Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

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.

Can you please provide a source...

[Geilinor]

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.

Can you please provide a source...

Their 401k plan invested in contraception companies and they didn't notice until the Affordable Care Act was passed.

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

Can you please provide a source...

Their 401k plan invested in contraception companies and they didn't notice until the Affordable Care Act was passed.

I understand that this could very well be the case, I never denied it, I was asking for a source.

[Geilinor]

Their 401k plan invested in contraception companies and they didn't notice until the Affordable Care Act was passed.

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/

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

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/

Though I don't agree with them, it doesn't seem opportunist or hypocritical.

[Geilinor]

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/

Though I don't agree with them, it doesn't seem opportunist or hypocritical.

They keep investing in something they claim to be violating their religious beliefs.

[Lalaki]

The only way to fix this is to provide a public insurance plan.

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

Though I don't agree with them, it doesn't seem opportunist or hypocritical.

They keep investing in something they claim to be violating their religious beliefs.

No, they are investing in something which is not bound by their religious beliefs.

[Jocabia]

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.

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.

[Jocabia]

They keep investing in something they claim to be violating their religious beliefs.

No, they are investing in something which is not bound by their religious beliefs.

Why is one form of compensation not bound by their religious beliefs while another is?

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

No, they are investing in something which is not bound by their religious beliefs.

Why is one form of compensation not bound by their religious beliefs while another is?

Can you site exactly to what you are referring?

[Greed and Death]

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.

Until 2 years after the law passed when a law firm representing Religious Freedom groups asked them if they would like to challenge the law.

[Greed and Death]

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.

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.

[Ashmoria]

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...

nope

if the same guys are on the court, those same guys have no problem tailoring their rulings so that the overriding principle is "does it hurt obamacare?" personal clawback of corporate money doesn't hurt obamacare.

if its not these same guys they will say "that's just stupid, I don't know what the other guys were talking about, corporations aren't that kind of people" and leave the rich guy's money alone.

[Ashmoria]

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.

of course it does.

but the court was uninterested in judging whether or not hobbylobby's sincere belief really was sincere.

BUT, in any case, one can have a sincere belief that providing insurance to employees that will cover all forms of birth control is sinful and at the same time sincerely believe that investing in companies that make those forms of birth control is NOT a sin. belief doesn't have to be logical.

[Jocabia]

Why is one form of compensation not bound by their religious beliefs while another is?

Can you site exactly to what you are referring?

Cite.

And are you not reading the thread. We are talking specifically about two forms of compensation for employees. One is their insurance and one is their 401K.

[Jocabia]

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.

Fair enough. It still shows that it wasn't a big enough concern for Hobby Lobby to even check it out until after someone told them that should correct that and then sue Obamacare for asking them to provide it.