|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is my opinion:
-You don't have a right for other people to pay for your stuff.
(Also, Hobby Lobby covers most contraceptives, it is only a subset of those, like the morning after pill, that they objected to covering)
Someone's boss, likewise, doesn't have the right to decide their employee's health care decisions. Remember, too, that employees actually pay for their insurance, so it's not like it's free.
Oh I know its a sin, (I was brought up Catholic - got better) but I thought that profits were the most important thing.
It seems to trump other "sins".
Oh I know its a sin, (I was brought up Catholic - got better) but I thought that profits were the most important thing.
It seems to trump other "sins".
In publicly traded companies you would be correct. That is why this decision was limited to "closely-held" companies and wouldn't apply to publicly traded companies.
EDIT: Upon re-reading, nevermind.
In publicly traded companies you would be correct. That is why this decision was limited to "closely-held" companies and wouldn't apply to publicly traded companies.Oh I know its a sin, (I was brought up Catholic - got better) but I thought that profits were the most important thing.
It seems to trump other "sins".
"Closely held" and "publically traded" do overlap. The definition is "more than half the stock held by 5 or less people".
That could be an entirely privately owned company or a publically traded one where a few individuals (often the founders) own the majority of the stock.
OTOH, even most closely held companies would hold profits to be the most important thing.
Judging by their "charitable" work, Hobby Lobby seems to hold making the US a evangelical Christian nation as the most important thing.
The point of distinction is that publicly traded companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, and that responsibility would seem to be in play in this case.
That is, if HL was publicly traded.
"Boston marriage" was a term for a lesbian relationship.
That was much later -- late 1800s to early 1900s. And, although it often implied a romantic relationship, it applied for any adult women who shared a household for whatever reason.
A lot of the reason for the hate between the religions is because they're so similar. Its like a rooster attacking its own reflection.Hee hee!
Defiant Hobby Lobby Supporter Inadvertently Recreates Iconic Gaza Jihadist Image
This. So much this.
What I find the most puzzling about this is that it is actually in the employer's best interest to provide contraception in health care coverage because access to contraception means less unexpected pregnancies and that means less maternity/paternity leave. Of course in the US, I think you guys get all of a week or two* of parental leave so maybe its not a big loss?
*hyperbole - I know its more than that, but I don't know the exact number and I do know it doesn't even come close to the 52 weeks we get here in la belle province...
It's not actually hyperbole; it depends on if you're male or female and what the company's policies are. A week is actually pretty high for a male to get; it's not unusual for them not to qualify for leave at all.
"Boston marriage" was a term for a lesbian relationship.That was much later -- late 1800s to early 1900s. And, although it often implied a romantic relationship, it applied for any adult women who shared a household for whatever reason.
"Confirmed Bachelor" was the same period of time. They were part of my point that the nation didn't really turn majorly anti-homosexual until well into the 20th Century.
|
It's not actually hyperbole; it depends on if you're male or female and what the company's policies are. A week is actually pretty high for a male to get; it's not unusual for them not to qualify for leave at all.
*hyperbole - I know its more than that, but I don't know the exact number and I do know it doesn't even come close to the 52 weeks we get here in la belle province...
Not exactly. Up to 12 weeks of family leave, if your company is big enough to come under FMLA. It's unpaid, though.
Not exactly. Up to 12 weeks of family leave, if your company is big enough to come under FMLA. It's unpaid, though.It's not actually hyperbole; it depends on if you're male or female and what the company's policies are. A week is actually pretty high for a male to get; it's not unusual for them not to qualify for leave at all.
*hyperbole - I know its more than that, but I don't know the exact number and I do know it doesn't even come close to the 52 weeks we get here in la belle province...
And usually made a permanent unpaid vacation by week three. FMLA regulations are regularly abused and ignored, even by large companies, and to date there's not exactly been much people can do about it. That's actually one of the things fueling the masculinism and anti-feminist movements.
If FMLA was more routinely and strictly enforced, it would be different. But as it stands? That law might as well not exist where some situations are concerned.
"Confirmed Bachelor" was the same period of time. They were part of my point that the nation didn't really turn majorly anti-homosexual until well into the 20th Century."Boston marriage" was a term for a lesbian relationship.That was much later -- late 1800s to early 1900s. And, although it often implied a romantic relationship, it applied for any adult women who shared a household for whatever reason.Other than those pesky little death penalty laws. That seems to be a clue to me. A little more significant than a couple terms from a hundred years later.
Anti-homosexuality may not have been such a popular thing, simply because homosexuality was so deep in the closet. No point in hating against something you barely ever hear more than rumours about.
Heterosexuality wasn't exactly that far out of closet back then either. There was a lot of stuff involving sexuality that tended to get the death penalty or worse.
Besides, go back and read how many times you see those laws used against a gay man. The read how many times they were used against a straight couple, with the two being of different races. I'm not even remotely certain what the figures are, but IIRC they were mostly used to enforce racial divides and racism. And occasionally to punish rapists. I am relying on memory, though.
It's not actually hyperbole; it depends on if you're male or female and what the company's policies are. A week is actually pretty high for a male to get; it's not unusual for them not to qualify for leave at all.
Yikes! My brother works in Cali, thats probably where the residual memory information came from. But I was sure I was miremembering...
Not exactly. Up to 12 weeks of family leave, if your company is big enough to come under FMLA. It's unpaid, though.
So first time parents need not apply?
Here it's "unpaid" as well, in that the company doesn't pay parental leave. Its paid by the government as part of "EI" ("Employment Insurance"). You get paid at 55% of your salary up to a monthly cut-off. (Dont remember what that is.)
I think here it's considered disabilty...you get 60% of your salary while on maternity leave. I'm not sure, tbh, as I've never had children.
|
|
Not exactly. Up to 12 weeks of family leave, if your company is big enough to come under FMLA. It's unpaid, though.So first time parents need not apply?
Here it's "unpaid" as well, in that the company doesn't pay parental leave. Its paid by the government as part of "EI" ("Employment Insurance"). You get paid at 55% of your salary up to a monthly cut-off. (Dont remember what that is.)
First time parents??
Oh, the law depends in the size of the company, not the size of the family.
Here it is "unpaid" as in you don't get paid. Though if your employer has a disability insurance policy or you live in a state with disability insurance, they'll usually cover maternity leave for 6-8 weeks.
First time parents??
Oh, the law depends in the size of the company, not the size of the family.
I really have no idea how I misread that....
Not exactly. Up to 12 weeks of family leave, if your company is big enough to come under FMLA. It's unpaid, though.It's not actually hyperbole; it depends on if you're male or female and what the company's policies are. A week is actually pretty high for a male to get; it's not unusual for them not to qualify for leave at all.
*hyperbole - I know its more than that, but I don't know the exact number and I do know it doesn't even come close to the 52 weeks we get here in la belle province...And usually made a permanent unpaid vacation by week three. FMLA regulations are regularly abused and ignored, even by large companies, and to date there's not exactly been much people can do about it. That's actually one of the things fueling the masculinism and anti-feminist movements.
If FMLA was more routinely and strictly enforced, it would be different. But as it stands? That law might as well not exist where some situations are concerned.
[Flashes union card]
FMLA works like clockwork at UPS, no problem.
Just sayin'.
I can't believe I've never heard of a "Boston marriage."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shh, quiet Usagi-san, I'm giving him the pitch.
Hee hee!
Defiant Hobby Lobby Supporter Inadvertently Recreates Iconic Gaza Jihadist Image
LOOOOOOOOOOOL
Shh, quiet Usagi-san, I'm giving him the pitch.Should we remind them that your "pitch" comes with a price tag and plenty of free baggage......
It's true. You have to pay dues. In return, you get free insurance and pretty damn near free health care, including any kind of (legal) birth control you can think of. And you'll never have to worry about losing your job because you need to go out on FMLA.
Most large companies I've seen run FMLA with no problems.
[Flashes union card]FMLA works like clockwork at UPS, no problem.
Just sayin'.
FMLA works just fine if you work for the government.
But yes, don't try using FMLA if you work retail or food service.
My father stocks shelves at Marshall's (pretty anti-union, for the record) and he just took his FMLA time no problem.
I can't believe I've never heard of a "Boston marriage."
I'm guessing it is mostly a southern term.
My father stocks shelves at Marshall's (pretty anti-union, for the record) and he just took his FMLA time no problem.Most large companies I've seen run FMLA with no problems.
[Flashes union card]FMLA works like clockwork at UPS, no problem.
Just sayin'.
FMLA works just fine if you work for the government.
But yes, don't try using FMLA if you work retail or food service.
Last few times I've seen anyone try to take it, they got told sure... but they would be fired for poor quality work. Despite their work not being poor quality.
It seems to vary a lot. That's part of what I said about enforcing the law.
I'm guessing it is mostly a southern term.I can't believe I've never heard of a "Boston marriage."
Nope. Old American term. You don't hear it as much because the term mostly faded from usage when the marriage defense platform got going. You see it primarily in works written during the 1800s and very early 1900s.
Nope. Old American term. You don't hear it as much because the term mostly faded from usage when the marriage defense platform got going. You see it primarily in works written during the 1800s and very early 1900s.I'm guessing it is mostly a southern term.I can't believe I've never heard of a "Boston marriage."
Do you have an actual source for it? Something specific that used it early on.
As I said, everything I've seen about it suggested the Bostonians as a source, which was late 1800s, but didn't actually point to an early use.
I left the word "late" out of my previous post.
|
Last few times I've seen anyone try to take it, they got told sure... but they would be fired for poor quality work. Despite their work not being poor quality.
It seems to vary a lot. That's part of what I said about enforcing the law.
I used to work food service/retail. Most employees did not even know FMLA existed, or what it was. The few who did, and tried to use it, simply had their hours cut to zero. They were never actually fired.
I left the word "late" out of my previous post.Nope. Old American term. You don't hear it as much because the term mostly faded from usage when the marriage defense platform got going. You see it primarily in works written during the 1800s and very early 1900s.I'm guessing it is mostly a southern term.I can't believe I've never heard of a "Boston marriage."
Do you have an actual source for it? Something specific that used it early on.
As I said, everything I've seen about it suggested the Bostonians as a source, which was late 1800s, but didn't actually point to an early use.
So now were talking a term which was primarily in use for a couple decades?
1880s to "very early 1900s", which would be maybe to 1920?And for which no one can actually provide contemporary use.
It saw a lot of usage for about sixty years (1880s-1940s), fell out of favor thanks to a gay couple trying to get a marriage license, and saw a revival in the 1990s. If you want to read more, I would suggest digging into such works as "Boston Marriages: Romantic But Asexual Relationships Among Contemporary Lesbians" and similar works that go in-depth on studying the language as it existed, including examples, and how modern terminology changed understandings of the terms and revealed new insights into people.
Edit: Buy a copy of Gentle Americans by Helen Howe and read it. She discusses how the term "Boston Marriage" was used often in her youth, and she was born in 1905. That puts the usage as contemporary to the era.
I used to work food service/retail. Most employees did not even know FMLA existed, or what it was. The few who did, and tried to use it, simply had their hours cut to zero. They were never actually fired.Last few times I've seen anyone try to take it, they got told sure... but they would be fired for poor quality work. Despite their work not being poor quality.
It seems to vary a lot. That's part of what I said about enforcing the law.
That's another common tactic.
The situation. As explained by sock-puppets.
Thank you, this sums up my thoughts in creating this thread quite nicely.
Unfortunately, you're probably not going to find much that directly uses the term. Thanks to growing censorship standards, the late 1800s are pretty much a giant blank spot on the evolution of several terms and words. It didn't mean they weren't used, but that they either weren't printed or the printings ended up destroyed. There might still be the occasional printed item that held the terms, but they're all probably pornography and thus not exactly easy to find.
Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision
I hope they succeed.
So the thread has gotten a little off topic
For those of you who are against this what are your thoughts on the First Amendment in regards to religion?
If you truly believe IUD is murder then why should you have to pay for it. Cant these same people just go to planned parenthood?
Rush Limbaugh: you want your boss out of your sex life but you want him/her to pay for it?