Impossible and I covered the thought before. Remember when I mentiond taxes we pay that get distributed to who knows who for who knows what, or the Amish and how they live "off the grid"? "the money may go to someone who would ..." you would have to live on an island alone to be correct then.
Exactly.. that is my point. HL owners pay taxes. Why are they not up in arms over this same idea? Why are they not suing the government over this?
Originally posted by jaskispyder: I would think that HL would want the same rights for people in China, as here in the US. Christianity knows no borders.
or dont you?:
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: The corporation also funds PACs, which now takes the idea of "this is just about their own freedoms" to a new level. They are actively funding (spreading their beliefs). This is where it became political. No longer is it about their own freedoms
Which would have them live up to your standards?
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: No longer is it about their own freedoms, it is about making political changes that will impact others
If they make a stand for their rights and what they support it is also inherently for anyone who would also like those same rights. If it goes somewhere and things stay the same (if thats what they are fighting for) or things change (if thats what they are fighting for) it is some evidence that their stand is not just for themselves but for others who believe the same. Would you agree?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-08-2014).]
It's abundantly clear that you have a great disdain for religion and those who practice it. But I highly doubt you apply the same set of standards to yourself as you're expecting HL to. I'm sure you'd be ecstatic to see HL crushed. But the bottom line here is hypocrisy, real implied or imagined, isn't illegal. This particular case was brought before the SCOTUS that they shouldn't be forced to pay for four forms of birth control and, by a narrow margin, they won. The case wasn't about whether or not they're religious hypocrites. That's being tried in the court of public opinion and the media at large is doing an excellent job at leaving a great deal of information out of their reports in order to push the story. I'm sorry, but I would rather they give me all of the facts of the case and then allow me to decide for myself. But as of late, it seems to be the media's self-proclaimed job to tell me how I should think.
No, I don't like hypocrites and that is what we have with HL owners. I am not attacking HL for their beliefs (although I think it is stupid that a corporation can have a religion as I have yet to see a corporation in church). I am stating that HL is not consistent in the application of their beliefs. Let them pray, let them do what ever, but picking and choosing when to use religion... that is wrong. Christians should be calling HL out on this practice.
You don't like the media's reporting? I gave you information about how HL is very inconsistent with practicing their religious views, yet you think I have a disdain for religion... Why is it when someone points out an issue related to religion, they are called a "hater". HL owners can practice whatever they want, but at least be consistent with that religion. Don't use Christianity as a tool and pick/choose what works.
quote
Originally posted by whadeduck:
It's abundantly clear that you have a great disdain for religion and those who practice it. But I highly doubt you apply the same set of standards to yourself as you're expecting HL to. I'm sure you'd be ecstatic to see HL crushed. But the bottom line here is hypocrisy, real implied or imagined, isn't illegal. This particular case was brought before the SCOTUS that they shouldn't be forced to pay for four forms of birth control and, by a narrow margin, they won. The case wasn't about whether or not they're religious hypocrites. That's being tried in the court of public opinion and the media at large is doing an excellent job at leaving a great deal of information out of their reports in order to push the story. I'm sorry, but I would rather they give me all of the facts of the case and then allow me to decide for myself. But as of late, it seems to be the media's self-proclaimed job to tell me how I should think.
Single-payer. That is what we going to have in the future. You have seen it start with HL case.
That'll be great. I can hardly wait to have to take three months to make a doctors' appt and still get substandard care. If you think insurance companies suck with the way they process claims and treat people, wait until a single-payer system comes into existence because "you ain't seen nothin' yet."
You mean like the ACA? It is legal, yet people keep trying to not follow that law, or use other means to avoid it. Hmmm
BTW, I understand the law. BUT I don't agree with corporations having religious freedom. Or are you telling me that I don't have the freedom to think this way and I should form a corporation so I have more freedom?
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Just because you continue to disagree doesn't change a century of legal precedent.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 07-08-2014).]
You mean like the ACA? It is legal, yet people keep trying to not follow that law, or use other means to avoid it. Hmmm
BTW, I understand the law. BUT I don't agree with corporations having religious freedom. Or are you telling me that I don't have the freedom to think this way and I should form a corporation so I have more freedom?
That's a stretch. But thanks for playing. Not all corporations have religious freedoms and allowable practices. That's what makes this case unique. HL is a closely-held corporation. That means that it's both owned and controlled by members of one family. So that doesn't mean that Microsoft or General Motors will be standing in front of the SCOTUS anytime soon claiming religious rights as a corporation.
Calling an abortion or abortion pills birth control is simply ridiculous. I think that is a major point the left is stuck on, and they certainly look ridiculous. Not about birth control, it is all about abortions. Abortion should not be used in that manner. Unfortunately this country is full of incredibly stupid self serving people.
There is no doubt in my mind abortion is murder light. I also support a women's choice I do not support being forced to pay for it. I would like to see this Supreme Court decision go even farther.
You mean like the ACA? It is legal, yet people keep trying to not follow that law, or use other means to avoid it. Hmmm
BTW, I understand the law. BUT I don't agree with corporations having religious freedom. Or are you telling me that I don't have the freedom to think this way and I should form a corporation so I have more freedom?
I can't speak for others, but I'm abiding by the law even though I disagree with it. I also support efforts to change/repeal the measure. Many of the major supporters of the ACA, including unions, Congress, and 0bama himself are the ones not following the law. 0bama has changed/violated the law numerous times by Executive decree while others seek waivers to exempt themselves from the law. Hobby Lobby didn't try to get exempted from the law - they sought judicial affirmation that their actions were within the law, and the SCOTUS agreed.
And yet the only ones you're calling a hypocrit are the ones who went through the judicial system and had the legality of their actions affirmed.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 07-08-2014).]
I can't speak for others, but I'm abiding by the law even though I disagree with it. I also support efforts to change/repeal the measure. Many of the major supporters of the ACA, including unions, Congress, and 0bama himself are the ones not following the law. 0bama has changed/violated the law numerous times by Executive decree while others seek waivers to exempt themselves from the law. Hobby Lobby didn't try to get exempted from the law - they sought judicial affirmation that their actions were within the law, and the SCOTUS agreed.
And yet the only ones you're calling a hypocrit are the ones who went through the judicial system and had the legality of their actions affirmed.
This, right here, should end any and all complaints about the HL decision. Just sayin'.
SOOOO much I want to say, on both sides, but I lack the time and the energy to type it all out.
As for Bush... can't talk about that, as it wouldn't have happened (passage of ACA). Now, we could talk about Romney-care and I wonder what HL is required to pay for in Mass.
I'm really confused by Democrats who constantly talk about RomneyCare... what is the point of referencing this?
It seems to me that regardless of why they pretend to be mentioning it, the real reason is because:
A) They think it bothers Republicans that a Republican would support a supposed "socialist" health care plan.
B) They think it adds support / credence to a national socialist health care plan.
It does neither. Let's put this to rest... Romney was elected Governor of MA. He was doing the will of the people (IE: the constituents), which is EXACTLY what a politician SHOULD be doing. RomneyCare was a STATE-ONLY plan... JUST for Massachusetts. That is called "federalism"... and Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians ALL support "federalism." In no way, shape, or form does it mean that Romney having created an exchange program in his state, mean that he felt the entire nation should be forced to comply with such a thing. And second, America DID NOT want a socialized healthcare plan... this was something that was forced upon us because the Democrats got a majority in the house, senate, and executive branch. Romney did NOT go against the will of his state, he was doing the bidding of his state.
So you talking about RomneyCare and comparing it in any way to ObamaCare is 100% apples to oranges.
Senate Democrats are expediting legislation that would override the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case and compel for-profit employers to cover the full range of contraception for their employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act.
The bill, which is co-authored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would ban for-profit companies from refusing to cover any federally guaranteed health benefits for religious reasons, including all 20 forms of contraception detailed in the Affordable Care Act. It would preserve the contraception mandate's current exemption for churches and accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, such as certain hospitals and schools.
They're so up in arms about it, they're going to fast track it to the Senate floor directly for a vote and skipping any discussions, either on the floor or in committee.
They're so up in arms about it, they're going to fast track it to the Senate floor directly for a vote and skipping any discussions, either on the floor or in committee.
Must be an election coming up soon. This provides a good distraction.
Reid said the Senate needed to do something to “ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.”
Harry Reid, who obviously needs to have his eyes checked, also said that the measure will likely never make it past the House. But that some people will have it on their records as voting for or against the bill. Um, isn't this what Harry Reid bitches about every time the House votes to overturn the ACA? So I'm guessing it's okay for Harry Reid to do that but when the House does it it's irresponsible.
And yet the only ones you're calling a hypocrit are the ones who went through the judicial system and had the legality of their actions affirmed.
HL actions as related to the application of their faith is what I am calling them out on. They pick and choose when to use their religion to support their actions, but this has been pointed out many times already.
I am sure they all know it too. Thing is, this will get their voter base all exited for the coming elections so full speed ahead men.
Exactly. It is all about politics. I am glad some people are finally seeing it for what it is. You have both sides trying to do anything for votes.... sounds like a typical election year.
HL actions as related to the application of their faith is what I am calling them out on. They pick and choose when to use their religion to support their actions, but this has been pointed out many times already.
It's also been pointed out by the SCOTUS that their actions are legal. They've done no wrong, even though you don't like them.
It's also been pointed out by the SCOTUS that their actions are legal. They've done no wrong, even though you don't like them.
Did I say they were doing anything illegal? Nope. I am talking about the use of their faith as it relates to their actions. But I guess you can't see that, or you are ignoring it because you don't want to acknowledge they would use religion in this way.
Did I say they were doing anything illegal? Nope. I am talking about the use of their faith as it relates to their actions. But I guess you can't see that, or you are ignoring it because you don't want to acknowledge they would use religion in this way.
I understand your accusation. I don't agree. Is that clear enough for you?
I am talking about the use of their faith as it relates to their actions.
You are talking about it, and more than half the time you are getting it wrong. You claim they are hypocrites.
When you said they had investment dollars in companies that produced the morning after pill, if that is true, then that is absolutely valid and they are hypocrites.
When you are talking about people they do business with, and what those people do with whatever money they earn from Hobby Lobby interactions, you are blatantly wrong.
It is PERSONAL responsibility. If they invest in a business that produces the morning after pill, that was their decision and they are accountable and answerable.
If they do business with someone else, and that business makes a profit, that money is now the other person or company's money and possession. Those other groups are now accountable. Hobby Lobby is not. And just because individuals do business within the corporation laws the United States has set up, it does not mean they forfeit individual rights at the corporation door.
The majority on this supreme court was great. They said it had to be tightly held corporations directed by a small number of individuals, in order for those individual rights to have any meaningful protection.
Sorry you are against individual liberties, and against those individuals utilizing corporations. And prefer governmental control over individual freedom of choice. What is particularly egregious is, in this case, Hobby Lobby owners attempted to deny access to no one, were willing to comply with a law that I'm sure they were personally against, except only when it went so far against their conscience. Per your (grossly flawed by an measure of objectivity) estimation, hypocritical conscience. But their conscience nonetheless.
"Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—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)."
Like many companies, Hobby Lobby offers its employees a 401(k) plan. Over 13,000 past and present employees have taken advantage of that plan, according to the latest documents filed with the Department of Labor.
Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars -- and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf -- into over a dozen different mutual funds.
At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.
You are talking about it, and more than half the time you are getting it wrong. You claim they are hypocrites.
When you said they had investment dollars in companies that produced the morning after pill, if that is true, then that is absolutely valid and they are hypocrites.
Seems to be true....
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 07-09-2014).]
"Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—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)."
Like many companies, Hobby Lobby offers its employees a 401(k) plan. Over 13,000 past and present employees have taken advantage of that plan, according to the latest documents filed with the Department of Labor.
Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars -- and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf -- into over a dozen different mutual funds.
At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.
Even if this is true, which I am always skeptical because of how much things are spun nowadays, since when has it become illegal to be a hypocrite? If people feel so strongly about the case, don't go to HL. Don't work there, don't even associate with anyone who works or shops there. Make sure that HL is protested right out of existence if it makes you feel good. Protest to have the case re-tried bringing this "new evidence" to light. Just to make sure that no one ever again stands up to the government for anything. If that doesn't work, find some way to insert racism into the case and that will surely close HL's doors.
They're also talking about mutual funds and not direct stock investements. A single mutual fund may have hundreds of companies in it. By jaskispyder's standard, if any one of those companies makes emergency contraceptives the Hobby Lobby shouldn't invest with them. That would essentially mean they can't offer any mutual funds with any pharmaceutical companies.
Maybe offering that mutual fund makes them hypocrits, but that seems to be splitting hairs mightly thin to find something to complain about.
I will guess some people do not know how 401k's or any mutual funds work. No wonder they get upset by things like this.
You would think that the pro abortion crowd would be happy that some of their abortion plans are still being funded by people that might be unaware they were doing it. "employees"
"Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—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)."
Like many companies, Hobby Lobby offers its employees a 401(k) plan. Over 13,000 past and present employees have taken advantage of that plan, according to the latest documents filed with the Department of Labor.
Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars -- and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf -- into over a dozen different mutual funds.
At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.
So to placate your calls of hypocracy, would you have Hobby Lobby pay for the contraceptive measures their relgion disagrees with OR just stop offering to contribute to their employees' 401(k) plans?
So to placate your calls of hypocracy, would you have Hobby Lobby pay for the contraceptive measures their relgion disagrees with OR just stop offering to contribute to their employees' 401(k) plans?
That would be up to them. There are 401K plans that do support their beliefs (based on what was stated in the quoted articles), so it isn't that they have to stop contributing.
Maybe offering that mutual fund makes them hypocrits, but that seems to be splitting hairs mightly thin to find something to complain about.
So, now it is "complaining" to point this out? I thought it was just a fact... they are giving money in support of something they said they do not want to fund. Hmm, I would think they would want to change the 401K plan to align with their beliefs.
