Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[The Dad Fisherman]

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

You are correct the constitution applies to everybody even hypocrits, and this shouldn't make any bit of difference with the supreme court's ruling. But this may end up hurting their business in the long run


This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

You are correct the constitution applies to everybody even hypocrits, and this shouldn't make any bit of difference with the supreme court's ruling. But this may end up hurting their business in the long run


This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

I interpreted the news as 75% of the funds that are in the 401(k), have some exposure to those companies. If that's true (and I'm not saying it is), I'm not sure I see much of a scandal.

As I have said...I choose to give a lot of $$ to the Catholic Church. If Obama passed a law forcing people to give $$ to the Catholic Church, I would oppose that law as being unconstitutional. Doe sthat make me a hypocrite? Not in my opinion. If I endorse somehtnig personally (say, contraception), that's not the same thing as saying I support the government's right to mandate it.

I thought liberals were in favor of 'choice'. I'm pretty sure I heard that somewhere. Why can't the HL owners 'choose' not to provide free contraception?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why can't the HL owners 'choose' not to provide free contraception?

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

If you asked me to give you $15,000 dollars and I refused to do so, would I be "forcing" my values on you and removing choices you can make?

Are the employees of HL so totally dependent on the company that it determines the values they live by and the choices they make?

If the government "forces" LH to give you something and it refuses to do so, what value has LH "forced" on you and what choices has LH removed from you?

Does LH have any say in the matter? Or is it only about what the employees want or what the government wants?

Should LH even exist as a private entity, or should it merely be a government mandated service to employees and customers?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Does LH have any say in the matter? Or is it only about what the employees want or what the government wants?

Should LH even exist as a private entity, or should it merely be a government mandated service to employees and customers?

remarkable how this "forcing values" on others is such a one way street with some

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374115/print

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

remarkable how this "forcing values" on others is such a one way street with some

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374115/print

Yes, another beautifully written article. As well as pointing out the Orwellian transformation, it calls to mind how over time, as was pointed out in an older post, we have had an attitude adjustment which reverses what our grandparents understood, that the government was our servant, and we the masters. It used to be understood that what was forbidden was government intrusion beyond what the sovereign People consented to. What was compulsory was the government's duty to act only within the limitations the People granted to it. Now, we have been conditioned to automatically assume what is forbidden is not applied to government action, but is restriction government imposes on us. And what is compulsory now is not what the government is limited to do, but what We The People are required by government to do. As you have often said, it's upside down. The author traces the path to reversal eloquently in a logical way. The Article is another well-crafted, rational, creative, open minded piece that "conservatives" are not reputed, by some here, to be capable of. It, seems, as Jim in CT likes to say, irrefutable. So will probably elicit the "crickets" Nebe thought would be the response to his screechy "liberal" hit piece article.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

Please explain how the store's owners are forcing their values on anyone. Be specific. And good luck, because you cannot succeed.

One. Last. Time. The owners are not trying to convert their employees to Christianity, the employers are not trying to convince their employees not to use condoms with the wages provided by the owners.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

And worse, most of the drugs they're now opposing they openly covered before the ACA was passed. You might wonder if the Citizens United case laid the groundwork for this suit to even happen.

Not to mention that their religious argument isn't even backed by science.

The more I read about this case the less chance is has of passing.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

since we(spence) yawns and discredits sources on a regular basis here...I'd just note that the Forbes article was written by Rick Ungar who describes himself as "I write from the left on politics and policy" and references the Mother Jones article as the premise for his article and continues from there, the Washington Post article by Gail Sullivan also references the Mother Jones article to launch her article and WOW...this is a shocker but the salon.com article also references the Mother Jones article to launch that article...head bone connected to the tail bone......and so since we all know that Mother Jones is ...well....biased just a tad???? can we play Spence's game and discount this as useless info from left wing neocommie rags? don't see it in any mainstream...oh wait...the dailykos.com ...has it too...geez