So... if they are not responsible for other people's behaviors, why are they funding organizations that such as NCCF? Sounds like they are doing more than just living peaceably with others...
"Salon writer Eli Clifton has uncovered evidence that the Greens donated millions to the National Christian Charitable Fund (NCCF) to fund the current anti-contraception effort heard by the Supreme Court this week, and also the Arizona anti-gay bill that was vetoed by Jan Brewer a couple of weeks ago. "
Thats a different point. They should be able to donate to whomever they want, (if the board approves). Wait that said Greens donated, was it personal money?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-03-2014).]
Do keep in mind that normally a 401k investment portfolio is so removed from your employer that its not really a useful piece of information. I also think that its the employees responsibility to pick and choose which funds they want, not the employers, if they dont like the 'defaults. ( i get a report every so often, that i dont read as close as i should at my age, but i'm sure its based on MY choices.. ) Personally i wouldn't want my employer telling a finance expert what to do... Unless i worked for a investment firm.
HL selected the 401K company and the money they give to employees (company match) is supporting abortion products... the same ones they fought to not pay for. I guess they need to find a new 401K company also.
Thats a different point. They should be able to donate to whomever they want, (if the board approves).
Sure, but don't tell me they are "living peaceably"... because what they are really doing it plotting to restrict the freedoms of others through funding to this lobbying group (lets call it what it is).
Sure, but don't tell me they are "living peaceably"... because what they are really doing it plotting to restrict the freedoms of others through funding to this lobbying group (lets call it what it is).
No they are "peaceable". We all vote with a ballot during elections and with our wallet every day. Being against this is being against freedom. What ISIS is doing in middle east, thats not peacable.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-03-2014).]
No they are "peaceable". We all vote with a ballot during elections and with our wallet every day. Being against this is being against freedom. What ISIS is doing in middle east, thats not peacable.
So, would you consider your neighbor "peaceable" if he/she was plotting with other neighbors and city/county council to have your Fiero removed (or pick something)? Their weapon is money, vs ISIS and guns.
HL selected the 401K company and the money they give to employees (company match) is supporting abortion products... the same ones they fought to not pay for. I guess they need to find a new 401K company also.
Whoops....
What do you mean by "401K company"? Are you referring to the company that administers the 401k, or the funds themselves? One "example" from your source is saying they invest in Pfizer, which makes some of those products. The article says some of the company's 401k funds are in "mutual funds" that include Pfizer, which makes some of the products you're referring to. That's an awfully long stretch to find something to complain about. A single mutual fund may invest in scores of companies, which Pfizer is only one. Even then, Pfizer makes a multitude of products, only a few of which may be objectionable to their religious beliefs.
Your argument is they can't use a 401k company that invests in a mutual fund that has a company in the fund that might make morning after pills. And you equate this with them providing insurance coverage to an employee to purchase that specific product?
Originally posted by jaskispyder: So, would you consider your neighbor "peaceable" if he/she was plotting with other neighbors and city/county council to have your Fiero removed (or pick something)? Their weapon is money, vs ISIS and guns.
It would be more akin to the neighbor not allowing me to wash it on their lawn.
Oh, so there must be a certain degree of separation in religion? I guess when they stand in front of the Gates, Peter will verify that the HL owners were far enough removed from the "mutual fund", that they can enter Heaven... Interesting. Is that in the Bible, or just something you are making up? Is Kevin Bacon involved?
That dang double standard keeps coming up. I guess it is distance related now... interesting... no wonder religion is so complex...
HL selected the 401K company and the money they give to employees (company match) is supporting abortion products... the same ones they fought to not pay for. I guess they need to find a new 401K company also.
Whoops....
Unless things have changed, individual employees have the option to choose which specific funds make up their 401K from a group of mutual funds in the group. (I know I had that option with the most recent 401K I had)
Unless things have changed, individual employees have the option to choose which specific funds make up their 401K from a group of mutual funds in the group. (I know I had that option with the most recent 401K I had)
If I read his post correctly, he's saying they can't even use a 401k management company that offers a mutual fund that might include a business that makes those products.
Unless things have changed, individual employees have the option to choose which specific funds make up their 401K from a group of mutual funds in the group. (I know I had that option with the most recent 401K I had)
You have limited group to select from, usually. This is a "plan" selected by the corporation. Yes, employees can select the funds, but they are limited by what is in that group.
I think they should do everything they can to change their investment portfolio. I mean, to say they are against these drugs being paid for when it comes to their employees for "moral reasons", but then turning around and making money off those same drugs.. They would have been better off saying it was about the bottom line, instead of trying to make some public morality stand out of it. This kind of hypocrisy, while not illegal, REALLY hurts their brand.. and if they fail (and I think they now will) they have only themselves to blame, really. Win a lawsuit, lose your business. Makes sense to me.
You have limited group to select from, usually. This is a "plan" selected by the corporation. Yes, employees can select the funds, but they are limited by what is in that group.
That's what I said: Individual employees have the option to choose which specific funds make up their 401K from a group of mutual funds in the group.
I think they should do everything they can to change their investment portfolio. I mean, to say they are against these drugs being paid for when it comes to their employees for "moral reasons", but then turning around and making money off those same drugs
How does the company make money off a 401k plan? That's employee money that's invested. Their contributions to it go to the employee, not the company.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Double standard. Once the money leaves their hands, it should be treated the same way (either they want to control it, or they don't). They want to have it both ways, though.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:
..That dang double standard keeps coming up..
It seems you would have it that way. Either way you have a complaint with them. If they are not allowed to promote what you say their religion says they should. Yet they are forced to support what you say their religion says they should not.
That's what I said: Individual employees have the option to choose which specific funds make up their 401K from a group of mutual funds in the group.
Yes, I am agreeing with you.
HL and the investment company select with funds are available to the employee. HL also matches the employee contribution. So, HL could/is giving money towards the continual production of the (and research of similar) same drugs they are denying their employees.... under the guise of religion.
Your argument is they can't use a 401k company that invests in a mutual fund that has a company in the fund that might make morning after pills. And you equate this with them providing insurance coverage to an employee to purchase that specific product?
That's a logical leap of olympic proportions.
Either they REALLY care about that issue (and why wouldn't they if they take the case all the way to the SCOTUS?) or they don't... I mean, it's the word of the LORD, their GOD!
BTW, why doesn't the LORD just smite and/or strike down the makers of morning after pills?
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 07-03-2014).]
How does the company make money off a 401k plan? That's employee money that's invested. Their contributions to it go to the employee, not the company.
Ok so we have now settled that the money being made is investments for their employees . Now, back to the original statement: They need to find a way to change their investment portfolio, or retract that morality statement, if they want to stay in business. Most of the yarn buying spinsters I know aren't fond of the way they are doing things and are happy to buy their craft items at Michaels from now on. (Investment heads up for those wanting to put money into something.. Michaels may be a good choice.)
I will give you thanks for splitting hairs on a myopic and hurried mistake of mine....I say that makes no difference in my point, but like you I like accuracy... so well done. (No sarcasm)
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 07-03-2014).]
It seems you would have it that way. Either way you have a complaint with them. If they are not allowed to promote what you say their religion says they should. Yet they are forced to support what you say their religion says they should not.
They use religion to defend their actions vs defending their religion with their actions.
Maybe they should just be allowed to spend any money at all because somebody might use that money that they touched for something they said they don't support.
Sounds to me like some will just not be happy with anything they might ever do, just because they have a religious base and are attempting to adhere to it.
I will say that with equal protection we all should be allowed to do the same, make these choices regardless of how we claim or why we might make the choices. Myself, I will not try and burn down some one else solely because they get to do something, or have something and the opportunity is not available for me.
I guess I am more thinking along the lines of they shouldnt even need to defend their actions.
I could understand if they were consistent, but they are not. They select how/when they want to use religious beliefs and that does question their motives and it isn't just about faith anymore, yet they stick with that story. My opinion.
I could understand if they were consistent, but they are not. They select how/when they want to use religious beliefs and that does question their motives and it isn't just about faith anymore, yet they stick with that story. My opinion.
Just who the heck are you to judge how consistent they are in their beliefs? Do you think that somehow you have the right to judge them? I think not.
On one of your other points above you seem to think that you have an inalienable right to abortion so anyone who opposes it is trying to take away your freedoms. Many of us oppose abortion because we know that it taking a human life. And because we know and feel this way we refuse to pay for abortion and will fight to maintain our right to refuse even if it takes us to the Supreme Court. I believe from what I have seen of this family that own Hobby Lobby, that if in fact the ruling had gone the other way they very well would have still refused and either shut down the business or done something else to refuse to pay for abortions. They are heroes in this case to me.
Since we who are pro life, who know that it the taking of human life, will do everything we can that is ethical and moral to change the laws of this land to protect these innocent babies. That is our right under the constitution. If you somehow cannot get your head wrapped around that then there is a significant mis-understanding on your part.
And all of this other little petty arguments that you seem to come up with that somehow we have to abide by your understanding of consistency is just fog trying to cover up the real issue here. And that is that you are sacrificing children for your own feelings and wants.
One other point is that even with Hobby Lobby being upheld by the courts any one of their employees can still get an abortion, or use IUD's or take the morning after pill. They will just have to pay for it themselves.
Since we who are pro life, who know that it the taking of human life, will do everything we can that is ethical and moral to change the laws of this land to protect these innocent babies.
As will people that dont believe life is at conception. Their 'cause' is no less just, just different.
I still say that the company has a right not to fund anything they dont want too.. there is no 'right' to insurance in the first place. And i wont be boycotting them due to them having different ideas than myself. Those polices dont effect my experience as a customer. If they decided to enact polices that effected me as a customer, then most likely i would take my business elsewhere ( like if i want something on Sunday )
OH and as a disclaimer, i am personally against abortion ( other than for medical reasons ). However, i wont tell another family what to do so i'm for choice, and i dont think "life" starts instantly but instead sometime later.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 07-03-2014).]
One other point is that even with Hobby Lobby being upheld by the courts any one of their employees can still get an abortion, or use IUD's or take the morning after pill. They will just have to pay for it themselves.
Not one other point, that is the point. The left won't be happy until we are not just paying for their abortions but performing them too. Sure that is an exaggeration. Without arguing the same ole abortion issue their right to abortion needs to stop at anybody else being forced to pay for it. Well, of course if some douche wants to pay for all the abortions he can afford I say let em.
Despite what they would like me to believe, pregnancy is totally avoidable other than rape
What was it we (the right) were told a few years ago??... What was it...???
Oh yea, "You Lost, You Need To Shut Up And Deal With It. Stop Bitching, It Won't Change Anything. We Are In Charge Now, Deal With It. "
Follow your own advice losers.
(Mostly tongue in cheek.)
Brad
In the words of the former Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee, Patrick Gaspard:
He did such a good job as the HMFIC of the DNC, 0bama appointed him Ambassador to South Africa. Clearly he's well versed in constitutionality. And bitches.
OK, you asked: abortion is baby murder and birth control is not health care, just cheapskates demanding that others should pay for anti-baby pills.
The first is a debatable issue. It depends on when life starts, and that is not something that can be proven. its 'faith' only.
The 2nd, my first wife was on the pill to regulate her hormones due to severe medical issues. If you want to call that cheapskate anti-baby tactic you are full of **** ( and we paid for it out of our pocket, we couldn't afford insurance back then )
The first is a debatable issue. It depends on when life starts, and that is not something that can be proven.
Can't be proven? That's a bit presumptuous. Medical science can very accurately track each point in development from fertilization through birth. The only debate is at what point you decide the unborn becomes alive. It's pretty clear from a medical standpoint that the fetus is alive prior to birth. The question becomes how long before birth does "life" begin, and that requires a common definition of what life is. That's not a religious or faith problem. That's people, religious or no, not agreeing on the point at which life begins. Virtually everyone agrees it's sometime between conception and birth. Even the law agrees that life begins prior to birth, otherwise you couldn't charge someone for two murders for killing a pregnant woman.
Can't be proven? That's a bit presumptuous. Medical science can very accurately track each point in development from fertilization through birth. The only debate is at what point you decide the unborn becomes alive. It's pretty clear from a medical standpoint that the fetus is alive prior to birth. The question becomes how long before birth does "life" begin, and that requires a common definition of what life is. That's not a religious or faith problem. That's people, religious or no, not agreeing on the point at which life begins. Virtually everyone agrees it's sometime between conception and birth. Even the law agrees that life begins prior to birth, otherwise you couldn't charge someone for two murders for killing a pregnant woman.
I agrre. Anyone with a brain can understand that cells growing in an organism, splitting and multiplying is alive. the debate is not even a religious debate. Killing another person without a justifiable reason is murder or at least manslaughter. The "debate" is at what piont is the human baby called a person. For me that point is at conseption, that is the piont at which a human baby starts life.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 07-04-2014).]
The 2nd, my first wife was on the pill to regulate her hormones due to severe medical issues. If you want to call that cheapskate anti-baby tactic you are full of **** ( and we paid for it out of our pocket, we couldn't afford insurance back then )
CLEARLY the context of my comment was about birth control. NOT the possible other uses of the pills. If anyone is using birth control "pills" to regulate hormones, then that IS NOT birth control, that is hormone control using birth control pills. A side effect of this type of therapy is that she may not get pregnant.
CLEARLY the context of my comment was about birth control. NOT the possible other uses of the pills. If anyone is using birth control "pills" to regulate hormones, then that IS NOT birth control, that is hormone control using birth control pills. A side effect of this type of therapy is that she may not get pregnant.
Can't be proven? That's a bit presumptuous. Medical science can very accurately track each point in development from fertilization through birth. The only debate is at what point you decide the unborn becomes alive. It's pretty clear from a medical standpoint that the fetus is alive prior to birth. The question becomes how long before birth does "life" begin, and that requires a common definition of what life is. That's not a religious or faith problem. That's people, religious or no, not agreeing on the point at which life begins. Virtually everyone agrees it's sometime between conception and birth. Even the law agrees that life begins prior to birth, otherwise you couldn't charge someone for two murders for killing a pregnant woman.
I didnt say it wasn't before birth, i said it wasn't at conception. It does become 'alive' somewhere after conception. ( but not days or a few weeks.. ) And it IS a religious problem in reality.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: You are changing the subject... ie.. deflecting. It is ok for "their money" to be used to fund abortions (or whatever) in China. BUT, that same money, paid to an insurance company, can not be used to fund abortions, or whatever for their employees. Double standard. Once the money leaves their hands, it should be treated the same way (either they want to control it, or they don't). They want to have it both ways, though.
I am not changing the subject. You are the one deflecting. You don't even have any proof that the money they pay their Chinese suppliers does indeed fund abortions. You also can not say that Hobby Lobby even knows that.
I didnt say it wasn't before birth, i said it wasn't at conception. It does become 'alive' somewhere after conception. ( but not days or a few weeks.. ) And it IS a religious problem in reality.
Not happening at conception is your opinion. As I said, everyone agrees it's sometime between conception and birth. The argument is at what point. Those points can be easily tracked, so it's not like medical science doesn't know what stage it's in. It's the non-medical arguments over when life begins that's up for debate.
If life doesn't begin at conception, then when does it begin? What do you base that definition of "life" on? Does it have to have a developed functioning brain to be "alive?" Does that then mean anything without a brain or conscious thought isn't alive?
Does that then mean anything without a brain or conscious thought isn't alive?
In context of this discussion, the definition I'm talking about are 'higher forms' of life, not the kind that makes a single celled organism 'alive' because it has DNA and can reproduce.
And its not an opinion if we are using my context, there are no 'higher functions' in a blob of cells at conception. That comes later. Far later. Now, where that is, i agree is opinion, and it is long before birth.
Isn't it my right to have my employer pay for everything I want? 
