10 ms·

And perhaps equally infuriating and insulting is this Christian company not taking any responsibility for the theft or funding terrorists. From the BBC article

And perhaps equally infuriating and insulting is this Christian company not taking any responsibility for the theft or funding terrorists. From the BBC articles; >'Hobby Lobby said it "did not fully appreciate the complexities" of the import process when it began' and >'The company imprudently relied on dealers and shippers who, in hindsight, did not understand the correct way to document and ship these items," Hobby Lobby said'[1] Its amazing that "committed evangelical Christians" who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care doesn't have the same moral compunction when it comes to stealing or doing business with terrorists.[2] Sources: [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932 [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756 http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756

noonespecial 9y ago
The 3rd (of the 10) commandments should loom large enough in the Evangelical faith that religion should just never be brought into business. No matter how good the intention at the outset, this seems an entirely predictable (and often repeated) result. I think it's great to be a Christian in business and try to live out your faith, but I think it's trouble to try to be a "Christian business" and use it as part of your advertising/PR.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Yes, according to the Bible, God clearly wants his followers to be closeted.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
knodi123 9y ago
> who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care And who actually offered that contraception as part of their health care for decades, no problem, until obamacare mandated it, at which point they suddenly realized they had a deep-seated religious conviction against it.
- Brendinooo 9y ago
  Do you have a source for this one? I'd haven't heard this before.
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/...
    - Brendinooo 9y ago
      Thank you.
    - pyroinferno 9y ago
      Your "article" says they were offering it unknowingly. This does not support OP's implication that they dropped it to protest Obamacare.
      - tanderson92 9y ago
        No, the article says they claimed they were offering it unknowingly. Here are the facts: > In 2012, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit Washington law firm, called Hobby Lobby's general counsel to inform him of the health law's contraception requirement and to ask whether the company wanted to file a suit. > Mr. Green says he was shocked to discover Hobby Lobby was in fact offering in its insurance plan some of the emergency contraceptives at issue. He called for the insurer to revoke that coverage and signed onto the lawsuit. He only dropped the coverage subsequent to being approached by a lawyer from a conservative group shopping for people to use to sue the government. Readers will draw their own conclusions but to me that does support the implication.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Brendinooo 9y ago
So how did this go down, in your mind? The President of Hobby Lobby got his eyes on some shiny objects, then was told to make the check out to Al-Qaeda, and decided that it was worth funding terrorism to get the items he'd been lusting after? Also, would you arrest someone who purchased an item at a yard sale that had been stolen at one point? Come to think of it, should I be grilling every yard sale proprietor to make sure that they came into possession of all of their goods legally? Yeah, antiquities are higher stakes, but I would hope that if I purchased a pair of pants that suspiciously looked like they belonged to the neighbor, you wouldn't be so uncharitable to me in the aftermath. Look, it's possible that someone did something maliciously. I'd like to think I'd have acted more above board in this scenario. But this thread reads like plenty of people have their blinders on today and are fishing for some kind of hypocrisy story. "Never attribute to malice...", etc.
- angrydev 9y ago
  This isn't the same thing as buying a stolen lamp from a yard sale. In fact that's pretty ignorant to ignore the details with this case. FTA: Notwithstanding these warnings, in December 2010, Hobby Lobby executed an agreement to purchase over 5,500 Artifacts, comprised of cuneiform tablets and bricks, clay bullae and cylinder seals, for $1.6 million. The acquisition of the Artifacts was fraught with red flags. For example, Hobby Lobby received conflicting information where the Artifacts had been stored prior to the inspection in the UAE. Further, when the Artifacts were presented for inspection to Hobby Lobby’s president and consultant in July 2010, they were displayed informally. In addition, Hobby Lobby representatives had not met or communicated with the dealer who purportedly owned the Artifacts, nor did they pay him for the Artifacts. Rather, following instructions from another dealer, Hobby Lobby wired payment for the Artifacts to seven personal bank accounts held in the names of other individuals.
- s73ver 9y ago
  No. I do attribute this to malice. Or at least to not giving a shit about the law. They knew this wasn't on the up and up. And given that this is the same company that fought for exemptions from the ACA on religious grounds. If they want to claim religion, then they need to follow through with that in all of their business; not just picking and choosing what aspects of the religion they get to follow.

noonespecial 9y ago

The 3rd (of the 10) commandments should loom large enough in the Evangelical faith that religion should just never be brought into business. No matter how good the intention at the outset, this seems an entirely predictable (and often repeated) result. I think it's great to be a Christian in business and try to live out your faith, but I think it's trouble to try to be a "Christian business" and use it as part of your advertising/PR.

humanrebar 9y ago
Yes, according to the Bible, God clearly wants his followers to be closeted.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

knodi123 9y ago

> who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care And who actually offered that contraception as part of their health care for decades, no problem, until obamacare mandated it, at which point they suddenly realized they had a deep-seated religious conviction against it.

Brendinooo 9y ago
Do you have a source for this one? I'd haven't heard this before.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/...
  - Brendinooo 9y ago
    Thank you.
  - pyroinferno 9y ago
    Your "article" says they were offering it unknowingly. This does not support OP's implication that they dropped it to protest Obamacare.
    - tanderson92 9y ago
      No, the article says they claimed they were offering it unknowingly. Here are the facts: > In 2012, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit Washington law firm, called Hobby Lobby's general counsel to inform him of the health law's contraception requirement and to ask whether the company wanted to file a suit. > Mr. Green says he was shocked to discover Hobby Lobby was in fact offering in its insurance plan some of the emergency contraceptives at issue. He called for the insurer to revoke that coverage and signed onto the lawsuit. He only dropped the coverage subsequent to being approached by a lawyer from a conservative group shopping for people to use to sue the government. Readers will draw their own conclusions but to me that does support the implication.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Brendinooo 9y ago

So how did this go down, in your mind? The President of Hobby Lobby got his eyes on some shiny objects, then was told to make the check out to Al-Qaeda, and decided that it was worth funding terrorism to get the items he'd been lusting after? Also, would you arrest someone who purchased an item at a yard sale that had been stolen at one point? Come to think of it, should I be grilling every yard sale proprietor to make sure that they came into possession of all of their goods legally? Yeah, antiquities are higher stakes, but I would hope that if I purchased a pair of pants that suspiciously looked like they belonged to the neighbor, you wouldn't be so uncharitable to me in the aftermath. Look, it's possible that someone did something maliciously. I'd like to think I'd have acted more above board in this scenario. But this thread reads like plenty of people have their blinders on today and are fishing for some kind of hypocrisy story. "Never attribute to malice...", etc.

angrydev 9y ago
This isn't the same thing as buying a stolen lamp from a yard sale. In fact that's pretty ignorant to ignore the details with this case. FTA: Notwithstanding these warnings, in December 2010, Hobby Lobby executed an agreement to purchase over 5,500 Artifacts, comprised of cuneiform tablets and bricks, clay bullae and cylinder seals, for $1.6 million. The acquisition of the Artifacts was fraught with red flags. For example, Hobby Lobby received conflicting information where the Artifacts had been stored prior to the inspection in the UAE. Further, when the Artifacts were presented for inspection to Hobby Lobby’s president and consultant in July 2010, they were displayed informally. In addition, Hobby Lobby representatives had not met or communicated with the dealer who purportedly owned the Artifacts, nor did they pay him for the Artifacts. Rather, following instructions from another dealer, Hobby Lobby wired payment for the Artifacts to seven personal bank accounts held in the names of other individuals.
s73ver 9y ago
No. I do attribute this to malice. Or at least to not giving a shit about the law. They knew this wasn't on the up and up. And given that this is the same company that fought for exemptions from the ACA on religious grounds. If they want to claim religion, then they need to follow through with that in all of their business; not just picking and choosing what aspects of the religion they get to follow.