Hobby Lobby Could Be Creating New Gender Gap Problems For Republicans
The Hobby Lobby decision could end up motivating women voters to turn out to vote against Republicans in the fall.
A new poll suggests that female voters are not very interested in supporting politicians who agree with the Hobby Lobby decision:
The majority of female voters don’t want to vote for politicians who support Hobby Lobby’s move to drop coverage for some forms of contraceptives, according to a new poll conducted by Hart Research Associates. Although the crafts chain won its recent Supreme Court challenge on religious liberty grounds, the results suggest that candidates may not win their races with the same stance.
Fifty seven percent of respondents told pollsters that they’d be more likely to support a candidate who opposes allowing employers to drop birth control coverage, and about half of them said they feel “very strongly” about that preference. An even higher number, 71 percent, said that elected officials who support the Hobby Lobby ruling are focused on the “wrong issues and priorities.”
The distaste for pro-Hobby Lobby candidates isn’t limited to voters who identify as Democrats. About 55 percent of independents said they were more likely to support politicians who oppose allowing companies to refuse to cover contraception, versus just 20 percent who said they would lend their support to a politician who supports that policy. Republican women are about evenly split, with 34 percent preferring candidates who oppose the Hobby Lobby ruling and 38 percent preferring candidates who favor it.
“This poll shows that women are focused on the Hobby Lobby ruling, they’re angry about it, and they’re going to vote based on it this November,” Dawn Laguens, the executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement. The survey was commissioned on behalf of Laguens’ group, which is spending millions of dollars this election cycle to focus midterm races on women’s health issues.
Other recent polls have reported similar findings. Before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on Hobby Lobby, two thirds of female voters reported that they wanted the crafts store to lose its case. And polling in specific states, like Colorado and North Carolina, has found that most voters are less likely to support candidates who want to restrict access to affordable contraception. Both of those states are facing upcoming Senate races that outside observers predict may hinge on issues related to reproductive rights.
This isn’t particularly surprising, of course. Republicans have long had issues with female voters, and in recent elections the gender gap has become something of a decisive factor. Here in Virginia, for example, support from both married and single female voters in the suburban communities in Northern Virginia was a large part of the reason that Terry McAuliffe was able to pull off a win against Ken Cuccinelli, and in that election women were largely motivated by Cuccinelli’s record on issues ranging from abortion rights to divorce and contraceptive coverage. The phenomenon is also quite apparent on the national level, as more recent polling has indicated. Republicans do recognize these problems, of course, but even a recent meeting on the issue that was headlined by some of the most prominent Republican women in Congress makes it clear that the GOP still doesn’t know how to talk to women.
The interesting question is whether or not this apparent gender split on the Hobby Lobby case will have an impact on any of the elections that will decide the balance of power in the Senate in November. As I have noted in my discussions of the Supreme Court decisions in that case, the fact that the decision is based entirely on an interpretation of a statute rather than the First Amendment means that, at least in theory, Congress could change the law to deal with the issues that the Court decided. Such a bill has been introduced in the Senate but, of course, it will go nowhere in that body and would have no chance in the House of Representatives. It could, however, serve as a tool for Democrats to get women to the polls in November in states like North Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Georgia where they could make a difference between defeat and victory. At the very least, I’d expect that we’ll see Democrats in those states, as well as outside groups, target female voters in those states with messages that center on the Hobby Lobby decision and the general issues surrounding contraceptives and other social issues. Even if it only ends up being effective at the margins, it could be something that ends up being the difference between whether a Democrats or a Republican wins a particular race in those states, and that could be all that’s needed to decide who controls the Senate.
The Republicans seem to be alienating people about as fast as their old white base is dying off. Not a good omen for the future.
The Democrats have had trouble getting young unmarried women to the polls in off season election, but if any issue can get them to the polls, this is it. A lot of people think of this as a narrow ruling affecting only “close corporations” but Hobby Lobby really sends the signal that Republicans privilege the rights of conservative Christian business owners over the medical needs of their female employees. So far furious Republican spinning has not been able to overcome this.
This is going to help Democrats in such Senate races as Kentucky, North Carolina and Georgia. All those races pit Democratic women against Republican men, so the contrast is clear.
A big part of the problem is that the GOP keeps talking about the issue not in terms of religious liberty but of sex; specifically saying that women who want this are too sexually active. They have yet to figure out that for women this isn’t about religion or sex, it’s about autonomy, making decisions about your life for yourself instead of someone else doing it for you.
It will be interesting to see what happens here in New Hampshire. Scott Brown is likely going to be the candidate to face Jeanne Shaheen, and he has literally been running away from reporters who want to ask him about the ruling. He’s run as a pro-choice candidate before, IIRC, so I’m not sure why the skittishness, unless it has to do with either primary voters or campaign dollars from other Republicans.
@Kari Q:
They do this because this is what they believe: they can’t help themselves-which is great for Democrats.
If you didn’t see this coming in some form, you weren’t paying attention.
Who cares abotu the gender gaps of the Republicans? The Republicans could come out for free (actually taxpayer-funded) contraception and would not pick up a single vote for single women. The idea that the more conservative party has been or will be able to appeal to single women is laughable.
The question for single women is what level of taxes are they going to be willing to pay in the future to fund the massive number of government programs that they want and how much government social engineering are they going to be willing to tolerate in the future?
Once again, a political discussion that is frame in how it affects an irrelevant Republican Party instead of framing it as how it will influence policy and governance in the future when the Democrats have compete control of the government.
Doug, did you see where the Satanists are now using Hobby Lobby as an argument to strike down laws restricting abortion?
Goose, gander. I really do hope they manage to pull it off.
They’re working hard on weeding out all those that don’t truly bleed GOP. It used to be they had an edge with married women, now reduced to married women past childbearing age, soon to be reduced to o married women past childbearing age named Elizabeth Dole.
I know and have talked to some women who work at Hobby Lobby. They spoke positively about working there. Maybe that is who they should survey.
@Tyrell:
I know and have talked to some women who work at Hobby Lobby. They spoke positively about working there. Maybe that is who they should survey.
If the upcoming election were for president of Hobby Lobby, that might be a good idea. But since it is actually a nationwide election for thousands of offices, surveying women voters on an issue that may impact their lives seems to make more sense, donchathink?
Other than a handful of conservative Catholics, every woman I know would walk across hot coals to vote in November. Which is really bad news for our conservative Catholic governor (he had enough problems before this decision) and also makes things dicey for our long-serving Senator. This will impact more than federal officers, governors and state legislators will pay as well.
@ Kari Q
Most conservatives appear to believe that female sexuality exists for procreation and men’s pleasure. When the ladies start getting ideas about their own pleasure, they become quite uncomfortable.
@superdestroyer:
Dude, that’s a new low, even for you. If you want to dig the hole deeper, feel free to explain why single women are especially eager for handouts.
One solution to these sorts of conundrums is for businesses to pay employees more and let them choose their own health plan (and other benefits).
@superdestroyer:
Seriously, sd? That has to be one of your top ten doozies, dude. First, the 2014 U.S. defense budget is $526.6 billion dollars. Are you saying that it’s not possible to break off a little of that for women’s healthcare — hell — for ALL of our healthcare, for that matter?
Second, what kind of social engineering are you talking about? The one by which Black folk were recognized by the govt as fully human? The one by which women were extended the right to vote? Maybe the one by which our fellow humans — LGBTs — are recognized as full citizens who deserve equal protection and access under the law, as is spelled out in the Constitution?
I was going to say c’mon, you can do better than that, but who am I kidding?
@grumpy realist:
That hardly seems likely since the law requires the government to use the least imposing means to accomplish the government’s legitimate interest. The least imposing means to stop late term killing of fetuses is to not permit late term abortions.
On the other hand, there are plenty of less imposing means to accomplish the government’s interest in providing “free” birth control, such as providing it directly instead of requiring those with religious convictions against abortion pay for abortifacients.
@Ron Beasley:
they sold out when they courted the evangelical vote…
as it turns out, people dont like religious nutjobs telling them how to live their lives.
@DrDaveT:
Younger and single women support an expansion of government entitlement (See college aid expansion, see paid materity leave,, see paid family leave, see comparable pay) because they believe that others (older, richer, whites, more male) taxpayers and employers will pay for it. Why do not you think that David Axelrod has push the Democrats to talk about the rich paying their fair share. So the question in the future is whether the Democrats will be able to tax the rich enough to fund the programs that the core blocks inside the Democratic Party want or will everyone have to pay higher taxes to fund all of those programs.
@superdestroyer: Older and whiter people support an expansion of government entitlements (see Medicare Part D, corporate tax loopholes, farm subsidies) because they believe that younger, poorer taxpayers will pay for it. Why do you think Fox News is always pushing about how the 47% don’t pay enough in taxes? So the question in the future is whether the Republicans will be able to tax the middle class and poor enough to fund their giveaways to corporations and the rich.
Fixed it for you.
@JKB: “..instead of requiring those with religious convictions against abortion pay for abortifacients. ”
Stop lying. The BC in question were not abortifacients. One of the disturbing things about the decision was that it equated belief that A=B with a legal statement that therefore A=B.
Second, f*ck you – we’ve watched the right gleefully take our money and do what they please with it. When the shoe is on the other foot, you have no right to complain.
@JKB:
Feel the need to point out, that in order for the above to be true, you have to first prove that gov’t has a legitimate interest in stopping late term abortions, you can’t just assume it. And no, 27% wanting that to be true is not the same thing.
@beth:
Since the Republicans have zero influence on policy, it does not matter. However, since the Democrats have shown zero interest in cutting Mediciare Part D, farm subsidies, IM-EX Bank, etc,, then question for all of those young women is will they pay the taxes needed so that the government can grow faster than the economy?
Since the Republicans are fading away as a political party as this and many, many other posts are showing, the only relevant questions about policy is what the Democrats are going to do. Since the Obama Administration has not rolled back any spending from the Bush Administration, it appears that growing government is still the number one goal of Democrats.
@superdestroyer:
Really…equal pay is an entitlement that will cost the taxpayers money? And specifically the taxpayers who are making more money for equal work? How does your logic work?
To most people, a person making more money expands the tax base. In your demented world, unless that person is a white male, it only lessens the tax base?
@superdestroyer:
Do you realize that the Ex-Im Bank is a government enterprise that costs taxpayers only $200M on about $20B in program loans, and that Ex-Im runs a $300M ‘profit’? Why do you want to eliminate a program that works as intended and is profitable?
@Barry:
For Hobby Lobby, the 4 birth control methods in question constituted the termination of a life after conception. Your “medical” opinion doesn’t matter, in their religious beliefs it was abortion and it was the imposition on their beliefs that were at issue. As an aside, their are cases in progress that may challenge being forced to pay for birth control in general which is against religious beliefs.
Have you ever been to America? First, your logic has never been true. Second, the right to complain rests with the Right of Free Speech. You may wish to argue the logic of complaining instead.
@OzarkHillbilly:
True, but I just did as a the SCOTUS did in the Hobby Lobby case and assumed the governmental interest. However, unlike the provision of “free” birth control at the direct expense of others, late term abortions have a long legislative history and has never been challenged on the grounds that the government has no interest in the determination of when a human fetus gains the protections of the murder laws.
@JKB:
Corporations have religious beliefs?
@al-Ameda:
Corporations have social responsibility?
@superdestroyer:
This is really where the rubber hits the road when it comes to philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals, by and large, care about policy goals, and don’t have strong opinions about how small or large government should be in the abstract.
Conservatives view the size of the government as the most important component of public policy, and really can’t comprehend that for liberals, the issue is mostly moot: they simply want the government to be as small or large as the goals they want it to accomplish.
In the present situation, where wealth is increasingly concentrating at the top and the median wage is stagnating, environment is deteriorating and the necessities of life for the middle class are becoming more and more expensive, this means liberals are by and large for larger government.
In the past, when the government seemed to be too large and heavy, many (not all!) liberals supported shrinking some of its functions: see Carter’s support for de-regulation, and Clinton’s support for military drawdown and welfare reform.
This kind of pragmatism seems totally beyond the grasp of American conservatives..
@JKB: In what other matter,besides contraception, do you think they should be treated as more than just money making entities? Do you think the old doctrine of stake-holders (workers, consumers and share-owners) being the entities to whom a corporation should be responsible, rather than just share-owners, has some value, or is this just a one-time dispensation?
@JKB: For example, since corporations do have social responsibility to the public and not just fiduciary responsibility to their ownership, according to you, what would be your position on a ban on tax inversion, or laws to make corporations tax on their global income?
@JKB:
As you well know, the ruling was not just about 4 birth control methods, but any type of contraception.
@humanoid.panda:
The idea that progressives do not care about the size of government is defied by their fight to maintain every existing program no matter how ineffective. The ratchet effect was created to describe how government always seems to grow. When government gets more tax funding during a good time, the first instinct is to find ways to spend money. Even Bill Clinton during the economic boom of the 1990’s could not bring about any program cuts in domestic discretionary spending.
Progressives may convince themselves that they just care about policy and programs but every one of their actions indicates that the only good government is a government that is growing faster than the economy. the reason that fiscal conservatives care about the size of the government is to force decisions on the priorities of government and to only fund the high level priorities. Progressives decide that every priority is important that thus, will push to fund them all.
@JKB:
If true there is some grade A #1 bad lawyering going on before the Supreme Court, and by the Supreme Court. According to their logic, if my religion says… Oh wait a minute, they said their logic in this case can NOT be applied elsewhere. Yep, really bad, EPICALLY BAD, lawyering by some sitting SC justices. What idiot picked these refugees from the Alzheimer ward?
@Neil Hudelson:
the whole point of the “equal pay” push is not equal pay but it is for “equivalent pay.” The young single women working in human resources, social work, education, and other female dominated career fields want the government to step in and determine who should be what. That way the womens with their masters degrees in human resources or education will be paid more while the poor males with just a bachelors in petroleum engineering or computer science will be paid less.
Equal pay does not mean everyone is paid more, it can just as equally mean everyone is paid less and that market forces are removed from the job market.
Look, SD, you twit, I’m going to school for a new career. If I do it right, I can make $70,000/yr. fresh out of school. You think I won’t care about taxes?
You’re nucking futs if you think I won’t. And unless the Republican party starts giving a damn about me and the women I love, I won’t press the button for them.
It’s just that simple.
Where y’all from, SD? Corporate HR people are paid very well.
@superdestroyer: This would be true, if not for the unfortunate fact that discretionary domestic funding, the part of the government that inludes all domestic spending liberals fight over, is smaller as share of GDP than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. This fact alone invalidates your entire argument.
@Janis Gore: But that’s because progressives are forcing helpless corporations to find jobs for single women instead of encouraging them to have White babies, not a *real* market decision.
Why do I bother with this? Talking to SD is like talking to my stepsons. They don’t listen to a damned thing I say either.
Is one of you bloggers using an alias just to get a rise out of your readers?
Matt, is SD really you?
@Janis Gore:
“Talking to SD is like talking to my stepsons. They don’t listen to a damned thing I say either.”
And yet you keep doing it, often posting multiple and at least partially contradictory responses to him. You are meeting at least two separate insanity tests (“Insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results.” and “Talking to yourself is not insane. Answering yourself is not insane. Interrupting yourself — now that’s insane”)
(kidding)
@Moosebreath: Man, I am insane. My brother Charles died Wednesday.
@Janis Gore:
Eep! — I am sorry to hear that (though as I noted above, I was kidding).
@Moosebreath: I figured you were. The disclaimer at the bottom was a clue.:)
@Janis Gore: Oh my. So sorry to hear that.
@Janis Gore:
My condolences.
I’m going to say this once, because I’m really tired: Thank you all for your kindness and concern.
As far as the issues of jobs, education, fringe benefits, and pay relate, think about this. A typical Masters Degree in the education field is going to cost $10,000 or more. In many states the extra pay on a teacher’s salary scale for a Masters Degree will take 15+ years for the degree to pay for itself. It is hard to get a loan for a graduate degree. The National Board Certification can be achieved in a much shorter time, is far less costly, and pays more. In our state a teacher with a Masters Degree gets about $15 more per month.
One other alternative that might be worth looking into are some of the internet jobs. Work at home in spare time, then go full time. The ads show statements of starting income around $300 a week for a few hours work, then $8,000 a month after about six months! I may try that just to see if it works.
I heard one man talking about his job selling vitamins with one of those arrangements where you bring more people in and that helps your income. He said he now gets a nice monthly check and doesn’t do anything except attend monthly meetings, bring in more “associates”, and count his money. He has won cruises and vacations. That might be worth looking into and I am going to one of those meetings with him soon. He and others he works with have basically retired – and he is not even 50!
Having a bunch of degrees and going to some prestigious Ivy League school may not be all that great after all.
BS degree: bull s_ _ _ _
MS degree: more of the same
PHD : piled higher and deeper
(timeless joke about college)
@Tyrell: I’m working on occupational therapy, which I’m pretty good at, and think I can be very good at. In addition to helping a recuperating Charles for nine months in our home, I have a happy one-legged parrot.
Charles had 4th stage Hodgkins of the bone marrow. Boy was damned near dead before he went to Jackson because the doctors in Natchez are …I’m really trying to keep blue language out of this forum.
It’s a long, confusing story, hon, and I was there. James knows part of it.
This might be my book.
@superdestroyer:
Hey, if you’re going to just make stuff up, can I play too?
“Republicans want to shrink government because they are alien lizards.”
How was that?
I think you are perhaps confused by the tendency of progressives to fight to preserve SOME program, even if relatively ineffective, when the alternative is to have no program at all. Simple first aid may not be enough for a sucking chest wound, but it’s better than just letting him die in a ditch.
When conservatives can offer actual proposals of their own, designed to more effectively remedy the problems that those ineffectual programs address, I will gladly listen to them with an open mind. But I cannot remember the last time that happened. Instead, they are wholly focused on extreme measures to remedy ‘problems’ that to me are not problems at all — problems like “too many brown people” and “women not subservient to men” and “homosexuals allowed to be homosexual” and “rich people paying taxes” and “government regulations interfering with corporate profits”.
@JKB:
Well, when they’re regulated they do in fact often have mandated social responsibilities – such as do not pollute air and water, or clean up the pollution of their making, and so forth. Some corporations choose to be socially responsible in the absence of regulation, many do not.
@al-Ameda:
Following the law is not a social responsibility, it is a legal obligation.
How can a corporation have beliefs in what is right socially? Can a corporation vote? Can a corporation have morals?
@Tyrell: You are generally very amusing, my friend, but there are times when the mask slips just a bit and lets the troll peek through.
Either that, or you are truly without any sense of the world.
But here’s a hint: When you read those messages on other blogs that say “I can’t believe my wife is making $8,000 a month working at home,” these are not actually testimonials from regular posters. But please, feel free to give it a try and report back to us.
Honestly, my brother has a bitchy fat-assed cat. She wanted me to give her more treats. I said, “You’re a bitch, but I’m a bigger bitch than you are. I must outweigh you by 20-30 pounds. Shut up and sit down.” And she did.
@JKB: JKB, in your defense, Hobby Lobby has a very good hourly wage. Something like $14/hr. For people on the floor in Dallas. And they’re helpful, in consequence.
@Janis Gore:
Why do I need a defense?
Hobby Lobby was just asking for the US government to follow settled law, i.e., the RFRA. Congress passed the law (overwhelmingly in a Democratic controlled Congress and eagerly signed into law by President Clinton) to establish that any imposition on the exercise of religion was to be the least burdensome required to accomplish the legitimate governmental interest. The Congress could have but did not exempt the ACA from RFRA. The government by their own actions by providing accommodations for religious organizations has demonstrated that the requirements being imposed on closely held corporations was not the least burdensome option to accomplish the governmental interest.
You got something against following the law?
Not me sonny, I’m a lawyer’s widow. And a lawyer’s sister-in law, and a lawyer’s aunt, and a past mistress of of a corporate lawyer for Republic National Bank in Dallas ( I do and do not regret that. His wife is my friend.).
Ms L, the corporate lawyer’s wife is something. A homebody, a great cook, a mother of 4, a damned decent actress, a good-looking woman, and something of a Shakespeare scholar. She was asked to speak to groups about Shakespeare.
If she dies while her husband is alive, I’ll put in a request to come her funeral or service, or whatever. A fine, fine woman. And I’ve told her husband he was a damned fool to dally with young women when she was his best friend.
She’s 89 now, and physically hale, but her mind is slipping.
I’ll swan, I keep telling people to not f**k with me, and they keep doin’ it, y’all.
Where y’all think I come from? Mamou?
Lord help me. I just went for cigarettes and I haven’t been able to retune my car radio since I came home.
A Christian radio station was playing. The speaker was trying to convince me that because Obama is obsessed with appeasing the homosexual menace in this country, that he is denying the true political realities of dealing with radical Moslems on the ground.
Appease radical Islamists, not sinful faggots! Ain’t that cool.
I’da shot somebody if that silly faggot Bubba hadn’t just given me the best haircut in my life at 4.
Now do you know why I’m insane?
I mean, I get it. Christians and Muslims are both people of The Book and all. As are Jews.
@Tyrell: “One solution to these sorts of conundrums is for businesses to pay employees more and let them choose their own health plan (and other benefits). ”
The whole point was control. The Greens don’t want women controlling their own bodies.
@JKB: “For Hobby Lobby, the 4 birth control methods in question constituted the termination of a life after conception. Your “medical” opinion doesn’t matter, in their religious beliefs it was abortion and it was the imposition on their beliefs that were at issue. ”
Oh, so if a liberal complain about a government program affecting me, and claim that I believe that A is B, the court is going to act accordingly?
Me: ” When the shoe is on the other foot, you have no right to complain.”
“Have you ever been to America? First, your logic has never been true. Second, the right to complain rests with the Right of Free Speech. You may wish to argue the logic of complaining instead. ”
I was referring to ‘moral right’, but you’re right – I’ll write down on your level.
@JKB: “Hobby Lobby was just asking for the US government to follow settled law, i.e., the RFRA.”
You are lying. This was an unprecedented case of reverse piercing of the corporate veil, and just to make that clear, the opinion claimed (lyingly, as we saw within a few days) to be limited to a limited set of birth control methods, and closely held corporations only. Which made no sense whatsoever; it was Bush v. Gore again.
Damned shame it’s too hot to wear my cowgirl boots — Ariats, black, 8 medium.
Since I’m ridin’ my high horse and all.
Since I’m ridin’ my high horse and all.
Now will y’all please get rid of that second comment, as I asked? It disrupts the act.
Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby shows just how pro life they really are:
Can’t you just feel the Christian love? “I was a single mother and you fired me”. Just what Jesus would do.
@stonetools: Have you noticed, Stonetools, that when one of your loved ones has died, people will come forward and say, “I am so sorry. I’ll do anything I can to help.
Then when you say, “Would you come clean my guest bathroom, I’ve been too busy and I’m busy now, I just can’t get to it, and people will be coming?”
And they look at you like you’re stone crazy?
@JKB:
This Supreme Court suggests that corporations, through their senior corporate management, may in fact decide what is “right socially.”
No, not directly, but it now has virtually unfettered ability to purchase votes and influence elections.
This Supreme Court, in the Hobby Lobby decision, said ‘yes.’
@al-Ameda:
You seem to miss the point.
Many argue that a corporation cannot have religious values. If they cannot have religious values, then how can those same people argue that the corporation has “social responsibility”?
But yes, the SCOTUS did say that a closely held corporation can have beliefs and values of those limited number of owners. The beliefs are not those of the senior corporate management, but those of the owners. The management are simply the owners’ agents. In a corporation with a large, diverse ownership, the management will have significant influence but can be removed by shareholders if their beliefs diverge to far.
@JKB:
Yes, Hobby Lobby is closely held and it has 13,000 employees. Cargill is also closely held, and it employs over 100,000 people. There are many subsidiary corporations that have one share holder (owner) that happens to be the parent company. Hobby Lobby was a prodigiously bad decision, one that does not bode well for American workers.
Thanks to our current activist Supreme Court it is well within the realm of probability that that “closely held” fig leaf is going to be swept away.
@JKB: “Corporations have social responsibility? ”
Legally, no. IANAL, but that’s been a solid doctrine for quite a while.
@JKB: ” The court decisively rejects the notion that the sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for its shareholders. ”
No, they rejected it for one circumstance, one which is a hot-button issue.
When they use Hobby Lobby as an actual precedent for something else, that guy will not be a liar; until then, he is.
@humanoid.panda: ” In what other matter,besides contraception, do you think they should be treated as more than just money making entities?”
It’s not what he thinks, it’s what the courts think, and they don’t seem to think so.
@JKB: “Many argue that a corporation cannot have religious values. If they cannot have religious values, then how can those same people argue that the corporation has “social responsibility”?”
Because those two things are not the same?
Hell, you men will be dead according to the actuaries and we’ll be playing bridge and drinking Martinis at lunch. On your money, done in a well-styled house by a queer decorator.
Bwahahaha!
I have read John Cheever.
@JKB: “Many argue that a corporation cannot have religious values. If they cannot have religious values, then how can those same people argue that the corporation has “social responsibility”?”
Because whether or not they have values, their actions have consequences that impact other pople positively or negatively, and many people believe they have obligation to mitigate the negative ones.
Is this really that hard?
http://youtu.be/nvlTJrNJ5lA
@wr:
Why do they have an obligation to mitigate the negative ones? How do they know what is a negative impact? The corporation has to have some moral code, religious or otherwise.
Or is it your opinion that moral code is based on whomever protests the most?
JKB, I remember dealing with you back when Sandy was hitting.
I was called down by the establishment because I told you to SFUT. Did you take any recommendations I gave you? Have you EVER given anything to anyone else out of sheer need?
You want market forces? You’re selling something me, my husband, my older stepson, and his girlfriend just won’t buy. That was, as you like it, private charity. I am not a destitute widda woman.
Don’t cross me, jackass. I’ve sold newspaper ads. That was done on appeal. Your views do not appeal to me anymore. I’m pretty sure when the market sucks.
Yo, you gonna stand on the law? Really good lawyers know how to get around it, junior.
Get it? I don’t want the product you’re trying to sell. And we’re 51% of the populace, last I heard. Women I mean. Add the 12% African American.
You know why we gonna eat your lunch? Because we cooked it.
Good Lord boy. I didn’t read Tennessee Williams for nothing.
@JKB: “Why do they have an obligation to mitigate the negative ones? How do they know what is a negative impact? ”
Here’s a hint: When your negligence allows your tank full of toxic chemicals to corrode so badly that they leak into a stream and render undrinkable the water for several hundred thousand people, you should be able to tell that’s a negative impact.
Unless you’re a Republican, I guess. Then it only matters if a member of your immediate family is harmed.
@wr: My newspaper manager (Columbia U) told me I couldn’t backhand Chauvinist pigs any more without getting fired. I had to go through sexual harassment claims.
Those were the days.
OK, y’all. That was a pretty good ride. I need to to disengage and take care of current business. Thank you for your patience and tolerance. I’m in your debt.