(July 3, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(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.

hmmm...so I'm assuming, by your eminent fairness, that you're applying those same standards to someone like, for example, Minimalist, when he resorts to using epithets like "republicunts" and "nazis" against those he disagrees with.

And if you're not, surely you shouldn't be calling out a person for using epithets on one hand and then give a wink and a nod to someone else who's using them in the other. That would be "Double Standards".

(July 3, 2014 at 11:04 am)Jaysyn Wrote:

(July 3, 2014 at 10:15 am)Heywood Wrote: Yes in principle you can choose what goes on the menu of mutual funds employees can choose from. However it would be impossible for you to limit the menu to funds which coincide with your religious beliefs without running afowl of pension laws.

Very clear now that you are just making shit up. There are no "pension laws" that force a company to pick one set of mutual funds over another.

The laws require the menu of funds be crafted to meet the goals of the participants....not the sponsors. This is a very important distinction that you seem to have trouble understanding. It doesn't matter that there are plenty of religious funds to choose from. Hobby Lobby can't craft its menu to only include religious funds. If a company did that, they would be putting their social goals ahead of the goals of the retiree which is against the law.

The department of labor has already ruled that companies cannot craft menus consisting only of funds which only invest in green companies. There is no reason to believe the DOL wouldn't rule against companies wishing to craft menus based on religious beliefs instead of what is in the best interest of the future retirees participating in the plan.

Quote:It was a few years ago that the Department of Labor issued guidance reaffirming their position that the goal for investments in ERISA plans, such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s, must be to design investment menus to allow participants to attempt to maximize returns and not for any factor other than the economic interest of the plan. The guidance specifically addressed funds meeting environmental (green) criteria known as socially conscience or socially responsible funds. “The plan's fiduciaries may not simply consider investments solely in green companies. They must consider all investments that meet the plan's prudent financial criteria.” This means that there should be no special consideration given to any investment due to its social agenda. The same selection and monitoring process that is utilized for the core investments in the plan’s menu must be applied to socially responsible funds.....

http://www.mfa-cpa.com/New-Wealth-Adviso...-Think-Red

(July 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(July 3, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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.

---

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.

hmmm...so I'm assuming, by your eminent fairness, that you're applying those same standards to someone like, for example, Minimalist, when he resorts to using epithets like "republicunts" and "nazis" against those he disagrees with.

And if you're not, surely you shouldn't be calling out a person for using epithets on one hand and then give a wink and a nod to someone else who's using them in the other. That would be "Double Standards".

Minimalist is a well-known ass. Who knew it was a club people would want to join?

Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ ' Wrote: 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.

You can't speak for Hobby Lobby so you don't know what they would do. I suspect they would just view it as additional monetary compensation to the employee.

---

(July 3, 2014 at 12:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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 wouldn't be surprised if Hobby Lobby contracts with someone to manage their 401k plan. Hobby Lobby is in the business of selling toys not investments.

They didn't have to search their employee benefit packages. This particular feature of the law was touted by the administration.

---

(July 3, 2014 at 5:39 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(July 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm)A Theist Wrote: hmmm...so I'm assuming, by your eminent fairness, that you're applying those same standards to someone like, for example, Minimalist, when he resorts to using epithets like "republicunts" and "nazis" against those he disagrees with.

And if you're not, surely you shouldn't be calling out a person for using epithets on one hand and then give a wink and a nod to someone else who's using them in the other. That would be "Double Standards".

Minimalist is a well-known ass. Who knew it was a club people would want to join?

You are right Mister Agenda, I'm sorry for being an ass by calling liberals....liberaltards.

(July 3, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Heywood Wrote: The laws require the menu of funds be crafted to meet the goals of the participants....not the sponsors.

No, the law states that the returns of the investment have primacy. There's nothing in there about a possible ideological conflict. So long as the numbers wash it's kosher (and religiously/politically minded for-profits do this...all the time...to maintain their ethics and principles. Since they don't actually have to choose between a bucket with returns and a "religious bucket" (they can just arrange one that satisfies both)- the rest of this is pointless.

Like I said, their "sincerely held beliefs" are pretext. Honestly, you should be pissed. Hobby Lobbys religious liberty was reduced to a joke/tool in the face of politics /w the help of SCOTUS - no less...and with them so was yours and mine. I'm offended for religious people everywhere.

Quote:They didn't have to search their employee benefit packages. This particular feature of the law was touted by the administration.

As soon as they decided to pursue this case......they had no excuse. That's also the kind of stuff a lawyer might ask a claimant while getting his case ready...."are you engaged in any activity which might be seen as counter or contradictory to your claim". In this case, it would appear that they (council and claimant) decided that it wouldnl't matter. They were right, because they obviously pushed some peoples buttons (hello apologists, enjoy being manipulated) and kept the focus where they wanted it. As I mentioned before, I doubt that there are any illusions as to the point and purpose of this case from the claimants end.

(July 3, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Heywood Wrote:

Quote:It was a few years ago that the Department of Labor issued guidance reaffirming their position that the goal for investments in ERISA plans, such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s, must be to design investment menus to allow participants to attempt to maximize returns and not for any factor other than the economic interest of the plan. The guidance specifically addressed funds meeting environmental (green) criteria known as socially conscience or socially responsible funds. “The plan's fiduciaries may not simply consider investments solely in green companies. They must consider all investments that meet the plan's prudent financial criteria.” This means that there should be no special consideration given to any investment due to its social agenda. The same selection and monitoring process that is utilized for the core investments in the plan’s menu must be applied to socially responsible funds.....

http://www.mfa-cpa.com/New-Wealth-Adviso...-Think-Red

Nice try, but we aren't talking about a retirement plan that solely offers green energy companies to invest with. We are talking about a mutual fund that leaves out a handful of the hundreds of pharmaceutical companies that they could possibly invest with. Your first clue that you were barking up the wrong tree should have been the two examples I linked that exist solely to facilitate investments that are "morally responsible", at least to a Christian point of view.

(July 3, 2014 at 12:06 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: I do. I am also part of an organization that fights child slavery all over the world so you picked a singularly bad example.

Do you think most people do that? I'd say you're a rarity.

Quote: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.

Do you also charge hypocrisy against liberal atheists who don't examine their 401(k)s so closely?

Who puts their cold hard cash into god? Suckers, that's who. God has a shitty ROI. I'm trying to envision what an investment that runs counter to atheism might be.

(July 5, 2014 at 10:10 am)alpha male Wrote: Do you also charge hypocrisy against liberal atheists who don't examine their 401(k)s so closely?

Sure, the difference here is that we know how Hobby Lobby is investing. I bet my post caused at least one forum-goer to take a hard look at their investments.

So, do you always resort to strawmen when your positions are indefensible?

Back to the story. Apparently, Hobby Lobby not only doesn't want to pay for hormone therapy, they wanted to forbid doctors from even discussing it with a patient. Pretty sure Jebus didn't say anything about that.

Of course, this isn't about conservative men trying to keep women in subordinate, second-class roles in society.



Entirely coincidental.