# 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:** 65
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1281 "2014-07-17T17:13:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I asked if you wished it would happen, though. Okay… no, I don’t wish for Democrats to do what you describe. > [@](#): > > And can I take a moment to compliment you on attacking a real aspect of this decision? It’s undeniably true that this decision rests on a legally codified privileged position for religion. If Hobby Lobby had said, “We have a philosophical, non-religious objection to these types of contraceptives,” their claim would have failed in court. The RFRA granted them a right to complain via religion that simply doesn’t extend to non-religious grounds, and so when you complain about religion producing this result, you are absolutely correct. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1282 "2014-07-17T17:22:50Z")
I still find it amusingly ironic that it was pointed out that HL invested in the same companies that manufacture the contraceptives that give them such conniptions if covered by the insurance. Yeah, I know. Couldn’t possibly be expected to micromanage their _investments_ with that level of scrutiny…:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1283 "2014-07-17T17:30:29Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > I still find it amusingly ironic that it was pointed out that HL invested in the same companies that manufacture the contraceptives that give them such conniptions if covered by the insurance. > Yeah, I know. Couldn’t possibly be expected to micromanage their _investments_ with that level of scrutiny…:dubious: We’ve been discussing the concept of how far removed you are from the objectionable conduct: > [@Bone](#): > > If you’re morally opposed to diamond mining in Africa, you may avoid purchasing mined diamonds. Would your morality be intact if you purchased other goods from a store that sold mined diamonds? What if you lived in a city that provided tax credits to the store that sold mined diamonds? What if your taxes helped the infrastructure necessary for that store to operate? With that in mind, can you explain specifically how Hobby Lobby “invested” in these companies? ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1284 "2014-07-17T18:10:20Z")
Sure thing, Bricker, although I’m shocked you are not already aware of it. The 401(K) investment funds HL offered totheir employees were heavily invested in pharm that produce the same products they can’t have covered in the medical insurance they offer their employees. HL matchs investments by their employees, as do most employers. > **[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... Did you really not know this? And yes, there are niche funds available that avoid investing in ‘morally objectionable’ companies which HL could have offered instead… ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1285 "2014-07-17T18:22:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > With that in mind, can you explain specifically how Hobby Lobby “invested” in these companies? I can’t. I don’t think they did invest in any meaningful way. Just like living in a city that collects taxes to provide infrastructure that assists the store that sells mined diamonds. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1286 "2014-07-17T18:49:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I can’t. I don’t think they did invest in any meaningful way. Just like living in a city that collects taxes to provide infrastructure that assists the store that sells mined diamonds. My apologies – although I did quote you, I did so only to illustrate the prior discussion, and thought your examples did an excellent job of illustrating the principle of attentuation between the prohibited end and the conduct that supposedly entangles it. I meant to say, in other words, “Look, Truman – see what we’ve been discussing, as Bone’s comment shows. Can you, Truman, explain the nature of the investment?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1287 "2014-07-17T18:52:53Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Sure thing, Bricker, although I’m shocked you are not already aware of it. The 401(K) investment funds HL offered totheir employees were heavily invested in pharm that produce the same products they can’t have covered in the medical insurance they offer their employees. HL matchs investments by their employees, as do most employers. > [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/) > > Did you really not know this? And yes, there are niche funds available that avoid investing in ‘morally objectionable’ companies which HL could have offered instead… I don’t see anything in that article that supports the “heavily” invested. I do see the following claim, which is carefully phrased to suggest a heavy investment: > [@](#): > > When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets. Is that what made you think their investments were “heavy” in those companies? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1288 "2014-07-17T19:06:33Z")
So let’s say each fund has a 1% investment in the allegedly objectionable companies, and they collectively make up 75% of HL’s 401(k) assets. So, indirectly, HL is 7.5% invested. I don’t know if that counts as “heavily”, but I’d be content with calling it “significant” or at least “not insignificant”… if HL being hypocritical mattered long after their stupidity was already established. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1289 "2014-07-17T19:15:01Z")
And the importance of “heavily” would be what, exactly? Would it be useful in determining whether or not religious objections were “sincere”? Seems rather simple and to the point, that if someone has “sincere” religious objections to the use of contraceptives then they should have equally “sincere” objections to their manufacture, or to profiting by such manufacture, or investing in such manufacture. Would Hobby Lobby withdraw its objections to its employees using such forms of contraception so long as they did not use them “heavily”? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1290 "2014-07-17T19:17:59Z")
HL has not objected to its employees using such forms of contraception. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1291 "2014-07-17T19:30:45Z")
They regard such methods as immoral, they refuse to pay for insurance that covers them. For my purposes, the word “objects” will do nicely. If you have another you would like to substitute for it, I am open to the suggestion. I am of the opinion that **Bricker** esque semantic pettifoggery is beneath you, I will keep that opinion unless you insist otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1292 "2014-07-17T19:38:49Z")
I haven’t actually debunked these claims with numbers, before. But let’s take some examples. The Forbes articles, which in turn draws heavily on the Mother Jones article, is written carefully. By that I mean it makes no untrue statements, but conveys a very misleading impression: > [@](#): > > 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). > . > . > . > These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis , which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer , the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer , which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca , 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 and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell. And then: > [@](#): > > When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets. So… Hobby Lobby has $73 million in their 401(k) fund, and three-quarters of it are in these companies! Certainly that’s what people have taken away from these articles. And I believe the articles were deliberately written to suggest that conclusion. But it’s not true. Yes, Hobby Lobby has $73 million in their 401(k) fund. That 401(k) fund consists of [the following mutual funds:](http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1099360-savings-incentive-and-profit-sharing-plan-for.html) > [@](#): > > The American Funds Group American Balanced Fund (roughly 20% of the 401K’s assets) > The American Funds Group The Investment Company of America (roughly 16% of the 401K’s assets) > The American Funds Group New Perspective Fund (roughly 16% of the 401K’s assets) > The American Funds Group Money Market Fund (roughly 12.5% of the 401K’s assets) > The American Funds Group SmallCap World Fund (roughly 12% of the 401K’s assets) > The American Funds Group Intermediate Bond Fund of America (less than 5% of the 401K’s assets) > The American Funds Group Capital Income Builder Fund (less than 5% of the 401K’s assets) Now, let’s look at the American Balanced Fund, which is itself less than 20% of the total 401K balance. They do indeed invest in [Pfzier](https://www.americanfunds.com/pdf/mfgearx-011_ambala.pdf) (PDF at link), but only 73% of the fund is in stocks at all. So even if the entire fund were in Pfzier, it would only be 20% of the 401K balance, and 73% of that. But of course the fund doesn’t only invest in Pfzier. In fact, it also invests in Wells Fargo & Co. – 2.70% of the fund is in Wells Fargo stock. 2.08% is in American Express Co.; 1.63% in Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Class A1 stock; 1.05 in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; and so on. Fully 14% of this mutual fund is in financial companies, not drug companies. What else? Almost 12% is in “consumer discretionary” companies like [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) (3.19%) and Home Depot (2.97%) as examples. Over 11% of the fund is in “industrials” – Boeing (2.7%), Lockheed Martin (1.34%) and Union Pacific (1.37%) are the examples I’ll pick to show here. 8.6% of the fund is invested in Information Tech: Microsoft (2.77%) and Texas Instruments (1.77%) being the examples of this category. 7% of the fund is in “consumer staples” companies like Costco and Nestle. Nearly 6% is in energy, invested in many companies like Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell. So how much of this fund is even devoted to companies that do health care? 7.62% of the fund is invested in “health.” This includes companies like Johnson and Johnson, and Gilead Sciences. And, yes – Pfzier, which makes Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are abortion-inducing drugs. But what percentage of Hobby Lobby’s $73 million is in Pfzier? Pfzier is one of hundreds of companies whose shares are bought by the American Balanced Fund, and less than one percent of the holdings of the American Balanced Fund, which is itself less than 20% of the total 401K balance. And that’s the biggest single fund in the 401K portfolio. Is that the same impression you got from reading the Forbes article? ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1293 "2014-07-17T19:48:15Z")
Talk about splitting hairs. If they have religious objections to use of these products, why were they investing in them (quibbling over the precise percentages is very besides the point), when they had readily available alternatives that did not invest in pharma at all? It wasn’t important to them to offer those investment options. And do you concede the point that HL was, in fact, \*investing in these companies \*? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1294 "2014-07-17T19:52:12Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And the importance of “heavily” would be what, exactly? Would it be useful in determining whether or not religious objections were “sincere”? Seems rather simple and to the point, that if someone has “sincere” religious objections to the use of contraceptives then they should have equally “sincere” objections to their manufacture, or to profiting by such manufacture, or investing in such manufacture. Yes: “heavily” would be of value in questioning their sincerity. And of course, that avenue is now closed; the trial court found that Hobby Lobby was sincere. That can’t be relitigated. But it’s not so simple and to the point. Eddie Thomas could explain this to you. Eddie quit his job at Blaw-Knox Foundry & Machinery Co. after the company it transferred all of its operations to weapons manufacturing – he was tasked with making tank turrets. He had first asked for a transfer to something not related to weapons, but the company refused. He asked them to lay him off so he could get unemployment benefits, but they refused. So he quit, and then applied for unemployment benefits anyway, saying that he was being forced to work in violation of his religious convictions. He was a Jehovah’s Witness. When the unemployment board interviewed him, they asked him if he’d be willing to work at a raw material supplier or of a roll foundry, even though those materials would be then used to make tank turrets. He said that he had no problem making the raw materials, even knowing they’d be used for weapons. He just couldn’t directly make the weapons without violating his religious beliefs. The lower courts found against him – they decided that his personal line made no sense; if he were willing to make and roll steel that would be used for tanks, they reasoned, he couldn’t claim to be upset by actually making tanks. But the Supreme Court disagreed, by an 8-1 margin. They held: > [@](#): > > The court found this position inconsistent with Thomas’ stated opposition to participation in the production of armaments. But Thomas’ statements reveal no more than that he found work in the roll foundry sufficiently insulated from producing weapons of war. **We see, therefore, that Thomas drew a line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.** Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs because the believer admits that he is “struggling” with his position or because his beliefs are not articulated with the clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might employ. That’s the rule. It applies to Eddie Thomas. And it applies here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1295 "2014-07-17T19:58:08Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Talk about splitting hairs. If they have religious objections to use of these products, why were they investing in them (quibbling over the precise percentages is very besides the point), when they had readily available alternatives that did not invest in pharma at all? It wasn’t important to them to offer those investment options. > And do you concede the point that HL was, in fact, \*investing in these companies \*? Certainly not heavily, and certainly not directly. They invested in a 401K management company. That company bought funds. Those fund included hundreds of companies, and a few of those hundreds of companies make (among the hundreds of products they make) certain products that Hobby Lobby finds sinful. So, yes: they “invest” in those companies. But at such a tiny level, and more importantly at such a remove from any kind of a directed decision, that it’s not the kind of “investment” that triggers concern. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1296 "2014-07-17T20:01:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes: “heavily” would be of value in questioning their sincerity. And of course, that avenue is now closed; the trial court found that Hobby Lobby was sincere. That can’t be relitigated. > > But it’s not so simple and to the point… > > That’s the rule. > > It applies to Eddie Thomas. And it applies here. Oh, goody! Not only will the courts have to decide whether or not a religious objection qualifies as “sincere”, they will have to quantify precisely what level of hypocrisy is permissible to retain that all important “sincere” qualification! Transfusions? Vaccinations? Psychiatric medicines? Ms. Ginsberg’s dire warnings still look silly to you now? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1297 "2014-07-17T20:03:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Certainly not heavily, and certainly not directly. They invested in a 401K management company. That company bought funds. Those fund included hundreds of companies, and a few of those hundreds of companies make (among the hundreds of products they make) certain products that Hobby Lobby finds sinful. > > So, yes: they “invest” in those companies. But at such a tiny level, and more importantly at such a remove from any kind of a directed decision, that it’s not the kind of “investment” that triggers concern. But they say its “baby-killing”. How much “baby-killing” is permissible to retain one’s religious sincerity? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1298 "2014-07-17T20:09:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, goody! Not only will the courts have to decide whether or not a religious objection qualifies as “sincere”, they will have to quantify precisely what level of hypocrisy is permissible to retain that all important “sincere” qualification! > > Transfusions? Vaccinations? Psychiatric medicines? Ms. Ginsberg’s dire warnings still look silly to you now? I never said those predictions were silly. I said, and still say, that the plain text of the law requires the accommodation Hobby Lobby got, and acknowledge a future plaintiff might get a more expansive accommodation, including things like psychiatric medicines. Sure. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1299 "2014-07-17T20:14:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But they say its “baby-killing”. How much “baby-killing” is permissible to retain one’s religious sincerity? I wouldn’t work for an abortion doctor. But I’d belong to an electrical co-op that the doctor also belonged to. So if your question is intended to suggest that no person can sincerely oppose the “baby killing” aspect of abortion without becoming a hermit, obviously I disagree. The answer Hobby Lobby draws seems very reasonable to me. They don’t invest in the companies. They hire a 401K manager. That manager doesn’t invest in the companies – he buys a selection of mutual funds. Those funds are managed by people Hobby Lobby has no control over. And they buy hundreds of companies’ shares for their fund. That level of dilution seems very reasonable, especially since good old Thomas got his unemployment benefits even though he stated he was willing to work in the roll foundry but not the tank manufacturing factory. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1300 "2014-07-17T20:15:45Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Talk about splitting hairs. If they have religious objections to use of these products, why were they investing in them (quibbling over the precise percentages is very besides the point), when they had readily available alternatives that did not invest in pharma at all? It wasn’t important to them to offer those investment options. > And do you concede the point that HL was, in fact, \*investing in these companies \*? I have conceded that Hobby Lobby so invested. Do you concede that their investment is not fairly called “heavy?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=64) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=66)