Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:03 pmCan you please provide a source...
Can you please provide a source...
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year
Page 53 of 53
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:03 pmCan you please provide a source...
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:05 pmTheir 401k plan invested in contraception companies and they didn't notice until the Affordable Care Act was passed.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:11 pmPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:14 pmPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:19 pmGeilinor 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/
Though I don't agree with them, it doesn't seem opportunist or hypocritical.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:21 pmEarth in Roughly 1000 Years wrote:
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.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:29 pmThe only way to fix this is to provide a public insurance plan.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:55 pmPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:06 amIt'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.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:07 amWhy is one form of compensation not bound by their religious beliefs while another is?
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:11 amPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:33 amUntil 2 years after the law passed when a law firm representing Religious Freedom groups asked them if they would like to challenge the law.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:34 amJocabia 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.
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:08 amUnited 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...
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:14 amGeilinor 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.
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:17 amCite.
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.
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:18 amgreed 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.
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.