# I Pit HOBBY LOBBY **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 28, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335 "2012-11-28T02:45:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/181 "2013-07-19T17:18:43Z")
The federal court hearing Hobby Lobby’s case just granted an order excusing Hobby Lobby from compliance with the mandate. U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton ruled that Hobby Lobby and the affiliated Mardel Christian bookstore chain are exempt from having to comply with the mandate until the litigation is settled. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/182 "2013-07-19T17:37:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The federal court hearing Hobby Lobby’s case just granted an order excusing Hobby Lobby from compliance with the mandate. > > U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton ruled that Hobby Lobby and the affiliated Mardel Christian bookstore chain are exempt from having to comply with the mandate until the litigation is settled. Maybe now we can scrap the ACA and get single payer health care passed. Employer supplied health insurance is a terrible model. And I say this as an employer that pays 100% of health insurance costs for over 10 employees. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/183 "2013-07-19T18:13:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The federal court hearing Hobby Lobby’s case just granted an order excusing Hobby Lobby from compliance with the mandate. > > U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton ruled that Hobby Lobby and the affiliated Mardel Christian bookstore chain are exempt from having to comply with the mandate until the litigation is settled. This is just a temporary injunction so the fines stop piling up and they aren’t currently forced to provide the health care option, correct? It’s not like Hobby Lobby has won an exemption. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/184 "2013-07-19T18:14:33Z")
Well, at the very least, they’ve earned an exception from the fines. My point being – if this were a factory dumping toxic waste into the public pool, they wouldn’t be exempted from fines while we figured out if what they were doing was wrong … as explicitly laid out by law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/185 "2013-07-19T18:23:03Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > This is just a temporary injunction so the fines stop piling up and they aren’t currently forced to provide the health care option, correct? It’s not like Hobby Lobby has won an exemption. Correct – although the Tenth Circuit’s _en banc_ decision a couple of weeks ago isn’t good news for the administration on that front. > [@](#): > > This case requires us to determine whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause protect the plaintiffs—two companies and their owners who run their businesses to reflect their religious values. The companies are Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain, and Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain. Their owners, the Greens, run both companies as closely held family businesses and operate them according to a set of Christian principles. They contend regulations implementing the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act force them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. In particular, the plaintiffs brought an action challenging a regulation that requires them, beginning July 1, 2013, to provide certain contraceptive services as a part of their employer-sponsored health care plan. Among these services are drugs and devices that the plaintiffs believe to be abortifacients, the use of which is contrary to their faith. > > We hold that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are entitled to bring claims under RFRA, have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/186 "2013-07-19T18:25:21Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Well, at the very least, they’ve earned an exception from the fines. > My point being – if this were a factory dumping toxic waste into the public pool, they wouldn’t be exempted from fines while we figured out if what they were doing was wrong … as explicitly laid out by law. Their claim is that the law impermissibly intrudes on to freedoms granted by the First Amendment. It’s reasonably well-settled law that there’s no First Amendment interest in dumping toxic waste. But there IS a First Amendment interest in not provide certain contraceptive services as a part of their employer-sponsored health care plan. This is probably why the “toxic waste” defense failed to move the Tenth Circuit. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/187 "2013-07-19T18:34:52Z")
I was obviously being hyperbolic, but the point still stands, first amendment or not. They decided they didn’t want to follow the law, propping up the first amendment as a shield. I can’t drive 120 mph anywhere I want to go and call it free expression. If they want to break the law, then they should be held accountable. If they can strong-arm the federal government into giving them special rights (you know, different than any other non-Christian businesses just like them), they can discuss the fines they had to pay then. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/188 "2013-07-19T19:10:22Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I was obviously being hyperbolic, but the point still stands, first amendment or not. They decided they didn’t want to follow the law, propping up the first amendment as a shield. I can’t drive 120 mph anywhere I want to go and call it free expression. That’s true, but the courts are permitted to make threshold determinations of what is, and is not, a bonafide religious practice. I doubt you’re attending the Church of Sammy “I Can’t Drive 55” Hagar, and the government is not required to credulously accept any claim that any practice is religious. > [@](#): > > If they want to break the law, then they should be held accountable. If they can strong-arm the federal government into giving them special rights (you know, different than any other non-Christian businesses just like them), they can discuss the fines they had to pay then. Nope. That’s not the law. The law says that they have a right to enjoin enforcement of the fines, in advance, if they can demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in ultimately winning their case. And they did. Your method would chill the ability to challenge such laws, because a business, even one with a strongly meritorious claim, couldn’t afford to pay the fines while awaiting their turn in court. So good thing your method is NOT the one we use, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/189 "2013-11-26T18:32:19Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I was obviously being hyperbolic, but the point still stands, first amendment or not. They decided they didn’t want to follow the law, propping up the first amendment as a shield. I can’t drive 120 mph anywhere I want to go and call it free expression. > > If they want to break the law, then they should be held accountable. If they can strong-arm the federal government into giving them special rights (you know, different than any other non-Christian businesses just like them), they can discuss the fines they had to pay then. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear their case. If the Court rules that the First Amendment shields their conduct, then they _didn’t_ “break the law.” Right? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/190 "2013-11-26T18:38:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Supreme Court has agreed to hear their case. > > If the Court rules that the First Amendment shields their conduct, then they _didn’t_ “break the law.” > > Right? Are you saying that breaking an unconstitutional law is not breaking a law before it’s deemed to be unconstitutional? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/191 "2013-11-26T18:41:11Z")
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d be gunning for a constitutional amendment toot suite. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/192 "2013-11-26T18:55:02Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d be gunning for a constitutional amendment toot suite. I hear ya. [Quote=Amendment XXVIII] Section 1. No laws shall be deemed to protect Hobby Lobby from anything, because they suck. Section 2. The president shall have power to enforce this through appropriate military means. [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/193 "2013-11-26T19:08:58Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Are you saying that breaking an unconstitutional law is not breaking a law before it’s deemed to be unconstitutional? Yes?? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/194 "2013-11-26T19:18:33Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Good for you. > > Basically, a for-profit company is not a church. Hobby Lobby can follow the law or get stuffed. This. I’ve had a belly full of all the “a company is a person with rights” and by extension “a company is a person with religious rights that allow it to FVCK its employees in the name of Gawd”. The LAW says, not to use the company to force some CEO or owner’s religious crap on the employees. The law does NOT say make employees obey your personal version fo some Big Book. The law says the boss’ religion does not entitle him do arbitrarily decide what benefits he feels like “granting”. The company can obey the law, or pay fines and lawsuits, or go under. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/195 "2013-11-26T19:21:42Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I hear ya. I was thinking something a bit more general that would say, allow people to still have real healthcare should their boss become a christian scientist or something, but your version has a certain je ne sai quoi. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/196 "2013-11-26T19:25:41Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Are you saying that breaking an unconstitutional law is not breaking a law before it’s deemed to be unconstitutional? Not exactly. I’m parroting back an often-heard theory here: courts don’t make law, they just discover the correct law that was there all along. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/197 "2013-11-26T19:27:25Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > This. I’ve had a belly full of all the “a company is a person with rights” and by extension “a company is a person with religious rights that allow it to FVCK its employees in the name of Gawd”. > > The LAW says, not to use the company to force some CEO or owner’s religious crap on the employees. The law does NOT say make employees obey your personal version fo some Big Book. The law says the boss’ religion does not entitle him do arbitrarily decide what benefits he feels like “granting”. > > The company can obey the law, or pay fines and lawsuits, or go under. But the Supreme Court decides what the law says, not you. What if they decide that you’re full of crap as far as your view of how this law interacts with the First Amendment? Isn’t it then you who are failing to obey the law – or more specifically, urging a course of action that violates the law? ---
**Author:** ![LurkerInNJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ed655f/32.png) [@LurkerInNJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkerInNJ)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/198 "2013-11-26T19:52:57Z")
> [@InsomniaMama](#): > > Christ on a stick, I love the SD. It has irritated me for years that HL has a sign (at least in my town) on the door that states, “Closed Sundays for family and worship.” Really? Had to go tell everyone how very very religious you are? Can’t just say, “Closed Sundays”? Does that irritation extend to Orthodox owned business that have signage announcing they are closed on the Sabbath or Muslim businesses that lock the doors and put up a little sign about opening in 20 minutes during prayer times? Or a sign that lets people know they are in a Schindler’s lift so they don’t start pressing buttons? Does that irritate you too? Or is it just Christians? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/199 "2013-11-26T19:55:02Z")
Schindler lift? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/200 "2013-11-26T20:05:49Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Schindler lift? For protecting Jews with speech impediments. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=11)