Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

[sadbrownsfan]

I haven't had time to follow this, but a friend of mine posted this on fb... a bit of hypocrisy to claim its against your religion to provide but not against your religion to invest in the technology for your retirement http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

 

"Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k)."

[Westside Steve]

The judgement refers to not forcing people to violate their religious beliefs.

 

Any court would know that contraception is a legit religious belief.

 

It doesn't mean that all corporations can violate pollution laws.

 

get a grip on your hot toddy over there, Chris.

 

(do you really think this Obamao admin has any kind of religious basis for breaking

all the laws they are breaking? Seriously?)

 

Actually yes they do Cal.

"Gawd-a-Mighty we sho do love power!!!!!"

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

That is a fair point ... except that the company doesn't run the make up

of the mutual funds. For instance, most mutual funds incorporate investments

in cigarette mfg companies, at least they did back in the day I was asking about it,

with regard to my investments. I did change my choices through the manager to eliminate

them.

 

More than that, it doesn't say that companies involved in the dev of contraceptive stuff

- that that is their only research or mfg product.

 

Generally, the company hires an investment manager to oversee and run the investments

in those mutual funds, and I don't know who the heck decides what all companies are included

in the particular mutual fund.

 

Being lawfully forced to violate your religious beliefs and unknowingly? having mutual funds your

401 plans are invested in, that have a few companies that mfg contraceptive devices isn't all that

hypocritical, unless the corp brass knew that those mutual funds were inclusive of those companies

and didn't care, as long as they made money. I doubt that is true.

[calfoxwc]

Actually yes they do Cal.
"Gawd-a-Mighty we sho do love power!!!!!"

WSS

*************************************************

Oh, that's good.

[sadbrownsfan]

That is a fair point ... except that the company doesn't run the make up

of the mutual funds. For instance, most mutual funds incorporate investments

in cigarette mfg companies, at least they did back in the day I was asking about it,

with regard to my investments. I did change my choices through the manager to eliminate

them.

 

More than that, it doesn't say that companies involved in the dev of contraceptive stuff

- that that is their only research or mfg product.

 

Generally, the company hires an investment manager to oversee and run the investments

in those mutual funds, and I don't know who the heck decides what all companies are included

in the particular mutual fund.

 

Being lawfully forced to violate your religious beliefs and unknowingly? having mutual funds your

401 plans are invested in, that have a few companies that mfg contraceptive devices isn't all that

hypocritical, unless the corp brass knew that those mutual funds were inclusive of those companies

and didn't care, as long as they made money. I doubt that is true.

 

"To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research."

 

From the same article above, as a company they are responsible for knowing who they are funding\investing in. So if these type of procedures are so against their religion, why didn't they take the steps to prevent funding? I am all for not forcing someone to do something against their religion, but this is a company and unless everyone in that company is of the same religion(doubtful) they should still provide for those with different beliefs within their company.

[calfoxwc]

I agree with you. I've never heard of those funds, but like I said, I changed funds to non smoking funds.

 

The company is responsible, sure, but the company doesn't all run the funds invested in.

 

They have an investment manager/firm to do all that for them. Overlooked? Or hypocrisy? I don't know.

I just don't assume "hypocrisy" without knowing they knew.

 

*************************************************

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/hobbylobby.asp

Although this information was widely touted as demonstrating hypocrisy on the part of Hobby Lobby, some aspects of it are uncertain. The reported information dates from 2012, and it's not known whether Hobby Lobby has made changes to its retirement plan since then.

Additionally, Hobby Lobby reportedly provides its employees with the option of making 401(k) investments in 24 different mutual funds, with each fund's portfolio consisting of "at least dozens if not hundreds of different holdings."

How assiduously Hobby Lobby might have screened every single company included in the portfolios of dozens of different mutual funds, and whether they were aware that some of those companies had ties to contraceptive producers, is also unknown.

(As the Mother Jones article pointed out, however, some mutual funds do service companies interested in "faith-based investing" by screening out companies that, for example, "manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research," but "Hobby Lobby's managers either were not aware of these options or chose not to invest in them.")

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/info/news/hobbylobby.asp#pqTCAt08cMSYxwVI.99

[gftChris]

That is a fair point ... except that the company doesn't run the make up

of the mutual funds. For instance, most mutual funds incorporate investments

in cigarette mfg companies, at least they did back in the day I was asking about it,

with regard to my investments. I did change my choices through the manager to eliminate

them.

 

More than that, it doesn't say that companies involved in the dev of contraceptive stuff

- that that is their only research or mfg product.

 

Generally, the company hires an investment manager to oversee and run the investments

in those mutual funds, and I don't know who the heck decides what all companies are included

in the particular mutual fund.

 

Being lawfully forced to violate your religious beliefs and unknowingly? having mutual funds your

401 plans are invested in, that have a few companies that mfg contraceptive devices isn't all that

hypocritical, unless the corp brass knew that those mutual funds were inclusive of those companies

and didn't care, as long as they made money. I doubt that is true.

Entering my realm of finance here, we have plenty of clients that are pension plans, and I know plenty of people who are investment/portfolio managers for them. In fact, a friend of mine was working on the portfolio of my own personal pension.

 

Anyway, no PM will ever just tell the client 'sign here' without discussing the details of the portfolio. At the very least it's going to include a high level overview of the industries, so in this case that would probably be filed under health, science, or more likely pharmaceuticals - at which point the company, if it has such a moral objection to anything in that field of research, should raise questions. Ignorance has never been a defence.

 

Presumably, now that this has been brought to light, Hobby Lobby will be making changes to its pension plan?

[sadbrownsfan]

Doubt it, unless there is overwhelming pressure to do so, I think this had less to do with the actual religious part and more to do with Obamacare in general. By taking away a part of it(one part that was more controversial), it makes it easier to starting taking away other parts.

[calfoxwc]

I guess the question is also, does Hobby Lobby have a mandate to not allow

employees to invest in funds that go against the religous views of the brass?

 

It's one thing for the company to officially violate the owner's religious beliefs,

 

and another for the company to force employees to invest their own funds according to

corp policy.

 

Not necessarily hypocrisy.

[gftChris]

I guess the question is also, does Hobby Lobby have a mandate to not allow

employees to invest in funds that go against the religous views of the brass?

 

It's one thing for the company to officially violate the owner's religious beliefs,

 

and another for the company to force employees to invest their own funds according to

corp policy.

 

Not necessarily hypocrisy.

In what way would Hobby Lobby be now mandated to regulate what its employees invest in?! Even for you that's some crazy shit.

[MLD Woody]

So it's against their religion to pay some extra money to allow other employees they work with to get access to contraception if they so choose to use it. I thought it was just against their religion to use it?

 

Our there ways in which an "atheist" company could use this ruling to negatively affect any religious employees they may have?

 

Or, like Chris had mentioned, other religions can do stuff along this line now too in ways Christians may not like.

 

 

So companies can now opt out of laws if they have a religious reason to do so? Sounds like preferential treatment

[sadbrownsfan]

I guess the question is also, does Hobby Lobby have a mandate to not allow

employees to invest in funds that go against the religous views of the brass?

 

It's one thing for the company to officially violate the owner's religious beliefs,

 

and another for the company to force employees to invest their own funds according to

corp policy.

 

Not necessarily hypocrisy.

 

So as long as they provide different options for their employees to choose their 401k but not different options for contraceptives?

[calfoxwc]

I wasn't referring to obamaocare mandate nothing.

 

I was simply referring to corp policy regulating what employees were

allowed to invest their 401K money in?

 

Seeing as how, they match employees contributions to whatever percent. I used to get 50 cents on the dollar for every dollar I put in. Over ten years, you wouldn't believe how that added up.

[gftChris]

I wasn't referring to obamaocare mandate nothing.

 

I was simply referring to corp policy regulating what employees were

allowed to invest their 401K money in?

 

Seeing as how, they match employees contributions to whatever percent. I used to get 50 cents on the dollar for every dollar I put in. Over ten years, you wouldn't believe how that added up.

Interesting point, less crazy than it first sounded! I'm not sure how it works over there, but here employer contribution pension plans are generally run by the employer so the employee doesn't get a huge say in the investment. He/she gets a small range of options, but these are usually limited to 'low, medium & high risk' and the actual make up of the investment plans are determined by the company, so again it's up to them.

 

I guess that these days most american companies operate the same system?

[calfoxwc]

I wouldn't know. We had adjustments available as to what funds came and went,

 

and if you didn't care, you could just go with "high risk" or "medium"...as you mention.

 

I always went for "medium" early on, then much later on, changed it, ever so smartly, to "low risk".

[gftChris]

Maybe some of the younger generation would know - Woody, you've presumably just signed a contract and it would stipulate a pension plan?

[calfoxwc]

he isn't old enough to sign contracts... at least not mentally ....

[sadbrownsfan]

Some views from Justice Ginsburg who was against the verdict- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

"To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research."

 

From the same article above, as a company they are responsible for knowing who they are funding\investing in. So if these type of procedures are so against their religion, why didn't they take the steps to prevent funding? I am all for not forcing someone to do something against their religion, but this is a company and unless everyone in that company is of the same religion(doubtful) they should still provide for those with different beliefs within their company.

Seems as though the Supreme Court disagrees with you. You lose.

[sadbrownsfan]

Seems as though the Supreme Court disagrees with you. You lose.

 

 

I didn't lose, anyone who worked or works at Hobby Lobby(21,000 people) that may have wanted to use this form of birth control lost.

[sadbrownsfan]

Man the more I read about it the more I realize it was less about religion, and more political. Until 2012 they provided these same contraceptions in their insurance policy- http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/hobby-lobby-provided-emergency-contraceptives-they-opposed-them

[MLD Woody]

he isn't old enough to sign contracts... at least not mentally ....

Yes... Because I'm the "butt of the board"...

[MLD Woody]

Maybe some of the younger generation would know - Woody, you've presumably just signed a contract and it would stipulate a pension plan?

The benefits packet and all of that into was sent to my permanent address (parent's house). I'm gonna look it all over this weekend. I'll let you know

[Westside Steve]

 

 

I didn't lose, anyone who worked or works at Hobby Lobby(21,000 people) that may have wanted to use this form of birth control lost.

Yes this outrage eclipses even the Holocaust. If I weren't so jaded I might be shocked to see the bitterness involved with you guys on the left. For the love of Pete nobody's being denied anything. Birth control and abortion are free or cheap everywhere in the fucking country. And you guys can't respect tiniest little thing from anyone who might not think that abortion is no more serious than having a mole removed.

 

And these are the guys who bleat constantly about the need to shield any other minority from the tiniest hint off offense:.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Alright Steve now you're just getting ridiculous. I relize you may be in a bad mood but there is no reason to go full Cal on us. I mean shit, how many dumbass, ridiculous comparisons and statement did you make in that post alone? I hope everything is alright because these posts are unlike you.

[sadbrownsfan]

Yes this outrage eclipses even the Holocaust. If I weren't so jaded I might be shocked to see the bitterness involved with you guys on the left. For the love of Pete nobody's being denied anything. Birth control and abortion are free or cheap everywhere in the fucking country. And you guys can't respect tiniest little thing from anyone who might not think that abortion is no more serious than having a mole removed.

 

And these are the guys who bleat constantly about the need to shield any other minority from the tiniest hint off offense:.

WSS

 

Personally its less about the people at Hobby Lobby, and more about where this will lead, ruling that a for-profit company that has had a history of not being against a product(see previous health care and even there own funding) that now believes being mandated to provide a policy that allows this to be covered, it wasn't forcing people to use but forcing insurance to cover if the person wanted to use it or doctor recommended it, opens the question to what can companies now claim is against their religion.

 

Could Walmart also follow suit? By the IRS definition of "Closely Held Company" they would be able to if they decided that something was against their religion. Could another religious group say a Sciencetologist(sp?) company decide that they shouldn't have to pay for insurance that allows medication? Like most of the supreme court rulings that are close it seems to make more questions than it answers.

[Westside Steve]

Alright Steve now you're just getting ridiculous. I relize you may be in a bad mood but there is no reason to go full Cal on us. I mean shit, how many dumbass, ridiculous comparisons and statement did you make in that post alone? I hope everything is alright because these posts are unlike you.

So the bitter left goes berserk over a tiny little win for some Christians.

 

(Again, you aren't nearly as smart as heck so this is just a hollow imitation. Thanks for trying.)

 

I am a bit curious, if that description was completely unlike you why then did you take offense?

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

 

Personally its less about the people at Hobby Lobby, and more about where this will lead, ruling that a for-profit company that has had a history of not being against a product(see previous health care and even there own funding) that now believes being mandated to provide a policy that allows this to be covered, it wasn't forcing people to use but forcing insurance to cover if the person wanted to use it or doctor recommended it, opens the question to what can companies now claim is against their religion.

 

Could Walmart also follow suit? By the IRS definition of "Closely Held Company" they would be able to if they decided that something was against their religion. Could another religious group say a Sciencetologist(sp?) company decide that they shouldn't have to pay for insurance that allows medication? Like most of the supreme court rulings that are close it seems to make more questions than it answers.

Oh please.

I bet even you realize that's a ridiculous slippery slope. Akin to me saying that affirmative action will lead to Obamao's Jack booted thugs breaking down the doors of businesses and dragging the white employees out into the street for execution.

 

The president put together a shitty health care plan and decided to add a thumb in the eye to his enemies.

 

WSS

[sadbrownsfan]

Ya, I used more of an extreme example to make my point(kind of calish of me), but my point remains where do you now draw the line between a company's owners right to express their religious beliefs and providing insurance to their employees(that is now mandated)?

[Westside Steve]

Ya, I used more of an extreme example to make my point(kind of calish of me), but my point remains where do you now draw the line between a company's owners right to express their religious beliefs and providing insurance to their employees(that is now mandated)?

By being as flexible as you possibly can and this incident in my opinion is tiny. Remember I'm not a Christian per se and I could give a rats ass about abortion. But other people do and just because many of the bitter left are hostile to Christians I don't see any particular need to put the foot to the throat. Id feel the same way about Jews and Muslims too.

 

WSS