Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius -- CU revisited

[kandrathe]

Yes, consistency in their professed belief system would be nice and uhm, consistent. And the more I read about the case, the more I'm doubtful that it is about their right to freedom of religion\morals. Ditto to the scenario that it's the authora-tays demanding HL surrendering it's professed morality.

To me it's looking more like an attempted legal runaround to use 'morality', as an excuse to avoid paying a part of their health coverage for their employees.

And HL having invested in companies that produces the contraceptive products, the kind of products that HL claims is against their beliefs. Well let me just ask you, doesn't that make you go kind of, .....Hmmmm... Even just a bit?

Maybe they really were ignorant of the fact. But how long is the shelf life on that defense? If this really is a matter of -consistent- morals for this company, are they willing to put their money where their mouth is?

Ah, well, is it really hypocrisy? Or, are we holding them to a nearly unattainable standard? Is your cocoa or coffee picked by slave child labor? How about the labor that went into the clothes you are wearing? Have you looked through the business practices of the 90 to 200 companies in the your average fund/401K plan? I bet you'd find something at least slightly tainted in some of them. I think for most people, they don't look at 401k plan with this level of scrutiny to see if they're invested in "evil", so to speak. And, so maybe you did check them out once upon a time. They are not static, and so it is probable that what you once thought may no longer be true. It seems more of a "Gotcha" type of counter attack or hatchet job to debunk their claim for religious liberty. How hard an argument would it be to take any person or institution of high moral authority, and say, "You claim to be a moral person, but look at that evil that your involved in". You just need to find one smudge, anywhere in their history -- then make the "hypocrisy" charge. For the liberal establishment, who suddenly found themselves in an uncomfortable position of being caught out trouncing on liberties once again, cub reporter Molly Redden's gotcha story was just the remedy to reassure themselves that "Hey, yeah, those right wing zealot hypocrites are repugnant and deserve neither my consideration or their 1st amendment rights."

Investigating here; http://www.brightscope.com/401k-rating/3...bby-Group/

Here are the holdings in one of three funds (the balanced option) for HL 401K participants which is 15% of the HL employee participant assets held; https://www.americanfunds.com/funds/deta...pNumber=11 Did you find all the bad bits?

So, again, I believe its more nuanced than checking out the monks robes, or to roll over and accept the fallen world. Religious freedom is not predicated on our interpretation and judgement of the consistency of the person seeking to assert their religious freedom. The 1st amendment right to religious liberty means not forcing people to violate their claimed religious/moral convictions, even if that means the rest of society must incur some degree of inconvenience or tolerance of this inconsistency. It's really about respecting their beliefs, and not our judgement of their beliefs.