Just a thought, would that same thing apply to a couple who don’t believe in a blood transfusion, their insurance covers that?
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.?
(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.
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.
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?
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.
“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!”
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.
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.
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?
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?
It’s my understanding that Canadian gay weddings are traditionally done in Mountie costumes.
Sir, I ask that you not besmirch the fecundity of my man-eggs!
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
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?
Traditionally, yes, but they are very tolerant, if he’s a lumberjack, that’s OK.
Googled “christian mutual funds”, quite a few. Not that it ever was a valid point, but its still wrong.
Including:
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!
I think buttered scones would be a good choice for the reception…
Hey, Bricker, Fidelity offers Timothy funds. See?:
Not so hard, was it?
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.” **
(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.
(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…)