And SCOTUS gives Obammy ANOTHER big **** you!

[8timechamps]

As you say, Hobby Lobby is a big company -- big enough to pick and choose which mutual funds to invest in that don't contradict their belief system. And there are mutual funds out there who cater to those beliefs.

Hobby Lobby isn't mandated to offer their employees a 401(k) program, it's an option they choose to make available. The issue here is that Hobby Lobby doesn't want the government mandating something that they feel opposes their religious beliefs. Retirement plans don't do that, and trying to find a fund that has 0.30% holding in a company that owns a company that makes an abortion pill, seems like a reach.

I don't manage Hobby Lobby's qualified plan holdings, but I do manage companies close in size. In my 25+ years in this industry, I've never seen an a la cart plan made available to a mid size company. They get options, but it's typically "do you want this plan with 35 fund, this plan with 40 funds or this plan with 45 funds"? Employers typically offer the best available plan for everyone. But the don't get to build a plan specifically with the funds they want. If that's the kind of plan they want, then they wouldn't be offering a 401(k) at all.

What I find kind of funny with this "Landmark Case" is that the ruling will affect nearly nobody. Most companies aren't going to purposly try to make their plans look less inclusive (as a good retirement plan is a draw to future employees). The IBMs, McKesson's, Proctor & Gambel's of the world aren't going to lose a minute of sleep over this. This helps the small companies, the companies that weave their religious beliefs into the fabric of their business. They're the one's who win. It doesn't really "hurt" anyone.

[TitoMorelli]

I am sure that everyone here is aware that Hobby Lobby's inventory is manufactured in The People's Republic of China -- where forced abortions are common and birth control is mandatory. Not to mention that Hobby Lobby pensions are invested in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture birth control. Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

This line of argument absolutely reeks of sore loser-ism.

[TAFBSooner]

I found the initial Obamacare SCOTUS ruling calling it a tax questionable, so perhaps this is in realization that the original Obamacare ruling was maybe not such a good idea and dialing back the mess that has happened since.

On a sidenote, I find the liberal trifecta of women on SCOTUS very cookie cutter bland. They always have the same opinions, they always vote the same way... maybe Obama should have appointed a different "wise latina." Lockstep liberalism among Democrat president appointees is predictable on SCOTUS though, I guess, whether it's chicks on the bench or guys

Umm, the vote was 5 Catholic men against the rest* of SCOTUS. Who's in lockstep?

*One Catholic woman and three Jews.

[okie52]

I am sure that everyone here is aware that Hobby Lobby's inventory is manufactured in The People's Republic of China -- where forced abortions are common and birth control is mandatory. Not to mention that Hobby Lobby pensions are invested in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture birth control. Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

Sounds like you missed your midol.

[olevetonahill]

Sounds like you missed your midol.

Im only enjoying this cause Obammy gets his PeePee slapped in the dirt again. Othere than that I really dint care one way er the other. For the Life of me I cant understand the Outrage at Hobby Lobby for something the Gov, TRIED to do and The SCOTUS naw dont do that.

If it dont affect you or yours then why hell do you care. If its that big a Deal that yer Hos get BC then Yer Tribe should all band together and Buy em some!

[badger]

Umm, the vote was 5 Catholic men against the rest* of SCOTUS. Who's in lockstep?

*One Catholic woman and three Jews.

I'm talking about the three women always having the same opinion, always voting the same way. Is this truly representative of women in this country? Hardly. Weren't they adding more women to the Supreme Court to improve diversity? When they lockstep to the same conclusion without fail every damn decision, it's pathetic

[olevetonahill]

Badj they aint really addin wimmen they just addin Hard Left Libs in dresses

[TAFBSooner]

I'm talking about the three women always having the same opinion, always voting the same way. Is this truly representative of women in this country? Hardly. Weren't they adding more women to the Supreme Court to improve diversity? When they lockstep to the same conclusion without fail every damn decision, it's pathetic

You're looking at one side of the fact that SCOTUS is now a political branch of government. (The other side is the five male Catholics that, SURPRISE, voted against birth control.) Both sides use the fear of losing clout on the Court to whip up support for their POTUS candidates.

You want diversity of opinion among womeon on SCOTUS? Pressure the next Republican candidate for POTUS to appoint a conservative woman to the Court. I hear there are binders full of them. Here's hoping he (and you know it will be a he) won't get the chance.

[8timechamps]

Here's a fact that most of the folks, speaking out against this ruling, are missing:

Hobby Lobby covers 16 types of birth control under their health plan. They won the right to not cover 4 that they deemed went against their religious beliefs.

How in the hell does that equate to this:



EDIT: I'm not "Following" Jimmy Willaims (surprise, and MSNBC contributor), I just copied the image from this site.

[badger]

I agree that tweet is taking it to an extreme. In seeking a more moderate/conservative woman's input on the decision, I'd love it if someone asked Sandra Day O'Connor how she would have voted... my guess is she's enjoying retirement though, and deservedly so.

This may not be an end-all decision. SCOTUS once said separate but equal but then realized separate is never equal. There is also the possibility that Congress may create new laws regarding contraceptives.

Another note on the SCOTUS women: Unless I'm mistaken, only Ruth has children and is (or has been) married. Sonia and Elena don't. I doubt that even represents two-third of Democratic women, let alone all women in the U.S. O'Connor was married and had three sons I think.

[Skysooner]

I could see this case morphing into something if/when same sex marriage becomes the law of the land. Can these same closely held corporations not give medical plans to the spouses of employees if they offer it to different sex married couples? As long as they keep it common sense and only limit it to the medicines they objected to then I have no real problem with it.

[badger]

I could see this case morphing into something if/when same sex marriage becomes the law of the land. Can these same closely held corporations not give medical plans to the spouses of employees if they offer it to different sex married couples? As long as they keep it common sense and only limit it to the medicines they objected to then I have no real problem with it.

It probably won't be an issue till the couples get older. Old people medicine costs a lot of money.