|
Post by twinlaker on Jul 1, 2014 17:09:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Aborted Cyclone Fetus on Jul 1, 2014 17:26:58 GMT -6
You know, there are actually a small handful of right wing issues I am not against however one of the biggest things about the right that grinds my gears is the fact that they base policy on a 2000 year old novel. Fuck them and fuck those right wing judges that like to keep christ in government.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 1, 2014 18:08:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Gunner Thompson on Jul 1, 2014 18:09:33 GMT -6
Ummm...it was a mutual fund for their employee's 401K with probably a hundred or more holdings. How many people research every company in their mutual funds?
Then the article states that there was a company in the mutual fund that provided drugs used in abortions. Really? Hobby Lobby is hypocritical because they've invested in one company of a mutual fund that makes a broad range pain killer provided in abortions.
There may be dirt found on Hobby Lobby...but this ain't it.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 1, 2014 18:27:48 GMT -6
Ummm...it was a mutual fund for their employee's 401K with probably a hundred or more holdings. How many people research every company in their mutual funds? Then the article states that there was a company in the mutual fund that provided drugs used in abortions. Really? Hobby Lobby is hypocritical because they've invested in one company of a mutual fund that makes a broad range pain killer provided in abortions. There may be dirt found on Hobby Lobby...but this ain't it. They singled out a small portion of the ACA that did not meet their religious standards, what was keeping them from doing the same for their investments? I mean, so they profit off of companies that provide abortions, but only slightly. So what's wrong with providing abortions...slightly. I mean, only a small portion of HL employees would be using Plan B right? Also, it is not one company they're investing in that makes drugs for, or provides abortions. It's seven.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jul 1, 2014 18:40:36 GMT -6
Ummm...it was a mutual fund for their employee's 401K with probably a hundred or more holdings. How many people research every company in their mutual funds? Then the article states that there was a company in the mutual fund that provided drugs used in abortions. Really? Hobby Lobby is hypocritical because they've invested in one company of a mutual fund that makes a broad range pain killer provided in abortions. There may be dirt found on Hobby Lobby...but this ain't it. How about all of the shit they sell made in forced abortion communist china? Fuck those fake xtian motherfuckers
|
|
|
Post by livingintheusa on Jul 1, 2014 18:40:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by BrainFerentz4Prez on Jul 1, 2014 18:47:06 GMT -6
Meh. I am sure one of my mutual funds includes a company that makes money researching how forcibly ass fucking the elderly with dementia cures Alzheimer's, but that don't make me no queer.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 1, 2014 19:37:11 GMT -6
Meh. I am sure one of my mutual funds includes a company that makes money researching how forcibly ass fucking the elderly with dementia cures Alzheimer's, but that don't make me no queer. Yeah, but it is a small piece in an ever growing pile of evidence that you are.
|
|
Other
Sports Moderator
Interim Master of the Universe
Posts: 5,174
Tits or GTFO: GTFO
|
Post by Other on Jul 1, 2014 21:12:49 GMT -6
Ummm...it was a mutual fund for their employee's 401K with probably a hundred or more holdings. How many people research every company in their mutual funds? Then the article states that there was a company in the mutual fund that provided drugs used in abortions. Really? Hobby Lobby is hypocritical because they've invested in one company of a mutual fund that makes a broad range pain killer provided in abortions. There may be dirt found on Hobby Lobby...but this ain't it. How many people? I'm not sure of how many people but of all people that might do said research I would think that the people who claim to be in fear of eternal damnation woluld, i would think that the people that took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court would.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jul 2, 2014 6:46:32 GMT -6
It's good to know that in America, not only are Corporations "People", but their rights trump those of actual people. Fight the good fight Hobby Lobby, and continue to sell your chinese, abortion supporting products so that you can make shit tons of money while depriving others around the world of a decent life, just to sell cheap shit on your shelves. Don't worry, I didn't shop at hobby lobby, and I for damn sure will make sure that my family never buys from that shitty company ever again.
But hey, what would I know, I'm just a person, who isn't a corporation.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jul 2, 2014 6:53:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Jul 2, 2014 7:09:42 GMT -6
But hey, if the person has a penis, they'll cover boner pills and vasectomies. HOORAY PENISES!!!
|
|
0044
Prostate Massager
Posts: 241
|
Post by 0044 on Jul 2, 2014 7:36:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 7:45:15 GMT -6
BTW y'all, you've become fixated on abortion in this thread. That isn't even at the root of it. What these selfish bigots are objecting to is CONTRACEPTIVES. Yeah, that's right - they don't want THEIR employees to be able to buy IUDs or the pill or rubbers with "hobby lobby"-subsidized medical insurance benefits.Abortion is really not even part of this; these fucktards are waaaaaay upstream of that. THOU SHALT NOT PRACTICE SAFE SEX IF THOU WORKETH FOR HOBBY LOBBY! EVERY SPERM IS SACRED!!! fucking religious whackos It's not all contraceptives. While most contraceptives prevent ovulation or fertilization. Their objections were not all forms of contraceptions, but only those who take effect after fertilization, such as "morning after pills" which prevent a fertilized egg from joining the uterine lining and developing. However, while I agree the issue isn't abortion, but it's not even contraceptives. The problem here is that certain corporations are now individuals with religious rights, which as an individual with religious rights myself, I find EXTREMELY FUCKED UP. Corporations are formed specifically to protect the an individual's rights and liabilities from that of the company. How can separate legal entities (individual running a corporation and the corporation) share legal rights like that? Further more, the court said that the ruling didn't apply to shit liek blood transfusions and other medial treatment. Well why the fuck not? How is objections to certain types of birth control a sincere belief a corporation can have, but objection to blood transfusion is not? Is the court telling us which religious beliefs are cromulent, and which ones aren't? Does a Baptists corporation have greater rights to exercise its religion than a Christian Scientist corporation?
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Jul 2, 2014 8:00:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:03:30 GMT -6
Ummm...it was a mutual fund for their employee's 401K with probably a hundred or more holdings. How many people research every company in their mutual funds? Then the article states that there was a company in the mutual fund that provided drugs used in abortions. Really? Hobby Lobby is hypocritical because they've invested in one company of a mutual fund that makes a broad range pain killer provided in abortions. There may be dirt found on Hobby Lobby...but this ain't it. There are certainly mutual funds that avoid companies that religious folks may find objectionable, just like there are mutual funds that avoid defense contractors for peaceniks and there are mutual funds that only invest in "green" companies for environmentalists. However, when you establish a 401(K) there are substantial ERISA fiduciary obligations imposed. My opinion is that for a company to only offer one or two such funds is a gross violation of ERISA fiduciary duties because these specialty funds typically have very high fees (2% range) and even without giving effect to the fees, they drastically underperform a highly diversified basket of stocks. Perhaps we will see the Green family next file a declaratory judgment to absolve themselves of this fiduciary duty should they choose to direct the administrator to only offer a Treasury bond fund and 2 religious mutual funds in their 401(K).
|
|
|
Post by #70 on Jul 2, 2014 8:10:09 GMT -6
Vroom
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 8:13:55 GMT -6
It's not all contraceptives. While most contraceptives prevent ovulation or fertilization. Their objections were not all forms of contraceptions, but only those who take effect after fertilization, such as "morning after pills" which prevent a fertilized egg from joining the uterine lining and developing. However, while I agree the issue isn't abortion, but it's not even contraceptives. The problem here is that certain corporations are now individuals with religious rights, which as an individual with religious rights myself, I find EXTREMELY FUCKED UP. Corporations are formed specifically to protect the an individual's rights and liabilities from that of the company. How can separate legal entities (individual running a corporation and the corporation) share legal rights like that? Further more, the court said that the ruling didn't apply to shit liek blood transfusions and other medial treatment. Well why the fuck not? How is objections to certain types of birth control a sincere belief a corporation can have, but objection to blood transfusion is not? Is the court telling us which religious beliefs are cromulent, and which ones aren't? Does a Baptists corporation have greater rights to exercise its religion than a Christian Scientist corporation? They object to IUDs too, which are not post-fertilization contraceptives. (I know a little bit about IUDs because muh wife haz one up in there LOL.) Otherwise, you are crushing it in this thread, amigo. Xtianity needs moar gaiz liek u to step up and lead. Out with the old, in with the new. #srs The thing is, an IUD can be inserted after sects and will prevent the fertilized egg from developing. This little technicality, despite the leap in logic it requires, is what their objection was based off of.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Jul 2, 2014 8:14:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Jul 2, 2014 8:14:16 GMT -6
But hey, if the person has a penis, they'll cover boner pills and vasectomies. HOORAY PENISES!!! Boner pills are not covered by insurance and hysterectomies are.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Jul 2, 2014 8:15:10 GMT -6
They object to IUDs too, which are not post-fertilization contraceptives. (I know a little bit about IUDs because muh wife haz one up in there LOL.) Otherwise, you are crushing it in this thread, amigo. Xtianity needs moar gaiz liek u to step up and lead. Out with the old, in with the new. #srs The thing is, an IUD can be inserted after sects and will prevent the fertilized egg from developing. This little technicality, despite the leap in logic it requires, is what their objection was based off of.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:21:44 GMT -6
BTW y'all, you've become fixated on abortion in this thread. That isn't even at the root of it. What these selfish bigots are objecting to is CONTRACEPTIVES. Yeah, that's right - they don't want THEIR employees to be able to buy IUDs or the pill or rubbers with "hobby lobby"-subsidized medical insurance benefits.Abortion is really not even part of this; these fucktards are waaaaaay upstream of that. THOU SHALT NOT PRACTICE SAFE SEX IF THOU WORKETH FOR HOBBY LOBBY! EVERY SPERM IS SACRED!!! fucking religious whackos It's not all contraceptives. While most contraceptives prevent ovulation or fertilization. Their objections were not all forms of contraceptions, but only those who take effect after fertilization, such as "morning after pills" which prevent a fertilized egg from joining the uterine lining and developing. However, while I agree the issue isn't abortion, but it's not even contraceptives. The problem here is that certain corporations are now individuals with religious rights, which as an individual with religious rights myself, I find EXTREMELY FUCKED UP. Corporations are formed specifically to protect the an individual's rights and liabilities from that of the company. How can separate legal entities (individual running a corporation and the corporation) share legal rights like that? Further more, the court said that the ruling didn't apply to shit liek blood transfusions and other medial treatment. Well why the fuck not? How is objections to certain types of birth control a sincere belief a corporation can have, but objection to blood transfusion is not? Is the court telling us which religious beliefs are cromulent, and which ones aren't? Does a Baptists corporation have greater rights to exercise its religion than a Christian Scientist corporation? I would argue that a closely held corp owned by Jehovah's Witnesses would be exempt from the entire health insurance mandate. The ACA has a carve-out from the mandate to buy insurance on religious grounds. However, I highly doubt that a Jehovah's Witness owned company would get big enough to have the power to self insure or dictate terms liek "no blood transfusions" to Blue Cross. My bigger philosophical problem is that if McDonald's wants an exemption from the ACA, it can merely call the Obama Administration and get one. But shit, at the end of the day, the money to buy these abortofacients is coming out of the pockets of the shareholders. Anyway, the corporate personhood debate has been carefully crafted by the left leaning media to make everyone think that it is the Koch's and 8 other GOP backers who are the beneficiaries of things like corporate free speech on political matters, which is utter horseshit. The unions in Illinois (which are non-human "persons") run all kinds of smear ads against Bruce Rauner. Greenpeace and NOW and shit liek that are forming PACs or have PACs and will be running ads against GOP candidates. The facts of the case from which this began were pretty absurd - a group of individuals was muzzled from airing a movie about Hillary Clinton 90 days before an election because they planned to do so through a corporation. It's fucking preposterous. But anyway, if the Dems are so butthurt, they should just amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to add a definition of person. If it is undefined and the scope of the law is unclear, it defaults to the Dictionary Act, which defines terms in federal statutes, and the Dictionary Act defines person to include corporate entities. And trust me, brah, given the multitude of laws on the books, it is probably in everyone's best interest that "person" includes corporation or else a whole slew of shit is gonna turn sideways. "Your honor, CERCLA doesn't prohibit GE from pouring nuclear waste into Lake Michigan because the part where it says no person shall dump nuclear waste only refers to individuals, so you can go after the guy on the loading dock who has $800 and a broken down El Camino as his sole assets, but you can't go after GE." Fucking disastrous.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Jul 2, 2014 8:23:38 GMT -6
Come on OK4P don't let facts get in the way of a good freak out.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 8:27:39 GMT -6
It's not all contraceptives. While most contraceptives prevent ovulation or fertilization. Their objections were not all forms of contraceptions, but only those who take effect after fertilization, such as "morning after pills" which prevent a fertilized egg from joining the uterine lining and developing. However, while I agree the issue isn't abortion, but it's not even contraceptives. The problem here is that certain corporations are now individuals with religious rights, which as an individual with religious rights myself, I find EXTREMELY FUCKED UP. Corporations are formed specifically to protect the an individual's rights and liabilities from that of the company. How can separate legal entities (individual running a corporation and the corporation) share legal rights like that? Further more, the court said that the ruling didn't apply to shit liek blood transfusions and other medial treatment. Well why the fuck not? How is objections to certain types of birth control a sincere belief a corporation can have, but objection to blood transfusion is not? Is the court telling us which religious beliefs are cromulent, and which ones aren't? Does a Baptists corporation have greater rights to exercise its religion than a Christian Scientist corporation? I would argue that a closely held corp owned by Jehovah's Witnesses would be exempt from the entire health insurance mandate. The ACA has a carve-out from the mandate to buy insurance on religious grounds. However, I highly doubt that a Jehovah's Witness owned company would get big enough to have the power to self insure or dictate terms liek "no blood transfusions" to Blue Cross. My bigger philosophical problem is that if McDonald's wants an exemption from the ACA, it can merely call the Obama Administration and get one. But shit, at the end of the day, the money to buy these abortofacients is coming out of the pockets of the shareholders. Anyway, the corporate personhood debate has been carefully crafted by the left leaning media to make everyone think that it is the Koch's and 8 other GOP backers who are the beneficiaries of things like corporate free speech on political matters, which is utter horseshit. The unions in Illinois (which are non-human "persons") run all kinds of smear ads against Bruce Rauner. Greenpeace and NOW and shit liek that are forming PACs or have PACs and will be running ads against GOP candidates. The facts of the case from which this began were pretty absurd - a group of individuals was muzzled from airing a movie about Hillary Clinton 90 days before an election because they planned to do so through a corporation. It's fucking preposterous. But anyway, if the Dems are so butthurt, they should just amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to add a definition of person. If it is undefined and the scope of the law is unclear, it defaults to the Dictionary Act, which defines terms in federal statutes, and the Dictionary Act defines person to include corporate entities. And trust me, brah, given the multitude of laws on the books, it is probably in everyone's best interest that "person" includes corporation or else a whole slew of shit is gonna turn sideways. "Your honor, CERCLA doesn't prohibit GE from pouring nuclear waste into Lake Michigan because the part where it says no person shall dump nuclear waste only refers to individuals, so you can go after the guy on the loading dock who has $800 and a broken down El Camino as his sole assets, but you can't go after GE." Fucking disastrous. Good points all.
|
|