# I Pit HOBBY LOBBY **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 28, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335 "2012-11-28T02:45:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 44
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/861 "2014-07-02T20:31:18Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > My wife is not nearly as politically motivated as I am, but it will be a cold, cold day in Hell before she buys so much as a button from Hobby Lobby. And she did shop there now and again. Good! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/862 "2014-07-02T20:32:09Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > This is not accurate, and since is the Pit I’ll go ahead and say you know it and are deliberately trying to deceive people into thinking that the Pentagon Papers case invoked the same clause of the law that Hobby Lobby successfully exploited. > > [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) > [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States) > That case was decided in favor of the NYT because the press is explicitly given 1st Amendment rights, not because the NYT was a corporation and thus, under the Dictionary Act, a person deserving 1st Amendment rights. > > What an utterly craven, immoral thing you did there: lying under the guise of authority in order to further your own political agenda. I thought you thought you were better than that, **Bricker**. [I’m not sure why I thought that, given your past](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13662004), but there it is. Oh good grief. I never implied any such thing. We were discussion whether corporations have free speech rights; I questioned why the New York Times gets those rights. “Press” is not synonymous with “corporation,” you dolt. Nothing you said above answers my question. The case was decided in favor of the NYT because the press is explicitly given First Amendment rights, yes – but surely that just means a guy with a press, a natural person – not a corporation? I’m challenging you to explain why the New York Times, a corporation, gets “freedom of the press,” when the “press” isn’t a corporation, it’s a machine, or an activity. What allows the corporate form to take advantage of “freedom of the press?” The Pentagon Papers vastly predates the enactment of the RFRA. Nobody except a brain-dead goof would believe I was saying the Pentagon Papers hinged on the RFRA (or the Dictionary Act, for that matter). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/863 "2014-07-02T20:36:56Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > And you’re correct… other than the additional fact that Hobby Lobby has in the past invested in the very birth control companies it “has issues” with now. Did they invest by buying shares of those companies? Or did they invest by setting up a 401K plan, whose purchasing decisions they cannot control, and did that 401K plan then invest in a dozen different mutual funds? And did those dozen mutual funds then in turn, also outside of Hobby Lobby’s control, purchase thousands of different companies’ shares? And among those thousands of companies, is that where you mean they “invested?” Let’s put it another way: what words would you say best characterize their “investment?” Substantial? Small? Miniscule? A tiny fraction of their total 401K holdings? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/864 "2014-07-02T20:38:13Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > This is not accurate, and since is the Pit I’ll go ahead and say you know it and are deliberately trying to deceive people into thinking that the Pentagon Papers case invoked the same clause of the law that Hobby Lobby successfully exploited. > > [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) > [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States) > That case was decided in favor of the NYT because the press is explicitly given 1st Amendment rights, not because the NYT was a corporation and thus, under the Dictionary Act, a person deserving 1st Amendment rights. > > What an utterly craven, immoral thing you did there: lying under the guise of authority in order to further your own political agenda. I thought you thought you were better than that, **Bricker**. [I’m not sure why I thought that, given your past](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13662004), but there it is. And where’s Richard Parker to address this kind of dumb-fuckedness? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/865 "2014-07-02T20:38:22Z")
I’m just wating for the next round and the lawsuits and all the messy stuff. “Suddently and Conveniently Religious” types haveing moral problems with hirng or retaining suspected gays “Suddently and Conveniently Religious” Muslims firing eaters of pork “Suddently and Conveniently Religious” Jews firning Christians “Suddently and Conveniently Religious” Christians firning Jews **"Suddently and Conveniently Religious" Christian Scientists refusing ALL access to ANY health care** I understand the "gay thing"is already cropping up in the news. The slippery slpe has arrived. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/866 "2014-07-02T20:40:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did they invest by buying shares of those companies? > > Or did they invest by setting up a 401K plan, whose purchasing decisions they cannot control, and did that 401K plan then invest in a dozen different mutual funds? And did those dozen mutual funds then in turn, also outside of Hobby Lobby’s control, purchase thousands of different companies’ shares? And among those thousands of companies, is that where you mean they “invested?” > > Let’s put it another way: what words would you say best characterize their “investment?” Substantial? Small? Miniscule? A tiny fraction of their total 401K holdings? I’ll have to check, I don’t have the “small miniscule” details (you got me). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/867 "2014-07-02T20:44:38Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I’ll have to check, I don’t have the “small miniscule” details (you got me). OK. But while you’re checking, can you answer a more basic question: Are you talking about “investments” made through the companies’ 401K various mutual funds, or something more substantial? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/868 "2014-07-02T20:59:59Z")
Here’s the “stuff”, as provided in Forbes… > **[Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/)** > > In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related... > [@](#): > > Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection > > In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related products. > Hobby Lobby is currently seeking relief from certain contraception benefit requirements of Obamacare in a United States Supreme Court case that promises to be a landmark decision on the rights of corporations and the extension of personal religious protections to corporate entities. In the case of the Hobby Lobby corporation, the company is closely held by the Green family who purport to have strong religious objections to certain types of contraceptive devices and are suing to protect those religious rights. > Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan. > As I suspect many readers will find this as hard to believe and digest as I, the data can be confirmed by reviewing the company’s 2012 Annual Report of Employee Benefit Plan as filed with the Department of Labor. > This according to Mother Jones’ Molly Redden: > Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). > Redden additionally notes that, in a brief submitted to the Court in support of Hobby Lobby’s position in the case, the company specifically names contraceptive products such as Plan B, Ella, and IUDs as violating their religious beliefs because they work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. > … the owners of Hobby Lobby do not appear to have any problem with profiting from the companies that manufacture the very products that so grievously offend their religious principles. > The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by Ms. Redden’s remarkable reporting: > These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT -1.03%, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE +0.96%, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN +2.02%, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET +1.05% and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell. > When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets. Make of it what you will. I’m not sure what to make of it… To be honest and trying to be fair, I sure as hell don’t know what my OWN retirement plan is investing in. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/869 "2014-07-02T21:20:54Z")
I’m suddently firning all over. Hope it’s covered. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/870 "2014-07-02T21:30:29Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Here’s the “stuff”, as provided in Forbes… > > [Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection](http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/) > > Make of it what you will. I’m not sure what to make of it… To be honest and trying to be fair, I sure as hell don’t know what my OWN retirement plan is investing in. exactly, most people don’t, they leave stuff like that to the brokers and such! it’s kind of like pink slime, everyone ate the heck out of it till someone decided to say it was crap, now you still eat it but it has a different name, you’d stop, if you knew the new name! ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/871 "2014-07-02T21:35:16Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > exactly, most people don’t, they leave stuff like that to the brokers and such! it’s kind of like pink slime, everyone ate the heck out of it till someone decided to say it was crap, now you still eat it but it has a different name, you’d stop, if you knew the new name! Yeah, it’s like sausage making. They taste good but you prolly DON’T want to know how it’s really made 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/872 "2014-07-02T21:55:13Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Make of it what you will. I’m not sure what to make of it… To be honest and trying to be fair, I sure as hell don’t know what my OWN retirement plan is investing in. When you start to claim that the law doesn’t have to apply to you because of your religious beliefs, then I would start to worry about it. When you make a tenuous claim about paying someone else to provide something makes you sin, despite the fact you’re OK with paying a person to provide the exact same thing themselves, then you should worry. When you claim that your religion is so fucking important to you that even providing money to a third party that might, maybe just maybe, be used to sin, you better make damn sure you’re not doing the exact same thing with your own money. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/873 "2014-07-02T22:21:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And where’s Richard Parker to address this kind of dumb-fuckedness? Do I get to call you to task for not addressing any dumb-fuckedness in threads you’ve posted in? Because I’m pretty sure I can search for threads involving you and, let’s say, **Der Trihs** , and find something. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/874 "2014-07-02T22:45:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I asked a similar question in another thread, but I’m curious: do readers of this dialog understand the difference between **Richard Parker** ’s cogent attacks on the precise weakest part of my argument, and **Shayna** ’s incoherent babble? Do people realize that I am having trouble completely refuting what RP says, and easily refuting what Shayna says? > > Or does it all seem like the same thing is going on? They say something, I say something, and the person that’s doing well is the person whose position you agree with? Listen up, you despicable scum, this is about Hobby Lobby and their particular position on this issue, which I find reprehensible, hypocritical and worthy of disdain. And because this Court saw fit to even _entertain_ this bullshit, I call bullshit on the entire ruling, whether you agree with Ginsburg’s argument that the majority _misinterpreted the clear text_ of the RFRA or not. Her argument is sound. They had to go _outside_ the law and “scrap or alter, the balancing test” to make this ruling based on their _politics_. Corporations do not _have_ religious beliefs even if the majority stockholders do. They simply do not. Can’t. Physically impossible. Mentally impossible. Period. And especially since the owners of Hobby Lobby don’t _really_ give a good goddamn fuck whether they’re financing abortifacients or not, they were liars to have brought this case before the Court in the first place. Feel free not to like the fact that I spit in your general direction; I don’t give a shit. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/875 "2014-07-02T22:52:26Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > A fallacy, at best, if we look at federal law. > > Suppose a company, say Hoppy Loppy - fine purveyors of gardening equipment used to harvest hops for the beer industry - decides to not pay its employees the wages which are due. The employee goes to court, sues and, and wins a judgment. The employee uses legal means to enforce that judgement. The employee is entitled to those wages. > > Suppose another company, say Lorry Holly - fine purveyors of Christmas decorations for semi trucks - decides to drop its health insurance for all employees. Absent a contract to the contrary an employee is just plain out of luck. They cannot compel the payment of insurance. Sure, the employee could sue but there is no chance of winning. Sure the company may now be required to pay [del]tax penalties[/del] a shared responsibility payment but those [del]penalties[/del] payments go to the federal government, not the employee. > Many retirees have found out that absent a specific promise, their former company can legally eliminate their retiree health benefits. And it is[totally legal](http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/retiree_health_benefits.html)under federal law. But surely that employee worked for and earned those benefits! Well, he is not legally entitled to them _absent a specific promise to the contrary_. All completely irrelevant to the question of “who pays?” It doesn’t matter that those earnings, which you concede are, in fact, earned, are not subject to collection in a court of law or can be absorbed back by the corporation per the employment contract and the law. They’re still _earned by the employee_ and therefore “paid for” by virtue of their earning them. Hobby Lobby will not write a check to Aetna on my behalf if I don’t work for them. They will only write that check if I’ve _earned_ that check. That makes _me_ the payer and not them. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/876 "2014-07-02T23:02:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did they invest by buying shares of those companies? > > Or did they invest by setting up a 401K plan, whose purchasing decisions they cannot control … also outside of Hobby Lobby’s control, purchase thousands of different companies’ shares? Fat. Fucking. Lie. I already showed you where they had every opportunity to direct their fund manager to specifically exclude investing their money in religiously offensive products. Again, since you’re reading impaired: > [@](#): > > Not only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees,\*\* it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products\*\*. > > ``` > To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography— **religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.** > > ``` So you’re wrong again. There’s a big surprise. > [@Bricker](#): > > Let’s put it another way: what words would you say best characterize their “investment?” Substantial? Small? Miniscule? A tiny fraction of their total 401K holdings? Seventy-five fucking percent, which I characterize as _substantial_. But again, I already showed that to you. > [@](#): > > When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets. But that’s just a straw man anyway. These supergodly people claim they don’t want to “pay for” these medical devices and drugs _on principle_, so even a fucking _penny_ would make them hypocrites. “Today I only paid for a hundredth of an abortion, so it’s OK with my G-d.” > **[Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/)** > > In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related... ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/877 "2014-07-02T23:25:17Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Here’s the “stuff”, as provided in Forbes… > > [Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection](http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/) > > Make of it what you will. I’m not sure what to make of it… To be honest and trying to be fair, I sure as hell don’t know what my OWN retirement plan is investing in. See, though, here’s the problem. Look at that last sentence: When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets. How much of those funds actually invest in those companies? See, a mutual fund invests in many hundreds, or thousands, of companies. You have given the total value of all the holding in each fund that has a problematic investment. That doesn’t say how much money they have in these companies. See? ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/878 "2014-07-02T23:35:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > See, though, here’s the problem. Look at that last sentence: When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets. > > How much of those funds actually invest in those companies? > > See, a mutual fund invests in many hundreds, or thousands, of companies. You have given the total value of all the holding in each fund that has a problematic investment. That doesn’t say how much money they have in these companies. See? And how much of the money they are paying to insurance companies is going to birth control methods they don’t like? Probably a similar ridiculously small amount. And yet they literally made a federal case about it. When you find the answer to my question, I will endeavor to figure out how much of their retirement fund is invested in baby stoppers. Until then, your arguement sucks. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/879 "2014-07-02T23:36:34Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Fat. Fucking. Lie. > > I already showed you where they had every opportunity to direct their fund manager to specifically exclude investing their money in religiously offensive products. Again, since you’re reading impaired: So you’re wrong again. There’s a big surprise. Seventy-five fucking percent, which I characterize as _substantial_. But again, I already showed that to you. But that’s just a straw man anyway. These supergodly people claim they don’t want to “pay for” these medical devices and drugs _on principle_, so even a fucking _penny_ would make them hypocrites. > > “Today I only paid for a hundredth of an abortion, so it’s OK with my G-d.” > > [Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection](http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/) Same objection. Seventy-five percent of the total fund value is not the same as seventy-five percent of their money being invested in those companies. Surely you can comprehend this? Now, let’s consider your “even a penny” argument. A penny is one one-hundredth of a dollar. But a Jew who keeps kosher may still allow, in some cases, a tiny portion of non-Kosher adulteration…as long as the percentage is less than one-sixtieth, the contamination can be _ma’tir mishum bi’tul_, nullified by dilution to less than 1/60. (I am well aware of the exceptions to this rule). Are people who rely on this rule also hypocrites? Of course not. They have a rule that allows them to accept a small imperfection. Why isn’t the Hobby Lobby investment similar to _Ba’tul bishishim_? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/880 "2014-07-02T23:39:26Z")
> [@WreckingCrew](#): > > And how much of the money they are paying to insurance companies is going to birth control methods they don’t like? Probably a similar ridiculously small amount. And yet they literally made a federal case about it. > > When you find the answer to my question, I will endeavor to figure out how much of their retirement fund is invested in baby stoppers. Until then, your arguement sucks. Who gets to decide if their rule makes sense for them? You? Perhaps the mutual fund is less money, and more acceptable because it’s at more removes – they pay the insurance, as opposed to paying a company who buys mutual funds which in turn buy stocks of thousands of companies. So perhaps they have decided that this is where they are comfortable drawing the line. Isn’t it their decision, and not yours? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=45)