# Hobby Lobby's birth control fight goes to the SCOTUS. Your predictions? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 23, 2014, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393 "2014-03-23T23:05:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/21 "2014-03-26T18:42:32Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > I saw it noted that the Court is expected to issue their decision sometime around late June. It’s typical for decisions to take several months to come out, after the arguments. > > Why does it generally take so long after a case is argued for the Court to issue a ruling? Iggy’s explanation is spot-on. The Justices will also need to determine who will be writing the opinion, who will be writing the dissent (if any), and research will need to be done on precedents. Bob Woodward wrote a fascinating book, The Brethren, about the inner workings of the Court. If the topic interests you, it’s a neat read. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/22 "2014-03-26T18:59:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > something that limits the reach to closely-held S corps… Or LLCs, or similar. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/23 "2014-03-26T19:23:53Z")
Quick question: is Hobby Lobby providing the insurance in house, or using some other insurance company? The former I can understand the idea of a religious exemption. But not the latter. The money paid to the insurance company comes from the employee (as specifically noted on any check receipts), not from the company proper. The latter would be the same thing as preventing them from spending their own money on emergency contraception. Of course, I am not familiar with the law, but the law is obviously not clear or else there would be no point of a challenge. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/24 "2014-03-26T19:37:40Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The money paid to the insurance company comes from the employee (as specifically noted on any check receipts), not from the company proper. No, **BigT** , that’s not typically true. Many employers do require employees to pay a portion of the costs, but generally also contribute a portion of the costs themselves. This expenditure, along with costs for vacation and other benefits, is known as the _fringe_ cost. In the case of insurance, the company pays, often more than the employee pays, and that cost does not appear on the pay stub. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/25 "2014-03-26T20:19:39Z")
No predictions, I’m bad at that sorta thing (I thought they were going to rule against the ACA), but I hope they come down hard on the side of employees and vote against Hobby Lobby and all others like them. This corporate personhood thing has gone far enough, no need to give them religion too ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/26 "2014-03-26T21:05:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, **BigT** , that’s not typically true. Many employers do require employees to pay a portion of the costs, but generally also contribute a portion of the costs themselves. This expenditure, along with costs for vacation and other benefits, is known as the _fringe_ cost. In the case of insurance, the company pays, often more than the employee pays, and that cost does not appear on the pay stub. But, starting in 2013, it does appear on your W-2. Look at box 12 next to code DD. The amount shown there is the total of both employee and employer contributions. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/27 "2014-03-26T21:30:04Z")
I hope and pray that the Court rules that, while \*people \*can have religious convictions that society should bend over backwards to protect – \*corporations \*don’t have religion. It seems so easy. But the cynic in me thinks this outcome is doubtful. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/28 "2014-03-26T21:37:40Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > I hope and pray that the Court rules that, while \*people \*can have religious convictions that society should bend over backwards to protect – \*corporations \*don’t have religion. > > It seems so easy. > > But the cynic in me thinks this outcome is doubtful. Remember that many, if not most, churches are corporations. I guess the abstract legal entity of a church cannot have religion, but the whole reason for incorporating a church is to promote a religion and a religious agenda. They would have to make a far more narrow ruling than corporations can’t have religion. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/29 "2014-03-26T21:55:55Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Remember that many, if not most, churches are corporations. I guess the abstract legal entity of a church cannot have religion, but the whole reason for incorporating a church is to promote a religion and a religious agenda. They would have to make a far more narrow ruling than corporations can’t have religion. Not a problem. Churches already are legally defined, with regards to the tax code, so it should be easy to say “corporations (except churches)”. Or rule “ **For-profit** corporations” don’t have religious convictions. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/30 "2014-03-26T23:35:04Z")
Roberts and Kennedy are both possible swing votes to uphold the law. There is a lot of precedent that commerce and tax law can be applied to the religious provided that it is neutral on its face, which it is. Roberts has already gone way out on a limb from his buddies in support of the ACA, and this would require him to back down on that, and also reverse 80 years of commerce clause jurisprudence. We saw with the ACA that he wanted to be the one in the middle with both sides vying for his vote, so within the Court he has, on the ACA, positioned himself closer to the left with Kennedy. Kennedy loves to be the swing vote, and I think that his vote might also be up in the air. Hobby Lobby’s position is, in my opinion (not as a lawyer) full of crap. They aren’t a religion, but a for profit corporation without either a conscience or religion. As a practical matter, a ruling for Hobby Lobby would allow anyone to set up a corporation that has religion to get around any government mandate. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/31 "2014-03-27T00:01:35Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > [Linky](http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-religion-case-run-amok-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-20140321,0,2434477.story#axzz2wpUJwJ4H) > So which way do you think the court will lean? So far, I haven’t seen a very good case being made from their legal team. First the court helped out one political side with the Bush win. Then they balanced the scale by finding Obamacare constitutional-but crippled it. Now the court feels the score is even and they can do everything possible to slam Obamacare and Obama. Hobby Lobby will win. 5-4. maybe 6-3 if Roberts can call in a favor or three… What will be interesting is now that corporations have religion, what will the lobbyists do with that tax dodge? I wonder how many senior execs will go on religious retreats (assuming that saves on taxes)? A whole new accounting specialty! ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/32 "2014-03-27T00:06:35Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Not a problem. **Churches already are legally defined, with regards to the tax code** , so it should be easy to say “corporations (except churches)”. > > Or rule “ **For-profit** corporations” don’t have religious convictions. Non-profits are legally defined. Churches are one kind of a non-profit, typically a 501(c)(3). But so are the Red Cross, The American Cancer Society, and many other charities. So the court cannot distinguish churches from other non-profits without specifically targeting the churches. And that is not generally permitted. They could treat churches the same as all other similarly organized non-profits (_i.e._ all 501(c)(3) organizations). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/33 "2014-03-27T01:41:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree. I think it will be 5-4 Hobby Lobby’s way, but with a narrow ruling – something that limits the reach to closely-held S corps, where there is a clear uniform identity of ownership behind the corporate structure. They will leave undecided the wider question of what rights IBM or General Motors might have. I don’t really see a way for them to do that in the present case, since Hobby Lobby has taken no action to distinguish itself from any other corporation (other than remaining closely held.) I am expecting lots of dicta explaining what corporations wishing to avail themselves of HL’s argument need to do - explain their closely held religious belief in their founding documents, or something. Or organize as an LLC. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/34 "2014-03-27T02:30:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t really see a way for them to do that in the present case, since Hobby Lobby has taken no action to distinguish itself from any other corporation (other than remaining closely held.) I am expecting lots of dicta explaining what corporations wishing to avail themselves of HL’s argument need to do - explain their closely held religious belief in their founding documents, or something. Or organize as an LLC. According to their brief, Hobby Lobby is an S-corp. Why couldn’t the Court premise a holding on that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/35 "2014-03-27T02:31:32Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Roberts and Kennedy are both possible swing votes to uphold the law. There is a lot of precedent that commerce and tax law can be applied to the religious provided that it is neutral on its face, which it is. > > Roberts has already gone way out on a limb from his buddies in support of the ACA, and this would require him to back down on that, and also reverse 80 years of commerce clause jurisprudence. We saw with the ACA that he wanted to be the one in the middle with both sides vying for his vote, so within the Court he has, on the ACA, positioned himself closer to the left with Kennedy. > > Kennedy loves to be the swing vote, and I think that his vote might also be up in the air. > > Hobby Lobby’s position is, in my opinion (not as a lawyer) full of crap. They aren’t a religion, but a for profit corporation without either a conscience or religion. As a practical matter, a ruling for Hobby Lobby would allow anyone to set up a corporation that has religion to get around any government mandate. What about the actual text of the law? You know – the thing that theoretically should be the basis of a court decision? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/36 "2014-03-27T03:56:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What about the actual text of the law? You know – the thing that theoretically should be the basis of a court decision? That is so cute! See Bush v. Gore. Supreme Court justices do not vote on the basis of law, but on the basis of their political leanings. They all do this, but none more so than Antonin Scalia, who has even subscribed to the “Original Intent Theory” of jurisprudence which pretends that the founding fathers were all of one mind and certain about every damn issue, to which end he pulls out of his ass whatever opinion he wants to subscribe to the founding fathers that they never said shit about much the same way that Pat Robertson blathers about Jesus being a capitalist. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/37 "2014-03-27T04:27:57Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Quick question: is Hobby Lobby providing the insurance in house, or using some other insurance company? The former I can understand the idea of a religious exemption. But not the latter. Hobby Lobby, according to their original complaint, is self-insured. ---
**Author:** ![WolfpackJeep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpackjeep/32/2921_2.png) [@WolfpackJeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WolfpackJeep)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/38 "2014-03-27T16:56:10Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > This morning’s Indianapolis Star showed a picture of a protester dressed as a package of birth control pills. I wondered, “Where do you suppose she got the materials to make that costume?” Michael’s or Wal-Mart. 😃 It wouldn’t surprise me if Hobby Lobby comes out on top…this Court has seemed far too eager to give corporations the right to essentially trample all over people. I think their case is bullshit though…it’s a for-profit corporation. How can they have a religion? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/39 "2014-03-27T17:09:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > According to their brief, Hobby Lobby is an S-corp. > > Why couldn’t the Court premise a holding on that? The only relevant distinction between an S-corporation and regular corps is the 100 shareholder limitation. That still seems like a rather large number of people whose views could be imputed to the corporation. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393/40 "2014-03-27T17:28:03Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Hobby Lobby, according to their original complaint, is self-insured. Thanks (to **Bricker** , too). My mom asked me about this stuff and I realized how little I actually know, despite voicing my opinion on it in other threads. :o [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hobby-lobbys-birth-control-fight-goes-to-the-scotus-your-predictions/684393.md?page=3)