SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of Hobby Lobby

[The Grand Nudger]

I think they offer them as a means to attract good employees...so yes in a round about way they profit from 401ks. But they are not making money off them in the way you initially suggested.

I suggested that they did not feel such a conviction where they figured it made them money - which apparently, they don't. You think that maybe because they aren't making money one way it's okay - because they're making it some other way - and that somehow "making money" isn't the same as "making money"? It's cool, it's not like it's illegal or anything, no need to be their apologist. It's just an observation.

They didn't have to research this aspect of Obamacare. The administration didn't try to bury it....they touted it as a feature.

It is impossible for Hobby Lobby to determine what companies and when these funds will invest in. One day the fund might have invested in the company that produces Plan B....the next day it might have liquidated that position.

There's no shortage of "non-objectionable" investment options. They'll find you a commensurate investment if, for whatever reason, you don't want in on any particular thing. It's their job.

Also it isn't Hobby Lobby deciding to invest the money into particular funds. The employees are the ones which select the funds they will put there money into. Now Hobby Lobby is responsible for administering the menu of funds from which the employees can choose from, but it would be impossible for them to screen out all funds which invest in the abortion trade without running afowl of pension law.

I highly doubt that.

Well then you should concede that Hobby Lobby isn't being hypocritical but rather just trying to comply with pension law.

Actually, even in the most generous reading I could give (if we accepted your "it's so difficult" argument for investment choices) I could only say that they were being compelled to act in a hypocritical manner. Maybe we should get rid of those other laws you feel are forcing their hand as well?

Course, I don't think it's really hard, I don't think they care, I don't think they looked into it, I don't think they will look into it - because ultimately.......their case was concocted bullshit and somebody involved had to have known it from the word go. It served a purpose.

But I ask you this, how far removed does one have to be from being free from supporting something? Does UPS support abortion because they deliver packages of the materials needed to preform abortions to abortion mills? Do you support the Iranian regime because you purchase products made from Iranian oil?

Does hobby lobby support abortions just because it provides women with access to healthcare options? If the answer is no to any of the above - it's no to this as well.

The world is simply too intertwined to insulate yourself from participating in some small way in evil actions perpetated by others.

You don't have to tell me that..but I don't know why it applies, as the court did not rule that hobby lobby -was indeed- supporting abortion by including the items they found objectionable...because they aren't abortifacients. Understand? The ruling was based..on the plausible pretext (pretext is required in activisim, you see) that Hobby Lobby -believed- that they were. In this case, hobby lobby is not actually addressing the "evil of others" with their complaint- but more accurately, their own fears and misconceptions- which is fine, that's what the court ruled on, but meh.

This whole drive to paint Hobby Lobby as hypocrites is merely an attempt to incite hate in Hobby Lobby. If you buy into these arguments without looking at them critically, you are simply buying into the hate others are selling.

Yeah, that's me, a hate mongerer mongering some hate - about a fucking toystore. Get a grip.

I don't hate Hobby Lobby, how could I? The point, if there really is one, of my pointing out the hypocrisy is less sinister than hate bud. I think the whole bit was a shameless reduction of hobby lobby and scotus to a grandstanding political tool. The convictions which are invoked (and then the ruling based upon) do not seem to carry across hobby lobby's decisions. Here, right here, and only here - that's where hobby lobby's "sincerely held beliefs" lie.

If a certain subset wants to get rid of obamacare then maybe they should go about it in some other way that doesn't turn our laws into dogshit? Personally, I lost my naivety along time ago with regards to politics and law. Especially the confluence of the two. If you think that this case was about religious freedom, or that my remarks with regards to their claim are somehow hate-mongering...I doubt that we'll be able to have an adult conversation.