Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Companies DO have a conscience....hypocrisy at its BEST!
In a previous discussion, the idea was presented that Hobby Lobby is errant in having the position that as a company, they have and are permitted to have a conscience. The writer then explained that corporations are "entities, not people," and therefore have no right to have a moral guide or conscience that would impact or influence the company's employees.
In this particular case, Hobby Lobby received a SCOTUS ruling in their favor, stating that they do not have to pay, out of company pocket, for employee purchases of 4 forms of birth control. Hobby Lobby is paying for 16-19 other forms, but based on moral and religious conscience, asked the Supreme Court to be exempt from paying for four forms, all of which fall into the emergency contraception, or Plan B category.
To this I say, "HOG WASH!"
In this nation, companies DO and are EXPECTED TO have a conscience.
Examples:
Delta Air Lines: Promotion of Susan B. Komen Breast Cancer.
USBANK: United Way affiliation - the bank actually pays employees for 8 hours of regular pay for the employee to take one paid volunteer day per year.
Mary Kay: Puts money toward cancer research for cancers that affect women, domestic violence support, and a big Mary Kay Pink Going Green effort.
Target: This year hoping to donate millions of school supplies to kids in the communities.
Bottom line is that these are only four examples of the "moral conscience," which supposedly should not and cannot exist in the nation. There are undoubtedly hundreds, if not thousands of examples like these. In every case, a corporation or a limited liability company is taking a stand for something they believe in and find important to the moral fabric of their organization.
As a family-run business since the 1970's, Hobby Lobby, under the direction and leadership of the Green Family is a company that is founded on and based upon certain values. As with any other business entity that is permitted to express its moral compass, so should this company.
The sad point is that the moral compass for this family/company points toward the unborn child. As this issue of protecting our unborn neighbors is unfavorable to the social appetite of the nation and the culture, Hobby Lobby has come under attack for having this particular issue be "their thing."
Bottom line: In the USA companies do and are expected to have a moral compass or conscience. It's not fair to allow some companies this and not others just because the company is in a the minority position on a moral issue.
Re: Companies DO have a conscience....hypocrisy at its BEST!
CVS stopped carrying cigarettes which are legal and sold by most of their competitors. This decision was lauded by most because it was the "right" kind of moral stand to take. Starbucks has a no visible tattoo policy even though those are legal and pretty commonplace. Are they bigoted against tattooed people? Are they trying to say that tattooed people are somehow inferior or morally compromised?
Companies like Amazon, Nike and Microsoft gave money and officially supported gay marriage legislation even though those things have zero to do with the day to day running and functioning of their business and they might employ people who disagreed with their stance. However, because this was the "right" stand they are allowed to move and flow in advocacy roles without any real consequence.
Thank you for thinking!!! You have a good brain! It's refreshing.
But, this statement isn't the point of the OP. The OP is about how companies do, and are expected to, have a conscience. The conscience of HL directs them to advocate for and protect the unborn child. It's a conscience. It exists.
You see them as denying 4 forms of BC to women employees who already have access to 16-19 other forms AND as the PP mentioned, have higher pay as compared to competitors in the industry to buy whatever form of Plan B BC they want. I see them as promoting life.
so we'd be ok with companies getting tax breaks for donating to political causes but not taking stands on the moral grounds of their board? That has me shaking my head a bit.
Several companies this week filed an amicus brief on the marriage legalization including Target. Using the same logic that companies shouldn't have any opinion whatsoever on the subject since it doesn't affect the running of their business and involves the private lives of their employees. Since it's the "right" (in the eyes of the media and many outspoken activists) side of the debate no one has had too much to say about why Target would insert itself into something that is not related to its business.
What is the "same" as denying certain types of birth control? Just to be clear they aren't denying that their employees use them or pay for them or even that anyone be able to use or pay for them (as least as not as far as activism on their part goes). They are simply not desiring to pay for something they find violates their belief system. Let's make the argument that there was some safety equipment that came in several forms and the govt mandated that the company was required to supply such equipment. One form the company had issue with because it was only manufactured somewhere that they believed to be a sweatshop that exploited and endangered children. However they would still supply safety equipment of all of the other varieties that achieved the same purpose. Yet the govt comes in and says "No, sorry, I don't care that you believe little Chinese children are dying making this product you have to buy it and give your employees a chance to use it even though there are other options". Most people would 100% support the company's desire to take a moral stand for something they believed was right and would feel like the government was bullying that company.
Where you spend your money is your choice based on your conscience. I have the same choice. Once again, that's not the point of the OP, though. Once again, the point is that companies do have a conscience.
Examples are examples simply because they most accurately mirror the point being discussed. Under your logic, any time a person used any example for any argument, their point would have to be dismissed as it was based on example. Examples rarely exactly match the exact situation at hand. When people use examples they choose them based on the amount of correlation to the discussion and the case. I can't believe I'm explaining this. Actually, using your logic, you cannot use your Chick-Fil-a example - it's not a good example because it's not directly related to birth control, health insurance, abortion, or crafts.