# 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:** 68
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1341 "2014-07-18T15:55:45Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > (bolding mine) > > No, they must pay for the possibility of contraceptive coverage. > > How is it that they do not want to pay for the possibility of contraceptive coverage, but they are okay with providing the possibility of contraceptive coverage through wages? > > It seems that their “morality” is somehow dependent on how far removed they are from the actual decision, but then, the employee deciding to use his wages for something they find objectionable is actually a closer relationship than the employee deciding to use insurance for contraceptive coverage. > > But then, logic doesn’t really come into it, because “faith” is a trump card thanks to the RFRA. Just a thought, would that same thing apply to a couple who don’t believe in a blood transfusion, their insurance covers that? ---
**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 18, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1342 "2014-07-18T15:58:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree that they “willfully” invested. They hired a company to manage their 401K. That company purchased various mutual funds, and each mutual fund manager purchased hundreds of companies’ shares. > > I don’t agree your analogy to a vow of chastity is meaningful. Such a vow represents a line in the sand, so to speak, that precludes sex, even a little bit. > > Hobby Lobby has drawn a line, to be sure, but their line doesn’t preclude their arms-length 401K investment decisions, made by two managers separation from them. OK, last time, and I’ll let the tangent go. I think it would have been comically easy for them to tell the investment manager(s), “invest only in funds that avoid products that we, as Christians, cannot morally support”. Those funds are out there, easily found, and takes a lot less involvement and energy than filing suit against the government. That you excuse their failure to do so I find disingenous in the extreme, and I doubt you would give the other side in a debate that much quarter. How about: it’s like claiming to be a pacifist to avoid going to war, and investing in Remington Arms Co.? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1343 "2014-07-18T16:10:07Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If insurance is part of their salary then that is paying for their own contraception, they are not forced to use it for contraception if the choose not to.I personally wil not shop at Hobby Lobby and give the money to Planned parenthood so the woman can have only the children she desires. How many people that support Hobby Lobby are happy to pay for children on welfare? They seem to be the one’s who complain about taxes and care very little for the child once in this world. (underline added) You can take care of as many children as you want to. You can pay for their contraception needs also. Or they can pay for their own. Either way, it’s still available to them. You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that Hobby Lobby, the Hobby Lobby ruling, or the RFRA forbids people from taking or administering contraception. People can still get up off their ass and go get their own. It’s just a guess on my part but I don’t believe Hobby Lobby will go broke because you won’t (have never?) shopped there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1344 "2014-07-18T16:19:29Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > OK, last time, and I’ll let the tangent go. I think it would have been comically easy for them to tell the investment manager(s), “invest only in funds that avoid products that we, as Christians, cannot morally support”. Those funds are out there, easily found, and takes a lot less involvement and energy than filing suit against the government. That you excuse their failure to do so I find disingenous in the extreme, and I doubt you would give the other side in a debate that much quarter. How about: it’s like claiming to be a pacifist to avoid going to war, and investing in Remington Arms Co.? Again, you say “investing” without distinguishing the difference between a pacifist who calls his broker and says, “Get me 10,000 shares of Remington when it drops below 6 7/8,” and a pacifist who works for a dogfood company and puts part of his salary into their 401(k) program, which has several funds that invest in, among many other things, Remington. I certainly wouldn’t give that second pacifist the slightest condemnation. ---
**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 18, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1345 "2014-07-18T16:28:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again, you say “investing” without distinguishing the difference between a pacifist who calls his broker and says, “Get me 10,000 shares of Remington when it drops below 6 7/8,” and a pacifist who works for a dogfood company and puts part of his salary into their 401(k) program, which has several funds that invest in, among many other things, Remington. > > I certainly wouldn’t give that second pacifist the slightest condemnation. Agreed. HL was in a position to direct, so would represent best the first example, not the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1346 "2014-07-18T16:36:44Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Agreed. HL was in a position to direct, so would represent best the first example, not the latter. I don’t agree that they were. Typically, a company reaches out to a 401(k) management organization, that typically offers its own mutual funds. It’s true that funds like Ave Maria exist, but that requires the company to manage its own 401K investments instead of hiring the expertise to do it. I’m not aware of any 401K management companies that offer the kind of limitation you’re speaking of here. Are you? ---
**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 18, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1347 "2014-07-18T17:06:24Z")
I have absolutely no doubt that HL has the resources to have this if they wanted it. It kills me you’re now arguing that they essentially had no choice. I guess we’ll just have to have different assumptions, since I assume neither of us has the requisite expertise to know the specifics of HR/fund management. I’m pretty sure those funds are not restricted to individual investors. I haven’t heard anyone make the case that this would have been insurmountably difficult for HL to arrange. ---
**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 18, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1348 "2014-07-18T17:47:08Z")
“Timothy Fund, how may I help you? Oh, hold for just a moment, please.” “Sir, sir, it’s Hobby Lobby’s Director of HR, and he says he wants us to manage all of their 401(k) plan!” “Hm, I don’t know how to do that. Tell him we’re sorry, he’ll have to go somewhere else. We have no idea how to help him make this happen.” Musingly: “Hmm, I sense a missed business opportunity here. If only we could find a way to make ourselves available to the \*institutional \*investor…we should have thought of that earlier!” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1349 "2014-07-18T18:15:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **elucidator’s Law** : Don’t be a dick about your shit. > > **elucidator’s Codicil** …thus leaving me free to be a dick about mine. Wpw, that must have been a better argument than I thought, **Bricker** was so upset, he didn’t even try for case law or semantic sabotage, he went straight for the ugly and stupid _ad hominem_! Thing is, I don’t have any religious fanaticism to inflict on anybody. I think we would all be better off if none of us did, or would pretend not to, at least to the extent of not crafting laws to make other people comply with our peculiar set of demands. Because this just flat out ain’t gonna work! Da fuq? We’re going to invest judges with the Solomonic power to determine _sincerity_? Well, OK, what are the objective, provable criteria for determining that? Didn’t hold out much hope for Scalia or Alito, but I thought at least \*Roberts \*was smarter than that! I got this crazy ass idea, based on mutual tolerance, respect and accommodation. OK, maybe we aren’t smart enough and good enough yet to make that work. But we can try. And because this sure as shit isn’t going to work. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1350 "2014-07-18T18:46:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Because this just flat out ain’t gonna work! Da fuq? We’re going to invest judges with the Solomonic power to determine _sincerity_? Well, OK, what are the objective, provable criteria for determining that? Didn’t hold out much hope for Scalia or Alito, but I thought at least \*Roberts \*was smarter than that! This is not the first (or the second, or the third) time you’ve raised this objection. I want you to focus on the following words especially carefully, so that either this becomes the last time, or your next instance of raising this objection at least recognizes the answer to it exists: _We already vest judges and juries with the Solomonic power to determine sincerity._ It’s not unusual, or weird, or rare. A jury, or a judge in a bench trial, is supposed to listen to conflicting testimony and determine which set of facts actually happened. They are supposed to determine the sincerity of the witnesses. A man accused of killing may raise the claim of self-defense, saying that he was genuinely in fear of his own life. The jury, or judge in a bench trial, has always had the task of listening to that testimony and evaluating the sincerity of the claimant. A man accused of signing someone else’s name to a mail receipt form in violation of federal law can’t be convicted unless he “knowingly and willfully” provided false information. Whether he did so is a question that the judge or jury must often determine by evaluating his sincerity. Almost every single crime includes a “mens rea” element – the state of mind of the actor. And therefore almost every criminal case will hinge on some measure of a determination of sincerity of a witness, or multiple witnesses. So, yes: da fuq. This is not anything new/ It has been a function of courts since approximately forever. You cannot credibly continue this pose of shock and surprise that now, suddenly, for the first time courts are going to - da fuq - ascertain the sincerity of litigants. This is nothing new. This is what courts have always done. If you didn’t know it before, now you do. So the next time you offer up this shock, at least add in some explanation of how you now realize this has been going on forever but it’s still shocking news to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1351 "2014-07-18T18:50:31Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > “Timothy Fund, how may I help you? Oh, hold for just a moment, please.” > “Sir, sir, it’s Hobby Lobby’s Director of HR, and he says he wants us to manage all of their 401(k) plan!” > “Hm, I don’t know how to do that. Tell him we’re sorry, he’ll have to go somewhere else. We have no idea how to help him make this happen.” > Musingly: “Hmm, I sense a missed business opportunity here. If only we could find a way to make ourselves available to the \*institutional \*investor…we should have thought of that earlier!” I just chatted with a Timothy Plan rep. She confirmed that the Timothy Plan is a mutual fund, not a 401K solution. If I want someone to manage my 401K plan, it can’t be Timothy Plan – they don’t do that. Do you contend otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1352 "2014-07-18T18:52:10Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > I have absolutely no doubt that HL has the resources to have this if they wanted it. It kills me you’re now arguing that they essentially had no choice. I guess we’ll just have to have different assumptions, since I assume neither of us has the requisite expertise to know the specifics of HR/fund management. I’m pretty sure those funds are not restricted to individual investors. I haven’t heard anyone make the case that this would have been insurmountably difficult for HL to arrange. Why should “insurmountable” be the standard? Why do you continue to assume that you, and not they, get to decide where to draw the “acceptable / unacceptable” line? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1353 "2014-07-18T19:12:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Don’t you _dare_ try to get away with wearing white! It’s my understanding that Canadian gay weddings are traditionally done in Mountie costumes. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > At least they won’t need contraception. Sir, I ask that you not besmirch the fecundity of my man-eggs! ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1354 "2014-07-18T19:21:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not even figuratively true. That’s it. Walk if off, nobody saw how crushingly you were shown to be a complete twat. Back to the topic, Hobby Lobby _screamed_, _figuratively_, because they are shrilly throwing a tantrum about how, _SOMETHING THEY GAVE SOMEONE IS BEING USED IN A WAY THEY DON’T LIKE!!111_ And instead of living as an adult and accepting that other people will do things they don’t like, they try to make doing those things harder. Because belief in Jesus stunts a person’s development and makes children of grown men. They pay people money that can be used for hookers, blow and contraception. They are already committing the sin that they’re blubbering about like snot-nosed brats. Just because in their hysteria they say they’re being oppressed, don’t make it so. Anywho, child, keep on fuckin’ that chicken. \<3 ---
**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 18, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1355 "2014-07-18T19:29:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I just chatted with a Timothy Plan rep. She confirmed that the Timothy Plan is a mutual fund, not a 401K solution. If I want someone to manage my 401K plan, it can’t be Timothy Plan – they don’t do that. > > Do you contend otherwise? Did you ask the next question: can you point to a manager who utilizes your funds? I mean, how obtuse would you have to be. Managers, somewhere, are offering this fund. I’m pretty sure you could find the info if you wanted to, instead you proved that the Timothy plan are not fund managers (and then ceased further inquiries). BFD. Really grasping, if you’re trying to make the argument, “it would have been\* too difficult \*for HL to find someone to manage this fund for us”. C’mon, argue in good faith and just concede the point, eh? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1356 "2014-07-18T19:42:13Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s my understanding that Canadian gay weddings are traditionally done in Mountie costumes. … Traditionally, yes, but they are very tolerant, if he’s a lumberjack, that’s OK. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1357 "2014-07-18T19:49:26Z")
Googled “christian mutual funds”, quite a few. Not that it ever was a valid point, but its still wrong. Including: > [@](#): > > …Ave Maria Catholic Values Fund (AVEMX) > > The “values” in the name of this fund is a play on words, according to its president, George Schwartz… [http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-03-27/funds-for-christian-investors](http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-03-27/funds-for-christian-investors) Now, there, I draw the line! I am not investing in any financial group that deals in puns! By God, sir, there has to be a limit! ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1358 "2014-07-18T19:52:54Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Traditionally, yes, but they are very tolerant, if he’s a lumberjack, that’s OK. I think buttered scones would be a good choice for the reception… ---
**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 18, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1359 "2014-07-18T19:53:03Z")
Hey, **Bricker** , _Fidelity_ offers Timothy funds. See?: > **[Amazon.com: MPERO Flex S Series Protective Case for LG G2...](https://www.amazon.com/Case-MPERO-FLEX-Protective-LS980/dp/B00GYORKCM)** > > Buy MPERO Flex S Series Protective Case for LG G2 D800/D801/D802/D803/LS980 - Mint: Basic Cases - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases Not so hard, was it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1360 "2014-07-18T20:24:10Z")
Point of interest: from\* Politfact\* (for who’s veracity your correspondent does not testify…if you can prove they are lying, no foreskin off my nose…) \*\*“Hobby Lobby provided this (birth control) coverage before they decided to drop it to file suit.” \*\* > [@](#): > > …“Hobby Lobby provided this coverage before they decided to drop it to file suit, which was politically motivated,” she said. > > We can’t determine if politics motivated the company, but we did wonder whether Hobby Lobby covered the types of birth control at issue in its lawsuit but dropped the coverage before filing its complaint. > > The short answer: Yes. > > The Green family, which founded Hobby Lobby in Oklahoma City in 1972, said as much in its original complaint. > > The Greens re-examined the company’s health insurance policy back in 2012, shortly before filing the lawsuit. A Wall Street Journal story says they looked into their plan \*after being approached by an attorney from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty \*about possible legal action over the federal government’s contraceptives requirement… > **[Did Hobby Lobby once provide the birth control coverage it sued the Obama...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/)** > > Hobby Lobby’s Supreme Court victory over the federal government’s contraception rule set off a fast-breaking wave of pun (emphasis mine) Two interesting points, assuming the accuracy. Number one, they were unaware of the coverage that their employee plan offered. _Numero two-o_, it wasn’t even originally their idea, the Beckett Fund contacted _them_, not the other way 'round. (So, does this mean the Beckett Fund picked up the tab, legal fee wise, or worked _pro sonny bono_?) Disclaimer: your correspondent does not intend to belittle the Beckett Fund, which has done some very worthy work. However, there are some worrisome signs that they are tilting towards enlisting in the Culture Wars. > [@](#): > > …Although its supporters were always conservative, right-wing activists began to fill Becket’s coffers just as the contraception-mandate litigation took off. The group’s contributions and grants rose by more than 60 percent in the year after the Belmont Abbey suit was filed. In 2012, the Becket Fund received almost a quarter of a million dollars from DonorsTrust, a shadowy middleman used to funnel money from benefactors like Charles and David Koch to conservative think tanks and advocacy groups. (The Becket Fund declined repeated requests for comment about its work and funding.)… > **[The Little-Known Force Behind the Hobby Lobby Contraception Case](https://prospect.org/notebook/little-known-force-behind-hobby-lobby-contraception-case/)** > > How the Becket Fund became the leading advocate for corporations’ religious rights (I’m thinking that the conservative benefactors, including the loathsome Koch Brothers, are looking for ways to throw a wrench into the works of the ACA. I have no actual information about the religious views of the Kochs, but am prepared to assume that they worship at the Mammonite Church of the Dollar Almighty…) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=67) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=69)