Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production

[Rigon]

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.

[sana8410]

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.

[umair127]

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.

[Rigon]

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.

[umair127]

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.

[sana8410]

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.

Tell that to the inhabitants of the DRCongo who legally had to pay around 300% of their business revenues to the central government.

[umair127]

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.

This case was decided in 1993 when the law at issue was passed by Clinton and a Democratic legislature.

[sana8410]

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.

[umair127]

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.

Tell that to the inhabitants of the DRCongo who legally had to pay around 300% of their business revenues to the central government.

What are you talking about? That would be an example of a positive law that violates natural law. No debate needed.

[sana8410]

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.

Tell that to the inhabitants of the DRCongo who legally had to pay around 300% of their business revenues to the central government.

What are you talking about? That would be an example of a positive law that violates natural law. No debate needed.

And what natural law are you going with here? It was a very Hobbesian method of legal structuring.

[Rigon]

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.

This case was decided in 1993 when the law at issue was passed by Clinton and a Democratic legislature.

This case was decided on June 30, 2014.

[umair127]

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.

I would not say it is "standard," but it is not uncommon. Many officers and senior managers have top hat compensation plans or other separate plans. Sometimes owner-managers hold funds out so they can reinvest it in their business. Very often, they do not invest much or anything so that they can meet the non-discrimination test.

They could not hold any index funds.

[zolace]

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!!

[umair127]

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.

This case was decided in 1993 when the law at issue was passed by Clinton and a Democratic legislature.

This case was decided on June 30, 2014.

I know that, and it is based on a law passed on 1993. That's not correct; it is based on the text of a 1993 law.

[Rigon]

As well as case law over the last twenty years.

[umair127]

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.

[sana8410]

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.

I would not say it is "standard," but it is not uncommon. Many officers and senior managers have top hat compensation plans or other separate plans. Sometimes owner-managers hold funds out so they can reinvest it in their business. Very often, they do not invest much or anything so that they can meet the non-discrimination test.

They could not hold any index funds.

So in other words, this is an assumption as well and one that doesn't generally favor standard practices (by your own admission). I acknowledge that the author didn't source the 401k participation by the Greens (and the burden of proof would fall on him), so I am left with the decision to either investigate further myself which I don't really care to do since, as previously stated, I'm not very interested in the topic, or choose between a slight inclination towards either Forbes or you. i'm willing to listen, but you haven't yet explained to me why religious 401k options for businesses exist if businesses aren't allowed to ever choose them.

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.

[zolace]

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.

It doesn't matter, they were wrong. The decision was wrong. As in the opposite of right.

[sana8410]

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.

Explain your understanding of natural law first so there is a base from which to work from?

[umair127]

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.

Explain your understanding of natural law first so there is a base from which to work from?

This has nothing to do with natural law. It was an interpretation of a positive law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.