I saw this sign in the Hobby Lobby store in Owasso this afternoon.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8223/8263331378_1d0b71f67b.jpg)
Here's the smaller one at the bottom:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8477/8262262469_76f0709309.jpg)
Please note that it says that by entering the store, you're giving them permission to search your person and effects, as well as your car out in the parking lot. It was bad enough when the owners were trying to force their religious views on their employees, but now they apparently think that the concepts of due process and constitutionally protected rights don't actually apply in their stores.
I have to wonder if they'd feel differently if - and this is strictly hypothetical - local law enforcement wanted to look through their books for evidence of financial fraud. Would they be screaming for their lawyers and demanding that their rights be respected?
Oh, and I was on the end of some hard stares from the sales people up front. Photography may not be prohibited, but it's certainly unwelcome.
Got two words for Hobbly Lobbly now...
The last one is 'off'.
The first one is left up to you to decide.
Didn't really go there anyway. I guess Michael's gets any business for that specific SIC now.
"We think birth control is an abomination but reserve the right to grope you."
Just say no and leave.
They cant legally so much as touch you once you head for the door.
If they do, you have them over a barrel on criminal assault, false imprisonment and possibly strong-armed robbery charges.
Must be you Owassoans. Is that even a word?
Quote from: guido911 on December 10, 2012, 11:44:47 PM
Must be you Owassoans. Is that even a word?
"Owassoans" is so awkward. Just say 'awesome' instead, particularly if you're referring to me.
Quote from: Ed W on December 11, 2012, 07:39:45 AM
"Owassoans" is so awkward. Just say 'awesome' instead, particularly if you're referring to me.
"ow" and "a-s-s"
Sounds like we're talking about the proud metropolis of Hemorrhoid.
So Hemorrhoidians?
Hemorrhoidian Cheerleaders hate our fountains and cans. Protect the cans.
Has no one ever seen these signs before?? You can buy them at office supply stores or online. Used to be a big one year-round in the window of the Radio Shack at the mall, always thought it odd, because I couldn't imagine the zitty teenager searching a customer.
Typically, a store has the right to detain and search your person if they have suspicion of shoplifting. They don't need a sign, but many stores post such signs durring holiday shopping season in a prominent spot as a deterrent. I worked at Petty's as a kid and our manager put up the exact same sign on every door, every year around Christmas. Don't remember him ever searching anyone, except one guy who had 3 cartons of cigarettes in in pants that we had to tackle running across the parking lot. Years later he was hired by Reasor's when the new store at 71st and Sheridan opened. The only reason I knew that was that I walked in there one day in December and saw the same familiar signs, looked at the "wall of management" and saw his picture. Don't think he's still there or that is necessarily a policy of the company, but it is their right as a private business. As a private citizen, you also have the right to refuse.
Next time you are Christmas shopping, look around at the entrance and exits, you will see plenty of these, or similar. Hobby Lobby is just a raw nerve for folks so they are going to be sensitive to anything posted by management.
I also have the right to carry a pistola, a porcupine, squeeze bottles filled with urine and exploding dye cannisters in my shoulder bag. Please, search me. Let the battle begin.
The Green's haven't paid much attention to Pappa John's, Chick Fillet, etc. Maybe the Supreme's saw the future and knew about Corporate hubris? Let these type corporations hang themselves. If Hobby Lobby plans micro targeting the few who believe this non sense then so be it. Arrogance will destroy their retail business eventually. You can't continue to grow promoting this crud.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537520_512925368740738_1145689563_n.jpg)
I have a few minutes....That reminds me of a quote I read on an office wall recently, "I'll believe corporations are people when they execute them in Texas."
Those brands you mentioned are already damaged according to some in the industry. It won't show up immediately in sales but it will be reflected eventually.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 11, 2012, 10:11:33 AM
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537520_512925368740738_1145689563_n.jpg)
Do you have some statistical data on that "group of women in St. Louis" that would make that 61% more than a talking point?
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 11, 2012, 10:55:37 AM
Do you have some statistical data on that "group of women in St. Louis" that would make that 61% more than a talking point?
Free birth control leads to fewer abortions
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55026886-68/women-contraception-abortions-birth.html.csp
Washington (AP) -- Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concluded Thursday, offering strong evidence for how a bitterly contested Obama administration policy could benefit women's health.
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
Quote from: patric on December 11, 2012, 02:16:42 PM
Free birth control leads to fewer abortions
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55026886-68/women-contraception-abortions-birth.html.csp
Washington (AP) -- Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concluded Thursday, offering strong evidence for how a bitterly contested Obama administration policy could benefit women's health.
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
and:
Quote"It's just an amazing improvement," Dr. James T. Breeden, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said of the results. "I would think if you were against abortions, you would be 100 percent for contraception access."
It's all private property, if you don't like it don't shop there vote with your wallet.
I love the language of these debates.
We can use the precedent for all kinds of fun stuff. Lets play the entitlement game:
Good sex is the key to a happy marriage. Many companies refuse to pay for Viagra=Men are being denied access to erections.
It's a war on marriage!
Transportation is necessary for most employment. Companies are refusing to provide company cars or pay bus fair and parking for employees=People are being denied access to transportation. It's a war on employment!
Indoor plumbing is necessary for good hygiene and health in general. An overwhelming number of employers are refusing to pay their employee's water and sewage bills=People are being denied access to basic hygiene. It's a war on hygiene!
Vitamin C is necessary for people to avoid getting Scurvy. Unscrupulous companies across the country are refusing to pay for oranges for their employees=People are being denied access to vitamin C. Argh matey!! Yr wagin a war on healthy scalawags!
You work somewhere. They pay you money. That's the way it should be. Anything else they give, provide for use, or gift you, is a benefit, by definition, an 'enhancement', not an entitlement!
Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2012, 01:55:45 PM
You work somewhere. They pay you money. That's the way it should be. Anything else they give, provide for use, or gift you, is a benefit, by definition, an 'enhancement', not an entitlement!
I'm glad my employer enhances this place with heat then.
Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2012, 01:59:49 PM
I'm glad my employer enhances this place with heat then.
Does he do the same for your home?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2012, 02:07:34 PM
Does he do the same for your home?
Yes. It's called compensation. It's one of the benefits I get for working at my place of employment.
This is a comedian Paul F. Tomkins idea about his job in retail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9iOSqEC_G8
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 13, 2012, 02:31:29 PM
This is a comedian Paul F. Tomkins idea about his job in retail.
Swell, right next to it are a group of "reaction" videos to 2 girls one cup.
Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2012, 02:10:37 PM
Yes. It's called compensation. It's one of the benefits I get for working at my place of employment.
Excellent!
So your employer gives you access to heat, and food and indoor plumbing (I assume) by paying you a wage that you then CHOOSE to spend on the items that are important to you.
So, tell me, if an employer opts not to directly pay for birth control for employees, how does that "deny them access" from purchasing it for themselves, as you do with your heat? Are they not compensated for their work, just as you are?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2012, 03:38:33 PM
Excellent!
So your employer gives you access to heat, and food and indoor plumbing (I assume) by paying you a wage that you then CHOOSE to spend on the items that are important to you.
So, tell me, if an employer opts not to directly pay for birth control for employees, how does that "deny them access" from purchasing it for themselves, as you do with your heat? Are they not compensated for their work, just as you are?
This is because they want to search you and your car?
Yes, I am excellent.
Now if you're trying to make a point that no business should supply medical care, that's sad. It would be so much more expensive for all of us if we had to pay for that many more uninsured.
Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2012, 03:41:40 PM
This is because they want to search you and your car?
Yes, I am excellent.
Now if you're trying to make a point that no business should supply medical care, that's sad. It would be so much more expensive for all of us if we had to pay for that many more uninsured.
But Your Excellence, you already blurred that line...when I asked if your employeer paid for your heat at home, you replied.
QuoteYes. It's called compensation. It's one of the benefits I get for working at my place of employment.
Ahh then. . .If you are talking of collective purchasing power, would it not make sense for employers to pay for other expensive "benefits" like food, shelter, transportation, child care, pedicures, lawn service? By your logic, wouldn't rolling these things into benefit programs reduce the cost everyone has to pay? If that is indeed the case, why has the cost of healthcare increased instead of decreasing?
Once you turn down this road, attractive benefits soon become necessary entitlements, and collective purchasing builds monopoly and collusion. This forces government to impose regulation, and increases the cost of administration. Those costs are naturally passed to the consumer, and here we are. 30-40 years ago, medical insurance paid for by an employeer was a very special benefit, designed to attract the best employees to the best jobs, at the best companies. Now, even entry level employees expect healthcare to be paid, and every plan is administered by a megga-insurer with a thousand layers of administration to deal with tens of thousands of pages of regulation.
Because it is an entitlement now, people don't care how much it costs, they just want it, and it better be good! As a result, it has actually become far more expensive for everyone. What used to be a benefit is now considered a "right" of employment.
In your home, you CHOOSE how you set the thermostat. The electric/gas company then sends you a bill for what you USE. If your bill is $400 one month because you set the thermostat to 73, you may CHOOSE to turn it down to 69.
It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. – Alexis De Tocquiville
Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2012, 04:24:14 PM
But Your Excellence, you already blurred that line...when I asked if your employeer paid for your heat at home, you replied.
Ahh then. . .If you are talking of collective purchasing power, would it not make sense for employers to pay for other expensive "benefits" like food, shelter, transportation, child care, pedicures, lawn service? By your logic, wouldn't rolling these things into benefit programs reduce the cost everyone has to pay? If that is indeed the case, why has the cost of healthcare increased instead of decreasing?
Once you turn down this road, attractive benefits soon become necessary entitlements, and collective purchasing builds monopoly and collusion. This forces government to impose regulation, and increases the cost of administration. Those costs are naturally passed to the consumer, and here we are. 30-40 years ago, medical insurance paid for by an employeer was a very special benefit, designed to attract the best employees to the best jobs, at the best companies. Now, even entry level employees expect healthcare to be paid, and every plan is administered by a megga-insurer with a thousand layers of administration to deal with tens of thousands of pages of regulation.
Because it is an entitlement now, people don't care how much it costs, they just want it, and it better be good! As a result, it has actually become far more expensive for everyone. What used to be a benefit is now considered a "right" of employment.
In your home, you CHOOSE how you set the thermostat. The electric/gas company then sends you a bill for what you USE. If your bill is $400 one month because you set the thermostat to 73, you may CHOOSE to turn it down to 69.
So you're against all healthcare. I disagree. I want people to have healthcare.
I also think seat belts are a good idea as well as food safety, child labor laws, women's health services, etc.
So we disagree on many things.
Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2012, 04:45:15 PM
So you're against all healthcare. I disagree. I want people to have healthcare.
I also think seat belts are a good idea as well as food safety, child labor laws, women's health services, etc.
So we disagree on many things.
But Your Excellence, that is a leap. I am not against home ownership because I don't think it's the employers responsibility to buy their employees homes.
I'm against forcing people into dependent situations and then using those situations for economic and political gains.
I'm against the creation of protective and artificial market forces that inflate the costs of necessary goods, services, and resources.
I'm against anything that separates the consumer from the freedom to choose, and makes him dependent on the choices of others.
I want everyone to have healthcare, and I want them to choose how and from whom they obtain it.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2012, 04:53:23 PM
I am not against home ownership because I don't think it's the employers responsibility to buy their employees homes.
Ah, so you've changed your position.
Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2012, 04:54:43 PM
Ah, so you've changed your position.
Ah, so we have reduced this to an adolescent debate. I assume we are done then.
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
Quote from: Gaspar on December 13, 2012, 06:03:05 PM
Ah, so we have reduced this to an adolescent debate. I assume we are done then.
Yeah, I'll be honest with you. It wasn't a debate. I stopped reading your posts in entirety a long time ago.
Quote from: Townsend on December 13, 2012, 08:42:27 PM
It wasn't a debate. I stopped reading your posts.
That would explain a lot. :D
3. . .2. . .1