Topic: Turns out that Hobby Lobby holds assets in emergency contraception production - page 2. (Read 2618 times)

It has no balls.


People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child.

As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope.


As noted by Ginsburg:

    Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

    The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment.

    There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring).


In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues.

You likely will not find anything on the Greens' investments. It's not in the 5500. Also, I did not say it was not standard. I would guess it is probably 50/50. For example, the company I work for has a very generous 401(k) plan, which includes a 10% employer contribution (not match, but outright contribution). Notwithstanding the generosity, none of the company's owners participate in the 401(k) for tax and liability reasons.

Businesses can choose the moral 401(k) plans, but it's only really an option for smaller companies. Let's say Hobby Lobby had picked a "moral" (by their definition, not mine) menu of investments. These investments are indisputably higher cost than standard index funds. Any of the 12,000 plan participants could have written a letter to the plan administrator and fiduciary at any time and said I think you are not acting in my best interests by not offering index funds, which are lower cost. What is the fiduciary's answer to that?

Which ultimately (to skip the long progression of positive legal precedence) has its roots in supposed natural law yes? So I reiterate the request.

This has nothing to do with natural law. It was an interpretation of a positive law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

Explain your understanding of natural law first so there is a base from which to work from?

It doesn't matter, they were wrong. The decision was wrong. As in the opposite of right.

So in other words, this is an assumption as well and one that doesn't generally favor standard practices (by your own admission). I acknowledge that the author didn't source the 401k participation by the Greens (and the burden of proof would fall on him), so I am left with the decision to either investigate further myself which I don't really care to do since, as previously stated, I'm not very interested in the topic, or choose between a slight inclination towards either Forbes or you. i'm willing to listen, but you haven't yet explained to me why religious 401k options for businesses exist if businesses aren't allowed to ever choose them.

I also find the argument that it is harder to choose a religious minded 401k option to be an uncompelling defense seeing as how they were perfectly willing to threan closure and take the government all the way to the Supreme Court over small details of their health insurance. They don't seem to have any qualms with slight inconvenience on that front.

I also don't think that they maliciously or even knowingly put their assets in those companies. I find it much more likely that it represents a minor case of managerial negligence in terms of being informed. I just find it a rather ironic happenstance.

That will not happen. Read the decision. How were they wrong? Explain to me why it is wrong.

As well as case law over the last twenty years.

I know that, and it is based on a law passed on 1993. That's not correct; it is based on the text of a 1993 law.

I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!!

I would not say it is "standard," but it is not uncommon. Many officers and senior managers have top hat compensation plans or other separate plans. Sometimes owner-managers hold funds out so they can reinvest it in their business. Very often, they do not invest much or anything so that they can meet the non-discrimination test.

They could not hold any index funds.

This case was decided on June 30, 2014.

And what natural law are you going with here? It was a very Hobbesian method of legal structuring.

What are you talking about? That would be an example of a positive law that violates natural law. No debate needed.

Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes.

This case was decided in 1993 when the law at issue was passed by Clinton and a Democratic legislature.

Tell that to the inhabitants of the DRCongo who legally had to pay around 300% of their business revenues to the central government.

First, some of the stuff in his article none of us can prove, and the Forbes author claiming this stuff is true makes him lose all credibility. Most prominently is his argument that the Greens are participants in the plan and hold the offending assets. While it may be true that the Greens are employees of the company, the 5500 form does not show you whether they actually participate and, if they do, what their holdings are. We simply do not know.

Second, he ignores IRS and DOL rulings saying that non-economic factors can only be considered if they are truly cost and return neutral. Pointedly, he does not propose an alternative, ESG screened investment menu that would satisfy the fiduciary duties.

The government doesn't decree that companies offer 401k plans. Hobby Lobby could pay out higher wages instead, but I'm sure there are quite a number of alternate investments they could hold that actually align with what they claim to believe.

If they REALLY were so principled as to be appalled at the thought of this, then they shouldn't have these investments.

This does speak directly to the sincerity of the beliefs claimed by Hobby Lobby. Holding these investments while decrying insurers who cover them makes it seem like they are being entirely political and their problem was more about the politics of Obamacare than any sincere concerns about Plan B drugs.