Hobby Lobby Ruling

[Woodruff]

Arguing that it's a constriction on women's rights is just false, unless they were actively denying their female employees from purchasing those "evil" birth control methods (e.g. they fired an employee for using them).

Yet making it more difficult for women (due to cost, which they may not be able to afford) to access those birth control methods absolutely could lead to health problems and in fact pregnancies resulting in abortion. Doesn't it make more sense to take care of those womens' health needs as they exist while also helping to avoid those pregnancies that may end up resulting in abortion?

By that logic, they're making it more difficult for their employees to feed themselves by not buying their groceries for them.

Think about what you just said for a moment...because you seem to believe you're contradicting my point or making it look foolish, but you actually highlight exactly what I am saying. It DOES make it more difficult than if they provided it to them, doesn't it? And for an organization that has a stance of being against abortion, their position on this matter actually makes abortion MORE LIKELY. Thus, my point.

[Woodruff]

Arguing that it's a constriction on women's rights is just false, unless they were actively denying their female employees from purchasing those "evil" birth control methods (e.g. they fired an employee for using them).

Yet making it more difficult for women (due to cost, which they may not be able to afford) to access those birth control methods absolutely could lead to health problems and in fact pregnancies resulting in abortion. Doesn't it make more sense to take care of those womens' health needs as they exist while also helping to avoid those pregnancies that may end up resulting in abortion?

It may be more difficult. As I and mrswdk pointed out, that's not really relevant.

It's absolutely relevant. Hobby Lobby's stated position is that they are against abortion. Yet their position in this regard actually makes abortion MORE LIKELY. That's highly relevant.

It's still not an infraction of women's rights any more than mrswdk's example is an infraction on worker's rights.

I'm not really discussing it as a "rights issue". I'm discussing it as a rationality issue.

[Woodruff]

This thread has devolved nicely. UC is about to drop some creationist arguments denying that devolution is possible or it's designed by god. Anyway,

Mets, TG, patrick, etc., in less than 300 words, what's your stance on this issue?

To reiterate my stance (300 words or less...egad!):
The Supreme Court ruling makes sense to me, based on the idea that a business can determine what health insurance they will provide. However, a business should NOT be granted considerations based on religion, as that is irrelevant to the business. I further put forth that anyone who believes that abortion is a bad thing should be PRO-contraception by any means as that averts potential abortions.

I agree with your analysis but one side question:
Why is it that the only options for people is to have contraceptives paid for or abortions? If you cannot afford contraceptives, perhaps you should be re-thinking your actions of intercourse. If I don't have money to put gas in my car, I don't go for a joy ride. Options are out there such as the good old five knuckle shuffle or flicking the bean.

Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.

[patrickaa317]

This thread has devolved nicely. UC is about to drop some creationist arguments denying that devolution is possible or it's designed by god. Anyway,

Mets, TG, patrick, etc., in less than 300 words, what's your stance on this issue?

To reiterate my stance (300 words or less...egad!):
The Supreme Court ruling makes sense to me, based on the idea that a business can determine what health insurance they will provide. However, a business should NOT be granted considerations based on religion, as that is irrelevant to the business. I further put forth that anyone who believes that abortion is a bad thing should be PRO-contraception by any means as that averts potential abortions.

I agree with your analysis but one side question:
Why is it that the only options for people is to have contraceptives paid for or abortions? If you cannot afford contraceptives, perhaps you should be re-thinking your actions of intercourse. If I don't have money to put gas in my car, I don't go for a joy ride. Options are out there such as the good old five knuckle shuffle or flicking the bean.

Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.

So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?

In other words:
"If YOU don't pay for MY contraceptives YOU can't complain when I get an abortion".

"YOUR decision to not pay for MY contraceptives is what caused ME to have to get an abortion."

"This is all YOUR fault that I got pregnant because YOU didn't provide ME free contraceptives."

[Metsfanmax]

This thread has devolved nicely. UC is about to drop some creationist arguments denying that devolution is possible or it's designed by god. Anyway,

Mets, TG, patrick, etc., in less than 300 words, what's your stance on this issue?

To reiterate my stance (300 words or less...egad!):
The Supreme Court ruling makes sense to me, based on the idea that a business can determine what health insurance they will provide. However, a business should NOT be granted considerations based on religion, as that is irrelevant to the business. I further put forth that anyone who believes that abortion is a bad thing should be PRO-contraception by any means as that averts potential abortions.

I agree with your analysis but one side question:
Why is it that the only options for people is to have contraceptives paid for or abortions? If you cannot afford contraceptives, perhaps you should be re-thinking your actions of intercourse. If I don't have money to put gas in my car, I don't go for a joy ride. Options are out there such as the good old five knuckle shuffle or flicking the bean.

Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.

So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?

In other words:
"If YOU don't pay for MY contraceptives YOU can't complain when I get an abortion".

"YOUR decision to not pay for MY contraceptives is what caused ME to have to get an abortion."

"This is all YOUR fault that I got pregnant because YOU didn't provide ME free contraceptives."

No one asked these people to care so much about the abortions that are happening. They decided to do that all by themselves. So if they're going to care so much about it, you'd think they'd be interested in helping decrease its occurrence. Or are they just interested in shaming poor people?

[patrickaa317]

To reiterate my stance (300 words or less...egad!):
The Supreme Court ruling makes sense to me, based on the idea that a business can determine what health insurance they will provide. However, a business should NOT be granted considerations based on religion, as that is irrelevant to the business. I further put forth that anyone who believes that abortion is a bad thing should be PRO-contraception by any means as that averts potential abortions.

I agree with your analysis but one side question:
Why is it that the only options for people is to have contraceptives paid for or abortions? If you cannot afford contraceptives, perhaps you should be re-thinking your actions of intercourse. If I don't have money to put gas in my car, I don't go for a joy ride. Options are out there such as the good old five knuckle shuffle or flicking the bean.

Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.

So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?

In other words:
"If YOU don't pay for MY contraceptives YOU can't complain when I get an abortion".

"YOUR decision to not pay for MY contraceptives is what caused ME to have to get an abortion."

"This is all YOUR fault that I got pregnant because YOU didn't provide ME free contraceptives."

No one asked these people to care so much about the abortions that are happening. They decided to do that all by themselves. So if they're going to care so much about it, you'd think they'd be interested in helping decrease its occurrence. Or are they just interested in shaming poor people?

People are asking them to provide them something at no cost to cover their own irresponsibility. And don't go pulling the rape shit again, the whole insurance mandate is not simply to protect rape victims. And why are you trying to put this into a "shame the poor people"? Around 80% of abortions are due to reasons other than finances. "Not ready for responsbility" and "doesn't want life change" are two of the biggest. And those that are due to finances, I would be willing to guess that most don't WANT to be able to afford it, not that they cannot afford it.

[Metsfanmax]

People are asking them to provide them something at no cost to cover their own irresponsibility.

No, people are being provided something at no cost because it is important for maintaining basic health and for preventing unwanted pregnancies. We can all agree that unwanted pregnancies are a bad thing. So this should not be complicated. Would you just prefer to tell people "stop doing that" and then stand back smugly as everyone ignores you, because you did your part? Stop injecting your personal ideology in the way of good policy. I know that this type of personal responsibility issue is important to the worldview of many conservatives, but those conservatives have to make a choice: personal responsibility* and more abortions, or help from the government and fewer abortions. Pick your poison. You may not like that we can't have both, but that's just how it is. Being a denier about it is helping no one.

*Of course, "personal responsibility" is still a partial red herring here. That would only be relevant if condoms were as reliable as the other methods of birth control.

And why are you trying to put this into a "shame the poor people"? Around 80% of abortions are due to reasons other than finances. "Not ready for responsbility" and "doesn't want life change" are two of the biggest.

Finances play a very significant role in much more than 20% of abortions. You're thinking of just the cases where a woman can literally not afford to raise a child. However, there are insidious financial impacts on women as a result of having children that aren't just related to whether they can objectively afford it. For example, they have to take time off from work, and in the US we have a pretty poor track record of both 1) having paid maternity leave and 2) making sure that taking time off to raise a child doesn't negatively impact a woman's career. When women say something like "I am just not ready to have a child yet," one of the factors in there is where she is in her career and whether she can afford to take a significant amount of time off.

Part of the reason we have this problem is that men are shirking on their paternal responsibility and often leaving their wives with more than her fair share of the childraising duty, which negatively impacts her ability to have her own career. And when a woman gets unintentionally pregnant, who do you think bears the financial burden for the abortion most of the time?

And those that are due to finances, I would be willing to guess that most don't WANT to be able to afford it, not that they cannot afford it.

Yes, of course. Most women would much rather stay poor so that they can get free birth control and abortions from the state.

And don't go pulling the rape shit again, the whole insurance mandate is not simply to protect rape victims.

Of course not, but it's one of many reasons why we can't just say "condoms tho" and be done.

[Woodruff]

This thread has devolved nicely. UC is about to drop some creationist arguments denying that devolution is possible or it's designed by god. Anyway,

Mets, TG, patrick, etc., in less than 300 words, what's your stance on this issue?

To reiterate my stance (300 words or less...egad!):
The Supreme Court ruling makes sense to me, based on the idea that a business can determine what health insurance they will provide. However, a business should NOT be granted considerations based on religion, as that is irrelevant to the business. I further put forth that anyone who believes that abortion is a bad thing should be PRO-contraception by any means as that averts potential abortions.

I agree with your analysis but one side question:
Why is it that the only options for people is to have contraceptives paid for or abortions? If you cannot afford contraceptives, perhaps you should be re-thinking your actions of intercourse. If I don't have money to put gas in my car, I don't go for a joy ride. Options are out there such as the good old five knuckle shuffle or flicking the bean.

Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.

So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?

Yes, IF THEY TRULY WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS. You see, that's the point here. Hobby Lobby claims to be against abortion, but they are ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE AGAINST.

So if Hobby Lobby does actually want to help stop abortions, then yes, they must help to cover for those who cannot learn to act responsibly. If Hobby Lobby is not willing to do that, then they are NOT truly against abortions, they're just against sex and they want to punish those who engage in it outside of marriage. It's really as simple as that.

[Woodruff]

To reiterate my stance (300 words or less...egad!):
The Supreme Court ruling makes sense to me, based on the idea that a business can determine what health insurance they will provide. However, a business should NOT be granted considerations based on religion, as that is irrelevant to the business. I further put forth that anyone who believes that abortion is a bad thing should be PRO-contraception by any means as that averts potential abortions.

I agree with your analysis but one side question:
Why is it that the only options for people is to have contraceptives paid for or abortions? If you cannot afford contraceptives, perhaps you should be re-thinking your actions of intercourse. If I don't have money to put gas in my car, I don't go for a joy ride. Options are out there such as the good old five knuckle shuffle or flicking the bean.

Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.

So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?

In other words:
"If YOU don't pay for MY contraceptives YOU can't complain when I get an abortion".

"YOUR decision to not pay for MY contraceptives is what caused ME to have to get an abortion."

"This is all YOUR fault that I got pregnant because YOU didn't provide ME free contraceptives."

No one asked these people to care so much about the abortions that are happening. They decided to do that all by themselves. So if they're going to care so much about it, you'd think they'd be interested in helping decrease its occurrence. Or are they just interested in shaming poor people?

People are asking them to provide them something at no cost to cover their own irresponsibility. And don't go pulling the rape shit again, the whole insurance mandate is not simply to protect rape victims. And why are you trying to put this into a "shame the poor people"? Around 80% of abortions are due to reasons other than finances. "Not ready for responsbility" and "doesn't want life change" are two of the biggest. And those that are due to finances, I would be willing to guess that most don't WANT to be able to afford it, not that they cannot afford it.

You're arguing against yourself here. Those who aren't ready for the responsibility or don't want the lifestyle change are, for instance, quite likely to use the morning-after pill, therefore avoiding an actual abortion. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby is actively working to make it more difficult for those people to use it, thus increasing the likelihood of the decision to abort.

[Woodruff]

People are asking them to provide them something at no cost to cover their own irresponsibility.

No, people are being provided something at no cost because it is important for maintaining basic health and for preventing unwanted pregnancies. We can all agree that unwanted pregnancies are a bad thing. So this should not be complicated. Would you just prefer to tell people "stop doing that" and then stand back smugly as everyone ignores you, because you did your part? Stop injecting your personal ideology in the way of good policy. I know that this type of personal responsibility issue is important to the worldview of many conservatives, but those conservatives have to make a choice: personal responsibility* and more abortions, or help from the government and fewer abortions. Pick your poison. You may not like that we can't have both, but that's just how it is. Being a denier about it is helping no one.

It's exactly like the sex education idea, where some want to teach abstinence-only sex education like that will keep the kids from having sex.

And those that are due to finances, I would be willing to guess that most don't WANT to be able to afford it, not that they cannot afford it.

Yes, of course. Most women would much rather stay poor so that they can get free birth control and abortions from the state.

No, no - they want to be career babymakers, from what I hear.

[Night Strike]

Yes, IF THEY TRULY WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS. You see, that's the point here. Hobby Lobby claims to be against abortion, but they are ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE AGAINST.

So if Hobby Lobby does actually want to help stop abortions, then yes, they must help to cover for those who cannot learn to act responsibly. If Hobby Lobby is not willing to do that, then they are NOT truly against abortions, they're just against sex and they want to punish those who engage in it outside of marriage. It's really as simple as that.

Why does Hobby Lobby cover 16 of the 20 forms of contraceptives mandated by Obamacare, and did so long before Obamacare was law?


And it's a complete fallacy that if a person wants to stop something, they then have to pay to prevent it. I want to stop all murders and rape, so does that mean I have to buy everyone a gun for self defense and if I don't do so, that I'm making the problem worse? Of course not.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes, IF THEY TRULY WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS. You see, that's the point here. Hobby Lobby claims to be against abortion, but they are ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE AGAINST.

So if Hobby Lobby does actually want to help stop abortions, then yes, they must help to cover for those who cannot learn to act responsibly. If Hobby Lobby is not willing to do that, then they are NOT truly against abortions, they're just against sex and they want to punish those who engage in it outside of marriage. It's really as simple as that.

Why does Hobby Lobby cover 16 of the 20 forms of contraceptives mandated by Obamacare, and did so long before Obamacare was law?

Hobby Lobby's lawsuit was based on the completely unproven idea that these other four methods actually block the implantation of a fertilized egg. If it does happen, it happens less than 1% of the time (i.e. below the measurement error). So basically they would take away a medicine that at least 99% of the time is preventing an abortion because 1% of the time it causes one.

Incidentally, I learned while reading about this earlier that Hobby Lobby was actually covering some of the medication that they later sued for, and then dropped it from the coverage when they field suit. Heh.

And it's a complete fallacy that if a person wants to stop something, they then have to pay to prevent it. I want to stop all murders and rape, so does that mean I have to buy everyone a gun for self defense and if I don't do so, that I'm making the problem worse? Of course not.

If you want to stop something, and then don't do anything to stop it, how badly did you really want it?

[mrswdk]

Arguing that it's a constriction on women's rights is just false, unless they were actively denying their female employees from purchasing those "evil" birth control methods (e.g. they fired an employee for using them).

Yet making it more difficult for women (due to cost, which they may not be able to afford) to access those birth control methods absolutely could lead to health problems and in fact pregnancies resulting in abortion. Doesn't it make more sense to take care of those womens' health needs as they exist while also helping to avoid those pregnancies that may end up resulting in abortion?

By that logic, they're making it more difficult for their employees to feed themselves by not buying their groceries for them.

Think about what you just said for a moment...because you seem to believe you're contradicting my point or making it look foolish, but you actually highlight exactly what I am saying. It DOES make it more difficult than if they provided it to them, doesn't it? And for an organization that has a stance of being against abortion, their position on this matter actually makes abortion MORE LIKELY. Thus, my point.

The point is that buying groceries is the individual's responsibility, not the employer's. Contraception is the same. It is not your employer's duty to manage your life on your behalf.

It is not a case of 'not providing contraception makes birth control harder', it is a case of 'providing contraception would make birth control easier'.

[patrickaa317]

People are asking them to provide them something at no cost to cover their own irresponsibility.

No, people are being provided something at no cost because it is important for maintaining basic health and for preventing unwanted pregnancies. We can all agree that unwanted pregnancies are a bad thing. So this should not be complicated. Would you just prefer to tell people "stop doing that" and then stand back smugly as everyone ignores you, because you did your part? Stop injecting your personal ideology in the way of good policy. I know that this type of personal responsibility issue is important to the worldview of many conservatives, but those conservatives have to make a choice: personal responsibility* and more abortions, or help from the government and fewer abortions. Pick your poison. You may not like that we can't have both, but that's just how it is. Being a denier about it is helping no one.

*Of course, "personal responsibility" is still a partial red herring here. That would only be relevant if condoms were as reliable as the other methods of birth control.

And why are you trying to put this into a "shame the poor people"? Around 80% of abortions are due to reasons other than finances. "Not ready for responsbility" and "doesn't want life change" are two of the biggest.

Finances play a very significant role in much more than 20% of abortions. You're thinking of just the cases where a woman can literally not afford to raise a child. However, there are insidious financial impacts on women as a result of having children that aren't just related to whether they can objectively afford it. For example, they have to take time off from work, and in the US we have a pretty poor track record of both 1) having paid maternity leave and 2) making sure that taking time off to raise a child doesn't negatively impact a woman's career. When women say something like "I am just not ready to have a child yet," one of the factors in there is where she is in her career and whether she can afford to take a significant amount of time off.

Part of the reason we have this problem is that men are shirking on their paternal responsibility and often leaving their wives with more than her fair share of the childraising duty, which negatively impacts her ability to have her own career. And when a woman gets unintentionally pregnant, who do you think bears the financial burden for the abortion most of the time?

And those that are due to finances, I would be willing to guess that most don't WANT to be able to afford it, not that they cannot afford it.

Yes, of course. Most women would much rather stay poor so that they can get free birth control and abortions from the state.

And don't go pulling the rape shit again, the whole insurance mandate is not simply to protect rape victims.

Of course not, but it's one of many reasons why we can't just say "condoms tho" and be done.

Stats on reasons for abortions? I'll look for mine again later, found them from a few different sites; lined up pretty close. Also, when I said it's not that they don't want to afford, not that they cannot afford it; i was talking about being responsible parents rather than aborting the baby.

Far less than 1% of abortions are due to rape victims. What are the odds that the rape victim, whether given free methods of contraceptives or not, would even be on a type of contraceptives that would prevent pregnancy in the first place? Should never legislate such a huge law because of a very small percentage of the population, I think you would agree to that.

[patrickaa317]

This thread has devolved nicely. UC is about to drop some creationist arguments denying that devolution is possible or it's designed by god. Anyway,

Mets, TG, patrick, etc., in less than 300 words, what's your stance on this issue?

To reiterate my stance (300 words or less...egad!):
The Supreme Court ruling makes sense to me, based on the idea that a business can determine what health insurance they will provide. However, a business should NOT be granted considerations based on religion, as that is irrelevant to the business. I further put forth that anyone who believes that abortion is a bad thing should be PRO-contraception by any means as that averts potential abortions.

I agree with your analysis but one side question:
Why is it that the only options for people is to have contraceptives paid for or abortions? If you cannot afford contraceptives, perhaps you should be re-thinking your actions of intercourse. If I don't have money to put gas in my car, I don't go for a joy ride. Options are out there such as the good old five knuckle shuffle or flicking the bean.

Absolutely, I agree with your point from a rationality standpoint. Unfortunately, the reality is that the human race seems to handle sex in a profoundly irrational way. Given that, I think we should react to the reality rather than the wish-it-were.

So since people cannot learn to act responsible, others have to cover for them?

Yes, IF THEY TRULY WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS. You see, that's the point here. Hobby Lobby claims to be against abortion, but they are ACTIVELY WORKING TO CREATE THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE AGAINST.

So if Hobby Lobby does actually want to help stop abortions, then yes, they must help to cover for those who cannot learn to act responsibly. If Hobby Lobby is not willing to do that, then they are NOT truly against abortions, they're just against sex and they want to punish those who engage in it outside of marriage. It's really as simple as that.

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE BETWEEN PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVES OR SUPPORTING ABORTIONS???????????????????????? How have we came to that as a civilized society? You even say it yourself that people cannot learn to act responsibly. What about people who choose to start eating poor diets? Is it the employers job to ensure they are being responsible and getting proper nutrition?

For someone who is typically against big business, I'm honestly surprised that you want them involved more in people's lives. Especially something personal, such as their sex lives.

What happens when people leave their jobs? Are they going to learn how to act responsibly until someone else is footing the bill for their contraceptives? Why not make a government program where you can use your EBT card for any type of contraceptive as well? Doesn't that seem appropriate?

Maybe even give incentives for sterilization so that these people never have to worry about "having to deal with the punishments" of being sexually irresponsible again. Oh no, did I just say that?

[patrickaa317]

...........
If it does happen, it happens less than 1% of the time (i.e. below the measurement error).
...........

Yet, one of your arguments is providing contraceptives so rape victims don't have to have abortions when that is the reason less than 1% of the time.

Not saying these are impartial sites by any means but they are at the top when googling "what percent of abortions are rape"

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
https://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html

[patrickaa317]

You're arguing against yourself here. Those who aren't ready for the responsibility or don't want the lifestyle change are, for instance, quite likely to use the morning-after pill, therefore avoiding an actual abortion. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby is actively working to make it more difficult for those people to use it, thus increasing the likelihood of the decision to abort.

Rather than "difficult to use", I think you mean less of a priority for people to pay for out of their own pocket unless something happens. Kind of like when my car is acting up and I choose not to pay for the repairs; then something goes wrong, I need to get towed and pay for that or potentially a larger cost. Then I kick myself for reacting rather than pre-acting.

[a6mzero]

2/3 of the people in this country making min. wage are women. If u are a sales clerk for Hobby Lobby u are not making much more than min.wage. The cost of contraceptives run from $600 to $1000 dollars a year. One months salary. WTF people are so estatic over this piss poor ruling by 5 catholic men is beyond me. Got's to keep those uppity biatches barefoot and pregnant where they belong.

[patrickaa317]

2/3 of the people in this country making min. wage are women. If u are a sales clerk for Hobby Lobby u are not making much more than min.wage. The cost of contraceptives run from $600 to $1000 dollars a year. One months salary. WTF people are so estatic over this piss poor ruling by 5 catholic men is beyond me. Got's to keep those uppity biatches barefoot and pregnant where they belong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/male-female-pay-gap-remains-entrenched-at-white-house/2014/07/01/dbc6c088-0155-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html

OR....


…Hobby Lobby pay their full-time employees a minimum of $14 an hour. That is nearly double the national average for minimum wage. The hourly wage for part-time employees is also $9.50.
*
“We are very fortunate to be able to increase hourly wages for our employees, because we know our company would not be successful without the great work they do each day in our stores across the nation,” said the CEO and founder David Green.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/152495-hobby-lobbys-haters-find-much-pays-employees-may-just-want-get-job/

[a6mzero]

YeeHi $14 bucks and hr. Its time to party.

[patrickaa317]

YeeHi $14 bucks and hr. Its time to party.

Far from your original statement of barely minimum wage though, huh.

[a6mzero]

$8 an hr $14 an hr still awful damn hard to live on those wages u misogynist.

[a6mzero]

Don't u fret yourself Patrick u have plenty of other misogynist compatriots throwing their two cents in on this thread with you. With their holier than thou attitudes bout woman should just masturbate instead of having sex to prevent pregnancy. Woman should be " responsible", "Women are just baby factories". Man lets go back to the 1700's and just put scarlett letters on a woman if she has sex out of wedlock. Come 2016 when the wingnuts lose another presidential election don't think this decision will not have been a big factor in the swing vote.

[Night Strike]

2/3 of the people in this country making min. wage are women. If u are a sales clerk for Hobby Lobby u are not making much more than min.wage. The cost of contraceptives run from $600 to $1000 dollars a year. One months salary. WTF people are so estatic over this piss poor ruling by 5 catholic men is beyond me. Got's to keep those uppity biatches barefoot and pregnant where they belong.

Actually it's $108 a year ($9 a month) for a basic, generic contraceptive.

[muy_thaiguy]

$8 an hr $14 an hr still awful damn hard to live on those wages u misogynist.

When you consider that wage goes for both men and women, kind of hard to call them a "misogynist". And it's also not like Hobby Lobby is saying "no" to ALL contraceptives, as they actually cover quite a few. Truth be told, they don't even have to cover ANY kind of contraceptives by law, but they do cover a good number of them.