Since I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have the expertise that you St. Croix and GaGambler have regarding investments, I can't find anything to disagree with you on. That's one thing I like about this board; not everyone can be an expert on everything, so there are times I get a chance to learn something that I'm not well versed in.
I also wonder if this will be brought up in their case before the Supreme Court. 
to find a mutual fund, ETF, or Index fund that didn't have more than one company that manufacturers guns, sells alcohol, encourages gaming, sells addictive drugs, and pollutes like shit. These are not Hobby Lobby's mutual funds as Ms. Bassett mentions. $100 bucks says they are either Vanguard, Schwab, or Fidelity Index funds, which basically invests in the broader market. Translation - they invest in just about EVERY industry and company. And $73M invested means that Hobby Lobby is not big enough to warrant the creation of very special mutual funds for the Christian leaning companies.
Choices of investments they had to settle for funds that invest in those types of companies? So if they had to settle in the investment area which is voluntary, they don't have to settle in the medical area which isn't voluntary? It most definitely should be brought up in their case. Cases are many times won on technicalities.
I have three points to make. First, I really hate the two very polarizing viewpoints without any desire for compromise. One being the religious right, this case being Hobby Lobby. The other being the Sandra Flukes, Planned Parenthood, Feminazis being the other. My solution is simple, just put the majority of contraceptives over the counter. Pills, patches, rings, are self administered and satisfies 98% of the market. Over the counter provides access and choice. If that happened, I seriously doubt that the 2% of women that prefer implantation type contraceptives would jump and down demanding this to be no cost to them.
My second point is that article was a real shitty piece of journalism. The phrasing was absolutely biased. But then, it's the Huffington Post, and I have to realize it's biased journalism.
My third point is that Hobby Lobby is not big enough to warrant or demand unique mutual funds. Like all companies they outsource the 401K processing to a 3rd party. In return, they get the standard menu of available mutual funds, ETF's or Index Funds that mirror the broader market, and includes most, if not all pharma companies that manufacture contraceptives. In other words, Hobby Lobby doesn't have the influence or clout to exclude health related companies from from a mutual fund. But it appears they do have the ability to negotiate covered benefits with a health insurance company.
Is it hypocritical? Actually I don't give a shit. Will the SCOTUS link the two....NO.
Read the last paragraph.
shitty options, but options nevertheless. Both Ave Maria and Timothy have your standard mix of mutual funds, at an expense ratio no rational person in their right mind would pay, except for religious zealots. I saw expense ratios of 1.5% to 2.6%. Plus their performance is no better than an iShares ETF at an expense ratio of 0.18%.
So if Hobby Lobby managers would not aware, or chose not to select them, then good for them. At least in this respect, they were looking out for the best interests of their employees.
...why they're taking the case all the way to the Supreme Ct. They know damn well there are faith-based funds. But as you say, they're looking out for the best FINANCIAL interest of their employees rather than the best healthcare interests. So like everyone else, Hobby Lobby owner David Green worships the almighty dollar, not Almighty God.
Note also that these investments were not selected by Hobby Lobby or the managing trust anyway but by independent investment managers. And you can’t tell a mutual fund to make only socially responsible investments for your money– it does not work that way. Now there certainly are investments they could make that would conform more closely to their religious beliefs but their decision to invest in general mutual funds is not relevant to the issues before the Court.
Whether a for profit corporation has First Amendment Free Exercise rights, and whether they are entitled to a religious exemption to Obamacare, remains to be seen. But their investments will play no role in the either the case before the Supreme Court or the underlying lawsuit
O-care got promoted on the basis that it wasn't a tax, then the authors argued the exact opposite in the SC.
no need to square that up for the shameless liar obimbo
but in the court of public opinion this won't play well. Of course it wouldn't surprise me if the execs at Hobby Lobby were completely unaware that they were invested in those companies. They were most likely just as surprised as everyone else.
I hate to be on the side of "religious pukes" but even though this has the good old "gotcha" factor to it, outside the court of public opinion,I agree this will have zero bearing on their court case.
Since I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have the expertise that you St. Croix and GaGambler have regarding investments, I can't find anything to disagree with you on. That's one thing I like about this board; not everyone can be an expert on everything, so there are times I get a chance to learn something that I'm not well versed in.
How can I call you names (which I truly enjoy) when you act all reasonable?