Title: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 02, 2014, 06:02:01 PM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely:
Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Wilikon on July 02, 2014, 07:36:37 PM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Even more proofs they are not in a war against women. I am glad they won ;D Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: pedrog on July 02, 2014, 08:53:07 PM it's all about the money, doesn't this undermine their religious claims?
Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Ron~Popeil on July 02, 2014, 09:02:00 PM Most of these kinds of funds are invested in a basket of goods. My wife's retirement fund is the same way and she is a professor at a Catholic university.
Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 03, 2014, 12:53:35 PM This story has a lot of legs in the news. Unfortunately, like most of the reporting on the Hobby Lobby decision, it completely misses the point.
Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 03, 2014, 02:05:03 PM This story has a lot of legs in the news. Unfortunately, like most of the reporting on the Hobby Lobby decision, it completely misses the point. Not when the ruling, in part, hinged on the sincerity of their religious convictions which obviously weren't strong enough to cause them to utilize religious 401k placings in order to avoid having assets tied up in companies that make the things they are supposed to be against. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: zolace on July 03, 2014, 02:05:11 PM I actually wasted my time looking at this. I'm displeased. Can you tell me specifically on the form you provided as proof what exact companies that make drugs are part of Hobby Lobby groups direct investment?
Because the only thing I see is investment funds of various types, which is essentially the only type of investments typically allowed by government decree for this type of retirement plan vehicle. Also, is this plan for the benefit of Hobby Lobby ownership, or employees? Because I have my doubts the owners are seeing any economic benefit from this at all. Trying to twist something like this ranks up the extreme hypocrisy of Harry Reid saying women should be in positions of power while making sure every single senior staffer of his is male. Either he's gay, or he has no respect for women opinions, but is too cowardly to admit it. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 03, 2014, 02:12:50 PM I actually wasted my time looking at this. I'm displeased. Can you tell me specifically on the form you provided as proof what exact companies that make drugs are part of Hobby Lobby groups direct investment? All of your questions are literally answered in the Forbes article that I linked. Because the only thing I see is investment funds of various types, which is essentially the only type of investments typically allowed by government decree for this type of retirement plan vehicle. Also, is this plan for the benefit of Hobby Lobby ownership, or employees? Because I have my doubts the owners are seeing any economic benefit from this at all. Trying to twist something like this ranks up the extreme hypocrisy of Harry Reid saying women should be in positions of power while making sure every single senior staffer of his is male. Either he's gay, or he has no respect for women opinions, but is too cowardly to admit it. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 03, 2014, 02:21:17 PM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: Like the owners of Hobby Lobby examine everything that any company their fund makes an investment in does. But to people like you, it makes sense. Actually if he bothered to check on FACTS, not his political agenda, he would be even more pathetic.Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: noviapriani on July 03, 2014, 05:24:08 PM 1. There were several litigants. The ruling wouldn't have changed in any meaningful way. Hobby Lobby would have simply lost standing* or whatever. MotherJones would have then been crying about how Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation's owner's step-brother's uncle's cousin's Jewish nephew's dogsitter's sister's best friend once bought Plan B.
*I say they'd lose standing because there were other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby, hence "Hobby Lobby, et al.," and since the court was still compelled to rule on Conestoga, it would likely include the other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby while simply excluding Hobby Lobby. I believe one way to do this is to deny standing to Hobby Lobby. 2. As I understand it, it was a finding of fact that Hobby Lobby's owners were sincere in their convictions, which would mean that the onus would then be on HHS to challenge their sincerity, which they did not do (apart from challenging sincerity of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions on the grounds that for-profit corporations cannot hold religious beliefs, let alone sincere ones). From the syllabus: It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38. Held: The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs. 3. Denying a person their religious rights because of some perceived hypocrisy is ... probably not constitutional. As noted in Ginsburg's dissenting opinion: I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families’ religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held. See Thomas, 450 U. S., at 715 (courts are not to question where an individual “dr[aws] the line” in defining which practices run afoul of her religious beliefs). Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 03, 2014, 05:29:53 PM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: 401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: zolace on July 04, 2014, 03:02:12 PM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: 401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 03:08:03 PM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: 401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... 2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc. 3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 03:11:09 PM The Forbes article misses a key issue: the 401(k) plan is a separate legal entity from the employer. The plan has what is known as a plan fiduciary who is required by law to act in the best interests of the plan participants (the employees) not the plan sponsor (the employer).
It is true that there are mutual funds that screen out certain types of investments, but those funds often have higher expense ratios or loads and other fees. This means you would get a lower real return with the morality funds. So, a good fiduciary should not choose those funds. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 03:18:03 PM 1. There were several litigants. The ruling wouldn't have changed in any meaningful way. Hobby Lobby would have simply lost standing* or whatever. MotherJones would have then been crying about how Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation's owner's step-brother's uncle's cousin's Jewish nephew's dogsitter's sister's best friend once bought Plan B. Oh I'm not questioning the ruling from a legal perspective. I never have, nor do I even begin to posses the legal skills and knowledge to be able to do so. My argument has always been more personal based on economic well being and utility gains coupled with ideology, it has never been based around law. *I say they'd lose standing because there were other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby, hence "Hobby Lobby, et al.," and since the court was still compelled to rule on Conestoga, it would likely include the other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby while simply excluding Hobby Lobby. I believe one way to do this is to deny standing to Hobby Lobby. 2. As I understand it, it was a finding of fact that Hobby Lobby's owners were sincere in their convictions, which would mean that the onus would then be on HHS to challenge their sincerity, which they did not do (apart from challenging sincerity of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions on the grounds that for-profit corporations cannot hold religious beliefs, let alone sincere ones). From the syllabus: It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38. Held: The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs. 3. Denying a person their religious rights because of some perceived hypocrisy is ... probably not constitutional. As noted in Ginsburg's dissenting opinion: I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families’ religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held. See Thomas, 450 U. S., at 715 (courts are not to question where an individual “dr[aws] the line” in defining which practices run afoul of her religious beliefs). Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 03:19:09 PM Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding?
Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 03:22:34 PM The Forbes article misses a key issue: the 401(k) plan is a separate legal entity from the employer. The plan has what is known as a plan fiduciary who is required by law to act in the best interests of the plan participants (the employees) not the plan sponsor (the employer). The article addressed both of those points in its July update if you keep reading. The returns are also comparable. It is true that there are mutual funds that screen out certain types of investments, but those funds often have higher expense ratios or loads and other fees. This means you would get a lower real return with the morality funds. So, a good fiduciary should not choose those funds. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 03:32:36 PM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: 401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... 2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc. 3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 03:37:32 PM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: 401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... 2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc. 3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 03:40:16 PM 1. There were several litigants. The ruling wouldn't have changed in any meaningful way. Hobby Lobby would have simply lost standing* or whatever. MotherJones would have then been crying about how Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation's owner's step-brother's uncle's cousin's Jewish nephew's dogsitter's sister's best friend once bought Plan B. Oh I'm not questioning the ruling from a legal perspective. I never have, nor do I even begin to posses the legal skills and knowledge to be able to do so. My argument has always been more personal based on economic well being and utility gains coupled with ideology, it has never been based around law. *I say they'd lose standing because there were other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby, hence "Hobby Lobby, et al.," and since the court was still compelled to rule on Conestoga, it would likely include the other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby while simply excluding Hobby Lobby. I believe one way to do this is to deny standing to Hobby Lobby. 2. As I understand it, it was a finding of fact that Hobby Lobby's owners were sincere in their convictions, which would mean that the onus would then be on HHS to challenge their sincerity, which they did not do (apart from challenging sincerity of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions on the grounds that for-profit corporations cannot hold religious beliefs, let alone sincere ones). From the syllabus: It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38. Held: The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs. 3. Denying a person their religious rights because of some perceived hypocrisy is ... probably not constitutional. As noted in Ginsburg's dissenting opinion: I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families’ religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held. See Thomas, 450 U. S., at 715 (courts are not to question where an individual “dr[aws] the line” in defining which practices run afoul of her religious beliefs). Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 04, 2014, 03:49:37 PM Quote Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter? Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law.But it matters because the law can be wrong. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 03:51:21 PM One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight.
Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 03:56:59 PM One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight. I don't agree with that. Positive law is only "good" or "just" when measured against natural law, not public discourse. Public discourse is often the enemy of the good and the just.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 04, 2014, 04:49:04 PM I actually wasted my time looking at this. I'm displeased. Can you tell me specifically on the form you provided as proof what exact companies that make drugs are part of Hobby Lobby groups direct investment? The government doesn't decree that companies offer 401k plans. Hobby Lobby could pay out higher wages instead, but I'm sure there are quite a number of alternate investments they could hold that actually align with what they claim to believe.Because the only thing I see is investment funds of various types, which is essentially the only type of investments typically allowed by government decree for this type of retirement plan vehicle. Also, is this plan for the benefit of Hobby Lobby ownership, or employees? Because I have my doubts the owners are seeing any economic benefit from this at all. Trying to twist something like this ranks up the extreme hypocrisy of Harry Reid saying women should be in positions of power while making sure every single senior staffer of his is male. Either he's gay, or he has no respect for women opinions, but is too cowardly to admit it. If they REALLY were so principled as to be appalled at the thought of this, then they shouldn't have these investments. This does speak directly to the sincerity of the beliefs claimed by Hobby Lobby. Holding these investments while decrying insurers who cover them makes it seem like they are being entirely political and their problem was more about the politics of Obamacare than any sincere concerns about Plan B drugs. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 04:52:28 PM First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know.
Second, he ignores IRS and DOL rulings saying that non-economic factors can only be considered if they are truly cost and return neutral. Pointedly, he does not propose an alternative, ESG screened investment menu that would satisfy the fiduciary duties. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 04:53:42 PM One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight. I don't agree with that. Positive law is only "good" or "just" when measured against natural law, not public discourse. Public discourse is often the enemy of the good and the just.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 04:59:17 PM Quote Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter? Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law.But it matters because the law can be wrong. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 05:04:46 PM Quote First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know. Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 05:13:52 PM One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight. I don't agree with that. Positive law is only "good" or "just" when measured against natural law, not public discourse. Public discourse is often the enemy of the good and the just.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 05:15:27 PM One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight. I don't agree with that. Positive law is only "good" or "just" when measured against natural law, not public discourse. Public discourse is often the enemy of the good and the just.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 04, 2014, 05:19:35 PM Quote Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter? Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law.But it matters because the law can be wrong. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 05:21:53 PM Quote First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know. Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes. They could not hold any index funds. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: zolace on July 04, 2014, 05:26:59 PM I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!!
Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 05:31:14 PM Quote Even if it is, if the decision is right under the law, then why does it matter? Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law.But it matters because the law can be wrong. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 04, 2014, 05:34:03 PM As well as case law over the last twenty years.
Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 05:37:41 PM I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!! That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 05:46:42 PM Quote First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know. Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes. They could not hold any index funds. I also find the argument that it is harder to choose a religious minded 401k option to be an uncompelling defense seeing as how they were perfectly willing to threan closure and take the government all the way to the Supreme Court over small details of their health insurance. They don't seem to have any qualms with slight inconvenience on that front. I also don't think that they maliciously or even knowingly put their assets in those companies. I find it much more likely that it represents a minor case of managerial negligence in terms of being informed. I just find it a rather ironic happenstance. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: zolace on July 04, 2014, 05:59:25 PM I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!! That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 06:03:05 PM I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!! That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 06:04:50 PM I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!! That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 04, 2014, 06:11:32 PM I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!! That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 06:19:47 PM Quote First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know. Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes. They could not hold any index funds. I also find the argument that it is harder to choose a religious minded 401k option to be an uncompelling defense seeing as how they were perfectly willing to threan closure and take the government all the way to the Supreme Court over small details of their health insurance. They don't seem to have any qualms with slight inconvenience on that front. I also don't think that they maliciously or even knowingly put their assets in those companies. I find it much more likely that it represents a minor case of managerial negligence in terms of being informed. I just find it a rather ironic happenstance. Businesses can choose the moral 401(k) plans, but it's only really an option for smaller companies. Let's say Hobby Lobby had picked a "moral" (by their definition, not mine) menu of investments. These investments are indisputably higher cost than standard index funds. Any of the 12,000 plan participants could have written a letter to the plan administrator and fiduciary at any time and said I think you are not acting in my best interests by not offering index funds, which are lower cost. What is the fiduciary's answer to that? Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 04, 2014, 06:20:59 PM Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding? It has no balls.People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child. As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope. As noted by Ginsburg: Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision. The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment. There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring). In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 06:28:08 PM Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding? It has no balls.People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child. As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope. As noted by Ginsburg: Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision. The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment. There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring). In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 04, 2014, 06:30:44 PM Thank god this legal door was blown open then, as obviously the convictions here were so strong. Has anyone here read the Hobby Lobby decision? How would you characterize the holding? It has no balls.People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child. As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope. As noted by Ginsburg: Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision. The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment. There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring). In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 04, 2014, 06:34:41 PM You are simply wrong. They may cite other cases, but this was a statutory interpretation case, not a precedent-based or constitutional case.
Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 05, 2014, 09:43:06 AM Quote I am a social liberal Most lawyers seem to be social libertarians/liberals.Quote , and I agree with the decision as well. But I disagree that it could or should be broader. The Court can only decide the case before it and it exceeds its mandate if it decides anything broader. It can have a chilling effect, however. Look at how many court challenges there are to same-sex marriage right now, for example. So many people whose rights are being violated. That's a case where the court could have very easily broadened the scope of its ruling. But it chose not to ... which is typical of this court because it has no balls. #YesAllWomenTitle: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: noviapriani on July 05, 2014, 10:01:13 AM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: 401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... 2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc. 3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 05, 2014, 10:19:49 AM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: 401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... 2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc. 3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 05, 2014, 10:22:13 AM Quote I am a social liberal Most lawyers seem to be social libertarians/liberals.Quote , and I agree with the decision as well. But I disagree that it could or should be broader. The Court can only decide the case before it and it exceeds its mandate if it decides anything broader. It can have a chilling effect, however. Look at how many court challenges there are to same-sex marriage right now, for example. So many people whose rights are being violated. That's a case where the court could have very easily broadened the scope of its ruling. But it chose not to ... which is typical of this court because it has no balls. #YesAllWomenTitle: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 05, 2014, 10:24:24 AM The story is a bit old, but I haven't been following it very closely: 401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.Mother Jones has discovered that Hobby Lobby which is seeking exemption from certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds surrounding contraception benefit requirements (a case it has won), actually invests (through their retirement fund) in companies that produces emergency contraceptives and abortion related products. According to Mother Jones: Quote Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—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). These companies make up 3/4ths of Hobby Lobby's 401k assets. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/ Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ... 2.) There are 401k plans specifically set up for religious groups in order to avoid holdings in companies that produce contraception, use stem cell research, etc. 3.) As management, they are the ones who give the marching orders on their 401k plans. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 05, 2014, 11:03:40 AM Earnings AND costs. The expense ratio of a typical screened fund is going to be over 1%. The expense ratio of an index fund can be as low as 0.05%.
Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 05, 2014, 11:19:21 AM Earnings AND costs. The expense ratio of a typical screened fund is going to be over 1%. The expense ratio of an index fund can be as low as 0.05%. Exactly. So it is absolutely possible if they have a high earning portfolio, I haven't taken a look at the current numbers myself so I can't compare all of the options that would have been available to them, but the Forbes article seemed to think that they were comparable in their expense ratio. Not the most solid of sourcing's, but once again, the only real thing to go off of that has thus far been presented.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 05, 2014, 11:31:49 AM Earnings AND costs. The expense ratio of a typical screened fund is going to be over 1%. The expense ratio of an index fund can be as low as 0.05%. Exactly. So it is absolutely possible if they have a high earning portfolio, I haven't taken a look at the current numbers myself so I can't compare all of the options that would have been available to them, but the Forbes article seemed to think that they were comparable in their expense ratio. Not the most solid of sourcing's, but once again, the only real thing to go off of that has thus far been presented.Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: noviapriani on July 05, 2014, 11:39:50 AM Quote You are simply wrong. They may cite other cases, but this was a statutory interpretation case, not a precedent-based or constitutional case. This would be true if the decision in a typical SCOTUS case was a simple "YOU WIN!" or "YOU LOSE!" But well, that's not how it works. Laws do not exist in vacuums, nor do interpretations and decisions based on them. In this case, the court very deliberately responds to the question of personhood for a for-profit organization, which is not defined in RFRA, for example. Regardless of what sort of silly semantic acrobatics you want to start playing here, it is a matter of fact that at least part of the court's decision was based on something other than a 1993 law. Ergo, you are simply wrong. QED.Quote I don't think that judicial restraint and only deciding cases and controversies before you (the constitutional requirement, by the way) means that they have no balls. I think it means that you are seeing a retrenchment from an activist judicial philosophy that dominated the federal courts for years. There exists nonbinding precedence for various dicta for this very reason. Judges are in fact given the latitude to express their views in a variety of contexts. There are noncontroversial (cf. "judicial activism") avenues that can be used to provide guidance to lower courts without establishing binding precedence. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 05, 2014, 11:44:26 AM Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html
Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: umair127 on July 05, 2014, 12:19:40 PM Quote You are simply wrong. They may cite other cases, but this was a statutory interpretation case, not a precedent-based or constitutional case. This would be true if the decision in a typical SCOTUS case was a simple "YOU WIN!" or "YOU LOSE!" But well, that's not how it works. Laws do not exist in vacuums, nor do interpretations and decisions based on them. In this case, the court very deliberately responds to the question of personhood for a for-profit organization, which is not defined in RFRA, for example. Regardless of what sort of silly semantic acrobatics you want to start playing here, it is a matter of fact that at least part of the court's decision was based on something other than a 1993 law. Ergo, you are simply wrong. QED.Quote I don't think that judicial restraint and only deciding cases and controversies before you (the constitutional requirement, by the way) means that they have no balls. I think it means that you are seeing a retrenchment from an activist judicial philosophy that dominated the federal courts for years. There exists nonbinding precedence for various dicta for this very reason. Judges are in fact given the latitude to express their views in a variety of contexts. There are noncontroversial (cf. "judicial activism") avenues that can be used to provide guidance to lower courts without establishing binding precedence. The so-called corporate personhood issue is also a statutory question which is resolved by reference to The Dictionary Act. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 05, 2014, 12:32:47 PM Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement. The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice). And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: zolace on July 05, 2014, 12:35:09 PM Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement. The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice). And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 05, 2014, 12:39:27 PM Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement. The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice). And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: noviapriani on July 05, 2014, 12:45:39 PM I actually wasted my time looking at this. I'm displeased. Can you tell me specifically on the form you provided as proof what exact companies that make drugs are part of Hobby Lobby groups direct investment? The government doesn't decree that companies offer 401k plans. Hobby Lobby could pay out higher wages instead, but I'm sure there are quite a number of alternate investments they could hold that actually align with what they claim to believe.Because the only thing I see is investment funds of various types, which is essentially the only type of investments typically allowed by government decree for this type of retirement plan vehicle. Also, is this plan for the benefit of Hobby Lobby ownership, or employees? Because I have my doubts the owners are seeing any economic benefit from this at all. Trying to twist something like this ranks up the extreme hypocrisy of Harry Reid saying women should be in positions of power while making sure every single senior staffer of his is male. Either he's gay, or he has no respect for women opinions, but is too cowardly to admit it. If they REALLY were so principled as to be appalled at the thought of this, then they shouldn't have these investments. This does speak directly to the sincerity of the beliefs claimed by Hobby Lobby. Holding these investments while decrying insurers who cover them makes it seem like they are being entirely political and their problem was more about the politics of Obamacare than any sincere concerns about Plan B drugs. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: sana8410 on July 05, 2014, 12:49:39 PM Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement. The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice). And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process. 2.) They are the ones who get to set up the system for their business or at least give the marching orders which still makes amusing that they wouldn't make the effort if it was really that important to them. 3.) If the company matches some level of contributions then the company is still funneling money into assets held by these companies even if that money now belongs to the employee. 4.) It is still ironic. Title: Re: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production Post by: Rigon on July 09, 2014, 05:05:39 PM Interesting article: http://m.kiplinger.com/article/inves...investing.html Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.Very few options available and those are the major choices that tend to be anti tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling. Vs anti abortion which includes basically every pharmaceutical/medical company.Plus remember you'd have to find a 401k fund operator that even offers a fund that would fit the requirement. The first example in the link though is one that takes into account religious considerations (Islamic), and the Forbes article did list specific religiously conscious plans to choose from. I understand that they may not always be available, but I find it rather likely (just going off assumptions) that they would be more readily available in this case than the examples provided in your article (simply owing to the relative demand of a Christian conscious choice in the US over say an Islamic choice). And once again, I think this entire argument rather misses the drama with which Hobby Lobby approached this. They threatened closure of their business over being forced to being linked to immoral practices (however tenuous). If it is really THAT much of a concern for them they could either locate only where they could take advantage of religiously conscious 401k plans or they could do what they originally said they would have to in the face of such a moral outrage: close shop. Either way their 401k is still ironic given their PR campaign during this legal process. |