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.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
I understand your accusation. I don't agree. Is that clear enough for you?
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.
I didn't say it was illegal. Why do people think that? I said HL has a double standard. It seems that when someone tries to question something about religion, they get "stoned", here. As if we can't call out HL on their actions. Seems odd, because if this was some other religion, we would have people here supporting my statements. Just a general observation, but it seems to be true, based on other topics. Eh... anyway, nope, HL did nothing illegal (unless they lied about being Christian, or something like that).
If HL researches and finds the 401K's to have some birth control related items in it and they then re-invest in other items instead, would that be acceptable? Or would it then be a case of them only switching because someone pointed it out?
If HL researches and finds the 401K's to have some birth control related items in it and they then re-invest in other items instead, would that be acceptable?
sure, that would be acceptable. Why not? Currently, they are ignoring it and we would assume they know about it.
If HL researches and finds the 401K's to have some birth control related items in it and they then re-invest in other items instead, would that be acceptable? Or would it then be a case of them only switching because someone pointed it out?
Individuals control where their 401k investments go. Hobby Lobby would have to force their employees to divest and make those funds unavailable.
Individuals control where their 401k investments go. Hobby Lobby would have to force their employees to divest and make those funds unavailable.
HL would switch which investments they offer in their 401K package and the old funds would no longer receive HL funds. There could be an option to move the funds also.
HL would switch which investments they offer in their 401K package and the old funds would no longer receive HL funds. There could be an option to move the funds also.
Hobby Lobby doesn't want the gov't to tell them what to do with their money, so maybe they don't want to force their employees to invest in stocks/mutual funds deemed acceptable by management?
[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 07-09-2014).]
Hobby Lobby doesn't want the gov't to tell them what to do with their money, so maybe they don't want to force their employees to invest in stocks they deem acceptable.
That is pretty funny.... so... they can tell some employees what they can have for health care, yet they don't want to force their employees investment options? So... that gets back to that double standard... health care options based on religious views, but not 401K investements?
HL would switch which investments they offer in their 401K package and the old funds would no longer receive HL funds. There could be an option to move the funds also.
True, but those mutual funds don't receive "HL funds." The matching contribution is part of the employee's compensation package. It's the employee's money direct deposited into the 401k just like the rest of their paycheck could be direct deposited into their bank account. Yes, they could make those mutual funds unavailable. I'm sure there are some funds that have no pharmaceutical companies in them.
That is pretty funny.... so... they can tell some employees what they can have for health care,
This comment highlights your foundational flaw in your thinking.
Hobby Lobby NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER told ANY of their employees what they can have for health care.
They only said that their conscience wouldn't allow them to pay for a very few limited types of "health care".
Those employees can go out and buy it on their own any time they want. All they asked is don't try to force us to pay for it. Obama was the one that started this whole situation by trying to force Hobby Lobby to pay for this particular item. An item which Obama knew many Americans had a conscientious objection to for years. So quit it. Quit making blatantly erroneous statements. Hobby Lobby told NO ONE what they could have for health care.
This comment highlights your foundational flaw in your thinking.
Hobby Lobby NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER told ANY of their employees what they can have for health care.
They only said that their conscience wouldn't allow them to pay for a very few limited types of "health care".
Those employees can go out and buy it on their own any time they want. All they asked is don't try to force us to pay for it. Obama was the one that started this whole situation by trying to force Hobby Lobby to pay for this particular item. An item which Obama knew many Americans had a conscientious objection to for years. So quit it. Quit making blatantly erroneous statements. Hobby Lobby told NO ONE what they could have for health care.
You have patience. I started typing something like that up, but got halfway through and asked myself: "What's the point?"
You have patience. I started typing something like that up, but got halfway through and asked myself: "What's the point?"
I know. But the point is this:
Not wanting to pay for somebody to have something is not the same as telling someone they can't have it. Here is the idiocy of Harry Reid, embodying the democrat thought on private property. "...ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men..."
Well, classic liberal trying to use racism and sexism to portray evil, old white men from violating someone's rights.
When the reality is that (and I know, Clarence Thomas is black) the "5 white men" didn't determine anything about "women's lives" other than a very narrow financial issue.
No one is telling women they can't have sex with a male. No one is doing anything to keep them from doing that. That is their determination. No one is determining whether they can do anything to prevent conception as a consequence of their sex acts. No one is determining, if they have conception in them, whether they take anything to prevent the conception from implanting in them or not.
All they said is the government cannot force someone who has a religious objection to a pill that would prevent conception from implanting in that woman to pay for that pill. The woman gets her rights. The individual in the closely held private corporation gets their rights. Not paying for someone else to do something is NOT depriving them of any rights. That is really important, if you don't want to live in a socialist country.
Not wanting to pay for somebody to have something is not the same as telling someone they can't have it. Here is the idiocy of Harry Reid, embodying the democrat thought on private property. "...ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men..."
Well, classic liberal trying to use racism and sexism to portray evil, old white men from violating someone's rights.
When the reality is that (and I know, Clarence Thomas is black) the "5 white men" didn't determine anything about "women's lives" other than a very narrow financial issue.
Oh my God... this is the first I've heard of this! At first I thought maybe you were full of **** (trust but verify) because I couldn't imagine someone like Harry Reid making a mistake like that... and holy **** if I wasn't totally surprised...
I can totally understand if like 95% of the population has no idea who the justices are... but Harry Reid obviously... VERY obviously knows who Clarence Thomas is. So that means this was completely intentional... meaning that he was intentionally being dishonest there for the specific purpose of trying to get people worked up...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Oh my God... this is the first I've heard of this! At first I thought maybe you were full of **** (trust but verify) because I couldn't imagine someone like Harry Reid making a mistake like that... and holy **** if I wasn't totally surprised...
I can totally understand if like 95% of the population has no idea who the justices are... but Harry Reid obviously... VERY obviously knows who Clarence Thomas is. So that means this was completely intentional... meaning that he was intentionally being dishonest there for the specific purpose of trying to get people worked up...
Harry Reid thinks that Clarence Thomas is an Oreo so he's just another old white guy to Harry.
Harry Reid should be committed to an institution for the mentally infirm. It shouldn't be too hard to find evidence of his need for treatment, or of his danger to society.
I was talking health care INSURANCE. Yes, I didn't say that, my mistake, I should have made it clear in each posted response, where appropriate.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe:
This comment highlights your foundational flaw in your thinking.
Hobby Lobby NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER told ANY of their employees what they can have for health care.
They only said that their conscience wouldn't allow them to pay for a very few limited types of "health care".
Those employees can go out and buy it on their own any time they want. All they asked is don't try to force us to pay for it. Obama was the one that started this whole situation by trying to force Hobby Lobby to pay for this particular item. An item which Obama knew many Americans had a conscientious objection to for years. So quit it. Quit making blatantly erroneous statements. Hobby Lobby told NO ONE what they could have for health care.
I was talking health care INSURANCE. Yes, I didn't say that, my mistake, I should have made it clear in each posted response, where appropriate.
I have zero doubt that you in specific understand the difference between health care vs. health care INSURANCE. So I wasn't trying to nitpick on you.
I pointed it out because the democrats, such as Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, are going out there and talking about denying women health care and putting their lives at risk.
Interesting that civilians such as you and I can understand that important distinction, but the President of the United States and the leader of the Senate somehow can't appreciate that point when they are out talking about it.
I pointed it out because the democrats, such as Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, are going out there and talking about denying women health care and putting their lives at risk.
Interesting that civilians such as you and I can understand that important distinction, but the President of the United States and the leader of the Senate somehow can't appreciate that point when they are out talking about it.
Oh, I have no doubt they know exactly what is going on. It is politics. Both sides will use any tactic to win support. When you have an group that is angry, it is easy to keep them distracted with more fuel to to keep them fired up. It isn't just the dems that do it. The republicans and tea party do it. Don't forget, Obama and the dems are going to come into your house, steal your guns while you sleep (as an example). It isn't new... same old game when it comes to politics. Scare your supporters so they back you.
I know the liberals won't like that this is from Fox News, but the lamestream media is helping spread the lies. Pelosi's comments were at a press conference, and the press in attendance dutifully reported what she said with zero fact checking.
'', Hobby Lobby can chose to buy its products anywhere in the world, and stay true to its religious convictions. However they continue to buy from a communist country (meaning state owned/controlled manufacturing), CHINA which forces women to have abortions. A conscious choice that appears to be in contradiction to those 'sincerely held beliefs' that they claim they have.
Yes, yes. We understand Ray. But yet it's still okay for Bill Clinton to stand up for women's rights isn't it? Oh that's right. Only the Democrats/Left can be hypocrites.
Yes, yes. We understand Ray. But yet it's still okay for Bill Clinton to stand up for women's rights isn't it? Oh that's right. Only the Democrats/Left can be hypocrites.
? really bill C is all you got try harder hobby lobby is fine with funding MANDATORY abortions [by the state law in CHINA] BY TRADING WITH CHINA STATE RUN CORP's BUT NOT BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE IN THE USA
I see a major conflict with their claimed religious values but I guess profit trumps prophets as I see a STATE ENFORCED MANDATORY ABORTION as a bigger problem then an personal choice
? really bill C is all you got try harder hobby lobby is fine with funding MANDATORY abortions [by the state law in CHINA] BY TRADING WITH CHINA STATE RUN CORP's BUT NOT BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE IN THE USA
I see a major conflict with their claimed religious values but I guess profit trumps prophets as I see a STATE ENFORCED MANDATORY ABORTION as a bigger problem then an personal choice
And I see your disdain for any business. All are "corprats" as you call them and, in your eyes, should probably all be run by the government. Because the government never practices hypocrisy now does it? Whether or not HL was acting hypocritically or not was not the issue before the SCOTUS, so just drop it already. The issue was whether or not a closely-held corporation should be forced to pay for something that, because of deeply held religious beliefs, they disagree with. But by all means, start a petition to bring HL to court for hypocrisy now that that's apparently illegal.
And I see your disdain for any business. All are "corprats" as you call them and, in your eyes, should probably all be run by the government. Because the government never practices hypocrisy now does it? Whether or not HL was acting hypocritically or not was not the issue before the SCOTUS, so just drop it already. The issue was whether or not a closely-held corporation should be forced to pay for something that, because of deeply held religious beliefs, they disagree with. But by all means, start a petition to bring HL to court for hypocrisy now that that's apparently illegal.
no I do NOT favor gov run biz but I do favor rules of law NOT based on fairytails but only based on facts
IF hobby lobby wants to be anti-abortion they need to be real and not buy from china state run CORPs they can buy from anyone world wide
hobby lobby is hypocritically buying from china and should not get a religious legal exemption from our laws IF their morals, ethic's and religion is based only on screwing the American workers and NOT the real effects of their china trading fund china's one child rules if they fund the abortions in china by their trade with them
I dont think rights should be justified against by diggin for contradictions in belief. The right is either granted or it is not.
if you stay out of the public square in your own church only ok but when you try to change the LAW BASED ON THOSE BELIEFS THAT BEGS FOR DIGGIN
i HAVE A FIRM BELIEF IN SEX and DRUGs and ROCK&ROLL but people with my beliefs get no exemptions or exceptions from the LAWS IN FACT THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A HOLY WAR ON MY RELIGION
if you stay out of the public square in your own church only ok but when you try to change the LAW BASED ON THOSE BELIEFS THAT BEGS FOR DIGGIN
i HAVE A FIRM BELIEF IN SEX and DRUGs and ROCK&ROLL but people with my beliefs get no exemptions or exceptions from the LAWS IN FACT THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A HOLY WAR ON MY RELIGION
There is no right that should say I have to pay for my employees abortions. Even as a citizen none of my taxes should go to that either. What I notice is the changing of the law is on the side of pushing things that way. Sadly what makes the news and is touted as trying to change laws is when someone stands up and says no, here is a line I dont want to cross. Believe what you want. Keep those drugs and STDs in your living room, off our streets.
i HAVE A FIRM BELIEF IN SEX and DRUGs and ROCK&ROLL but people with my beliefs get no exemptions or exceptions from the LAWS IN FACT THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A HOLY WAR ON MY RELIGION
I am cool with that. Drug addicts dont got jack commin.
