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

PreachersWife2004 · Apr 2, 2014

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

I didn't say they were.

You are calling Hobby Lobby hypocrites because they invest in companies that manufacture birth control pills. You are also calling them hypocrites because they employ people in a country whose government mandates abortions. You have said that because they do these things, they FUND birth control pills and they FUND abortion.

So it's reasonable to believe that a government that funnels money to the largest provider of abortions is also then funding those abortions.

So either the government is lying to us about our tax dollars not being used to fund abortions, or your logic is incorrect.

JoyJuice · Apr 2, 2014

PreachersWife2004 said:
I didn't say they were.

You are calling Hobby Lobby hypocrites because they invest in companies that manufacture birth control pills. You are also calling them hypocrites because they employ people in a country whose government mandates abortions. You have said that because they do these things, they FUND birth control pills and they FUND abortion.

So it's reasonable to believe that a government that funnels money to the largest provider of abortions is also then funding those abortions.

So either the government is lying to us about our tax dollars not being used to fund abortions, or your logic is incorrect.

What you wrote kind of conflated birth control with abortion:

"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"

What I have personally said is they are inconsistent. The problem is yes, HL invests in companies that makes birth control pills, but they make those pills that HL think wrongly causes abortions.

And yes, they, indirectly fund forced abortion in China. I have said that. And yes they invest in companies that they think make abortion pills. I have said that. That action is directly counter to their statement.

If you are saying the US Gov funds abortions at Plan Parenthood, that is incorrect. Grants are not used to fund abortions. If China said any company that has issues with our use of Government money used for abortions and wishes that money to be segregated out of that, then I would not have started this thread.

poolerboy0077 · Apr 2, 2014

poolerboy0077 said:
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.

conamer said:
Uh-huh, First we were told we aren't gonna pay for abortions with OCare(O signed a letter saying he wouldn't, after all), now we are being told it's perfectly fine to force a private company to do just that. Bad try.

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

Thank you for ignoring my points and simply vomiting incoherence on text.

Jessica01 · Apr 2, 2014

Bedford said:
Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers

Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers | Mother Jones

LOL

hypocrites

proves that it is all about the money.

Yep, this is from the article:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuitshow that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).
Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

That is very hypocritical.

KarateCowboy · Apr 2, 2014

Jessica01 said:
Yep, this is from the article:

That is very hypocritical.

Important to note how employee retirement plans work. The company usually contracts an advisor firm to manage funds with and for the employees. The employee puts a certain cut of his earnings in, and the company will often match. A lot of companies will use Merrill Lynch or the like. With these large management firms, it's worth noting, that often times it is software algorithms which will decide where the money is put; the employee simply selects an investment option from a list of radio buttons, ranging from something like 'conservative' to 'aggressive'. I'm a web developer myself(mainly Ruby on Rails, but moving to Node.js/Sails). It certainly is possible that they could develop features that allow investors to blacklist certain industries; however, I do not see the demand being strong enough. I think, also, that the firms deciding to even implement that would become politicized and would become stupidly overblown and 'not worth the hassle'.

NotreDame · Apr 2, 2014

JoyJuice said:
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.

Your characterization of my position is inaccurate. I have done more than "just claiming it." I have provided some rather absurd examples your reasoning would inexorable support and also stated there are too many steps, too many entities in between to support your allegation of indirect support. It is the absurdity of these logical outcomes of your argument which renders your argument untenable. It does not make sense to think a pacifist in the U.S. is indirectly supporting the Chinese war machine on the basis they purchased a made in China product and the money they spent went to the manufacturer located in China.

At some point, there are just too many steps or entities in between for the notion of indirect support to be tenable. An old man visits his local food stand on a periodic basis. He purchases fruit and vegetables from the food stand. The owner of the food stand then takes this money, and other money he has earned, and gives a portion of it to his son. His son, who is a member of a mafia family, then takes this money given to him by his father and reallocates it to the mafia family in which he is a member. Based on your reasoning espoused in this thread, the old man is indirectly supporting the activities of the mafia, such as murder, drug smuggling, prostitution, bribes, extortion, and other criminal activities perpetuated by the mafia family.

At some point, the money could be traced through 20 entities or people and eventually come into the possession of the 21st entity/person using the money for some specified purpose and, based on your logic, the initial possessor of the money is indirectly supporting the activities of the 21st person/entity. A person makes a Visa purchase of Ugg boots in Manhattan at a Macy's store. The consumer then pays Visa. Visa then transfers some of its money to a Swiss bank. The Swiss bank then makes a loan to a European, who then uses this loan money to buy some property from an Iranian national, who then takes the money and gives it to the Iranian government and the Iranian government uses its money to support the terrorist group Hezbollah. Based on your reasoning, the consumer of Ugg boots is indirectly supporting the Iranian government's assistance of Hezbollah.

Yet, it is rather absurd to think the old man is indirectly supporting these mafia activities, as there are too many entities, too many steps and decision making people in between, and absurd to think the consumer of Ugg boots is indirectly supporting the Iranian government's assistance to Hezbollah. Based on the same reasoning, it is untenable to think Hobby Lobby is indirectly supporting the Chinese government's abortion mandate on the basis they purchase products from a Chinese company located in China and pays taxes to the Chinese government.

NotreDame · Apr 2, 2014

JoyJuice said:
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.

You can disagree for an eternity. The fact is, the meaning of the word "invest" is different from the meaning of the word "pay." The two words are not the same, do not mean the same, and you are equivocating them for the express and sole purpose of gratifying your conspicuous desire to cast aspersions on the business Hobby Lobby.

Furthermore, a private investor paying for X percentage of a company, which is to say they paid for stock in the company, is to invest in the company but it is not the equivalent of "paying" for a specific and particular product made by the company. So, for example, person X purchases stock/shares in the Coca Cola company. Person X paid for the stock/shares or person X pays for the stock/shares. Person X did not pay for a bottle of Coca Cola, neither did person X pay for a bottle of Coca Cola's sports drink, Powerade. What person X paid for, and pays for, is the stock/shares of Coca Cola, and they didn't pay/paid for a bottle of Powerade. The important distinction to be made is one does not come into possession of a bottle of Powerade on the mere basis of paying for stock/shares in the Coca Cola company, quite simply because one did not pay to receive or come into possession of a bottle of Powerade but rather they paid/pay to come into possession and receive stock/shares of Coca Cola.

This is why your position is fallacious. To equivocate paying for shares/stock in a company as equivalent to paying for a specific and particular product of the company is illogical. To suggest, as you do, Hobby Lobby pays for a particular contraceptive they object to when they pay for stock/shares in a company which makes, among other things, the objectionable contraceptive, as the equivalent of "we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions" is illogical. In their statement, they are referring to the understanding of paying for a drug for their employees to possess, in other words they offer money, extend money and in exchange for the money they offer and present they receive/or someone receives on their behalf some specific good or property, in this instance birth control they find objectionable.

Similarly, when someone, anyway, says they "pay" for food, or they don't "pay" for junk food, they are referencing the understanding they are presenting money in exchange for some specific good/property, food, or they do not present money in direct exchange for some specific good/property, junk food. Hobby Lobby investing in a company means they pay, offer money, in exchange for a specific good/property in return, the stock/shares of the company. As a result, under these facts, it is illogical to suggest they are or have pay/paying/paid for the products made by the company. They aren't presenting money in exchange for the specific and particular products made by the company but rather they are paying to receive company stock/shares.

As a result, your allegation Hobby Lobby's statement is false when they say they do not "pay" for drugs is not supported by your reasoning or the facts, much less the meaning of the two words "invest" and "pay."

JoyJuice · Apr 3, 2014

NotreDame said:
Your characterization of my position is inaccurate. I have done more than "just claiming it." I have provided some rather absurd examples your reasoning would inexorable support and also stated there are too many steps, too many entities in between to support your allegation of indirect support. It is the absurdity of these logical outcomes of your argument which renders your argument untenable. It does not make sense to think a pacifist in the U.S. is indirectly supporting the Chinese war machine on the basis they purchased a made in China product and the money they spent went to the manufacturer located in China.

At some point, there are just too many steps or entities in between for the notion of indirect support to be tenable. An old man visits his local food stand on a periodic basis. He purchases fruit and vegetables from the food stand. The owner of the food stand then takes this money, and other money he has earned, and gives a portion of it to his son. His son, who is a member of a mafia family, then takes this money given to him by his father and reallocates it to the mafia family in which he is a member. Based on your reasoning espoused in this thread, the old man is indirectly supporting the activities of the mafia, such as murder, drug smuggling, prostitution, bribes, extortion, and other criminal activities perpetuated by the mafia family.

At some point, the money could be traced through 20 entities or people and eventually come into the possession of the 21st entity/person using the money for some specified purpose and, based on your logic, the initial possessor of the money is indirectly supporting the activities of the 21st person/entity. A person makes a Visa purchase of Ugg boots in Manhattan at a Macy's store. The consumer then pays Visa. Visa then transfers some of its money to a Swiss bank. The Swiss bank then makes a loan to a European, who then uses this loan money to buy some property from an Iranian national, who then takes the money and gives it to the Iranian government and the Iranian government uses its money to support the terrorist group Hezbollah. Based on your reasoning, the consumer of Ugg boots is indirectly supporting the Iranian government's assistance of Hezbollah.

Yet, it is rather absurd to think the old man is indirectly supporting these mafia activities, as there are too many entities, too many steps and decision making people in between, and absurd to think the consumer of Ugg boots is indirectly supporting the Iranian government's assistance to Hezbollah. Based on the same reasoning, it is untenable to think Hobby Lobby is indirectly supporting the Chinese government's abortion mandate on the basis they purchase products from a Chinese company located in China and pays taxes to the Chinese government.

Lets look at those steps for exactly what they are. HL buys wholesale from China with full knowledge that country pays for forced abortions, that wholesaler pays taxes, that tax money is used for forced abortions.

End of deal.

You would think if HL is so principled as they say just the fact they knowingly do business in a country that encourages forced abortions would be enough. If they were so princpled rather then purchasing 93% of their product there, they would shift that to where over they make those 7% percent remaining purchases.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell.

KarateCowboy · Apr 3, 2014

NotreDame said:
As a result, your allegation Hobby Lobby's statement is false when they say they do not "pay" for drugs is not supported by your reasoning or the facts, much less the meaning of the two words "invest" and "pay."

Important to remember: With employee pension plans such as 401K plans, the mutual funds and such are a separate legal and accounting entity from the managing corporation. These plans typically define nothing in respect to the employer except how much he pays into the pension plan.

Is a Defined-Benefit Pension Plan a Separate Legal Entity Under the Law? | Business & Entrepreneurship - azcentral.com

The pension trust fund that holds the assets of a defined-benefit pension plan is a separate legal entity from the plan sponsor.

...

A board of trustees typically governs the pension trust fund. Trustees oversee the management and investment of the funds in the trust. They are automatically defined as fiduciaries of the pension plan. Under ERISA, a fiduciary is anyone who exercises authority or control in managing or spending the assets of the plan, anyone who provides investment advice on the plan assets for a fee and anyone else with discretionary responsibility in administering the plan. Fiduciaries can be held personally liable for a breach in fiduciary responsibility and can face criminal sanctions such as fines and imprisonment for misusing funds.

PreachersWife2004 · Apr 3, 2014

JoyJuice said:
Lets look at those steps for exactly what they are. HL buys wholesale from China with full knowledge that country pays for forced abortions, that wholesaler pays taxes, that tax money is used for forced abortions.

End of deal.

You would think if HL is so principled as they say just the fact they knowingly do business in a country that encourages forced abortions would be enough. If they were so princpled rather then purchasing 93% of their product there, they would shift that to where over they make those 7% percent remaining purchases.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell.

Then I guess they need to stop doing business altogether.

It's like I keep saying, you can't be a Christian and business owner these days.

KarateCowboy · Apr 3, 2014

JoyJuice said:
You would think if HL is so principled as they say just the fact they knowingly do business in a country that encourages forced abortions would be enough. If they were so princpled rather then purchasing 93% of their product there, they would shift that to where over they make those 7% percent remaining purchases.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell.

Presumably you condemn slavery, sweatshops, forced abortions, and suppression of other human rights. Do you own any goods made in China? If so, (and I wouldn't believe otherwise) then does that make you a hypocrite for condemning those things? How can you condemn Hobby Lobby as hypocrites, then? Wouldn't doing so make you a hypocrite about hypocrisy? A sort of 'double hypocrite'?

JoyJuice · Apr 3, 2014

NotreDame said:
You can disagree for an eternity. The fact is, the meaning of the word "invest" is different from the meaning of the word "pay." The two words are not the same, do not mean the same, and you are equivocating them for the express and sole purpose of gratifying your conspicuous desire to cast aspersions on the business Hobby Lobby.

Furthermore, a private investor paying for X percentage of a company, which is to say they paid for stock in the company, is to invest in the company but it is not the equivalent of "paying" for a specific and particular product made by the company. So, for example, person X purchases stock/shares in the Coca Cola company. Person X paid for the stock/shares or person X pays for the stock/shares. Person X did not pay for a bottle of Coca Cola, neither did person X pay for a bottle of Coca Cola's sports drink, Powerade. What person X paid for, and pays for, is the stock/shares of Coca Cola, and they didn't pay/paid for a bottle of Powerade. The important distinction to be made is one does not come into possession of a bottle of Powerade on the mere basis of paying for stock/shares in the Coca Cola company, quite simply because one did not pay to receive or come into possession of a bottle of Powerade but rather they paid/pay to come into possession and receive stock/shares of Coca Cola.

This is why your position is fallacious. To equivocate paying for shares/stock in a company as equivalent to paying for a specific and particular product of the company is illogical. To suggest, as you do, Hobby Lobby pays for a particular contraceptive they object to when they pay for stock/shares in a company which makes, among other things, the objectionable contraceptive, as the equivalent of "we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions" is illogical. In their statement, they are referring to the understanding of paying for a drug for their employees to possess, in other words they offer money, extend money and in exchange for the money they offer and present they receive/or someone receives on their behalf some specific good or property, in this instance birth control they find objectionable.

Similarly, when someone, anyway, says they "pay" for food, or they don't "pay" for junk food, they are referencing the understanding they are presenting money in exchange for some specific good/property, food, or they do not present money in direct exchange for some specific good/property, junk food. Hobby Lobby investing in a company means they pay, offer money, in exchange for a specific good/property in return, the stock/shares of the company. As a result, under these facts, it is illogical to suggest they are or have pay/paying/paid for the products made by the company. They aren't presenting money in exchange for the specific and particular products made by the company but rather they are paying to receive company stock/shares.

As a result, your allegation Hobby Lobby's statement is false when they say they do not "pay" for drugs is not supported by your reasoning or the facts, much less the meaning of the two words "invest" and "pay."

Your quote, "The fact is, the meaning of the word "invest" is different from the meaning of the word "pay."

...then:

"Furthermore, a private investor paying for X percentage of a company, which is to say they paid for stock in the company, is to invest in the company but it is not the equivalent of "paying" for a specific and particular product made by the company"

Note the word "paid" in your last sentence as a latter form of the word pay. In the end whether stock of a percentage of a company or outright shares, something is being paid for.

In addition, using your statement it goes back to that HL acclaimed principle. It is no different then what ACA does with the availability of what HL wrongly thinks abortion drugs. HL is supporting a company that offers those drugs. Through the ACA they are being asked to provide insurance that offers those same drugs. Your direct purchases of Coke and Poweraid does not undermine the fact purchases for either support an intity that provides both. Just like HL does with the drug companies.

JoyJuice · Apr 3, 2014

KarateCowboy said:
Presumably you condemn slavery, sweatshops, forced abortions, and suppression of other human rights. Do you own any goods made in China? If so, (and I wouldn't believe otherwise) then does that make you a hypocrite for condemning those things? How can you condemn Hobby Lobby as hypocrites, then? Wouldn't doing so make you a hypocrite about hypocrisy? A sort of 'double hypocrite'?

You would have a point if I made statements condemning all of that, but while making those condemning statements owned a business who bought wholesale from China.

Bedford · Apr 3, 2014

KarateCowboy said:
Presumably you condemn slavery, sweatshops, forced abortions, and suppression of other human rights. Do you own any goods made in China? If so, (and I wouldn't believe otherwise) then does that make you a hypocrite for condemning those things? How can you condemn Hobby Lobby as hypocrites, then? Wouldn't doing so make you a hypocrite about hypocrisy? A sort of 'double hypocrite'?

On the other hand, you defending Hobby Lobby means you condone slavery, sweatshops, forced abortions, and suppression of other human rights. Nothing hypocritical, just something far worse.

jayem · Apr 3, 2014

KarateCowboy said:
With these large management firms, it's worth noting, that often times it is software algorithms which will decide where the money is put; the employee simply selects an investment option from a list of radio buttons, ranging from something like 'conservative' to 'aggressive'. I'm a web developer myself(mainly Ruby on Rails, but moving to Node.js/Sails). It certainly is possible that they could develop features that allow investors to blacklist certain industries; however, I do not see the demand being strong enough.

But there are mutual funds that do this already. Here's a link to one fund family which only invests in companies that reflect Christian values. There are others, too. HL's management is financially savvy, and surely is aware of these investment options. It's a fair question as to why HL wouldn't direct their retirement fund management to use them.

Mutual Funds for the Values-Based Investor - GuideStone Funds

HL opened this door themselves. When you create a major federal case based on your moral position, you have to realize you're gonna be microscopically scrutinized for consistency.

JoyJuice · Apr 3, 2014

PreachersWife2004 said:
Then I guess they need to stop doing business altogether.

It's like I keep saying, you can't be a Christian and business owner these days.

HERE ...as noted.

Or take actually take the acclaimed principle route in shifting the 93% they buy from China, to whom they buy the remaining 7% of their product from less it another country with the same policy they claim to abhor.

PreachersWife2004 · Apr 3, 2014

JoyJuice said:
HERE ...as noted.

Or take actually take the acclaimed principle route in shifting the 93% they buy from China, to whom they buy the remaining 7% of their product from less it another country with the same policy they claim to abhor.

No, I mean Christians really shouldn't own businesses, for the very reason we're talking about.

It's hard to be a Christian and own a business without being a hypocrite. Too hard.

KarateCowboy · Apr 3, 2014

JoyJuice said:
You would have a point if I made statements condemning all of that, but while making those condemning statements owned a business who bought wholesale from China.

Why does it matter if you're a business or not? Businesses just made of people, and buying is buying?

Bedford said:
On the other hand, you defending Hobby Lobby means you condone slavery, sweatshops, forced abortions, and suppression of other human rights. Nothing hypocritical, just something far worse.

I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand how that works. Is it because I say they're not hypocrites?

jayem said:
But there are mutual funds that do this already. Here's a link to one fund family which only invests in companies that reflect Christian values. There are others, too. HL's management is financially savvy, and surely is aware of these investment options. It's a fair question as to why HL wouldn't direct their retirement fund management to use them.

Mutual Funds for the Values-Based Investor - GuideStone Funds

I'm disinclined to presume that they are already aware of this. However, thank you for sharing --I am about to set up an IRA with my new employer and will consider this group.

HL opened this door themselves. When you create a major federal case based on your moral position, you have to realize you're gonna be microscopically scrutinized for consistency.

I'd say it's their prerogative to decide where they draw the line in the sand; it's not the right of the government to scrutinize, or put them in a position where such scrutiny becomes a possibility.

Veritas · Apr 3, 2014

Looks like some people have a bunch of time on their hands to find something to nail HL over. It's a totally contrived issue. Just like Mother Jones trying to make HL look like hypocrites because the mutual funds in the company 401 (k) (over which the have NO control) have invested in Big Pharma stocks that produce birth control devices. Talk about grasping for straws. Leave HL alone. They are entitled to their values and views just like a leftwing company like Starbucks.

KarateCowboy · Apr 3, 2014

Veritas said:
Looks like some people have a bunch of time on their hands to find something to nail HL over. It's a totally contrived issue. Just like Mother Jones trying to make HL look like hypocrites because the mutual funds in the company 401 (k) (over which the have NO control) have invested in Big Pharma stocks that produce birth control devices. Talk about grasping for straws. Leave HL alone. They are entitled to their values and views just like a leftwing company like Starbucks.

The bolded and italicized part is the key.

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

by his wounds we are healed

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Jessica01

Guest

Classical liberal

Domer

Domer

Senior Veteran

Classical liberal

by his wounds we are healed

Classical liberal

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Naturalist

Senior Veteran

by his wounds we are healed

Classical liberal

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism

Classical liberal

Similar threads