- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hobby Lobby's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers
Posted on 4/2/14 at 7:51 am to PuntBamaPunt
Posted on 4/2/14 at 7:51 am to PuntBamaPunt
quote:
If it was truly a moral issue, they wouldn't stock a bunch of cheap plastic crap made in China, which has actual abortions forced on people, not creatively defined ones.
I can see your point there.
0
Posted on 4/2/14 at 7:54 am to TN Bhoy
quote:
You don't seem to understand how mutual funds work.
Herp. Derp.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 7:54 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
First, owning a stock doesn't purchase the product.
Exactly. Just like how paying for one's health insurance doesn't explicitly purchase a product other than the coverage itself. Thank you. My point exactly.
quote:
Second, HL doesn't own the stocks. Their employees do.
Exactly how they wouldn't own the insurance plans, but rather their employers would.
quote:
If "liberals" were intellectually honest they applaud HL for this.
What do liberals have to do with this? I'm talking about HL's logical inconsistencies and flat out lies. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make or to what you're responding.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 7:58 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
I thought liberals were pro-choice?
quote:
Trying to twist this into some "gotcha" is making a lot of people look really desperate.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:06 am to DCRebel
quote:What lies?
flat out lies
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:16 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
You still don't seem to understand what a 401k is and you continue to revel in your ignorance. Quite frankly, I'm embarrassed for you, but this type of argument seems to be par for the course for your ilk.
I've been told in this thread I don't understand mutual funds then 401ks....
Anyway, if you find abortion and abortifacients so objectionable as to not want it in ins cov for your employees (part of their compensation) one would imagine you also wouldn't want another part of their compensation and your match dollars to invest in abortion providers. There are 401k plans that provide this "moral" option. All I've argued is it makes them look hypocritical.
And so what is my ilk?
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:19 am to DCRebel
quote:
Exactly how they wouldn't own the insurance plans, but rather their employers would.
by this logic, HL paying a salary that may be used for something they have a moral issue with, would track back to HL?
*ETA:
quote:
Exactly. Just like how paying for one's health insurance doesn't explicitly purchase a product other than the coverage itself. Thank you. My point exactly.
the problem is government forcing insurance coverage/spending
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 8:22 am
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:29 am to DCRebel
quote:If insurance doesn't directly purchase the product, why are liberals pizzed off that HL won't pay for it?
Exactly. Just like how paying for one's health insurance doesn't explicitly purchase a product other than the coverage itself. Thank you. My point exactly.
And you're completely wrong about how stocks work. A minority ownership position doesn't create demand for a product. Many business owners can attest. Purchasing a product however...
quote:Not true at all. HL would be the purchaser if the insurance. The employee is covered. But the policy holder is HL.
Exactly how they wouldn't own the insurance plans, but rather their employers would.
Bottom line, its HL's money. It's HL's choice.
quote:And I'm talking about liberals' inconsistencies. They don't recognize HL's tolerance of their employees stock choices, nor do they support HL ability to select a stance on abortion. We often hear from liberals that pro-choice != pro-abortion. That does not appear to be the for HL.
What do liberals have to do with this? I'm talking about HL's logical inconsistencies
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:37 am to DCRebel
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Exactly how they wouldn't own the insurance plans, but rather their employers would.
by this logic, HL paying a salary that may be used for something they have a moral issue with, would track back to HL?
Paying for an insurance plan isn't really analogous to a simple transfer of cash.
quote:
the problem is government forcing insurance coverage/spending
That's a different discussion entirely. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but rather saying that it isn't relevant to the argument as to whether or not Hobby Lobby is being hypocritical or picky with what they find objectionable.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:42 am to DCRebel
So semantics?Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:42 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
If insurance doesn't directly purchase the product, why are liberals pizzed off that HL won't pay for it?
I dunno, why don't you ask them?
I'm mostly annoyed that they're using false information to justify their moral outrage while failing to apply their oh-so-holy moral standards to the rest of their business practices.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:43 am to DCRebel
quote:
Paying for an insurance plan isn't really analogous to a simple transfer of cash.
an insurance plan being forced upon them by government
quote:
That's a different discussion entirely. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but rather saying that it isn't relevant to the argument as to whether or not Hobby Lobby is being hypocritical or picky with what they find objectionable.
it's an entirely different discussion, and that's the reason why the OP isn't really relevant or a display of hypocrisy
you can't discuss hypocrisy without discussing the reasons for the choices/preferences
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:45 am to MMauler
quote:
The liberal idiots in this string also don't understand how ERISA works either. You want to put moral restrictions in your own stock dealings, that's up to you. But, if you attempt to do this in an employer plan and the FIRST time you have a loss, you will be sued for breach of fiduciary duty. Why do you think pretty much all plans are now invested with huge national mutual funds that allow their employees to pick and choose which mutual funds they want to invest in.
You limit your employees "choices" according to your moral beliefs and you will get sued, and will, most likely lose
This x1000000
You set up a 401k for your employees, the EMPLOYEES decide where the funds are invested. Calling Hobby Lobby hypocrites for allowing their employees to invest their funds is like chastising them because employees might use their salaries for purchase the (very limited) group of contraceptives they are morally opposed to.
I understand both sides of the lawsuit, but this is a truly stupid attempt by ignorant people to discredit their opponents.
I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:45 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
If insurance doesn't directly purchase the product, why are liberals pizzed off that HL won't pay for it?
I dunno, why don't you ask them?
I'm mostly annoyed that they're using false information to justify their moral outrage while failing to apply their oh-so-holy moral standards to the rest of their business practices.
quote:
Bottom line, its HL's money. It's HL's choice.
Again, that's a wholly different discussion. It's related, but it's also not necessarily relevant to whether or not HL is being hypocritical and trying to hide behind vague and poorly applied moral convictions.
You can believe it's 100% their choice all you'd like - it doesn't save them from being full of shite.
quote:
And I'm talking about liberals' inconsistencies.
Okay... I'm talking about HL's inconsistencies. Neat?
quote:
We often hear from liberals that pro-choice != pro-abortion. That does not appear to be the for HL.
Oh, I see, you want to play a semantics game. And you're the one calling out people for "gotcha" tactics?
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:52 am to Jbird
quote:
So semantics?
No, facts.
HL claims that IUDs and Plan B are objectionable because they prevent implantation. That's simply not the case. They prevent fertilization.
In that sense, their function is no different than that of condoms.
EDIT: Even if you believe something like "life begins at fertilization/conception," then Plan B and IUDs don't prevent life from beginning.
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 8:55 am
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:53 am to DCRebel
So they both have the same result?
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:56 am to Jbird
quote:
So they both have the same result?
If by "result" you mean they "keep someone from getting pregnant" then yes, they do. But in that sense, they have the same result as celibacy or a hysterectomy.
I mean, if you want people to just stop having sex altogether, that's your prerogative.
EDIT: If you can't see the difference between preventing fertilization (i.e., keeping sperm from reaching an egg) and implantation (i.e., keeping an already fertilized egg from adhering to the wall of the uterus) then you're either ignorant of the human reproductive system or simply haven't been paying attention.
Hobby Lobby says they oppose IUDs and Plan B because they prevent implantation, a stance consistent with the idea that life begins at conception. The problem is that those things don't prevent implantation, but rather conception itself. That's a pretty big difference.
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 9:01 am
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:58 am to DCRebel
quote:What are you babbling about?
I mean, if you want people to just stop having sex altogether, that's your prerogative.
Posted on 4/2/14 at 8:59 am to DCRebel
quote:First I'm not sure about the "false information" claim. Your link above was to a writer's one-sentance synopsis of a SCOTUS brief. I'm not sure it's a correct characterization. Certainly, it isn't the totality of HLs argument.
I'm mostly annoyed that they're using false information to justify their moral outrage while failing to apply their oh-so-holy moral standards to the rest of their business practices.
But let's presume it is... People are free to hold their own moral standards--inconsistent or not.
You, or I, may not agree with it. But, that disagreement does not, and should not, empower us to force them to act in the manner we deem to be consistent and moral.
quote:Wtf? It's the entirety of the discussion.
Again, that's a wholly different discussion.
quote:My. Judgmental aren't we?
You can believe it's 100% their choice all you'd like - it doesn't save them from being full of shite.
quote:It isn't a semantics game at all.
Oh, I see, you want to play a semantics game.
You're the one decrying HL's alleged intellectual inconsistency. Yet, hypocricy is rampant in the very people calling them out. Oddly you're only appear to be upset about one side.
quote:Actually I didn't start this thread, write the article in the OP, nor b*tch about HL's "hypocricy".
And you're the one calling out people for "gotcha" tactics?
I've just adopted the same tactic, however. If its good enough to impugn HL, should be good enough to call out others, don't you think?
This post was edited on 4/2/14 at 9:06 am
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News