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).
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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?
