Hobby Lobby Invests In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection

See my last comment to EXnyEr. However, I will say that it's not about costs it's about religious convictions. Yes HL could afford to pay for it but they don't due to religious convictions. Again this isn't about the cost of the pill it's about the hypocritical / moral beliefs of the company and yes I should not have said "Republicans" I should have said "most" Republicans so I apologize for that. Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

ZANZIBOOB wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You had NO idea employees could sue a company for dereliction of duty so to speak until I taught you that. You had no idea or concept of fiduciary responsibility until I taught you that. You then went frantically searching the net for an answer only to find out I'm still right and that's when your descent into this mental "vortex" began.

I think at this point you and I both know that you don't run a business. These comments of yours are simply beyond the pale seems as if there's something misfiring upstairs. I cannot continue go back and forth with a guy who's (1) outright lying about owning a business and setting up 401K plans while (2) not having a clue as to how the process works and (3) continues to quote me to confirm I'm right and agree with me only to suggest I'm wrong.

I used to be a debate team captain and the only time I ran into situations like this is when the person proved to have a mental defect, really didn't understand the question or debate topic and twisted things so much in their minds till they couldn't escape the vortex. It seems all 3 of these apply to you at once. It's really counter productive and I've let this charades go on long enough.

In the context of you not understanding how this process works and then compounding that by LYING about owning / running a business let me answer your questions below.

Let's take a 3rd look at my original statement that clearly shows what it could mean not carrying out their fiduciary responsibility.

Being actively involved in the process to ensure fiduciary responsibility is an ongoing effort. Not participating in regular meetings to help manage and understand the investments could be considered a breach. Could employees sue as a result of this negligence? Yes they could. Would they win? Maybe maybe not. I just find it comical you're now saying they could be sued after I mentioned that fact to you. Are you still in high school or what? Lol

Taking out well performing options and not replacing them could also mean a breach (though not by law) but most companies typically replace. What the Dept of Labor would be looking for is a pattern to determine the fiduciary part of my comment. That's why I mentioned the quarterly meetings. Doesn't have to be an equal option either. Portfolio managers remove and replace options all the time. Even though you can you shouldn't narrowly associate the term "fiduciary responsibility" to the singular act of removing a fund option and it seems that's where you miss the mark. I think it would be wise for you to try to understand how the process works as a whole so that you can connect the dots in your head. Yes HL can remove Pfizer from their portfolio on any grounds they choose but most often when a decision like that is made it's made on the basis of improvement to the fund which ultimately projects confidence in the company itself.

The original and simple point again is that if you're so strong regarding your religious beliefs (which in the HL case has proven to be a fraud and a sham) then the right thing to do so that you have nothing to do with "killing babies" is to remove Pfizer from the offering and replace them with a suitable alternative. Anything less means you're not really pro-life because you're supporting a company that makes drugs to kill babies when you don't have to when you could do something about it which is to remove them from for offering and replace them with something else. It's that simple.

You guys defending HL also proves you have no real religious convictions because you know I'm right but your ideology forces you to continue to spin the truth because it would look weak to be wrong and would expose your hypocrisy. This is danger in being a religious conservative when you have beliefs like that it prevents you from fully thinking through a scenario. HL in my view let money trump their convictions on the investment side but they get to pray to God at night and feel good because they wouldn't support employees buy allowing it in the benefit plan. It's called stunning hypocrisy. Defend it if you wish that's your choice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I said it before and I will say it again. You are a moron. And you are an insecure little moron, judging by your attempts to take credit for supposedly teaching me about things.

Wow. According to you I had no idea what fiduciary responsibility was until you told me. And that I did not know that employees could sue companies over it. Really?

That's funny, because I seem to remember learning all about it back in the 1990s in law school. Corporate law class. Got an "A" in it. But you seem to think you know what I do and don't know.

You are living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You stated that a company will hold 401K meetings in order to meet its fiduciary responsibility. Yeah, no kidding. I never said a company wouldn't.

What I did try to explain - and you completely fail to understand this - is that a fiduciary duty doesn't JUST require a company to DO certain things. It also FORBIDS them from doing certain things.

In other words, a fiduciary duty puts handcuffs on the employer.

And those handcuffs prevent the company from making decisions on the 401k plan for ANY reason OTHER than the benefit of the employee. In other words, the company must act EXCLUSIVELY for the benefit of the employee. So if the employer takes actions in the 401k plan to fit the religious beliefs of the employer, guess what? They breach their fiduciary duty!!! And the employees can sue them!!

And YOU had no idea that was a breach of fiduciary duty before I told you. THAT MUCH IS DEFINITELY TRUE. That is why you insisted that HL was hypocritical for not preventing its employees from investing in pharma stocks. You thought they could do that without breaching their fiduciary duty.

Like I said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And you have a LITTLE knowledge. And a big chip on your shoulder.

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would have know about the second part of the fiduciary duty. And you would have been able to apply that knowledge to figure out why HL doesn't mess with the 401k options.

Also, your crappy, run-on sentences also indicate you are reaching WAY above your intellectual level when you start talking about fiduciary duties.

Couple that with your idiotic bragging about what you think you taught me and we begin to get a clearer picture of what an insecure little man you are.

Now, before you make your next stupid post, how about you do a little research and cite for us an example where an employer prohibited an employee from investing in stocks for the employer's religious or other non-financial reasons and GOT AWAY WITH IT.

If you think they can do it and not breach their fiduciary responsibility, THEN CITE A CASE.

ZANZIBOOB wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think they can do it and not breach their fiduciary responsibility, THEN CITE A CASE. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I'm done with your facade. Cite a case? HA! Your head case. 100% certifiable I might add.

I'm done with your facade. Cite a case? HA! Your head case. 100% certifiable I might add. Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

You can't.

As we all knew.

When asked to provide some evidence to support what you wrote, YOUR facade crumbled. You bailed.

You were just talking shit and you got called on it.

You can't.

As we all knew.

When asked to provide some evidence to support what you wrote, YOUR facade crumbled. You bailed.

You were just talking shit and you got called on it. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I'm ok with that because I know that you know that I know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about so I'm fine with your predictable response above. If you think I ran then I ran. You win the debate on account of my facade. Lol another word I just used and you repeated after me. You my friend are absolute pure comedy gold.

Carry on

I'm ok with that because I know that you know that I know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about so I'm fine with your predictable response above. If you think I ran then I ran. You win the debate on account of my facade. Lol another word I just used and you repeated after me. You my friend are absolute pure comedy gold.

Carry on Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Another run-on sentence from the mope.

Really? You're claiming ownership of "facade" becuase I repeated it back to you in a counter example?

What other words have you taught us?

Still waiting on you to post a cite.