s the UV light from your Government mandated CFL treating you?). We won’t even start on industrial products and equipment that are used daily in the U.S. and many other parts of the world.

    “Yet they express no outrage and have no problem spending their money in that country….”

    I am sure you are also aware that ALL foreign business transactions are overseen and approved by a central economic committee?

    And uh…That would be your money, if you do business with them. The simple solution is not to do business with them. Problem solved. And just because you think everyone should meet the same standard, for the consistancy mind you, I propose that the same morality should be displayed wrt other products from China. Boycott everything, you know, for the consistancy.

    Jane:”Bingo.” was his name-o.

    • ROS says:

      Are the rest of us protesting on those grounds? No. That is the point that seems to elude your ever-so-advanced brain.

      You’ll need to try harder on the wit as well.

    • rb325th says:

      I own no Apple Products. I have stockpiled incandescent light bulbs to the point I have run out of room for them. I will grudgingly use what I have to when it comes to that… though I will probably switch entirely to LED’s as they are longer lasting and give better light.
      Again, this is not about me though. This is about Hobby Lobby and their business practices being just a wee bit hypocritical…
      Their complaint with the US Government is valid, but they invalidate or at least appear as hypocrites of the worst order every time they deal with China without even raising an eyebrow to the incredible human rights abuses there.

    • Ernst Schreiber says:

      What you’re both missing is that Hobby Lobby isn’t responsible for what is done with the money they pay in exchange for goods. Nor are they responsible for what was done with the money their customers pay them in exchange for the resale of those good before they accept it.

      What Hobby Lobby is responsible for is what they do with their money directly. So, as long as Hobby Lobby isn’t selling products made from fetal tissue, or something like that, (i.e. making money off of the abortions they don’t want to be morally implicated in by paying for them) the charge of corporate hypocrisy is a baseless one.

      Unless, that is, you both happen to believe that Hobby Lobby has some kind of obligation rooted in something like Social Justice(!) which requires them to seek to insure that they only transact business with persons and organizations who think and act the same way they do.

      In which case, congratulations. You’re in agreement with Barak “My brother’s keeper” Obama.

      • ROS says:

        I’m disappointed that your myopic views disallow your ability to see that those at Hobby Lobby are putting themselves on a social justice platform through their reasoning for opposition to the mandate. All you see is “Oh, my God! Someone said something derogatory about a “Christian” company! Those socialist, liberal Obamanistas!” instead of actually using reason and logic. If you truly supported them because they are a self-proclaimed company whose values and principles were aligned with yours ideologically, you would ask why they act as they do. Thus, I would express the sentiment that it is you who is more in step with The One’s ideology, namely because you believe your ideas to be supreme regardless of evidence to the contrary.

        • Ernst Schreiber says:

          You’ve put yourself in the position of arguing that doing business in a country that forces abortion on its citizens (note, it’s citizens, not Hobby Lobby) is the exact same thing as Hobby Lobby’s being forced to pay for abortion coverage by its own government, and I’m the myopic one? Interesting.

          Oh well. We can’t all be Truthsayers.

          As to why they act the way they do, right motivation is between them and God. I’m not presumptuous enough to insert myself into that particular conversation. And even if I were, I think I’m farsighted enough to understand both that justice in this world is imperfect, and that moral culpability diminishes as intervening players and actions accrue.

          Now, as to Hobby Lobby’s opposition to Obama Care on the narrow question of the law’s infringement upon their 1st amendment right to freely exercise their religion, if they succeed in poking a hole in Obamacare’s Constitutional standing, good for them. Because the only way to overturn it now is piece by piece. Or were you planning on waiting a generation for a rehearing?

          Finally, what evidence? The only evidence you’ve offered is your opinion that they’re acting in a manner inconsistent with their stated beliefs. So either you are a mind reader, or, in your opinion, they’re hypocrites because they’re not conducting their business in the manner you think they should, based not on what they’ve stated their beliefs are, but upon your interpretation of what those stated beliefs are.

          Your argument isn’t that Hobby Lobb acts in a maaner inconsitent with its stated principles, it’s that Hobby Lobby acts inconsistently with the principles you’ve ascribed to them.

          • ROS says:

            I have not ascribed anything to them, instead showning you in print their exact words. Again, you refuse to comprehend and focus solely on what you think my point is when I’ve clearly stated otherwise. It is you interpreting erroneously, not I. That you refuse to even attempt to understand is not my problem.

          • Ernst Schreiber says:

            “I have not ascribed anything to them, instead showning you in print their exact words.”

            And I responded to that. See Ernst Schreiber January 16, 2013 at 10:09 pm in reply to ROS January 16, 2013 at 10:16 am, above.

            The hazards of nested comment threads I’ll warrant.

            Find me a corporate statement about their stance on paying the Chinese in abortion-inducing drugs or the like, and then you’ll have something.

            Because it’s obvious to me, from their words, that their sole stated policy in this instance is to not pay for abortion inducing drugs as part of any employee benefit health insurance plan.

            Also, you might want to take a closer look at what you wrote in your 10:16 am comment about that Duncan statement.

            Or you can continue to insist that doing business with chinese companies, the employees of whom are subject to an oppressive regime that imposes abortions on the chinese people IS THE EXACT SAME THING (empahsis, not shouting) as being required by the U.S. government to pay for abortions here as part of a mandated employee compensation package.

            • ROS says:

              For the final time, I am fully aware that they are not the same, but that is what Hobby Lobby’s own protests are based upon. I don’t know how many times I have to say that before you finally decide to screw in your little flourescent light bulb. Nothing in your statement is even remotely related to what I stated. “Find me a corporate statement about their stance on paying the Chinese in abortion-inducing drugs or the like…” Really?

              • Ernst Schreiber says:

                And, for the final time, if Hobby Lobby thought they were the same thing, they wouldn’t treat them differently, would they?

                What’s that do for your lightbulb?

            • ROS says:

              I’m adult enough to agree to disagree.

  • Gulermo says:

    “Christian Beliefs and Principles ”

    Do you want expand on this subject, you seem to be more than a little shakey on the rest of your points. I just want to be sure we are on the same page.

    • ROS says:

      I don’t need to since Hobby Lobby has very clearly stated those beliefs and clarified them at length. This isn’t about what I believe constitutes Christian principle, rather how they’ve defined it and not adhered to it.

      • Ernst Schreiber says:

        “This isn’t about what I believe constitutes Christian principle, rather how they’ve defined it and not adhered to it.”

        Maybe Hobby Lobby should hang a sign, “Abortionists and Planned Parenthood Employees will be refused service.”

        Surely they shouldn’t want any blood money passing through their pristine cash registers.

    • Ernst Schreiber says:

      Not only are you two not on the same page, I doubt you’re in the same book.

  • Hi! Quick question that’s totally off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My web site looks weird when viewing from my iphone 4. I’m trying to find
    a theme or plugin that might be able to correct this problem.
    If you have any recommendations, please share.
    Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram