All it suggests is that they don't support 'certain' contraceptives due to religious objections and don't want to pay for it.
Another Obama Smackdown from SCOTUS
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
Exactly - but there still seems to be some confusion about the ruling so maybe this simple sentence will help clarify things.
That seems easy enough to understand. Now we'll see how it goes with Obama's war on the Little Sisters of The Poor.
Would it not be fair for Atheist owned business to no longer pay any employees for Christian Holidays now after this ruling? I know that if I were a business owner I would be challange the courts on that very thing because Christian Holidays go against my deeply held lack of belief so why would I have to pay an employee to have Christmas off or Easter off when I don't believe in the myth
Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app
Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Contraceptives aren't being withheld so the very basis of this view is wrong but forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs does violate rights.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
jimby82
Veteran Expediter
That would be your call, and I don't think the folks at Hobby Lobby would really care what you did with your Own Business.
Finding folks willing work those days might be a problem!
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Good one, I guess they forgot about that whole freedom of religion or separation of church and state.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
You can do whatever you choose Ebeneezer, provided it's equal for all employees. Provided of course you can find some.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
That would be pretty much impossible based on how mutual funds work, especially when pharmaceutical companies do more than one thing. There is also no comparison to having a mutual fund that you freely take part in versus the government forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
paullud
Veteran Expediter
You wouldn't have to sue the government over that since the government doesn't force a business to pay employees for taking Christmas or Easter off.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
When you pointed out that a mutual fund is freely engaged in, you made my point. They don't have to invest in mutual funds, there are alternatives, including not investing, if they can't find anything that doesn't offend their beliefs. That they're willing to ignore what their investments pay for [and what their purchases from Chinese vendors enable, like forced abortion], but draw the line at what their workers engage in, says their beliefs are pretty much situational.
Are you truly so blind you can't see how this 'victory' can come back to bite you? [And the rest of us!]
You [I mean Christians, not just you personally] are rejoicing, because your religious beliefs have been made more powerful - but how will you feel when the religion in question isn't yours?
paullud
Veteran Expediter
It didn't make your point at all because you left out the most important part which is the government forcing you to violate your religious beliefs. You can try to force some connection if you insist but it would also be easy to point out that the Hobby Lobby buying from China could lower abortions for employees there or that the same pharmaceutical company that they invested in makes a drug to help stop a miscarriage or save a life. That's the problem with propaganda, it gives you that "Yeah we gotcha" feeling until the same logic is used from another point of view.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
paullud
Veteran Expediter
It's amazing how many people just don't get it.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
Yes. Like believing that HL's investments in China "could lower abortions for employees there", because they think abortion is optional, rather than forced by the government.
So what happens when religious beliefs clash? Whose religious beliefs will prevail?
Are you going to cheer when the religion that is supported by the SC isn't your religion?
paullud
Veteran Expediter
When the family can provide for the child because they are working they are less likely to abort or have a forced abortion.
Are there religions that require forced emergency contraceptives?
Sorry to disappoint you but the religion that the SC "supported" by this decision isn't my religion and I don't believe that pills like the morning after pill are abortion. So yes, I would support the SC if that happened.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
It doesn't matter, because if one religion's beliefs are supported, they all must be - and that's a recipe for disaster. Exactly what the Founding Fathers hoped to prevent.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
This statement isn't true. The population control in China was applied to Hans living in urban areas so the abortion issues in rural areas were in part economic. So again if they have jobs and can support more children they may not abort or they might give money to an orphanage that would save an abandoned child.
This has nothing to do with the SC decision.
This just simply is not even close to being true.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
The point you are trying to make is that Hobby Lobby should not allow their employee's 401(k) to be invested in any companies which produce abortifacients or contraception. The point you are completely missing is, they don't do that. The money is invested in mutual funds.
Clearly you haven't a whole lot of experience in investing in mutual funds. It's not like Hobby Lobby invests in mutual funds like The Morning After Fund, or Value Abortions Growth, or Diaphram Technology Fund. Hobby Lobby uses American Funds, T Rowe Price and Vanguard to manage the retirement plan. There are 12 funds available to them in which to invest, 9 of the funds having holdings in companies like Teva Pharmaceutical, Bayer, and Pfizer (and all 12 at one time or another have had those same companies in the funds). Teva makes one of my cholesterol medication. Bayer makes my aspirin. Pfizer just kills people. These are huge drug companies that make many different medications. Contraceptives are only part of the mix, and a really small part, at that.
Certainly HL could make the effort, on behalf of their employees, to find mutual funds or other investments that don't assault your sensibilities, like the Timothy Plan, or Ave maria Funds, or the Catholic Values Fund, which doesn't invest in companies that don't involve abortion or those which go against the traditional family values (porn, pro-gay anything, etc. Catholic Values Fund's top holding is Haliburton, arguably the epitome of big, evil corporations, though, so there's that little problem.
They could have Vanguard or someone craft a special fund just for Hobby Lobby, but it would cost a lot more and would almost certainly bring a lower return. The costs of managing that type of a 401(k) is likely not even feasible at all. But the reality is, if one or more of Hobby Lobby's funds include Teva or whoever, it almost certainly doesn't for any length of time. The funds Hobby Lobby offers employees are "actively managed," meaning someone is picking stocks and moving them in and out of the portfolio regularly. One day the fund could have Teva, and the next day no Teva at all.
It doesn't say their beliefs are situational at all. It says that they won't provide free contraception and abortifacients for their employees, because doing so is against their religious beliefs. What their workers engage in is up to the workers. It also says that they won't allow strawmen logical fallacies like Chinese vendors being enabled to engage in forced abortion simply because Hobby Lobby buys from them to enter the mix (how do you come up with this stuff?).
Like I said, exposing and calling out hypocrisy is right in my wheelhouse. It's one of my most richly fulfilling hobbies. Investing in a mutual fund is about one thing - getting a decent return on your money. That's it. That's as far as it goes. There is nothing hypocritical at all with Hobby Lobby investing 401(k) money in large, proven mutual funds in order to obtain a decent return for their employees. Hypocrisy would be Hobby Lobby buying individual stock in companies that manufacture contraceptives and abortifacients. Hypocrisy would be having an contraceptives and abortifacients aisle in their stores. Hypocrisy would be sponsoring a float in the Oklahoma City Gay Pride Parade.