Can you please provide a source...
Advertisement
by Earth in Roughly 1000 Years » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:03 pm
by Geilinor » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:05 pm
by Earth in Roughly 1000 Years » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:11 pm
by Geilinor » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:14 pm
by Earth in Roughly 1000 Years » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:19 pm
Geilinor wrote:Earth in Roughly 1000 Years wrote:I understand that this could very well be the case, I never denied it, I was asking for a source.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/antiabortion-company-hobby-lobby-invests-in-contraception-makers/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/investing/hobby-lobby-401k-contraception/
by Geilinor » Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:21 pm
Earth in Roughly 1000 Years wrote:
Though I don't agree with them, it doesn't seem opportunist or hypocritical.
by Earth in Roughly 1000 Years » Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:55 pm
by Jocabia » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:06 am
by Jocabia » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:07 am
by Earth in Roughly 1000 Years » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:11 am
by Greed and Death » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:33 am
by Greed and Death » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:34 am
Jocabia wrote:Earth in Roughly 1000 Years wrote:Can you please provide a source...
It's sourced several times in the thread, but it's also pretty well known that they had contraception coverage up until the law passed and then their lawyers informed them that they were complaining about being forced to provide something they already provide.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... l-coverag/
It's literally one of the things they admit in their complaint. This isn't obscure knowledge and should be known by anyone even kind of familiar with the case.
by Ashmoria » Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:08 am
United States of The One Percent wrote:Ashmoria wrote:
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...
by Ashmoria » Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:14 am
Geilinor wrote:Ashmoria wrote: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.
by Jocabia » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:17 am
by Jocabia » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:18 am
greed and death wrote:Jocabia wrote:It's sourced several times in the thread, but it's also pretty well known that they had contraception coverage up until the law passed and then their lawyers informed them that they were complaining about being forced to provide something they already provide.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... l-coverag/
It's literally one of the things they admit in their complaint. This isn't obscure knowledge and should be known by anyone even kind of familiar with the case.
They weren't there lawyers yet. The Becket fund was recruiting clients to bring a legal challenge against the mandate.
Once they realized this they objected.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Dogmeat, Dytase, Emotional Support Crocodile, Independent Galactic States, Paddy O Fernature, Tape, Zurkerx
Advertisement