So. . . .buying Chinese goods makes you anti-woman ?? That would be. . . just about everyone in the US 0f A. . .

Well, then, considering Wal-Mart. . . why aren't you wearing a burka ???

This is purely a straw-man argument. . .

Being a Christian means always being a work in progress.

I agree that the labor conditions in the factories in China that supply their goods are very likely the antithesis of Christian principle. (I am generalizing, but you can tell by the price and quality that this is not a high-margin line.) Hobby Lobby should have already, but especially now since they've put themselves on the world's stage as an example of Christian principles, research their supply chain and work to improve the conditions there.

That doesn't negate their beliefs, or the ruling on their religious freedom. It just means they're not perfect. I hope they see that, and seek to improve.

Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.

That's a bunch of hogwash for several reasons.

First. Economically, it is far crueler to boycott poor countries than to buy goods at the prices they set. Having zero income is even worse than having low income. Obviously we want the workers to have more income, which brings us to the second problem.

Second. If you have a problem with chinese workers getting low wages, blame the people who control their prices and wages. Namely the authoritarian leftists in charge in China.

Third. By saying the fact that the company buys merchandise from china proves that it buys from factories that operate under slave labor conditions is dishonest because Kim admits that she doesn't know which facilities Hobby Lobby buys from, and her backing evidence is that chinese facilities have a "reputation for labor rights violations and rock-bottom wages". She either needs a list of the factories the merchandise is being bought from AND proof that they operate under slave conditions, OR proof that ALL chinese factories operate under slave conditions (which is more plausible given that leftists love creating slavery).

Fourth. The company could voluntarily choose to buy more expensive products from other sources and boycott the factories of the poor chinese the author pretends to care about, but then the company would have to either pay less to their employees (who currently earn significantly more than the minimum wage), or go out of business and destroy all the jobs they've created (which is what liberals really want).

Fifth. There is a significant moral distinction between choosing not to pay for evil, and choosing to boycott everyone else who chooses to pay for evil. If the company owners believed they had the moral obligation to boycott anyone who paid for evil then they would have the obligation to boycott china AND fire all employees asking for abortifacient "contraceptives" (scare quotes because the term itself is a lie when applied to abortion-causing drugs).
Obviously, the owners are not applying that standard to either their sources or employees. Instead they are using the Christian standard of "in the world, not of the world". They don't see it as their job to hold other people to Christian standards of morality, but they refuse to directly support evil themselves.

This is just rabble rousing. Wages and working conditions in China are improving very fast - precisely because they can and do sell to the West.

I recall an interview with some kid whose job was assembling scissors 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. The kid said: sure, the work sucks, but it was infinitely better than starving on the street. Which is what would happen if Western companies refused to buy from his employer because of child labor.

The point is: Only when there is plenty of work to go around do companies have to compete for the workers, take care of them and pay them decent wages.

How's that Apple product working for you.

I think Kim Bhasin makes some reasonable points that it would not be hypocritical for other Christians to criticize Hobby Lobby for their various relationships in China.

But shorter Tim, it would need some investigation, because who knows? Maybe Hobby Lobby does mandate decent wages and safe working conditions. Given what I perceive is the difference between manufacturing iPhones and manufacturing cheap art shlock, I doubt Hobby Lobby does, but I just don't know.

> Second. If you have a problem with chinese workers getting low wages, blame the people who control their prices and wages. Namely the authoritarian leftists in charge in China.

But that's bullshit.

If you knowingly hire a company abusing its workers you can't hide behind some corporate shield of "not responsible".

> First. Economically, it is far crueler to boycott poor countries than to buy goods at the prices they set.

And no one is calling for a boycott of countries. Boycotting a factory that abuses workers is not a boycott of a country.

> How's that Apple product working for you.

My murder phone comes from Korea, fwiw.

"How's that Apple product working for you."

It's not. Piece of crap. I bought the white Macbook and I have *never* had so many hardware problems with a computer. Ever. The worst Windoze clone is far more robust than this thing.

On the plus side, the OS kicks ass on viruses and malware and has saved me countless hours compared to my Windows maintenance and security problems.

I don't do business with hobby lobby because I don't like their business tactics.

They jack up their prices, and then have weekly specials where they knock selected items back fifty percent.

It drives me crazy, and I have almost stopped making impulse purchases anymore anyway.

Last time I was there I walked around with my phone checking prices on Amazon. Most times they were better. And there is nothing I need at Hobby Lobby

The few places I do business with, carry powder, primers, bullets, and rimfire ammo. These items never appear at Hobby Lobby.

One of the benefits of the free market is it removes your obligation to examine the business practices of the manufacturers for political or religious purity before doing business with them.

This is impossible for anyone with enough business background to know what a typical supply chain looks like.

I understand the latest theory about why the Vikings started raiding England and France was because the new Christian leadership of those kingdoms refused to trade with the Norsemen who were pagans.

Here is a challenge for all you holier than thou types.

Next time you stay at a hotel, interview all the maids, and ask for their green cards, so you can be sure you are not doing business with someone using below market illegal alien labor to clean the room.

You are part of the problem, whether you admit it or not.

I'm of two minds about this. One the one hand, I see and acknowledge the "physician, heal thyself" aspect of it. On the other hand, I observe that the prosecution here is pretty selective, e.g., Wal-Mart gets ripped for doing business in China, but nobody says a peep when Target does the same thing.

"However, some staunch Christians" HuffPo

Funny, I see ONE staunch Christian, John Merritt... who is attacking China itself, for being China.

He does not seek to persuade or convert them, and he does nothing to try to ameliorate the pain that he points out.

Because it's way more fun to name and shame those doing business with the godless harlots. You can already imagine him driving Mary Magdalene from town with a whip.

And what would a normal person do if they felt that it was bad to deal with China in this way?
Maybe write an open letter to the Greens? Maybe suggest that they search for more ethical sourcing... maybe source out of India instead? Maybe use their wealth to positively effect the lives of those workers?

But that certainly wouldn't be clickbait, now would it?

There may be positive outcomes from this, but knocking at the door is easier than breaking it down.

> Last time I was there I walked around with my phone checking prices on Amazon. Most times they were better. And there is nothing I need at Hobby Lobby

Personally, I think it's of questionable ethics when I walk around a store to price compare at Amazon. Beyond ethical questions, I know I dislike seeing the boarded up store six months later when it closes and fires its employees.

> One of the benefits of the free market is it removes your obligation to examine the business practices of the manufacturers for political or religious purity before doing business with them.

I just don't see how this follows. If anything, I am told the free market makes it easier for me to justify choosing businesses based on inputs other than price.

Don't like Apple murder phones? Buy HTC and let the market sort it out.

"Personally, I think it's of questionable ethics when I walk around a store to price compare at Amazon. Beyond ethical questions, I know I dislike seeing the boarded up store six months later when it closes and fires its employees."

You have a strange definition of ethics.

Would it also be unethical for me to walk around the grocery store with a written list of prices from their competitor? Or with the weekly grocery store sale adds in my purse?

I don't have any ethical obligation to do business with Hobby Lobby in the first place let alone buy something from them at an inflated mark up.

It is their responsibility to attract customers, and not my social responsibility to spend money with them.

Hobby lobby has put a lot of family owned small businesses under with their cookie cutter stores, economy of scale, and sale strategies.

If I buy something, it stays bought. I don't return an item if I find it cheaper somewhere else at a later date.

I like my Iphone. Facetime works between here and Japan, and in Japan. When I got it, my international calling charges disappeared.

Don't much care for the company, but love the product.

"Hobby lobby has put a lot of family owned small businesses under with their cookie cutter stores..." - Isab

Wow! Hobby Lobby did all that damage just by selling cookie cutters? They must be the best cookie cutters ever!

Amy's upset because Christians don't want to give women contraception for free?

I mean, this is a really suspicious moment in which to go all prissy about the vagaries of international trade.

> Church is a hospital for sinners, not a
> museum for saints.

> Posted by: flbeachmom at July 2, 2014 7:26 AM

Brilliant, brilliant line. Absolutely, savagely correct. Thanks for bringing it.

They jack up their prices, and then have weekly specials where they knock selected items back fifty percent. ~ Posted by: Isab at July 2, 2014 8:49 AM

It's called High-Low-Promotion Pricing - and it's fairly common in retailers of less-fungible items (e.g., Macy's).

Some grocery chains use HLP pricing to motivate shoppers to stop in frequently as frequent shoppers are better able to take advantage of rotating sales and discount offers.

Walmart's model, on the other hand, is EDLP (Everyday Low Pricing). EDLP is becoming more common in grocery retailing since shoppers are starting to gravitate to lower-priced retailers as the frequency of their shopping trips lessens (more are stocking up at discount and warehouse stores and using grocery stores to fill in the larder with non-bulk items).

EDLP strategies generally result in lower fixed costs (less advertising for promotional prices and less labor to execute price changes). It simplifies inventory management and profitability reporting (something in which I have first-hand experience). EDLP also results in flatter and more predictable consumer demand.

However, EDLP reduces profits. According to a Journal of Marketing report, EDLP policy generally reduces profits by 18% - while High-Low-Promotion pricing increases profits by 15%.

Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. ~ Posted by: flbeachmom at July 2, 2014 7:26 AM

Brilliant, brilliant line. Absolutely, savagely correct. ~ Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 2, 2014 11:48 AM

+1

> Would it also be unethical for me to walk around the grocery store with a written list of prices from their competitor? Or with the weekly grocery store sale adds in my purse?

> I don't have any ethical obligation to do business with Hobby Lobby in the first place let alone buy something from them at an inflated mark up.

Which competitors? The ones with local places of business, or the online ones with no local presence, and profiting by not paying local workers a local price, paying local rent?

For a dude all bothered by doing business with the Chinese, you seem remarkably okay with exploiting local stores by making them your showroom for Amazon.

Whatever, so they pay the local rents, and you walk through them to examine the goods. That's their tough luck and you have no obligation to buy from them.

Let me see if I've got this straight.

Hobby Lobby sells products made in China and that's bad because Chinese factories exploit their labor.

Hobby Lobby pays its unskilled labor more than minimum wage, the very reason we're supposed to shop at Costco and The Gap, but that doesn't matter because ... China.

Costco and The Gap also sell products made in China, but that's okay because they pay higher than minimum wage.

We should stop buying from Hobby Lobby and buy from Amazon instead. Even though Amazon also sells products made by the labor-exploiting Chinese ... and exploits its own labor as well.

Mmmmkay.

"For a dude all bothered by doing business with the Chinese, you seem remarkably okay with exploiting local stores by making them your showroom for Amazon."

Who exactly is being exploited here?

I have no need for a showroom. I read reviews and specs.

I buy locally when it is something big enough that it would be a PITA to return if defective or if it is something that needs to be tried on, like shoes.

I rarely walk into a brick and mortar store anymore except when I am in Japan.

And there are three mistakes there.

I am not a dude.

I am not bothered by doing business with the Chinese, just have very little need for cheap decorator crap. or fish of questionable origin.

And there is nothing morally to distinguish price checking locally as opposed on to the internet.

I just do the math on the price plus shipping.

If you are the one driving around your local area from store to store, with gas at 3.50 a gallon, I have to assume you are NOT doing the math.

And are probably a reliable democratic voter.

"Second. If you have a problem with chinese workers getting low wages, blame the people who control their prices and wages. Namely the authoritarian leftists in charge in China."

Why doesn't anyone notice that having the government control wages and benefits is exactly what Hobby Lobby protesters WANT, just so they can have someone else pay for their birth control?

I'm with Tim G. Those making assertions like "slavery" or even "low wages" just because something is made in China haven't proved anything except that they themselves are prejudiced.

And foreign investors who come to a poor country for "cheap labor" is exactly how poor countries can bootstrap themselves into the modern world economy. Any job that an adult voluntarily takes is, by definition, better than the other alternatives available to him. Thus rich-country leftists who spew hate at companies like Nike for doing their producing in poor countries are, again, proving that they themselves are prejudiced and nothing more.

I buy at stores like Wal-Mart because I not only get good prices, I'm helping make the whole world rich. Anyone who has a problem with that needs to be called out for hating humanity.

I recall reading about a couple that tried to go a year without buying anything made in China. They failed. If a couple can't do it, a company sure as shit can't.

While I agree that the Hobby Lobby is made up of a bunch of douches, I will say this in their defense:

There's been a lot of criticism about how their 401k plans have companies that sell birth control... I don't know about your investments, but a lot of mine are mutual funds, which are groups of stocks, which are constantly being bought and sold and I never know exactly what funds are in them unless I am constantly checking. I do think it is realistic that they would not know exactly what companies they were dealing with.

NicoleK Says:

"I do think it is realistic that they would not know exactly what companies they were dealing with."

This may in fact be true.

However, I believe it is a fair criticism to notice when a company takes the time to carefully scrutinize the minute details of an insurance policy... but fails to carefully scrutinize a mutual fund prospectus.

Both of these documents are dense, filled with legal jargon, lists of exceptions, provisos, and policies etc...

That this company would go through the insurance policies with a fine toothed comb searching for line items they find objectionable on religious grounds, it is very reasonable to expect that they should do the same to vet the mutual fund options they include within their 401K plan.

If they haven't done so in the past due to an oversight, that people are bringing this up as a matter of philosophical consistency gives Hobby Lobby the chance to put its money where its mouth is.

We'll see if they make adjustments to their 401K now that ignorance is no longer a viable excuse.

Topic drift...

"Hobby lobby has put a lot of family owned small businesses under with their cookie cutter stores, economy of scale, and sale strategies."

That's the way it tends to work, though -- in a mature market, consolidation happens. That said, I'm starting to notice places where the franchise chain model seems to not be working very well anymore. One of my avocations is ballroom dancing. Twenty years ago, that market was dominated by the Fred Astaire and Arthur Murray studio chains. But something changed over the last decade or so -- the franchise chain model completely collapsed, and the bulk of that market is now controlled by independent studios. It used be that every medium-sized and a lot of smaller citis in the U.S. had either a FA or an AM. Nowdays, you generally won't find either of them outside of the major cities. But you can go to Tupelo, Mississippi and there is an independent studio there. There's an FA in San Francisco, but Cheryl Burke's is doing much better.

I'm seeing that happen with fitness centers too. 15 years ago, Gold's Gym was everywhere, but most of them are gone from the medium-sized citis now, at least in the Southeast. And Planet Fitness seems to not be taking off like people expected. But there are independent gyms everywhere. A friend of ours is making pretty good money running a gym that caters particularly to gymnists and cheerleading teams.

But the point is the mutal funds are constantly changing, the insurance policy, presumably, isn't

Agreeing with NicoleK, there are a few hot-button issues (such as gay marriage and abortion) that would tend to be red flags. Those sections are pretty easy to find in a benefits description - they kinda have their own sections. "Covered Dependents" leads you right to one of them.

Mutual fund docs are not set up that way. But there are ways to do it, and it should be something they consider.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/feeonlyplanner/2013/04/24/socially-responsible-investing-what-you-need-to-know/

We'll see if they make adjustments to their 401K now that ignorance is no longer a viable excuse.

Posted by: Artemis at July 3, 2014 6:19 AM

As usual Artemis, you have totally missed the forest for the trees.

Hobby Lobby probably gives less of a shit about their insurance plans than they do their 401k (which may be set up so the employees who benefit from them have a wide variety of choices)

This lawsuit was not about birth control. It was about who gets to decide what goes into a mandated insurance policy, the company that provides it, or the federal government.

The abortifacts were just a hook for an argument about whether the government could override religious beliefs with an insurance mandate.

Whether those beliefs are sincerely held or hypocritical has never been the point.

Don't forget that Hobby Lobby's objection was to paying for 4 of the 20 contraceptive items they were required to cover. They made no objection to paying for the other 16.

So, if the 401K portfolio includes manufacturers of the other 16, there's no hypocrisy.

The abortifacts were just a hook for an argument about whether the government could override religious beliefs with an insurance mandate.

Whether those beliefs are sincerely held or hypocritical has never been the point.

I dont know. Lets see what the supreme court says when someone claims a religious belief that women should not hold jobs at all.

Wal-Mart gets ripped for doing business in China, but nobody says a peep when Target does the same thing.
Target never touted itself as an American Company proud to sell American Made products.

Hobby Lobby sells products made in China and that's bad...
Costco and The Gap also sell products made in China, but that's okay...
Amazon also sells products made by the labor-exploiting Chinese...
Costco, The Gap, and Amazon aren't making the argument that they are "Christian" companies.

Of course, this is to be expected. Much like many "Christian" people, Hobby Lobby is only "Christian" when it suits them.

NicoleK Says:

"But the point is the mutal funds are constantly changing, the insurance policy, presumably, isn't"

That doesn't help your argument as much as you think it might.

The specific holdings within a mutual fund can and do change on a regular basis.

However, they do not change in a random or completely unpredictable manner.

The prospectus for any mutual fund defines a set of guiding principles upon which the fund managers will act.

For some funds this may mean outlining a predominant focus upon emerging markets while for others it will offer a prohibition from investment in risky micro-cap stocks.

This is how a potential investor can decide if that particular fund meets with their own risk tolerance and investment principles.

It didn't take me very long at all to find this article on Faith-Based mutual funds:

http://socialinvesting.about.com/od/faithbasedmutualfunds/

The point is, that if Hobby Lobby is serious about defining itself as a Christian organization, and on that basis argue that insurance plans must meet their religious criteria... then it is a reasonable criticism if they haven't exclusively selected a set of faith-based mutual funds to populate their 401K options.

Isab Says:

"Whether those beliefs are sincerely held or hypocritical has never been the point."

That is the point for those who criticize Hobby Lobby on these grounds.

What is it that you aren't understanding here?

When someone looks at Hobby Lobby argue before the court that on the basis of their Christian faith they cannot accept having certain things covered by any insurance plan they provide, it is completely reasonable to ask if they are consistent with this position across the board.

They are the ones claiming to be a Christian company.

That means something beyond simply getting to pick and choose what goes into their insurance plan.

I'm with drcos when they say this:

"Much like many "Christian" people, Hobby Lobby is only "Christian" when it suits them."

I will also add that much like many "Christian" people, Hobby Lobby doesn't like having their potential hypocrisy pointed out to them.

Apparently you don't like having the potential hypocrisy pointed out either.

Apparently you are just fine with Hobby Lobby being a devout Christian when it comes to their insurance plans, but a staunch capitalist when it comes to their 401K plans.

Something tells me that when money is on the line, their Christian values go out the window.

When someone looks at Hobby Lobby argue before the court that on the basis of their Christian faith they cannot accept having certain things covered by any insurance plan they provide.... ~ Posted by: Artemis at July 5, 2014 12:44 PM

Hobby Lobby didn't argue that the company couldn't accept certain things being covered by the insurance policy it provided (and paid for).

Hobby Lobby argued the government should not be able to force the company to pay for those items.

There's been a lot of criticism about how their 401k plans have companies that sell birth control.... ~ Posted by: NicoleK at July 3, 2014 12:08 AM

Again, Hobby Lobby didn't object to birth control or being forced to provide it in the company's health insurance plans.

The objection was to 4 out of the 20 the company was being forced to provide - all of which were less contraceptive and more abortofacient.

Can anyone say conclusively that the manufacturers of any of those 4 are part of the funds in the company's 401K plan?

Costco, The Gap, and Amazon aren't making the argument that they are "Christian" companies. ~ Posted by: drcos at July 5, 2014 4:54 AM

So, doing business with China is un-Christian?
And, since the company didn't object to 16 out of 20 contraceptives, might it be able to put dealing with China in the same category as accepting 16 our of 20 government-mandated contraceptives in its health insurance plan?

It seems that it's the company's critics who are picking and choosing pieces of Christian orthodoxy and insisting on Hobby Lobby's strict adherence to the critics' interpretation of those cherry-picked tenets.

Consider...if Hobby Lobby can be forced under this administration to fund abortifacients in its health insurance plan, can companies under another administration be forced to withhold them?

Or does the Court's ruling prevent both?

Conan,

The conversation you are trying to have with me has nothing to do with what I have been saying.

I encourage you to read the title of this thread:

"Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy On China"

It is entirely possible to discuss the notion that Hobby Lobby may in fact be acting in a philosophically inconsistent manner (i.e., being hypocritical) by claiming a religious exemption in one area while acting against those religious ethos in other areas.

Such a discussion doesn't have to have anything to do with the specific details of the court case.

Some people here, such as you and Isab, seem to be having trouble distinguishing these topics from one another.

It is possible for Hobby Lobby to put forth a cogent and well reasoned argument before the court while still acting hypocritically.

If they are acting hypocritically, it is entirely reasonable for them to be criticized on those grounds irrespective of the legality of the court proceedings.

I haven't been discussing the court case here (in fact I do not much care for the court case outside of the specific contention that Hobby Lobby should be granted an exemption on the basis of their religious beliefs)... just the hypocrisy of defining the company as a "Christian" organization while behaving in decidedly unchristian some of it's business practices.

Conan Says:

"The objection was to 4 out of the 20 the company was being forced to provide - all of which were less contraceptive and more abortofacient."

This is not a factual statement and drives to the heart of some of what is going on here.

Instead, it is Hobby Lobby's sincerely held religious belief that these particular items are abortifacients.

Do you see the important distinction here?

It isn't that these items actually do what the owners of Hobby Lobby contend they do... it is that the owners of Hobby Lobby sincerely believe it regardless of the scientific facts of the matter.

That is what religious faith allows you to do, it allows you to toss facts and evidence out the window in preference for your sincerely held beliefs.

This is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed an amicus brief detailing how and why Hobby Lobby's sincerely held religious beliefs failed to comport with the reality of how some of the objected to items functioned.

When facts and evidence are trumped by fervently held beliefs we are all in big trouble.

The conversation you are trying to have with me.... ~ Posted by: Artemis [Orion] at July 7, 2014 8:02 PM

I'm not trying to have a conversation with you, Artemis/Orion. You don't have conversations. Conversations involve listening to the other party, backing up your points with cites or examples of any relevant knowledge or experience, and an intellectual give-and-take. You don't do those things.

Based on my past interactions with you, I'm not sure you've ever had a conversation ... a real one; one that wasn't you ranting until your ward attendant moved on to his other duties or your meds kicked in.

And, Artemis/Orion, in reality, Hobby Lobby's professed religious beliefs and purchase of products made in China are unrelated - just an attempt by those who disagree with the Court's decision to paint the company as hypocritical by cherry-picking (and even making up) religious tenets and then insisting Hobby Lobby comply with the critic's interpretation of them.

Unless you can point out where dealing with Chinese companies is forbidden in the Bible.

This is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed an amicus brief detailing how and why Hobby Lobby's sincerely held religious beliefs failed to comport with the reality of how some of the objected to items functioned. ~ Posted by: Artemis [Orion] at July 7, 2014 8:19 PM

I recognize that the 4 items to which the company objected are not all abortifacients. Most in fact work to prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. That's why I said "less contraceptive and more abortifacient."

The heart of the question is at what point you believe life begins - fertilization or implantation or later

Hobby Lobby argued for fertilization and that their belief was a religious one and should be protected by the Constitution's ban on the government prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

Do I agree with Hobby Lobby on that? Who cares.

I am in sympathy with them in resisting the idea that the government can compel you to financially support something you find morally repugnant - even if I don't agree with them on the particulars.

And, yes, there are exceptions to that ... ask the taxpaying pacifists whose taxes support the US military and any conflicts to which we send it.

It's funny how many people are rushing to condemn Hobby Lobby (Christian) in this while screaming loudly about government intrusion and coercion in other parts of people's lives (TSA, IRS, NSA etc.).

Conan Says:

"Conversations involve listening to the other party, backing up your points with cites or examples of any relevant knowledge or experience, and an intellectual give-and-take. You don't do those things."

What are you smoking Conan?

In this thread alone I provided a link to faith-based mutual funds to back up my point that it is possible to select funds for a 401K plan that would match the ethics of a Christian Company.

I also provided knowledge and backing by referencing the amicus brief filed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In fact, all of the things you say I do not do are things I do on a regular basis.

The problem is that people like you are too busy shoving their fingers in their ears and closing their eyes.

I provide more evidence and backing for my claims than just about anyone else who posts here.

It is in general the people who I am conversing with who fail to provide one iota of evidence and demand that their position simply be accepted on the basis of one fallacious argument after another.

Just to make it clear to you... I even provided evidence for you that I generally provide evidence.

We'll see how well that goes over... my bet is you'll ignore all of that as well.

Conan Says:

"Hobby Lobby argued for fertilization and that their belief was a religious one and should be protected by the Constitution's ban on the government prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion."

BINGO!!!

Which is why it is completely reasonable to then examine their other practices and policies from a Christian faith perspective and see if they ensure that their company acts within the confines of Christian teachings elsewhere.

They are the ones who opened this can of worms.

If a company wants to define themselves as Christian organization more power to them... but then they have certain obligations lest people start to accuse them of hypocrisy.

The two go hand in hand.

If they weren't prepared to be examined in this fashion they should have remained an amoral business entity instead of asking for special legal exemptions on the basis of their religious faith.

This is why the legal proceedings and the reaction to the company after the legal proceedings can be discussed as separate issues.

Once they became a "Christian" organization it became reasonable for the public to scrutinize just how closely they adhere to the tenants of their faith.

They made their bed, now they can lie in it.

Once they became a "Christian" organization it became reasonable for the public to scrutinize just how closely they adhere to the tenants [sic] of their faith.

And what tenet of Christianity forbids the company to buy products made in Chinese factories?

And while you're looking through the Bible to answer that question, you can back off on the claims of hypocrisy. Hobby Lobby provides (for free) 16 forms of contraception for its employees and their dependents. Their objection was to being forced to provide the other 4 forms (also for free). Since those 4 forms act post-fertilization (or later), the point at which the founder's religious beliefs tell him life begins, the actions of the contraceptive are, to him, murder and providing them makes him complicit in that murder. Nonetheless, he did not ask the Court to ban the contraceptives, merely to relieve him of being forced by government fiat to pay for them.

Seriously, though, answer that first question.

Once they became a "Christian" organization it became reasonable for the public to scrutinize just how closely they adhere to the tenants [sic] of their faith.

Actually, it's in no way "reasonable" for the public to scrutinize just how closely the company adheres to anything other than the law.

It's a privately held company. As long as it is offering value for value in a free marketplace, the public has no business scrutinizing the faith of its founder - unless you want to argue it can come into your house and scrutinize your adherence to whatever faith you profess.

Professing to being a "Christian" is not an abrogation of one's rights of privacy.

Conan Says:

"And what tenet of Christianity forbids the company to buy products made in Chinese factories?...

Seriously, though, answer that first question."

Before I answer that question, you should answer another question.

When did I at any point make any argument related to Chinese factories?

That is the argument of another person who you are asking me to defend.

My only stance in this thread so far is that it is a reasonable to criticize Hobby Lobby for failing to insert their Christian faith into their 401K plan since they are inserting it into their insurance plan.

That is all I have argued.

That it is fair to criticize them on those grounds.

I've never even mentioned China.

What you are doing is called a strawman argument where instead of dealing with what someone is saying you instead try and put words in their mouth that you feel are easier to argue against.

Argue the China point to someone who actually put that up as an example.

Conan Says:

"Actually, it's in no way "reasonable" for the public to scrutinize just how closely the company adheres to anything other than the law.

It's a privately held company. As long as it is offering value for value in a free marketplace, the public has no business scrutinizing the faith of its founder - unless you want to argue it can come into your house and scrutinize your adherence to whatever faith you profess."

Who the fuck cares if it is a privately held company in this context?

We are free to criticize and scrutinize individual free people on a daily basis depending upon how they choose to behave.

What makes a "privately held company" so special that people cannot hold an opinion on whether it is behaving in a philosophically consistent manner or not?

It is reasonable for individuals to scrutinize and criticize this company as much as they like.

You spend a great deal of time scrutinizing and criticizing me for example... I am a "privately held person" who supports themselves.

If you have the right to criticize me as an individual, then I certainly have the right to criticize a company on the basis of its behavior, privately held or otherwise.

I would sound rather silly to tell you that you can't criticize me so long as I adhere to the law.

That is basically what you are saying with regard to Hobby Lobby... that so long as it adheres to the letter of the law they should be free from criticism.

Conan,

One additional point.

Hobby Lobby isn't being criticized for how they behave behind closed doors.

They are being criticized for how they are behaving in public.

There is nothing private about the behavior that is rubbing people the wrong way here.

No one is breaking into their home and going through their private documents or stalking them to and from church.

This is about the public face of their company, it is about what they choose to display to the public.

That you are trying to twist this into some sort of privacy issue is kind of odd.

Before I answer that question.... ~ Posted by: Artemis [Orion] at July 9, 2014 7:49 AM

Okay, who had "Artemis/Orion won't answer the question" in the pool? Oh, everyone.

==============================

When did I at any point make any argument related to Chinese factories? ~ Posted by: Artemis [Orion] at July 9, 2014 7:49 AM

I refer you to when you admonished me to read the title of this thread:

I encourage you to read the title of this thread:

"Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy On China"

~ Posted by: Artemis [Orion] at July 7, 2014 8:02 PM

Since having dealings with China is being used as the topic of this thread to show Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy, perhaps you can enlighten us to the exact nature of this hypocrisy and what tenet of Christianity it violates - that is, if you ever actually answer questions put to you.

==============================

My only stance in this thread so far is that it is a reasonable to criticize Hobby Lobby for failing to insert their Christian faith into their 401K plan since they are inserting it into their insurance plan.

According to CNN:

The most recent information available on Hobby Lobby's retirement funds comes from a 2012 filing with the Department of Labor. At that time, Hobby Lobby used American Funds, T. Rowe Price and Vanguard to manage its money.

Another option for the company would be to ask its providers such as Vanguard to create a custom portfolio, sometimes dubbed a "separately managed account." This would essentially put Hobby Lobby's funds into their own bucket and give the company more control to forbid investments in firms like Teva.

That said, any time you ask for something special, it often costs more.

"While it would be possible to create some kind of custom portfolio, I don't know that that would be feasible in 401(k)-type account given the costs involved. It's probably doable, but expensive," says David Blanchett, the head of retirement research for Morningstar Investment Management.

Figuring out what companies are acceptable and which ones are not is also tricky. Most of the funds Hobby Lobby offers employees are "actively managed," meaning someone is picking stocks and likely moving them in and out of the portfolio regularly.

While Teva and Pfizer might be off-limits, what about a company like Aetna (AET)that is a health care insurer, but puts Plan B on its preferred drug list?

Apparently, it's not so easy to create an investment portfolio that excludes certain categories of companies and not incur so many costs that such restrictions would hinder getting a decent return for your employees' retirements.

In addition, the company did not call for the 4 products to be banned. They only argued that the company should not be required to fund their acquisition. Had the company called for a complete ban on them, your investment hypocrisy argument would have some merit.

The advantage of mutual funds is the pooling of the monetary resources of a multitude of investors to create a fund that has leverage in the market. With more restrictions placed on it, the fund becomes smaller, less diversified, and has less leverage.

==============================

They are being criticized for how they are behaving in public. ~ Posted by: Artemis [Orion] at July 9, 2014 8:02 AM

The owners of the company are being labeled "hypocrites" by people like you (who have never run anything but their mouths) because they "became a 'Christian' organization" and objected to being forced by the government to do something they found morally repugnant.

A government, I might add, that is Constitutionally prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of a religion or impeding the free exercise thereof.

So, Hobby Lobby took the law to court and committed that most grievous of sins against the liberal establishment, it won. Hobby Lobby must now be destroyed.

If you can be forbidden by the government from having a public prayer before a high school football game because it smacks of a government-established religion, you should not then be forced by that same government to fund things to which you have religious objections. That would be hypocrisy.

Conan Says:

"Okay, who had Artemis won't answer the question" in the pool? Oh, everyone."

Are you seriously contending that I should defend an argument that I never made just to satisfy some arbitrary criteria you set up?

I never made an argument about China or Chinese factories.

Why exactly must I defend someone elses point in this discussion?

You are being ridiculous.

Asking someone to defend another persons position is an unreasonable position for you or anyone else to take.

You've got to take up that issue with the correct party.

Conan Says:

"Since having dealings with China is being used as the topic of this thread to show Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy, perhaps you can enlighten us to the exact nature of this hypocrisy and what tenet of Christianity it violates - that is, if you ever actually answer questions put to you."

Wow... you are quite a little weasel.

So now you are going to twist my point that this is a discussion about hypocrisy instead of a specific court case to mean that I have taken up the specific argument within the article as my own?

You really don't get it do you... you really are that dense.

The discussion is about hypocrisy.

There are many potential arguments to be made there.

I never made an argument with regard to China.

I made an argument with regard to their 401K plan.

If you want to ask me about that I will be more than happy to address it, but the Chinese factory argument belongs to someone else.

Conan Says:

"Apparently, it's not so easy to create an investment portfolio that excludes certain categories of companies and not incur so many costs that such restrictions would hinder getting a decent return for your employees' retirements."

So what?

Since when do Christian values go out the window if it means sacrificing a fat return on ones investment?

"The advantage of mutual funds is the pooling of the monetary resources of a multitude of investors to create a fund that has leverage in the market. With more restrictions placed on it, the fund becomes smaller, less diversified, and has less leverage."

This is true for insurance plans as well.

The more restrictions one places on it, the fewer people become involved, the less diversified the risk and the more vulnerable the insurance policy is to running into trouble.

That is my point and why I favor the 401K plan comparison to the insurance policy.

Both are methods to leverage group assets.

Similar arguments apply in both situations.

"The owners of the company are being labeled "hypocrites" by people like you (who have never run anything but their mouths) because they "became a 'Christian' organization" and objected to being forced by the government to do something they found morally repugnant."

You really have a very piss poor understanding of what is going on here.

They never "became a 'Christian' organization".

They are Christian people.

When they incorporated Hobby Lobby they created a new legal entity that could serve as a way to shield their private assets.

The moment they did this, the company itself became a separate legal "person".

People incorporate so that if the company is sued they have limited liability and can't have their house or personal assets taken... it is the company assets that are considered in a lawsuit.

What the owners did wasn't to define themselves as Christian... they already were Christian.

What they did was argue that because they are Christian, they want to define this separate legal entity as Christian as well.

You cannot treat the owners and the company as the same entity the way you are trying to.

If they wanted to be synonymous with their company they had no business incorporating in the first place.

The instant they define Hobby Lobby as a "Christian Organization" it becomes fair game for anyone and everyone to form opinions on just how closely Hobby Lobby follows the Christian faith.

"So, Hobby Lobby took the law to court and committed that most grievous of sins against the liberal establishment, it won. Hobby Lobby must now be destroyed."

Um... no.

Criticizing Hobby Lobby because you believe they are acting in various philosophically inconsistent ways isn't the same as "destroying" them.

You are being quite hyperbolic.

Why are you so sensitive about this?

For whatever reason you seem to have far more empathy toward what amounts to a legal fiction designed to protect the owners from full liability than you have toward flesh and blood people.

Flesh and blood people have every right to be irritated with Hobby Lobby if they feel they are acting in a hypocritical manner.

Get over it.

I forgot one important point.

Conan Says:

"If you can be forbidden by the government from having a public prayer before a high school football game because it smacks of a government-established religion, you should not then be forced by that same government to fund things to which you have religious objections. That would be hypocrisy."

I like how you used the word "If" there.

It is a rather important word in this case because it demonstrates how little you appear to understand with regard to how the law works.

The government cannot "forbid" you as a private individual from praying in public anywhere you desire.

You can pray at a football game, in a public park, on the steps of the capital... the government cannot tell you that you aren't allowed to pray.

The only thing the government can do is restrict the public institution from leading said prayer.

Do you see the distinction here?

It is the difference between a teacher leading a class in prayer before a test and an individual student choosing to pray on their own before a test.

The first is prohibited, the second is not.

So since the first part of your "if" statement is categorically false, it stands to reason that the government should be able to force people to fund things they don't necessarily agree with.

Let's even unpack that last statement a bit further.

Do you even realize how many people in this country "fund things" that they have a religious objection to?

How many people have religious objections to many of our military operations across the globe?

We are all "forced" to fund things with our tax money that we don't necessarily agree with on moral, ethical, or legal grounds.

Why exactly should health insurance be the one exception here?

I for one would be thrilled to get back all of my tax dollars for the various military operations I was "forced" to fund over the last decade.

Or to get back my tax dollars for the data centers that were constructed to violate our privacy.

However I recognize that one of the things about living in a republic is that sometimes my money goes toward things I don't necessarily agree with.

They never "became a 'Christian' organization".

That was a direct quote from you, Artemis/Orion. That's why it was inside the quote marks.

====================================

The government cannot "forbid" you as a private individual from praying in public anywhere you desire.

That's not what a public prayer is.

The only thing the government can do is restrict the public institution from leading said prayer.

That's what a public prayer is, a public institution leading or facilitating said prayer ... and the courts have said it's a no-no.

====================================

What the owners did wasn't to define themselves as Christian... they already were Christian.

What they did was argue that because they are Christian, they want to define this separate legal entity as Christian as well.

A separate legal entity that they own and run.

The Court said closely held corporations, like Hobby Lobby, could not be forced to act against the owners' religious beliefs, despite being a separate legal entity.

Just because you incorporate your business to protect your personal assets doesn't mean you give up the values on which you founded it - however silly they might be - or your right to run the business.

If they wanted to be synonymous with their company they had no business incorporating in the first place.

You don't seem to understand what incorporation is. A closely held corporation is a privately held entity that is often synonymous with its owner(s).

The incorporation is a legal protection, not an abrogation of ownership rights.

When it goes public (in an IPO), it becomes a public corporation and is no longer owned by an individual or small group of owners, and thus no longer closely held and no longer synonymous with the owner(s).

The loss of control is, in fact, why many business owners (e.g., the Hobby Lobby guys) prefer not to go public.

====================================

Do you even realize how many people in this country "fund things" that they have a religious objection to?

Yep. For example, pacifists pay taxes that fund the US military - I mentioned that in a post on another thread.

In that case, the courts decided that the unbundling of their taxes versus the general public's would be a burden to both parties involved, so the courts ruled that pacifists cannot withhold all or part of their taxes despite their objections to some of the things funded by them. Some still do.

In this case, the burden of unbundling the payments for 4 our of 20 forms of contraception is not unduly burdensome.

====================================

The instant they define Hobby Lobby as a "Christian Organization" it becomes fair game for anyone and everyone to form opinions on just how closely Hobby Lobby follows the Christian faith.

No. At any time, it is fair game for anyone to form opinions on how closely a company follows its stated values.

Google was slammed for its unofficial "Don't Be Evil" motto when it facilitated the Chinese government's censorship of Internet search results. Google also took heat for its Wi-Spy activities with its Street View camera vehicles.

Levi Strauss has taken considerable heat for calling its products American originals and then manufacturing them overseas.

Self-defining an organization as Christian is not by itself an invitation to scrutiny - except to people who can't wait to scream "unChristian!" at an organization affiliated with religious beliefs to which they are hostile.

====================================

There are many potential arguments to be made there.

True. But this thread is about the hypocrisy in dealing with China.

You don't have to answer the question. You can simply say "since that's not my argument, I'll decline to answer."

Instead you type reams of words to weasel around coming out and directly saying something. You make accusations. You protest. But you don't directly say anything. Why is that?

====================================

Since when do Christian values go out the window if it means sacrificing a fat return on ones investment?

Perhaps Christian values say that one should seek the greatest return for one's employees' retirement funds when one takes their money for the purposes of investing it in retirement funds.

Pharmaceutical companies that make contraceptives also make other drugs, some that Christians might consider highly beneficial to society.

Are vegetarians hypocrites if their 401K mutual funds sometimes carry ranch or meat-processing company stocks? Are pacifists hypocrites if their 401K mutual funds sometimes carry firearms makers or defense contractor stocks.

How is investing in a mutual fund that holds a rotating portfolio of stocks and sometimes carries stocks of contraceptives makers (and sometimes doesn't) "unChristian?"

Try and actually answer that question since it's your argument.

And if carrying any contraceptive stocks in the portfolio is "unChristian," why is the company being held to that standard when the company provides (for free) 16 out of 20 contraceptives for its employees?

Obviously the company is not opposed to every contraceptive, just the ones that it (due to religious beliefs) considers to be abortifacients (considered by the company to be such since they act post-fertilization).

Conan Says:

"That was a direct quote from you, Artemis. That's why it was inside the quote marks."

No, actually you did not directly quote me... and if it was intended to be a direct quote then you did so dishonestly, or failed to accurately represent any of my statements.

Here is what you wrote:

"The owners of the company are being labeled "hypocrites" by people like you (who have never run anything but their mouths) because they "became a 'Christian' organization" and objected to being forced by the government to do something they found morally repugnant."

The way this is written implies that it is the "owners" who became a Christian organization.

That is what your statement means... you wrote that the owners are being labled "hypocrites" because they became a Christian organization.

My contention is that Hobby Lobby is being labeled as a hypocritical company because the company has been defined as a Christian organization.

The problem is that you seem to have significant difficulty distinguishing the owners of a company from the company itself.

These entities are not one and the same thing.

The ceased being one and the same thing the moment the owners decided to incorporate to protect themselves from full liability.

If they wanted to be one and the same then the corporation needs to be dissolved and converted into a sole proprietorship or a partnership.

At that point then criticism of Hobby Lobby becomes more synonymous with criticism of the owners.

As of this moment, Hobby Lobby is it's own legal entity... it is that entity that I am criticizing for hypocrisy, the private life of the owners has nothing to do with any of this.

That you don't seem to understand that once a company is incorporated it becomes it's own legal entity distinct from the owners is making it difficult to proceed in this discussion difficult.

The take home point is that Hobby Lobby the company can be criticized independently of the owners.

Conan Says:

"That's what a public prayer is, a public institution leading or facilitating said prayer ... and the courts have said it's a no-no."

Okay... so you are trying to argue that because the government puts restrictions on itself (i.e., public institutions) it is hypocritical for it to put restrictions on anyone else?

This is a nonsensical position, and this is what you appear to be contending when you said this:

"If you can be forbidden by the government from having a public prayer before a high school football game because it smacks of a government-established religion, you should not then be forced by that same government to fund things to which you have religious objections. That would be hypocrisy."

You are apparently arguing that because the government prohibits itself from imposing specific religious beliefs upon other people... that there is something inconsistent about that same government prohibiting you from imposing your specific religious upon other people.

Now you can argue all you like about individual religious freedom... but one thing that type of position isn't is hypocritical.

In the described scenario the government would be treating all organizations the same way.

Now there may be good and compelling reasons not to treat private institutions the same as public institutions, but evoking the notion of a "double standard" simply isn't one of them.

Now that I understand what you were actually trying to say (I had previously given you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't define using the same standard as en example of hypocrisy) it seems like you are arguing that the only way for the government to be consistent is for them to hold public and private institutions to entirely different standards.

This demonstrates a serious flaw in your comprehension of what makes someone a hypocrite.

A hypocrite is someone who changes standards to suit their purpose without philosophically consistency.

A hypocrite isn't someone who tries to impose the same standard to everyone (even if doing so is a bad idea).

That there may be good reasons not to hold public and private organizations to the same standard doesn't imply that if you erroneously do hold them to the same standard that you are acting hypocritically.

You understand this, right?

Conan Says:

"You don't seem to understand what incorporation is. A closely held corporation is a privately held entity that is often synonymous with its owner(s)."

You've got it backwards.

It may be synonymous to you since you don't get what incorporation actually means.

However in every legal sense, it is it's own entity.

Even look at the name of the Supreme Court case that brought all of this to light:

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

See how on one side it is an individual persons name and on the other side it is the name of the company and specifically not the names of the owners?

Hobby Lobby is it's own legal entity that is distinct from it's owners and hence can and should be discussed in that context.

The reason we know that companies are distinct from their owners is precisely because it is possible for an extremely religious individual to own a decidedly non-religious company.

If the company and the owner were actually synonymous this would be impossible.

Ironically, it is even possible for a staunch atheist to own a religious company.

To put things into perspective for you, if Richard Dawkins were to raise enough capital to purchase Hobby Lobby outright from it's current owners... he could choose to keep Hobby Lobby as a "Christian Organization" irrespective of his own lack of faith.

The very second the owners of Hobby Lobby inserted religion into their company, it became reasonable to look at how the company is being run and assess how closely it adheres to Christian teachings.

Do perform that assessment doesn't have anything to do with the owners precisely because they may not handle every single decision made at the company.

It is entirely possible for example that it isn't the owners fault that the 401K plans fail to match with the companies stated religious values... it could actually be the fault of someone in their finance department.

This is why I say Hobby Lobby the company is acting hypocritically... I don't really care about the owners, I care about how the organization operates now that it has been defined as a religious entity.

Conan Says:

"You don't have to answer the question. You can simply say "since that's not my argument, I'll decline to answer."

Instead you type reams of words to weasel around coming out and directly saying something. You make accusations. You protest. But you don't directly say anything. Why is that?"

I don't know Conan... I was pretty clear and succinct in my response when I said this:

"When did I at any point make any argument related to Chinese factories?

That is the argument of another person who you are asking me to defend."

That is a two sentence response to get across to you that what you are asking of me isn't fair or reasonable.

I am not going to, nor will I ever be willing to provide a substantive defense to another persons argument when I am not fully conversant with the details of their claims.

Let's cut to the chase shall we.

You know I never made an argument with regard to Chinese factories, and yet this is precisely what you demanded I defend.

Then when I declined to do so you responded snidely with:

"Okay, who had Artemis won't answer the question" in the pool? Oh, everyone."

Only to moments later inform me that I could have just told you that I would decline answering.

Obviously that wouldn't have been a satisfactory response from your perspective though.

What is this, some sort of a deranged trap?

First you ask me a question that I have no responsibility to respond to.

Then you criticize me for choosing not to respond.

Then you tell me I could choose not to respond but you criticize me for not having declined in some specific manner that you claim would have been acceptable.

I am going to call bullshit.

You asked me an unfair and unreasonable question that should have properly been asked to someone else... and then bitch and moan about the way I explained to you why your question was in fact unreasonable.

You know what would have fixed all of that?... if you knew how to address my actual points instead of making them up and trying to put words in my mouth.

Conan Says:

"Are vegetarians hypocrites if their 401K mutual funds sometimes carry ranch or meat-processing company stocks? Are pacifists hypocrites if their 401K mutual funds sometimes carry firearms makers or defense contractor stocks."

Yes... now you seem to be getting what hypocrisy actually is.

A great example of a hypocrite would be a staunch vegetarian who actively advocates against the consumption of meat and imposes their beliefs onto other people who don't necessarily share in their conviction... all the while their retirement account is full of investments in slaughter houses.

That type of person would be an enormous hypocrite.

The reason that person would be a hypocrite is precisely because if that belief is so utterly important to them that they are going to actively compel other people to abide by their beliefs, then they had better make sure their own house is in order first.

"How is investing in a mutual fund that holds a rotating portfolio of stocks and sometimes carries stocks of contraceptives makers (and sometimes doesn't) "unChristian?"

Try and actually answer that question since it's your argument."

It is unChristian precisely because the company is putting profit ahead of its "deeply held religious convictions".

There are few things more "unChristian" than making money a deciding factor in whether or not they adhere to their faith.

If they believe certain behaviors are abhorrent, then they have an obligation to ensure that they aren't promoting those behaviors through word and deed. This includes investment.

As I stated earlier, there are mutual fund options that are faith based.

That such funds may yield lower returns on average than funds that aren't restricted by religious teachings is immaterial.

How can such a "devout" person look Jesus in the eye and explain that they would have been happy to follow the teachings of the bible... but the opportunity to profit off of "religiously abhorrent practices" was just too good to pass up.

Wow, Artemis/Orion, you must really like to type.

There are few things more "unChristian" than making money a deciding factor in whether or not they adhere to their faith.

If they believe certain behaviors are abhorrent, then they have an obligation to ensure that they aren't promoting those behaviors through word and deed. This includes investment.

You have assigned to this situation a variety and degree of "Christian" belief to which the company's owners do not subscribe.

The company provides 16 forms of contraception to their employees. By dint of that fact, the owners obviously don't subscribe to the absolutist (and mostly made up) version of Christianity that you've demarcated as the baseline here.

Basically, you fabricated a theology so you could criticize them for not adhering to it.

Because that's what you do, delineate weirdly absolutist positions so you can accuse others of misbehavior because they violated the arbitrary standards you set after the fact. The real world doesn't work that way ... and if you ever get out into it, you'll find that out.

Have fun typing the 800-1,000 words you'll type in response to this.

TTFN

Conan,

What you do not appear to comprehend is that this statement:

"You have assigned to this situation a variety and degree of "Christian" belief to which the company's owners do not subscribe."

Is actually what makes the behavior hypocritical.

A hypocrite is someone who elects to apply certain principles in one situation while choosing not to apply them in another without offering an adequate explanation distinguishing the two scenarios.

You can't simply defend against an accusation of hypocrisy by hiding behind a flimsy excuse of "well maybe they don't subscribe to consistent standards of behavior".

It is in no way "absolutest" to consider it reasonable to criticize the company for potential hypocrisy on the basis of different standards for their 401K plan versus their insurance plan.

You can't just explain that away by saying that the form of Christianity they adhere to is one that carefully scrutinizes health plans... but ignores 401K plans.

That would be an exceptionally bizarre form of Christianity now wouldn't it?

Exactly what form of Christianity is consistent with that type of behavior?... a hypocritical form of Christianity.

Don't get your panties in a twist because you can't seem to handle having a company called out on potential hypocrisy.

Conan,

Actually, why don't we play a little game.

Please propose a hypothetical scenario in which someone is behaving in a hypocritical manner with regard to their religious faith that I could not claim you were being "absolutist" about or claim that they simply don't "subscribe" to the set of beliefs you are applying to them.

You see, this is the ultimate problem when we allow the law to be dictated by religious faith... it is too wishy-washy and inconsistent.

People of religious faith can and do believe in remarkably hypocritical things... but when they believe these hypocritical things they tend to also believe that no one should be able to criticize them for it by virtue of the fact that it is their religious belief.

My position is you can believe any number of hypocritical things that you like... but you have no reasonable expectation to believe such things without people calling you on it from time to time.

That's just life.

By the way, I am really enjoying your implication that I am somehow sheltered as you continue to insist that companies should be free from criticism.

What planet are you from where corporations should be free from criticism by the public if and when people within the public sphere disagree with their behaviors?