(July 3, 2014 at 11:08 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I might vote for a Republican again someday if that happens (I voted for Dole, I think that was the last Republican I voted for, for national office).

Dole (or Reagan) would be drummed right out of the GOP these days. I don't see a return to sanity anytime soon.

---

(July 3, 2014 at 11:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: 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.

It literally took me 15 seconds to find the two mutual funds I linked to in my previous post. He's either lying to support his backwards agenda or he has no clue what he's talking about.

(July 2, 2014 at 6:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

(July 2, 2014 at 5:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

(July 3, 2014 at 11:09 am)Jaysyn Wrote:

(July 3, 2014 at 10:41 am)A Theist Wrote: Where did it say that women are being denied access to contraceptives?

Your collective foolishness will have repercussions in November.

I don't think so. This issue will be pushed way to the back on voters' lists of concerns come November. I have full confidence that barack and the dems will continue have more set backs to deal with by then. The latest outrage boiling over in Marietta, California over illegal immigrants. The biggest foolishness is you believing the election is going to hang on just the SCOTUS decision.

(July 3, 2014 at 11:46 am)A Theist Wrote: I don't think so. This issue will be pushed way to the back on voters' lists of concerns come November. I have full confidence that barack and the dems will continue have more set backs to deal with by then.

Oh look, another foolish neo-con that thinks women aren't paying attention. Want to mansplain that some more for them? Worked so well for you imbeciles in 2012.

The hypocrisy regarding 401(k) holdings charge is ridiculous. How often do those of you making the charge review the holdings in your own 401(k)s?

Suppose you go to sign a petition condemning a company for using child labor somewhere in the world. Do you check every company that's been held by the mutual funds in your 401(k)s before signing in order to avoid hypocrisy? Or do you figure, hey, I can't fight every battle, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite for fighting some of them?

---

(July 3, 2014 at 11:51 am)Jaysyn Wrote: Oh look, another foolish neo-con that thinks women aren't paying attention. Want to mansplain that some more for them? Worked so well for you imbeciles in 2012.

Current opinion is roughly split with a slight edge in favor of employers' rights, and most people say it's not very important to them.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c..._39_oppose

Quote:Half of voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that a business owner should be able to opt out of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate if it violates his or her religious beliefs. But most also say a company’s level of contraceptive coverage is not that important to their decision to work there.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient. Slightly more (47%) say companies should not be required to meet this contraceptive mandate included in the new national health care law. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

(July 3, 2014 at 11:58 am)alpha male Wrote: The hypocrisy regarding 401(k) holdings charge is ridiculous. How often do those of you making the charge review the holdings in your own 401(k)s?

I do. I am also part of an organization that fights child slavery all over the world so you picked a singularly bad example.

I've also vetted out all of the dirty energy companies from my mutual funds like a lot of colleges are doing these days. It's not hard, but I'm not a hypocrite, so you probably wouldn't understand.

BTW, Rasmussen is a terrible pollster if you want good data. Don't look at the source, look at the math.

(July 3, 2014 at 11:58 am)alpha male Wrote: The hypocrisy regarding 401(k) holdings charge is ridiculous. How often do those of you making the charge review the holdings in your own 401(k)s?

I don't have a 401k. I'm self employed, a business owner. I scrutinize my investment options carefully - and I can't even afford a decent advisor to catch shit I might miss. So let's hear you explain how Hobby Lobby is an absentee investor some more. That they don't do their due diligence while spreading around -other peoples money-. That they just don't know what's in the box. Please, tell us all again how it bothered them enough to find it in their employees benefit package...but not enough to scrutinize the 401k.

I have a simpler explanation. They went looking for an actionable item. They found one, they didn't look any further. Because the actionable item is irrelevant. Anything at all would have been suitable.

(July 3, 2014 at 10:43 am)Heywood Wrote: They were required to pay for contraceptive coverage. Nobody disputes this but you.

No, they were required to pay for health insurance that might be used to purchase contraceptives (and which currently may be used to purchase Viagra and vasectomies because this is absolutely 100% about sex discrimination at the root of it). How is this different from them giving a cash benefit that might be used to purchase contraceptives? How is this so hard for you to grasp?

Heywood Wrote:In other words we are letting the employee determine how to allocate the compensation they recieve for their labor instead of some liberaltard elitest telling them how to do it.

The reason liberaltards want employers to provide contraception coverage is because they think women are too stupid to buy it on their own.

I would be okay with the idea as long as the bonus would be enough to cover the cost of contraceptives without insurance. I have not seen a single liberal here dispute this as a bad idea. It's just that it won't ever happen because it would be just as big a violation of Hobby Lobby's alleged religious faith to provide this extra item specifically as an allowance for those who choose to use it to purchase birth control. It gives the employee more freedom, but it doesn't matter because the company would never agree to it. And you know this, because you have no problem, personally, with what happened, but you want to pretend you're more enlightened than your more honest fellow extremists.

And just as a reminder that not all Christians are as useless & hypocritical as the ones that frequent the AF.

Church hands out birth control info in front of Illinois Hobby Lobby

Quote:Winters said his purpose was threefold.

He said he hoped people who happened upon the demonstration would walk away with an understanding that Christians have a wide variety of opinions regarding birth control.

In addition, he hoped it would get people to question whether the court ruling was fair to the religious freedom of Hobby Lobby employees who have beliefs differing from their employer.

"You can make the religious freedom argument, you can make the argument about contraception, but ultimately, for me, this is about power," he said.

Questioning the use of power, he said, was the third reason he organized the protest.

"Jesus had a lot of issue with powerful people using power over the powerless," he said.

(July 3, 2014 at 6:44 am)A Theist Wrote: Now you know how we feel about Joe Biden.

I'm no fan of his, to be sure, but I don't think he's near as dumb as the Backwoods Barbie-doll. She makes Rush Limbaugh look like Bertrand Russell.

---

(July 3, 2014 at 10:43 am)Heywood Wrote: In other words we are letting the employee determine how to allocate the compensation they recieve for their labor instead of some liberaltard elitest telling them how to do it.

The reason liberaltards want employers to provide contraception coverage is because they think women are too stupid to buy it on their own.

Your epithets undermine your argument with their juvenile tone.

Additionally, when you are insinuating that someone else is stupid by appending the "-tard" suffix, you'd do well to spell a simple seven-letter word correctly. I'm not normally a spelling-NaZi, but it's "elitist", goddamnit. I almost forgot about "afowl" too.

Surely someone of your eminent brilliance knows these simple words. And if you don't, you'd ought not be calling anyone else a "tard" of any sort.