SCOTUS Upholds Religious Freedom - Hobby Lobby

[bamawriter]

I won't lie,

When do you plan on starting this personal odyssey?

I had always assumed that their concerns about contraception were real and genuine. The company has quite the public reputation for it. But, when you are talking about coming up with standard, universally applicable criteria exempting corporations from complying with the ACA founded on the notion that its religious objection is "sincerely held," you have to wonder when it turns out they allow and even to some degree facilitate employees having a vested financial interest in the companies at issue.

Even if HL's 401k offerings included no funds that invested in these pharma companies, HL would still be supporting them by covering the vast array of other products they offer.

Do you offer coverage for Z-packs? Then you are handing money to a company that produces Plan B.

 

[volinbham]

Huh?

The issue presented here is created by the very claim of Hobby Lobby, itself. The text of the opinion states:

"As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can 'opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.'

Read more: Hobby Lobby Decision: Obamacare Contraception Mandate - Business Insider
​

To qualify, the opt out must be based on "sincerely held religious beliefs."

The issue that is squarely raised at this point is whether Hobby Lobby can be said to "sincerely believe" in that religious position when it not only offers its employees the option to invest in the company that makes the drugs HL claims are a problem, but then affirmatively matches those funds.

The fact that they both allow it, and contriobute to it, raises in my mind a legitimate question as to whether their opt out is political, or based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

I won't lie, I had always assumed that their concerns about contraception were real and genuine. The company has quite the public reputation for it. But, when you are talking about coming up with standard, universally applicable criteria exempting corporations from complying with the ACA founded on the notion that its religious objection is "sincerely held," you have to wonder when it turns out they allow and even to some degree facilitate employees having a vested financial interest in the companies at issue.

If you consider investing in a mutual fund that contains with in it a company like Teva that among the product lines includes the products HL objects to providing then you should also demand HL object to contributing ANY revenue to Teva. To meet that standard they would have to demand that the insurance NOT PAY for ANY drugs from Teva. Surely revenue directly to Teva in the form of paying for their products is more important to the company than being a share holder. If sincerity of claim is dependent on not supporting in any way one of these companies then the more direct route would be to deny coverage of any products from them. Clearly, that was not HL's aim.

BTW - you realize that being a shareholder either directly or indirectly via a fund is not you contributing to the company. You are not putting money in their pockets. The shares are purchased on the secondary market.

Given their religiosity is woven throughout the company it's absurd to claim this one issue of mutual funds calls into question the sincerity of their motives for bringing suit.

Put another way, you wouldn't be any happier with the ruling if these mutual funds didn't exist and I presume you'd be looking for some other angle of attack.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Like spending one penny arguing whether to place "The Ten Commandments," or "In God We Trust" on a public building.

Not sure where you're going with that. Are you against placing those things on public buildings or just the litigation cost?

 

[volinbham]

When do you plan on starting this personal odyssey?



Even if HL's 401k offerings included no funds that invested in these pharma companies, HL would still be supporting them by covering the vast array of other products they offer.

Do you offer coverage for Z-packs? Then you are handing money to a company that produces Plan B.

deaf ears my friend. As I pointed out; coverage for something like Z-packs actually puts money in the company's pocket. Holding their stock does not.

 

[cmelton7]

Not sure where you're going with that. Are you against placing those things on public buildings or just the litigation cost?

Both. You can tatoo any of those things on your body. Write them in your kid's notebook. Sing them in the shower. I don't think that it is worth the time or effort for either side to have to litigate this stuff. A lot of money spent to accomplish nothing.

 

[hog88]

Huh?

The issue presented here is created by the very claim of Hobby Lobby, itself. The text of the opinion states:

"As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can 'opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.'

Read more: Hobby Lobby Decision: Obamacare Contraception Mandate - Business Insider
​

To qualify, the opt out must be based on "sincerely held religious beliefs."

The issue that is squarely raised at this point is whether Hobby Lobby can be said to "sincerely believe" in that religious position when it not only offers its employees the option to invest in the company that makes the drugs HL claims are a problem, but then affirmatively matches those funds.

The fact that they both allow it, and contriobute to it, raises in my mind a legitimate question as to whether their opt out is political, or based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

I won't lie, I had always assumed that their concerns about contraception were real and genuine. The company has quite the public reputation for it. But, when you are talking about coming up with standard, universally applicable criteria exempting corporations from complying with the ACA founded on the notion that its religious objection is "sincerely held," you have to wonder when it turns out they allow and even to some degree facilitate employees having a vested financial interest in the companies at issue.

I could have somewhat believed your outrage was real and not just a temper tantrum due to your idol losing AGAIN. If you would have approached it like;

By filing suit and wining relief from this provision of the ACA they are in reality waging war on their lower and middle class employees. A company as large as HL being granted relief from providing coverage for these abortive drugs will only hurt the makers stock prices, of which a good portion of their employees 401k plans are invested in.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Who is the moron who wrote this?

His first argument is that "401(k) plans are directed and invested by employees, not by employers."

Its true the bulk of the money invested is from the employees, but they pick mutual funds to invest in from a menu given to them by their employer. And, the employer contributes. If HL was truly religiously motivated, they would offer their employees mutual funds than are approved for Christian investors. They certainly would not pick investment vehicles that offended their deep sensitivities, as they claim was offended by the ACA.
________

His next argument is "401(k) plans don’t invest in company stock–they invest in mutual funds. "

The mutual funds are made up of stocks, which ar known to the administrator of the fund, overseen by HL. HL has complete control over this.
________

His next argument is "401(k) plans have a limited number of choices, and that’s a good thing."

So? Among the choices HL had, and has always had, is to pick a menu of mutual funds to offer their employees that do not include these companies that supposedly offend them so much. There is no way a company with $73 million of retirement assets to invest cannot find mutual funds that exclude these companies they claim so upset them.



Really, seriously, this Forbes article was beyond idiotic.

Hobby Lobby is being about as consistent as they can be.

Their argument is: "We're not paying for your abortion pills, but you can spend your money any way you want."

They are paying their employees and matching (giving equal money) their employees' 401k.

In both instances: 'It's your money after we give it to you. Do with it as you choose."

 

[lawgator1]

I thought LG was adamantly opposed to wasting tax dollars to score political points when it does nothing long term?

There is value to pointing out the doubts now being expressed about Hobby Lobby's sincerity because that is a factor in whether the RFRA applies to a given situation. By pointing out that the Court may have been duped by Hobby Lobby into thinking that a belief was sincere, when perhaps it was not, that will slow the Court down next time, and so perhaps they will be more careful not to be manipulated.

Whether you agree that they were here or not, certainly we can all agree that the Court should view all such claims skeptically, and demand substantial proof, before applying the RFRA exemption in a given case. Even the majority said that here.

Basically, we do not want the RFRA exception swallowing the rule under the ACA, and there is a very real danger of that.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Both. You can tatoo any of those things on your body. Write them in your kid's notebook. Sing them in the shower. I don't think that it is worth the time or effort for either side to have to litigate this stuff. A lot of money spent to accomplish nothing.

I can agree with that. I think though if a majority of a community would like to have those things on a public building, through referendum or whatever, it's ok. For instance if I chose to live in a predominately Arab community and they chose , as a community to place some versus from the Koran, I would not have an issue with it. I think so many people are so intolerant of others they feel they've got to sue in order to have Christmas decorations removed from public property.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Yea, I've seen numerous angry people on Facebook saying that Hobby Lobby can prevent their employees from buying condoms now.

They are going bonkers. Complaining how they buy stuff from China and own a mutual fund in their 401k that owns a contraceptive drug makers stock.

If a company doesn't want to pay for an abortion pill, they shouldn't have to pay for it. People should respect that.

 

[lawgator1]

Hobby Lobby is being about as consistent as they can be.

Their argument is: "We're not paying for your abortion pills, but you can spend your money any way you want."

They are paying their employees and matching (giving equal money) their employees' 401k.

In both instances: 'It's your money after we give it to you. Do with it as you choose."

No, their express argument was that they did not want to follow the ACA because then they'd be a vehicle for provision of services they morally oppose. Turns out, they are helping their employees, including with their own financial support, pay for and provide the offering of those very same services.

You cannot rationalize the contradiction. It is significant.

 

[bamawriter]

Basically, we do not want the RFRA exception swallowing the rule under the ACA, and there is a very real danger of that.

Actually, I would absolutely love to see that happen.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, their express argument was that they did not want to follow the ACA because then they'd be a vehicle for provision of services they morally oppose. Turns out, they are helping their employees, including with their own financial support, pay for and provide the offering of those very same services.

You cannot rationalize the contradiction. It is significant.

And built into that argument is the fact that they (the employee) can do whatever they want with their own money-- just the same as they can with their retirement. Geez.

You can't rationalize anything.

 

[bamawriter]

No, their express argument was that they did not want to follow the ACA because then they'd be a vehicle for provision of services they morally oppose. Turns out, they are helping their employees, including with their own financial support, pay for and provide the offering of those very same services.

You cannot rationalize the contradiction. It is significant.

There is no contradiction. Hobby Lobby has, for years, spent millions covering products manufactured by companies that also produce products they find objectionable and refuse to cover. Hobby Lobby also provides a method by which their employees can invest in those same companies.

Hobby Lobby has no general objection to the companies in question. They simply refuse to be responsible for paying for a very small sub-set of products those companies make.

Once again: there is no contradiction to be found. Your argument is complete bulls***.

 

[lawgator1]

And built into that argument is the fact that they (the employee) can do whatever they want with their own money-- just the same as they can with their retirement. Geez.

You can't rationalize anything.

Of course they can.

But if they use their money to invest in the companies that offer the service they want to opt out of, where the criteria under the law is that they may only do that if they have a sincere religious belief against that service, then making the claim whilst simultaneously being financially involved in it may be a fraud upon the court, and should result in sanctions on Hobby Lobby for lying to the Justices about the sincerity of their beliefs.

In this particular case, the law considers the subjective intent of the petitioning party, in this case HL, hoping for the exemption. If they have misrepresented their religious beliefs, in order to make some kind of political statement about the ACA, that is deeply troubling.

 

[vollygirl]

Back in the day, companies decided what benefits they paid for. Then insurance companies figured out how to rake in more money and PPO's and HMO's were born. Wish there'd been a drug that prevented that birth.

 

[lawgator1]

There is no contradiction. Hobby Lobby has, for years, spent millions covering products manufactured by companies that also produce products they find objectionable and refuse to cover. Hobby Lobby also provides a method by which their employees can invest in those same companies.

Hobby Lobby has no general objection to the companies in question. They simply refuse to be responsible for paying for a very small sub-set of products those companies make.

Once again: there is no contradiction to be found. Your argument is complete bulls***.

Nice try, but their objection was to being a mechanism for such services, not just paying for it. And even if you were right, the problem is that HL does in fact contribute to it via match.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nice try, but their objection was to being a mechanism for such services, not just paying for it. And even if you were right, the problem is that HL does in fact contribute to it via match.

Hobby Lobby gives money to their employees with the match, and the employee decides where to invest it.

 

[bamawriter]

Nice try, but their objection was to being a mechanism for such services, not just paying for it.

Six of one, half dozen of another.

And even if you were right, the problem is that HL does in fact contribute to it via match.

That isn't a problem. Hobby Lobby does not object to the pharma companies, nor the vast majority of the products they manufacture. Investing in those companies does not negate a moral objection to that set of products.

As I've said before: if those companies ONLY manufactured the objectionable products, then you'd have a point. They don't, so you don't.

 

[bamawriter]

Hobby Lobby gives money to their employees with the match, and the employee decides where to invest it.

Even that doesn't matter. Hobby Lobby could give the employees no choice, and it still wouldn't mean they are directly supporting the products they find objectionable.

 

[hog88]

No, their express argument was that they did not want to follow the ACA because then they'd be a vehicle for provision of services they morally oppose. Turns out, they are helping their employees, including with their own financial support, pay for and provide the offering of those very same services.

You cannot rationalize the contradiction. It is significant.

Owning shares in a mutual fund does none of that! Do you think the money from the mutual fund goes directly to those companies?

 

[hog88]

Of course they can.

But if they use their money to invest in the companies that offer the service they want to opt out of, where the criteria under the law is that they may only do that if they have a sincere religious belief against that service, then making the claim whilst simultaneously being financially involved in it may be a fraud upon the court, and should result in sanctions on Hobby Lobby for lying to the Justices about the sincerity of their beliefs.

In this particular case, the law considers the subjective intent of the petitioning party, in this case HL, hoping for the exemption. If they have misrepresented their religious beliefs, in order to make some kind of political statement about the ACA, that is deeply troubling.

Please dear baby Jesus let the administration listen to LG and follow this path.

 

[McDad]

There is value to pointing out the doubts now being expressed about Hobby Lobby's sincerity because that is a factor in whether the RFRA applies to a given situation. By pointing out that the Court may have been duped by Hobby Lobby into thinking that a belief was sincere, when perhaps it was not, that will slow the Court down next time, and so perhaps they will be more careful not to be manipulated.

Whether you agree that they were here or not, certainly we can all agree that the Court should view all such claims skeptically, and demand substantial proof, before applying the RFRA exemption in a given case. Even the majority said that here.

Basically, we do not want the RFRA exception swallowing the rule under the ACA, and there is a very real danger of that.

Idiocy. You want the SC to be a sincerity court. Well done, counselor. Maybe this new SC can evaluate the claims of politicians running for office.

SCOTUS: "We have evaluated the candidate's claim to run the most transparent administration in our nation's history. We, the members of the Sincerity Court, find the candidate quilt of insincerity".

Brilliant.

 

[volinbham]

There is value to pointing out the doubts now being expressed about Hobby Lobby's sincerity because that is a factor in whether the RFRA applies to a given situation. By pointing out that the Court may have been duped by Hobby Lobby into thinking that a belief was sincere, when perhaps it was not, that will slow the Court down next time, and so perhaps they will be more careful not to be manipulated.

Whether you agree that they were here or not, certainly we can all agree that the Court should view all such claims skeptically, and demand substantial proof, before applying the RFRA exemption in a given case. Even the majority said that here.

Basically, we do not want the RFRA exception swallowing the rule under the ACA, and there is a very real danger of that.

There is zero evidence that they were "duped" and that they did not view the claims skeptically yet here you are suggesting the Court wasn't as smart as you and Mother Jones in assessing HL's sincerity.

You really can't make this stuff up.

 

[volinbham]

Six of one, half dozen of another.



That isn't a problem. Hobby Lobby does not object to the pharma companies, nor the vast majority of the products they manufacture. Investing in those companies does not negate a moral objection to that set of products.

As I've said before: if those companies ONLY manufactured the objectionable products, then you'd have a point. They don't, so you don't.

:yes:

It's as if HL had a secret shop in the back where they gave abortions the way this hypocrisy charge is being leveled.