They don’t agree.
And they get to decide, not you.
No.
Stop with your lameass gotcha-style crap. 1.) If it’s a rule and allowable without being a sin then there’s naturally no hypocrisy there, you dumbshit. 2.) Are Jews suing the U.S. government so they can discriminate against other Jews who don’t keep kosher to their standards? No. So there’s nothing similar about your absurd example.
There is no amount of money that can be paid toward the manufacture of abortion drugs that will give the Greens clean hands. They’re filthy with the stench of paying for abortions for years now.
I notice you didn’t bother to acknowledge that they had not only very clear options available to them to avoid investing in abortions, but that they have an obligation to know where their investments are going, especially if they’re going to cost me, the taxpayer, money to defend against their lying, hypocritical claim that they don’t want to “pay for” abortion drugs.
No, but I do get to decide if I am going to call them out on their hypocrisy. And if they are willing to spend the time and effort to go to the Supreme Court because this issue is so important to them, then Hobby Lobby should take the time and effort to make sure that they are not supporting those same companies with their investments. Otherwise, prove to me that they are not just using claimed beliefs as a way to cut their insurance costs?
Bricker, what would your reaction be if you found out your personal priest’s retirement fund included investments in Abortions R Us? Would you shrug, and say "gosh that is kinda awkward, but that is how big business goes?
The courts get to decide the sincerity of their belief. The rest of us can decide that the evidence clearly shows that the owners of Hobby Lobby are hypocritical bastards who, for political more than religious reasons, spent millions of dollars to fight the ACA. We can also imagine all the immoral things that those lawyers that Hobby Lobby gave millions of dollars to, and how odd it is that those things don’t bother the owners as much as providing complete health insurance for their female workers is
Although: if there’s ever a thread in which I am agreeing with DerTrihs, then yes, by all means you can call me to task for failing to identify his …er…errors.
Yes. And what was that finding of fact from the trial court?
You guys imagine a lot of stuff. And I love how “the rest of you” can’t do anything unless you’re in a herd. Shouldn’t you wait until Mother Jones or the NYT editorial page tells you what to think before expressing an opinion?
That their belief was sincere. The court, however, didn’t find that their belief was consistent with their own actions, reasonable, rational, not hypocritical, not politically motivated, or sane.
This is the same view I expressed TO YOU months back in the Hobby Lobby thread. Swing and a miss Bricker. Again.
Prove to you?
You don’t seem disposed to give the question a fair shake. How about they prove to a court?
Because that question was at issue at the trial court, and the trial court found they were sincere. The government didn’t even contest that element.
A lot would depend on how much was there and how much of a hand he had in selecting it.
I have no damn clue what companies are in my 401K. For all I know I own shares of the New York Times. Or Abortions R Us.
But I know it’s a tiny fraction of my 401K value, and I know that I had nothing to do with selecting it.
You told me I should take guidance from Mother Jones?
Where is this “obligation” found? In your otherwise empty head?
The money spent by HL to provide health insurance for their employees is not earnings to the employee in any sense of the word. It doesn’t accrue to the employee, in most cases it’s not taxable to the employee, it can not be converted to cash by the employee (though some employers do allow for this, at a discount). It is a benefit that the employee may choose to partake in. Much like the company holiday party, or vacation and sick days (though some jurisdictions these do accrue to the employee).
HL will also not write the check to cover their portion of payroll taxes if you do not work for them. This doesn’t mean that the employer portion of payroll taxes are earnings to the employee. HL is the payor for the payroll taxes, and likewise for the employer provided health insurance. They can choose providers, levels of benefits, etc (within the law).
Bricker, you do see their point about the inconsistency, though, right?
I mean, I think there is a legitimate WTF involved when a company says on the one hand that it cannot condone its money going to supply its employees with abortifacients while on the other invests even a tiny bit of its money in companies that manufacture those very drugs.
I understand that you don’t see a problem with that yourself, but you do at least grok the frustration?
I told you that Hobby Lobby and it’s owners were inconsistent in their line-drawing, that they were hypocritical, that they were irrational, and politically motivated. I told you how imaginary their distinction between paying an insurance company and paying the person itself was. This was all explained to you previously.
Strike two, Bricker. Want to try again?
Yes, I can see someone saying, “They need to be completely clean-handed before they make this big a deal about the issue,” sure.
But that’s not really a rule. Plenty of ethical systems exist that recognize that a minimal involvement is not problematic in the same way a significant involvement is.
So what I don’t understand is the failure to simply say, “I don’t draw the line in the same place they do,” and instead frothing at the mouth over their supposed hypocrisy.
What the hell are you babbling about? You may have expressed those opinions, sure, but you also expressed the confident opinion that they’d lose at the Supreme. Court. It seems clear that you simply didn’t know what the hell you were talking about.
Abortion. Pro-abortion people don’t draw the line in the same place as you do. Shall we all accept that they are the ones who get to decide and you cannot possible consider them wrong, or hypocritical or immoral for disagreeing with your line?
The King Dick of making moral v. legal distinctions fails to see one that is staring himself right in the face.
Cruel, cruel irony.
Hamlet, I regard your ability to make any kind of a moral analysis as essentially nonexistent. You are a moral vacuum. You have no ability whatsoever to opine on moral issues. The best thing for you to do when morality is being discussed is to bow out of the discussion in the same way that you would if the subject were glottal sounds in the Tocharian language family.
Danger sign: The Supreme Court has already expanded Hobby Lobby decision