Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production

[noviapriani]

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.

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.

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.

Not to be rude, but this logic is ridiculous. It isn't their plan. It's the employees plan. What the employees do with it isn't really their business. What they buy is their business.

[sana8410]

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.

Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.

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.

Just give up- you are wrong and even you know it. Now we are laughing at the lengths you will go to try and show you are not .It isn't their money. It's their employees money.

1.) They may very well have 401ks through their company in which they are employed as well which would make it their money as well.

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.

[Rigon]

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.

Very interesting link, thanks for posting it.

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.

Just give up- you are wrong and even you know it. Now we are laughing at the lengths you will go to try and show you are not .It isn't their money. It's their employees money.

There's a pretty big difference between directly paying for something and not restricting your employees' 401(k) options. So basically profiting from abortions is better morals than having to copay abortions.