Hobby Lobby...what do you make of this?

[Bedford]

So our government DOES pay for abortions then! Good that someone finally acknowledges it.

I mean, Bayer and Pfizer might provide other awesome drugs, but OHMIGOSH they make the pill! Can't invest in them!

Keep stretching guys.

Wrong. Abortion pills do not cause abortions, people who have abortions are the the cause of abortions.

This is about Hobby Lobby hypocrisy, and you missed the point - Purposefully at that.

 

[[serious]]

"[T]heir money going to pay for abortions in China" is a factually incorrect statement. The money belongs to a Chinese business, not to Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby transferring its money to a Chinese company in exchange for some service, good, or product, renders the money the property of the Chinese company and the Chinese company the owner of the money, and at this point the money is no longer Hobby Lobby's.

There is no hypocrisy or contradiction here. Hobby Lobby is protesting the use of its own money to pay for 4 contraceptives, not any and all contraceptives, but 4 contraceptives. The money in your example belongs, not to Hobby Lobby, but to a Chinese company. You are comparing apples to oranges. Consequently, there is no hypocrisy or contradictory behavior here on the behalf of Hobby Lobby. Nice try.

Aetna is a company they are acquiring a service from as well. No one is telling them to give money to a doctor or a clinic in exchange for an abortion.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Wrong. Abortion pills do not cause abortions, people who have abortions are the the cause of abortions.

You missed my point.

If Hobby Lobby is supporting and funding birth control because they invest in those companies, then our government supports and funds abortion because it funnels money to planned parenthood.

This is about Hobby Lobby hypocrisy, and you missed the point - Purposefully at that.

No, I didn't miss your point. I just disagree with it.

I work for Home Depot, right? Most people know my stance on same-sex marriage, right? So am I a hypocrite because I work for a company that offers same-sex benefits and many other benefits and resources to the LGTB community?

 

[Bedford]

You missed my point.

If Hobby Lobby is supporting and funding birth control because they invest in those companies, then our government supports and funds abortion because it funnels money to planned parenthood.



No, I didn't miss your point. I just disagree with it.

I work for Home Depot, right? Most people know my stance on same-sex marriage, right? So am I a hypocrite because I work for a company that offers same-sex benefits and many other benefits and resources to the LGTB community?

Nobody said you were a hypocrite. Please try not to twist this into saying I called you a hypocrite. This is not about you - I don't care where you work.

However it is about you in the way you are in denial about Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy.

Hobby Lobby invests in the pills but won't allow their employees to get those pills through their insurance.

 

[[serious]]

Wrong. Abortion pills do not cause abortions, people who have abortions are the the cause of abortions.

This is about Hobby Lobby hypocrisy, and you missed the point.

mifepristone, the "abortion pill," is not required under minimum coverage set up by ACA. Hobby Lobby is saying they don't want to pay for synthetic progestogen hormonal birth control because they have a religious conviction that it causes abortions even if it doesn't. Since religious beliefs aren't held to a standard of true or not true, there is no obvious way of keeping such a ruling from preventing access to any arbitrary procedure. Nor is there any legal distinction between the religious belief that BC is wrong and the religious belief that blood transfusions are wrong.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Technically, though, they're not paying for it. At least not directly. Under the ACA, Hobby Lobby is required to pay money to an insurance company in exchange for insurance coverage for its employees. An employee of Hobby Lobby could then go to her pharmacy and request a contested contraception (like of the abortifacient variety). The insurance company hired by Hobby Lobby pays. The owners of Hobby Lobby interpret this as paying for contested contraception.

Even if Hobby Lobby pays an insurance company in exchange for a plan that does not cover said birth control, this could still open the company up to identical hazards if that insurance company provided other customers with plans that did extend those forms of birth control. When a business pays an insurance company, the money goes into a "pool" so Hobby Lobby's money becomes indistinguishable from other money paid by other corporations.

Also, consider that the women employed at Hobby Lobby are not prohibited from paying for those very contraception options out of their own pocket -- which is presumably filled with money that comes directly from Hobby Lobby. So if cutting a check to an insurance company doesn't transfer responsibility, which is Hobby Lobby cutting a check to a woman any different?

Consider finally that all of our taxes go to fund things we might find unconscionable: wars, social safety nets, government officials who officiate gay marriages in courthouses or city hall, etc. This is unavoidable.

There's a little term used in moral theology: remote material cooperation. The problem is, in this case, it's not being applied consistently.

 

[Grizzly]

mifepristone, the "abortion pill," is not required under minimum coverage set up by ACA. Hobby Lobby is saying they don't want to pay for synthetic progestogen hormonal birth control because they have a religious conviction that it causes abortions even if it doesn't. Since religious beliefs aren't held to a standard of true or not true, there is no obvious way of keeping such a ruling from preventing access to any arbitrary procedure. Nor is there any legal distinction between the religious belief that BC is wrong and the religious belief that blood transfusions are wrong.

This is the real issue. Since religious beliefs are not held to a standard of truth, really anything the business (owner) doesn't want to do can be avoided by claiming it conflicts with religious belief. Don't want to pay corporate taxes? Claim it's against your religious beliefs to pay taxes. Don't want to serve minorities? Claim your God wants you to be free to do so.

This is a rabbit hole that needs to be closed.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Nobody said you were a hypocrite. Please try not to twist this into saying I called you a hypocrite. This is not about you - I don't care where you work.

I didn't say you said I was a hypocrite. I asked you a question about whether you viewed me as one because of the situation I posted, which is VERY similar to why you're calling Hobby Lobby hypocritical.

However it is about you in the way you are in denial about Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy.

I am not in denial over something that exists only in your mind.

Hobby Lobby invests in the pills but won't allow their employees to get those pills through their insurance.

They invest in the COMPANIES that manufacture the pills, AMONGST OTHER THINGS.

 

[JoyJuice]

They invest in the COMPANIES that manufacture the pills, AMONGST OTHER THINGS.

Invest is another word for paying for a good or service. If they are investing in companies that manufacturing the very drugs they think causes abortions, then this statement;

"...we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill."

...is false. They do.

By paying for the creation of these drugs they think cause abortions, then they are directly paying for what they think are "drugs that might cause abortions"

 

[Bedford]

Invest is another word for paying for a good or service. If they are investing in companies that manufacturing the very drugs they think causes abortions, then this statement;

"...we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill."

...is false. They do.

By paying for the creation of these drugs they think cause abortions, then they are directly paying for what they think are "drugs that might cause abortions"

HYPOCRITES

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Invest is another word for paying for a good or service. If they are investing in companies that manufacturing the very drugs they think causes abortions, then this statement;

"...we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill."

...is false. They do.

By paying for the creation of these drugs they think cause abortions, then they are directly paying for what they think are "drugs that might cause abortions"

Well seven bells, they probably employ women who've had abortions.

HYPOCRITES.



Like I said, keep stretching. These companies they invest in also make other things.

 

[NotreDame]

Whoa here. We may disagree, but it is not untenable at all to understand indirectly money from Hobby Lobby based on a action they are willing to engage in will go help pay for abortions in China.

Under these facts, I am inclined to think it is perhaps untenable to believe Hobby Lobby is indirectly supporting abortion in China. I find this line of reasoning supporting some rather absurd outcomes. Based on this reasoning, consumers in America, purchasing products made in China, by a Chinese company, are also indirectly supporting abortion. I just think it's too remote to allege indirect support.

 

[Bedford]

Well seven bells, they probably employ women who've had abortions.

HYPOCRITES.

Would you like to see them put that on their application to end their hypocrisy?

Like I said, keep stretching. These companies they invest in also make other things.

The other things are secondary to the contraception and morning after pills. That is the topic.

 

[NotreDame]

This is the real issue. Since religious beliefs are not held to a standard of truth, really anything the business (owner) doesn't want to do can be avoided by claiming it conflicts with religious belief. Don't want to pay corporate taxes? Claim it's against your religious beliefs to pay taxes. Don't want to serve minorities? Claim your God wants you to be free to do so.

This is a rabbit hole that needs to be closed.

You seem to labor under the impression a mere expression of some law requires conduct in violation of a religious belief is sufficient to avoid compliance with the law. This is not true. Let's use your tax example. Yes, someone may allege it is a violation of their religious beliefs to pay taxes but the government could argue, and I am inclined to believe the Court would concur, the government has a compelling interest in collecting taxes, including those from people with religious objections, and therefore the law is applicable to the religious objector.

In other words, a mere religious belief is not enough to escape legal mandates and where the government can demonstrate a compelling state interest, and the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest, then the law is valid although it may infringe upon religious liberty.

 

[NotreDame]

Invest is another word for paying for a good or service. If they are investing in companies that manufacturing the very drugs they think causes abortions, then this statement;

"...we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill."

...is false. They do.

By paying for the creation of these drugs they think cause abortions, then they are directly paying for what they think are "drugs that might cause abortions"

You are playing too loosely with terminology here.

Invest is another word for paying for a good or service

Invest is not at all another word for "paying."

we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions
​

You are equivocating the meaning of words to support your allegation their statement is false. The fact is, it is not true the word "invest" is another word for "paying" and under these facts the word "paying" in the statement is not idnentical or another word for "invest."

Your antipathy towards Hobby Lobby is very transparent, especially when you resort to the irrational and illogical equivocation of words.

 

[JoyJuice]

Under these facts, I am inclined to think it is perhaps untenable to believe Hobby Lobby is indirectly supporting abortion in China. I find this line of reasoning supporting some rather absurd outcomes. Based on this reasoning, consumers in America, purchasing products made in China, by a Chinese company, are also indirectly supporting abortion. I just think it's too remote to allege indirect support.

You can think that, but just claiming it doesn't mean much.

The fact that any businesses doing business in China or Americans purchasing products from China does indirectly support what the Government reaps in revenues to pay for programs from their Nukes to their forced abortions.

That is a reality, and it's not a untenable reality.

 

[JoyJuice]

You are playing too loosely with terminology here.

Invest is not at all another word for "paying."

we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions
​

You are equivocating the meaning of words to support your allegation their statement is false. The fact is, it is not true the word "invest" is another word for "paying" and under these facts the word "paying" in the statement is not idnentical or another word for "invest."

Your antipathy towards Hobby Lobby is very transparent, especially when you resort to the irrational and illogical equivocation of words.

I disagree. An private investor may pay for "X" percentage of a company no different then a 401K allows a person to pay for "X" number of shares of a given company within a fund.

 

[JoyJuice]

Well seven bells, they probably employ women who've had abortions.

HYPOCRITES.



Like I said, keep stretching. These companies they invest in also make other things.

You said it, not me.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You said it, not me.

I'm merely applying your logic.

I love this, actually.

I'm actually willing to let Hobby Lobby be called a hypocrite because I can finally say with assurance that the US Government does indeed pay for abortions, since it seems that "investing" or "sending funds" to an organization that manufactures or makes birth control pills means funding those pills, and employing workers of a country that mandates abortion means funding abortion.

Ergo, the US Government, through sending funds to Planned Parenthood IS actually funding abortions.

Unless, of course, the logic here is fuzzy...y'all tell me...

 

[JoyJuice]

I'm merely applying your logic.

I love this, actually.

I'm actually willing to let Hobby Lobby be called a hypocrite because I can finally say with assurance that the US Government does indeed pay for abortions, since it seems that "investing" or "sending funds" to an organization that manufactures or makes birth control pills means funding those pills, and employing workers of a country that mandates abortion means funding abortion.

Ergo, the US Government, through sending funds to Planned Parenthood IS actually funding abortions.

Unless, of course, the logic here is fuzzy...y'all tell me...

Could you please clarify. You're kind of vague and fuzzy. Birth control pills are not abortion pills.