Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Greed and Death]

The Satanists are siting the ruling for exemptions on matters on abortion.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... rtion-laws

Be interesting to see the comments.

For me; well? You call businesses people and you give them rights........

First problem the RFRA restricts federal action not state action, most abortion restrictions are State not federal. The only federal restriction that comes to mind is the prohibition on the dilation and extraction, commonly refereed to as partial birth abortion.

Second problem even assuming you find a state RFRA analog that follows federal precedent states have only allowed exemptions to their rules in situations where they would be constitutional required to allow those exceptions. So unlike in hobby lobby which already had more exceptions than a sieve, the state can argue the abortion rules have no exceptions so are narrowly tailored. This will leave the satanist one argument the state has no compelling interest.

Defining a compelling interest is difficult most of the time the court ducks the question and strikes the law down based on narrow tailoring (like it did in hobby Lobby).

[JesusOfNazareth]

Not fibbing.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-owners-can-have-a-401k-and-first-amendment-rights/

You must not have had a 401k before. How it works is the employee has a choice of funds, typically based on targeted year of retirement. The employer picks those funds which the employee chooses from.

So, you're thelling the guy at Forbes, the financial magazine, that he doesn't know how 401K plans work?

[Greed and Death]

You must not have had a 401k before. How it works is the employee has a choice of funds, typically based on targeted year of retirement. The employer picks those funds which the employee chooses from.

So, you're thelling the guy at Forbes, the financial magazine, that he doesn't know how 401K plans work?

Yes.

They have "biblical" 401k plans, that avoid those sorts of investments.

[Ashmoria]

Don't fib now. You know 401K plans don't let the employees pick what companies are involved in investing.

Not fibbing.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-owners-can-have-a-401k-and-first-amendment-rights/

401(k) plans are directed and invested by employees, not by employers. It’s the Hobby Lobby employees that would be disenfranchised by the twisted logic employed by Redden and Ungar here. They are the ones–not their bosses–who choose which mutual funds to invest in. This is true both of the employee’s elective deferral and the employer’s match.

kinda not true.

the company offers a ...menu of funds to invest in. the employee chooses exactly what ones to put their money in and in what amounts. the company can nix any fund that they don't want to offer.

[Greed and Death]

Not fibbing.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-owners-can-have-a-401k-and-first-amendment-rights/

kinda not true.

the company offers a ...menu of funds to invest in. the employee chooses exactly what ones to put their money in and in what amounts. the company can nix any fund that they don't want to offer.

It is kind of weird explaining this to people who never had a 401k.

[Death Metal]

So, you're thelling the guy at Forbes, the financial magazine, that he doesn't know how 401K plans work?

Yes.

They have "biblical" 401k plans, that avoid those sorts of investments.

Forbes is full of partisan quacks anyway. Might as well be getting your medical information from Leeches And Snake Oil Tonic Monthly.

[Greed and Death]

Yes.

They have "biblical" 401k plans, that avoid those sorts of investments.

Forbes is full of partisan quacks anyway. Might as well be getting your medical information from Leeches And Snake Oil Tonic Monthly.

Hobby Lobby is off the hook on the 401k for a few years anyways. Not because they lack control over the 401k but because if they did not realize they were providing contraception in their coverage they likely did not realize they were investing in it as well. ERISA makes changing retirement funds a difficult process that takes years.

[Death Metal]

Forbes is full of partisan quacks anyway. Might as well be getting your medical information from Leeches And Snake Oil Tonic Monthly.

Hobby Lobby is off the hook on the 401k for a few years anyways. Not because they lack control over the 401k but because if they did not realize they were providing contraception in their coverage they likely did not realize they were investing in it as well. ERISA makes changing retirement funds a difficult process that takes years.

The burden of providing 401k options falls entirely on Hobby Lobby, so they are most certainly on the hook.

[Greed and Death]

Hobby Lobby is off the hook on the 401k for a few years anyways. Not because they lack control over the 401k but because if they did not realize they were providing contraception in their coverage they likely did not realize they were investing in it as well. ERISA makes changing retirement funds a difficult process that takes years.

The burden of providing 401k options falls entirely on Hobby Lobby, so they are most certainly on the hook.

But they only realized they were covering contraception in 2012(when the lawyers who brought the case told them), so they likely only realized they were investing in contraception in 2012 at the earliest if not later when new paper articles found this out.

Changing funds while complying with Erisa is difficult. Erisa was created in part to prevent the abuse of CEOs investing in worker retirement funds into the company and then the CEO giving himself a bonus because of all the extra revenue he just raised. So changes in funds have to be gradual, and workers with vested interest in previous funds can not lose that and may be entitled to continued contributions from the employer.

[Death Metal]

The burden of providing 401k options falls entirely on Hobby Lobby, so they are most certainly on the hook.

But they only realized they were covering contraception in 2012(when the lawyers who brought the case told them), so they likely only realized they were investing in contraception in 2012 at the earliest if not later when new paper articles found this out.

So ignorance is a valid excuse now?

Even when their ignorance comes from their failure to micromanage dilligently?

[Ashmoria]

kinda not true.

the company offers a ...menu of funds to invest in. the employee chooses exactly what ones to put their money in and in what amounts. the company can nix any fund that they don't want to offer.

It is kind of weird explaining this to people who never had a 401k.

yeah

but the forbes people should know better. I didn't read the article (of course) but the 401k thing is very much like the insurance thing.

not that it matters. they don't have a sincere belief about the 401k like they do about insurance.

[Greed and Death]

It is kind of weird explaining this to people who never had a 401k.

yeah

but the forbes people should know better. I didn't read the article (of course) but the 401k thing is very much like the insurance thing.

not that it matters. they don't have a sincere belief about the 401k like they do about insurance.

they might bring a case to get an exemption from Erisa their chance of winning is significantly reduced as Erisa does not have exemptions already in place.

[Ashmoria]

yeah

but the forbes people should know better. I didn't read the article (of course) but the 401k thing is very much like the insurance thing.

not that it matters. they don't have a sincere belief about the 401k like they do about insurance.

they might bring a case to get an exemption from Erisa their chance of winning is significantly reduced as Erisa does not have exemptions already in place.

ohhhnooooo g&d, the hobby lobby ruling was tightly calibrated so as to not give a general religious freedom ruling. it wouldn't apply to anything not signed into law by president Obama.

[Death Metal]

not that it matters. they don't have a sincere belief about the 401k like they do about insurance.

Actually, I'd say it's proof that their belief isn't sincere at all.

[Ashmoria]

not that it matters. they don't have a sincere belief about the 401k like they do about insurance.

Actually, I'd say it's proof that their belief isn't sincere at all.

belief is such an individual thing and religion isn't known for being consistent.

[Death Metal]

Actually, I'd say it's proof that their belief isn't sincere at all.

belief is such an individual thing and religion isn't known for being consistent.

inconsistency is one thing. that HL are doing is pure hypocrisy.

[Ashmoria]

belief is such an individual thing and religion isn't known for being consistent.

inconsistency is one thing. that HL are doing is pure hypocrisy.

maybe but the supreme court was uninterested in adjudicating sincerity. the claim of belief was enough. so if they don't believe that 401k investments by employees violate the company's religious sensibilities then that is FINE by the supreme court.

[United States of The One Percent]

they might bring a case to get an exemption from Erisa their chance of winning is significantly reduced as Erisa does not have exemptions already in place.

ohhhnooooo g&d, the hobby lobby ruling was tightly calibrated so as to not give a general religious freedom ruling. it wouldn't apply to anything not signed into law by president Obama.

Better keep your words sweet. The latest is that once one of these companies goes bankrupt there will be a lot of lawyers lining up to claim Hobby Lobby creates a breach in the corporate veil between corporations that take advantage of it and their ownership, then going after the owners to recover the corporation's debt. Me, I can hardly wait...

[Jocabia]

ohhhnooooo g&d, the hobby lobby ruling was tightly calibrated so as to not give a general religious freedom ruling. it wouldn't apply to anything not signed into law by president Obama.

Better keep your words sweet. The latest is that once one of these companies goes bankrupt there will be a lot of lawyers lining up to claim Hobby Lobby creates a breach in the corporate veil between corporations that take advantage of it and their ownership, then going after the owners to recover the corporation's debt. Me, I can hardly wait...

I agree. You can't simultaneously claim you are a person that is separate and distinct from your corporation and that you are not. I certainly hope that someone takes them to task on the topic.

[Gauthier]

Better keep your words sweet. The latest is that once one of these companies goes bankrupt there will be a lot of lawyers lining up to claim Hobby Lobby creates a breach in the corporate veil between corporations that take advantage of it and their ownership, then going after the owners to recover the corporation's debt. Me, I can hardly wait...

I agree. You can't simultaneously claim you are a person that is separate and distinct from your corporation and that you are not. I certainly hope that someone takes them to task on the topic.

Schroedinger's Corporation. It is simulatenous a person and not a person.

[Geilinor]

The burden of providing 401k options falls entirely on Hobby Lobby, so they are most certainly on the hook.

But they only realized they were covering contraception in 2012(when the lawyers who brought the case told them), so they likely only realized they were investing in contraception in 2012 at the earliest if not later when new paper articles found this out.

Changing funds while complying with Erisa is difficult. Erisa was created in part to prevent the abuse of CEOs investing in worker retirement funds into the company and then the CEO giving himself a bonus because of all the extra revenue he just raised. So changes in funds have to be gradual, and workers with vested interest in previous funds can not lose that and may be entitled to continued contributions from the employer.

You're telling me that they didn't bother to find out what they were investing in?

[Jocabia]

But they only realized they were covering contraception in 2012(when the lawyers who brought the case told them), so they likely only realized they were investing in contraception in 2012 at the earliest if not later when new paper articles found this out.

Changing funds while complying with Erisa is difficult. Erisa was created in part to prevent the abuse of CEOs investing in worker retirement funds into the company and then the CEO giving himself a bonus because of all the extra revenue he just raised. So changes in funds have to be gradual, and workers with vested interest in previous funds can not lose that and may be entitled to continued contributions from the employer.

You're telling me that they didn't bother to find out what they were investing in?

He's telling you they didn't care until they were given a political reason to care. Then, for political reasons, they punished their employees by refusing to cover something they didn't mind covering previously. Uh, I mean, they were just enforcing their sincerely held beliefs.

[Geilinor]

inconsistency is one thing. that HL are doing is pure hypocrisy.

maybe but the supreme court was uninterested in adjudicating sincerity. the claim of belief was enough. so if they don't believe that 401k investments by employees violate the company's religious sensibilities then that is FINE by the supreme court.

The religious belief has to be sincerely held in order to receive an exemption.

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

It is my position that these companies are more likely using religious freedom as a smoke screen to avoid their legal responsibilities to provide employer funded health care benefits to their employees. This is more about corporate profits than it is religious freedom.

Hit. Nail. Head.

This so very much.

I'm not saying its not true but do you have evidence of them being opportunist in this regard or is it just a hunch?

[Jocabia]

Hit. Nail. Head.

This so very much.

I'm not saying its not true but do you have evidence of them being opportunist in this regard or is it just a hunch?

Well, there is the fact that they didn't even notice they were already providing this care until a law passed that said they have to.