Any thoughts on...

MommyLiberty5013

1. Israel?

2. Ukraine/airliner shot down/Russia?

3. Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling?

4. The lady in NJ from PA arrested for carrying a legal firearm?

TarponMonoxide

1. We could have used  that money to pay for new schools, to improve our deplorable infrastructure, to overhaul the electrical grid and create jobs. Want a defense system? PAY FOR IT YERSELF!

2-How weird that this is yet another Malaysian airliner. YOu can bet somebody knows where 370 is and you can bet somebody knows precisely what happened to this one.

3. I do not shop at HL and have no plans to.  Has there been a later ruling or is that one the only one? If that one is the only one, ridiculous. they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

4. Didn't hear about that one; probably didn't make the local news out here yet.

MommyLiberty5013

TarponMonoxide said:

1. We could have used  that money to pay for new schools, to improve our deplorable infrastructure, to overhaul the electrical grid and create jobs. Want a defense system? PAY FOR IT YERSELF!

2-How weird that this is yet another Malaysian airliner. YOu can bet somebody knows where 370 is and you can bet somebody knows precisely what happened to this one.

3. I do not shop at HL and have no plans to.  Has there been a later ruling or is that one the only one? If that one is the only one, ridiculous. they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

4. Didn't hear about that one; probably didn't make the local news out here yet.

1. I don't know enough about the Iron Dome to comment that much on it. And, I am always curious about peoples' perspectives regarding Israel.

2. For sure! I think the Russian rebels shot it down by mistake. Fox News had part of a transcript taken from the conversation between the rebels and the Russian military. It's fishy as it seems like the Russians knew it happened. My question is: Why are jet liners flying over warring airspace?

3. I think that SCOTUS made a good decision. Hobby Lobby is covering somewhere between 16-19 forms of birth control for their employees. There are 4 birth control options they are not covering and it's those four forms that they asked to be exempted from on the grounds of religious conscience. They are not trying to usurp the ACA; but they are trying to maintain their religious freedom.

4. It was on FoxNews nationally. The lady - a health care worker and mom of 2 boys - was robbed twice in the past months or year, so she bought a legal firearm in PA and I'm pretty sure had a conceal/carry permit. She crossed over into NJ and at around the 1:00am hour was pulled over for swerving on the road (she was tired apparently) while on her way to a hotel for her son's birthday. Anyway, apparently she disclosed the weapon to the officer at the time of the traffic stop, which is standard procedure/courtesy for gun owners transporting them. And she got arrested. She had had the firearm for a week and admits to not knowing all the laws regarding it. She is not a prior offender on anything, but she was denied the plan, which keeps people out of prision in exchange for good behavior and lots of community service. Now, she faces up to 3 years. The 2 children do not have any other people to watch them. My understanding is that she was arrested for carrying the weapon across state lines, but I don't know what the laws are regarding that and/or if they vary depending on states.

nyc artist

1. At this point isn't it a bit like the chicken and the egg? Who is more wrong, Palestine or Israel? Both have done their fair share of harm to one another. Points to Israel for being willing to accept a cease fire that Egypt offered which Hamas (Palestine) did not.  Points taken away from Israel for this ridiculous ground movement that is killing civilians, but wait....it started because rockets were being launched into Israel, potentially hurting their civilians. It's a big sloppy mess and tragic for the kids that live there who are being traumatized and injured or even killed.

2. This is so insane!! It's obviously the pro-Russian separatists. Was it on purpose? I don't think so. I think they are a bunch of young , inexperienced kids with missiles and weapons and someone got trigger happy. But this is very bad, it could be catalyst for another huge war, and further ruining relations with Russia. Fate is interesting though, especially after learning that there were all those AIDS researchers on that plane. What the heck? Sounds like it wouldn't have even been a realistic movie plot. So so strange and very sad.

3. The decision by the SCOTUS was total bullsh*t. This opens up the flood gates for all types of discrimination-based moves by companies. The main problem is this: Companies DO NOT have religious freedom. PEOPLE have religious freedom. Companies do not equal people. This is precisely why when you want to become a company, you become an LLC. So that if stuff goes wrong, your company goes under, not you. You are not your company. This was a terrible decision and I fear that it will lead to some awful things. Already there are companies saying they don't believe in hiring gays/transgenders now. Is that ok? Bad bad bad.

4. Didn't hear about this one either.

MommyLiberty5013

nyc artist said:

1. At this point isn't it a bit like the chicken and the egg? Who is more wrong, Palestine or Israel? Both have done their fair share of harm to one another. Points to Israel for being willing to accept a cease fire that Egypt offered which Hamas (Palestine) did not.  Points taken away from Israel for this ridiculous ground movement that is killing civilians, but wait....it started because rockets were being launched into Israel, potentially hurting their civilians. It's a big sloppy mess and tragic for the kids that live there who are being traumatized and injured or even killed.

2. This is so insane!! It's obviously the pro-Russian separatists. Was it on purpose? I don't think so. I think they are a bunch of young , inexperienced kids with missiles and weapons and someone got trigger happy. But this is very bad, it could be catalyst for another huge war, and further ruining relations with Russia. Fate is interesting though, especially after learning that there were all those AIDS researchers on that plane. What the heck? Sounds like it wouldn't have even been a realistic movie plot. So so strange and very sad.

3. The decision by the SCOTUS was total bullsh*t. This opens up the flood gates for all types of discrimination-based moves by companies. The main problem is this: Companies DO NOT have religious freedom. PEOPLE have religious freedom. Companies do not equal people. This is precisely why when you want to become a company, you become an LLC. So that if stuff goes wrong, your company goes under, not you. You are not your company. This was a terrible decision and I fear that it will lead to some awful things. Already there are companies saying they don't believe in hiring gays/transgenders now. Is that ok? Bad bad bad.

4. Didn't hear about this one either.

3. The examples you gave are valid. They are based on harassment and/or discrimination. We have federal laws against that for age, religion, race, ethnicity, disability, marital status, gender, etc. People fought for these protections for a long time and they are important. How does 4 forms of birth control, while Hobby Lobby is covering 16-19 forms of other birth control for its employees, fall into harassment and/or discrimination? I'm not seeing the validity of this discrimination/harassment argument you propose. What's the tie-in? What's the apples-to-apples comparison? I see your argument about not hiring certain groups of people being valid, but health procedures, medications, vaccines, etc. are not people.

My DH works for a commercial airline and they provide health, dental and vision insurance - group coverage - to the employees. Since it's group coverage, some payment for the plans comes out of his bimonthly paychecks. Some procedures and services are not covered at all and others are covered in part.

For example, DH had to have an extensive orthodontic procedure, which took 3 years to complete, done on his mouth. Totally not cosmetic AT ALL...it had to do with the alignment of his back teeth screwing up his bite and causing lasting jaw and bone problems if not corrected. The procedure cost about $8k. We had to battle with the insurance company and the airline to get a portion of it covered. And, reluctantly they did cover a few thousand dollars worth. The rest we had to pay out of pocket.

Is this discrimination against people with jaw/teeth trouble? Is this harassment? Was my DH made to feel bad about his individual medical need? The fact is, companies do not have to cover everything. Some things they do choose. And, as Hobby Lobby is already providing 16-19 other forms of BC, why should they be forced to cover 4 additional forms if it violates the Green Family's (owners of Hobby Lobby) conscience? BTW, Hobby Lobby began in the 1970's and is a family-run business. It's not publically traded. Also, they are a Christian company and do not hide this fact - the stores are all closed Sundays, they unashamedly sell Christian and faith-based décor and card items and they play instrumental Christian music and/or hymns on the PAs in their stores. While they now have hundreds of stores, they are a "mom and pop" kind of place.

I hear you on the "companies are not people" front. But if the company is owned by an individual and/or family and is not owned by shareholders (publically traded on the stock market), at what point does a person or family get to or have to stop having a say in the daily business operations? When they reach a certain level of revenue? A certain number of stores? A certain number of employees? Why not go into your local ice cream stand or pizza joint and demand that Mr. Icy Pop or Mrs. Marinara hand over the reigns of their operation? The designation of a business as a sole-proprietor, limited liability company or a corporation, has to do with the way in which taxes are filed, and how liability is designated. How does it mean that an owner gives up rights to run his/her business in the fashion they want, obeying the law, but still maintaining their religious conscience?

Religious conscience IS the issue here. The Green Family was violated religiously and they haven't tried to usurp the ACA, or taxes, or providing proper access to their employees to good health insurance, they are simply asking to not have the burden of knowingly paying for certain birth control methods that they find incongruent with their faith.

smerka

The Green Family does not seem to have a problem with their 401k program investing in the companies that make the birth control they are denying their employees coverage for. And Hobby Lobby could self insure and not have to adhere to the rules of the ACA like other big corporations. Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. And on the gun thing. States should still be allowed to make and enforce their own gun laws. If NJ has stricter laws than PA, then it is the gun owners responsibility to know the laws. I feel bad for this mom, but she made a bad decision.

nyc artist

MommyLib, the reason I brought up the discrimination/harassment issue, is because the decision by the Supreme Court to now allow companies to have their own moral beliefs opens up flood gates to other such things that they can "not believe in". Those were examples I gave, such as hiring gays/transgenders to show the extent to where it can lead to.  The apples to apples comparison is that if a company is now allowed to have religious rights/beliefs, it can start discriminating against things that aren't in alignment to those beliefs. And as we all know, the religious right isn't exactly all love and bubbles towards gays.  

The right to religious freedom (aka not paying for stuff against your beliefs) is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a corporate right. And even that only goes so far. I don't happen to believe in killing. But guess what? I have no control over what the government uses my tax dollars on. My money goes to war just the same. So I have a right, but I still have to pay for stuff that I don't believe in.  If the government is saying that birth control should be covered then it should be covered. The owner's religious beliefs do not exempt the company he owns from paying what it is due to pay under law.

nyc artist

By the way, I am very sorry to hear about your DH's problems and the issues you guys had with insurance. I completely can relate. My husband (who had insurance at the time), was diagnosed with very severe Crohn's disease, ended up being sick for months, and ultimately needing surgery....leaving us with over 100K in medical bills.  It's a very long story but it made me see that the health insurance industry is a total scam.

These new laws under Obamacare are meant to help people not get into these situations. It's meant to stop companies from denying coverage for a multitude of reasons. So seeing that companies are finding work arounds is really pissing me off. They should have to follow the law. I don't give a damn if they don't believe in it morally, if they don't want to spend the money. Individual rights to health care (in my opinion) trump a company's profits and/or nonexistent religious rights. LOL

MommyLiberty5013

smerka said:

The Green Family does not seem to have a problem with their 401k program investing in the companies that make the birth control they are denying their employees coverage for. And Hobby Lobby could self insure and not have to adhere to the rules of the ACA like other big corporations. Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. And on the gun thing. States should still be allowed to make and enforce their own gun laws. If NJ has stricter laws than PA, then it is the gun owners responsibility to know the laws. I feel bad for this mom, but she made a bad decision.

Regarding the gun news story - I agree. As a firearm owner myself, the excuse, "I didn't know. I wasn't aware" or "I've only had the gun one week," are just bogus. Actually, there is no excuse for not knowing the laws about firearm ownership. She should have known this PRIOR to getting the permit and prior to purchasing the weapon.

That said, I don't think 3 years imprisonment is the best option. She does have 2 young boys who apparently do not have anyone else to care for them. Trying to make an example of this lady, by sending her to jail, may just be the worse thing ever for her boys. They are in a stage where they need a parent. I hope the court considers the long-term effects on the kids and how it could lead to them being in the justice system themselves in a few years if this isn't handled properly.

wtfdidyousay

MommyLiberty5013 said:

smerka said:

The Green Family does not seem to have a problem with their 401k program investing in the companies that make the birth control they are denying their employees coverage for. And Hobby Lobby could self insure and not have to adhere to the rules of the ACA like other big corporations. Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. And on the gun thing. States should still be allowed to make and enforce their own gun laws. If NJ has stricter laws than PA, then it is the gun owners responsibility to know the laws. I feel bad for this mom, but she made a bad decision.

Regarding the gun news story - I agree. As a firearm owner myself, the excuse, "I didn't know. I wasn't aware" or "I've only had the gun one week," are just bogus. Actually, there is no excuse for not knowing the laws about firearm ownership. She should have known this PRIOR to getting the permit and prior to purchasing the weapon.

That said, I don't think 3 years imprisonment is the best option. She does have 2 young boys who apparently do not have anyone else to care for them. Trying to make an example of this lady, by sending her to jail, may just be the worse thing ever for her boys. They are in a stage where they need a parent. I hope the court considers the long-term effects on the kids and how it could lead to them being in the justice system themselves in a few years if this isn't handled properly.

If you're not smart enough to know the gun laws in your area (across state lines or not) you're not smart enough to be carrying. Period. As far as the punishment, would you be singing the same tune if it were a black man? Just curious. 

I have a feeling if it were a black man with his kids, no one would be questioning the possible sentence. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As far as SCOTUS, an employer has no right to impress their beliefs upon me or anyone else. 

MommyLiberty5013

nyc artist said:

By the way, I am very sorry to hear about your DH's problems and the issues you guys had with insurance. I completely can relate. My husband (who had insurance at the time), was diagnosed with very severe Crohn's disease, ended up being sick for months, and ultimately needing surgery....leaving us with over 100K in medical bills.  It's a very long story but it made me see that the health insurance industry is a total scam.

These new laws under Obamacare are meant to help people not get into these situations. It's meant to stop companies from denying coverage for a multitude of reasons. So seeing that companies are finding work arounds is really pissing me off. They should have to follow the law. I don't give a damn if they don't believe in it morally, if they don't want to spend the money. Individual rights to health care (in my opinion) trump a company's profits and/or nonexistent religious rights. LO

wtfdidyousay said:

MommyLiberty5013 said:

smerka said:

The Green Family does not seem to have a problem with their 401k program investing in the companies that make the birth control they are denying their employees coverage for. And Hobby Lobby could self insure and not have to adhere to the rules of the ACA like other big corporations. Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. And on the gun thing. States should still be allowed to make and enforce their own gun laws. If NJ has stricter laws than PA, then it is the gun owners responsibility to know the laws. I feel bad for this mom, but she made a bad decision.

Regarding the gun news story - I agree. As a firearm owner myself, the excuse, "I didn't know. I wasn't aware" or "I've only had the gun one week," are just bogus. Actually, there is no excuse for not knowing the laws about firearm ownership. She should have known this PRIOR to getting the permit and prior to purchasing the weapon.

That said, I don't think 3 years imprisonment is the best option. She does have 2 young boys who apparently do not have anyone else to care for them. Trying to make an example of this lady, by sending her to jail, may just be the worse thing ever for her boys. They are in a stage where they need a parent. I hope the court considers the long-term effects on the kids and how it could lead to them being in the justice system themselves in a few years if this isn't handled properly.

If you're not smart enough to know the gun laws in your area (across state lines or not) you're not smart enough to be carrying. Period. As far as the punishment, would you be singing the same tune if it were a black man? Just curious. 

I have a feeling if it were a black man with his kids, no one would be questioning the possible sentence. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As far as SCOTUS, an employer has no right to impress their beliefs upon me or anyone else. 

I don't know why you're asking about the person's race, but okay - the woman who was arrested was a black woman. I think 3 years imprisonment is unfair and too hefty a penalty for an honest mistake made by a law-abiding citizen(this woman)...especially one with 2 kids to raise and no one to support them/her. S/he could be black, white, or rainbow-stripe colored and I wouldn't care.

I don't question anyone carrying legally based on their race. Or, illegally carrying based on race either. White people who carry illegally are just as guilty as black people who carry illegally. But, it's a moot point here, this lady was carrying legally.

So for the record, you made this a race issue, I did not. I did not even mention that she was/is black in my OP. You seem to be stating an assumption about me as a person...you seem to be stating that if the person arrested was black, that I WOULD be in favor of a 3 year prison term. But, the person arrested IS black and still I am not in favor of a 3 year sentence.

It's sad because it's people like you who increase racism in this country. How does me being a political and social conservative = me being racist? Explain that please. And, how does you jumping to wrongful and hurtful assumptions about me as a person make you not a bigot?

 

Regarding SCOTUS, Hobby Lobby, the employer is not imposing their beliefs on anybody. Imposing beliefs means fear-mongering, abuse, and threat of retaliation if a person or entity does not adhere to the standard of the overarching group (like what's happening with Iraq right now with all the people being murdered for not believing the same religion or version of Islam as ISIS). Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for 4 forms of birth control inside the company's health insurance plan. This is not an imposition of beliefs. They are letting each person employed make his/her own decisions regarding health care, they just aren't paying for 4 things. Hobby Lobby is also making its own decision based on their conscience.

 

 

snp605

smerka said:

The Green Family does not seem to have a problem with their 401k program investing in the companies that make the birth control they are denying their employees coverage for. And Hobby Lobby could self insure and not have to adhere to the rules of the ACA like other big corporations. Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. And on the gun thing. States should still be allowed to make and enforce their own gun laws. If NJ has stricter laws than PA, then it is the gun owners responsibility to know the laws. I feel bad for this mom, but she made a bad decision.

I really hate that this misrepresentation of the "investment" scenario is making the rounds of the internet still among educated people. Please research things before you repeat them.  HL has a 401K plan, they pay a matching portion to the employees' investment into the 401k. The EMPLOYEE then has a choice to use the total sum of that money to select from several funds in  which they may invest. A few of those funds include investments pharmaceutical companies whose products include some of the products that HL is protesting paying for. So #1) HL are not profiting their EMPLOYEES are. #2) the employee is making a choice to support another company not actually using dollars that HL has paid a 3rd party to supply abortifacients to them. The money is going through about 3 hands before ever even touching the manufacturer of the products. There is a difference. #4) The items HL is protesting are Plan B and competitor version and and two specific IUDs that have abortifacient properties (keep fertilized egg from implanting). They have no issue with supplying any other BC methods and have always provided and have stated that they will continue to provide a large variety of alternative BC methods from pills, diaphragms, cervical caps, sponges, condoms, rings, vasectomies, female sterilization, implants and injections. The last time I checked most insurance companies have specific meds they cover. If they don't cover the allergy med that I like best I have to pay myself or use a different method. No one has stepped in and said that companies must provide the meds I want but rather an reasonable equivalent. How is this any different from birth control? Aside from that with regard to Plan B, an internet search tells me that this runs about $45-$50 per pill. Hobby Lobby pays their employees on average $3-7 more per hour than their competitors. So in  just one day an employee working full time can pay for their own Plan B pills with their extra earnings and still make more than the people working at the competitor down the street who has their plan B covered. How often do we expect this employee to have to buy plan B anyway?

Companies, or rather the people running them, make moral/ethical decisions all of the time. In a closely held company you ARE the company. Using the LLC example, if you had rental property in the name of your llc and some nazi extremists types rented it and held white power meetings in the garage which did not break any local HOA or city/county code restrictions it might burn  you a little bit. In the future you might add a provision to your lease that prohibited large gatherings or excessive signage placed around the property. While you are not your LLC you just made a moral decision behalf of that LLC to prevent something you find morally reprehensible from happening again via your business entity or via a service or product you have provided.


4. Regarding the woman in the traffic stop. Gun ownership is a serious thing and charges for guns across state lines are not an uncommon thing. I think it's reasonable she should have asked at the time of receiving her permit or at the very least at the time the trip was planned if laws were reciprocal or if she had to do anything special. I hate that she made a somewhat innocent mistake but ignorance does not spare you from consequences. If so, we wouldn't be having the conversations about Plan B we've been having!

1. Israel is a soup sandwich However part of the reason so many children are dying in Palestine is because Hamas is placing large caches of weapons in areas heavily frequented by children (schools/hospitals) to deter attacks and win sympathy of the other nations. The people who do not want war in Palestine need to string those a*holes up for getting their kids killed.

MommyLiberty5013

I would ALSO like to add that I just received a phone call from DH - who flies for a major commercial airline. In a memo to flight crews, the airline announced that breast feeding mothers are permitted to breast feed openly on board and should not be made to feel uncomfortable or inappropriate.

Maybe breast feedings is not technically a moral issue and more of a decency and conscience issue, but this IS an example of a company taking notice of a people group (breast feeding moms and infants) and issuing a policy or practice on that people-group's behalf.

No conscience or moral compass allowed or existent, though? Eh?

 

MommyLiberty5013

snp605 said:

smerka said:

The Green Family does not seem to have a problem with their 401k program investing in the companies that make the birth control they are denying their employees coverage for. And Hobby Lobby could self insure and not have to adhere to the rules of the ACA like other big corporations. Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. And on the gun thing. States should still be allowed to make and enforce their own gun laws. If NJ has stricter laws than PA, then it is the gun owners responsibility to know the laws. I feel bad for this mom, but she made a bad decision.

I really hate that this misrepresentation of the "investment" scenario is making the rounds of the internet still among educated people. Please research things before you repeat them.  HL has a 401K plan, they pay a matching portion to the employees' investment into the 401k. The EMPLOYEE then has a choice to use the total sum of that money to select from several funds in  which they may invest. A few of those funds include investments pharmaceutical companies whose products include some of the products that HL is protesting paying for. So #1) HL are not profiting their EMPLOYEES are. #2) the employee is making a choice to support another company not actually using dollars that HL has paid a 3rd party to supply abortifacients to them. The money is going through about 3 hands before ever even touching the manufacturer of the products. There is a difference. #4) The items HL is protesting are Plan B and competitor version and and two specific IUDs that have abortifacient properties (keep fertilized egg from implanting). They have no issue with supplying any other BC methods and have always provided and have stated that they will continue to provide a large variety of alternative BC methods from pills, diaphragms, cervical caps, sponges, condoms, rings, vasectomies, female sterilization, implants and injections. The last time I checked most insurance companies have specific meds they cover. If they don't cover the allergy med that I like best I have to pay myself or use a different method. No one has stepped in and said that companies must provide the meds I want but rather an reasonable equivalent. How is this any different from birth control? Aside from that with regard to Plan B, an internet search tells me that this runs about $45-$50 per pill. Hobby Lobby pays their employees on average $3-7 more per hour than their competitors. So in  just one day an employee working full time can pay for their own Plan B pills with their extra earnings and still make more than the people working at the competitor down the street who has their plan B covered. How often do we expect this employee to have to buy plan B anyway?

Companies, or rather the people running them, make moral/ethical decisions all of the time. In a closely held company you ARE the company. Using the LLC example, if you had rental property in the name of your llc and some nazi extremists types rented it and held white power meetings in the garage which did not break any local HOA or city/county code restrictions it might burn  you a little bit. In the future you might add a provision to your lease that prohibited large gatherings or excessive signage placed around the property. While you are not your LLC you just made a moral decision behalf of that LLC to prevent something you find morally reprehensible from happening again via your business entity or via a service or product you have provided.


4. Regarding the woman in the traffic stop. Gun ownership is a serious thing and charges for guns across state lines are not an uncommon thing. I think it's reasonable she should have asked at the time of receiving her permit or at the very least at the time the trip was planned if laws were reciprocal or if she had to do anything special. I hate that she made a somewhat innocent mistake but ignorance does not spare you from consequences. If so, we wouldn't be having the conversations about Plan B we've been having!

1. Israel is a soup sandwich However part of the reason so many children are dying in Palestine is because Hamas is placing large caches of weapons in areas heavily frequented by children (schools/hospitals) to deter attacks and win sympathy of the other nations. The people who do not want war in Palestine need to string those a*holes up for getting their kids killed.

Thanks!

I'm actually having this same discussion on my Facebook page and your info provided here about HL's pay rates and retirement funding is going to be helpful.

 

smerka

If Hobby Lobby wanted to, they could very easily prohibit any money from their 401k program from investing in companies that make birth control they disagree with.

snp605

the 401K program doesn't invest the money. The program appoints a trustee who then sends the money to an investment manager who then manages the money based on what an employee chooses. Therefore Hobby lobby is NOT choosing the investment manager. A fund changes it's investments at will. It could have a partial stake in a company that owns a subsidiary company that one of the products they manufacturer is one of the 4 that are opposed by Hobby Lobby and then the next day they sell it. The funds own an indirect infinitessimal interest in thousands of companies including one who has interest in another. It's a lot farther removed from purposely choosing something on behalf of the COMPANY to offer directly to your employees where your money goes directly to that company (the insurance) which offers to pay for that product to be used for your employee. Dollars to doughnuts if you have a 401K you'll find that you (and I mean DIRECTLY YOU via the choice of funds you have made) have invested in companies that are known to have contributed money to Prop 8, the defeat of the healthcare law or other causes you find nefarious. Using your logic I guess you are part of the problem no?

The menu of investments the employee can choose from is offered by the investment manager NOT Hobby Lobby. So actually NO hobby lobby cannot prohibit their money from being invested because they are giving it to the employee via the trustee who then sends it to the investment manager.