# 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:** 12
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/221 "2013-11-27T04:08:08Z")
I thought they invented cold-cuts? ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/222 "2013-11-27T04:56:11Z")
> [@LurkerInNJ](#): > > 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? I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a sign that indicates that a business will be closed on a non-Christian holiday/Sabbath that’s not a secular holiday, as well. I mean, I occasionally see signs that a business will be closed for Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July, but that’s about it. If a business is closed for a religious holiday, it’s always a Christian holiday, in my experience, but that’s probably because of where I live. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/223 "2013-11-27T12:03:50Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > In that case, YOU don’t decide what the law is either. So then… what if they decide you are full of shit? Then I will post an acknowledgement of my error. “Looks like I was full of shit,” I’ll say, “for seeing no reason the Supreme Court would recognize constitutional protection for a corporation’s political expression but not its religious expression. Turns out there was a reason, and I was clearly wrong.” > [@](#): > > I don’t know of any law that REQUIRES a company to enforce the CEO’s religious views (yet). So what if the CEO changes? And what if the new one has some other cockamamie religious baggage coupled with some “benefit” he personally disapproves of? Is this then the fvcking Religion/Benefits Of The Week Club? Sure, why not? A company can contribute to the Sierra Fund and Greenpeace one year, then get a new CEO and contribute to a PAC promoting oil drilling and slaughter of whales the next year. What the company can, or cannot do, is a function of it’s by-laws, not the whim of the CEO, in any event. But assuming it’s by-laws permit the CEO unfettered discretion in these matters…sure. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/224 "2013-11-27T12:15:27Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Right-wing media have mischaracterized the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provision that requires certain preventive health care services be included in employer-provided health insurance at no cost as a violation of the religious freedoms of corporations who object to contraception. In reality, this mandate, currently before the Supreme Court, accommodates religious employers’ First Amendment rights without allowing secular, for-profit corporations to skirt federal law, and there is no legal precedent that gives **corporations** the right to exercise religious freedom. That will come as a shock to the judges of the Tenth Circuit, who said: > [@](#): > > It is beyond question that associations—not just individuals—have Free Exercise rights: “An individual’s freedom to speak, to worship, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances could not be vigorously protected from interference by the State unless a correlative freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends were not also guaranteed.” Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984) (emphasis added). Therefore, courts have “recognized a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment—speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion. The Constitution guarantees freedom of association of this kind as an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties.” Id. at 618 (emphasis added); see also Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 342–43 (2010) (“First Amendment protection extends to corporations . . . [, and the Court] has thus rejected the argument that . . . corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not natural persons.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). … Did I miss a memo which withdrew the Tenth Circuit’s power to create legal precedent? Or are you (again) full of shit? ---
**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 27, 2013, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/225 "2013-11-27T12:45:32Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a sign that indicates that a business will be closed on a non-Christian holiday/Sabbath that’s not a secular holiday, as well. I have. Mostly in NYC. Probably the biggest and most famous is [B&H Photo](http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/HoursOfOperation.jsp) the big electronics store near Penn Station. Never open on Saturday. ---
**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:** [November 27, 2013, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/226 "2013-11-27T14:32:58Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Personally, I would hesitate to characterize the scholars who came up with such interpretations, workarounds, and other guidelines to allow the faithful to remain observant in the age of post-Bronze-Age technology as “idiotic.” I wouldn’t. It’s not even accurate. A spark is not a fire, for one thing. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/227 "2013-11-27T15:14:03Z")
If a corporation really does have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion above and beyond the 1st Amendment rights of its employees… then a corporation could legally compel its employees to practice the corporate faith or be fired. But doesn’t the Civil Rights Act forbid this? Yes, but it’s a federal statute, which must give way to the Constitution. A statute that requires corporations to hire non-believers is a violation of the corporation’s 1st Amendment right to practice its faith without government interference. But don’t the _employees_ have 1st Amendment rights? Of course, but, again, it only protects them against _government_ interference, not against the acts of private companies. Therefore, as Johnny Cochran wouldn’t really have said — _“If you work for Chick-Fil-A, you’ve gotta pray!”_ QED. 🙂 Now, I must say that I don’t really believe this, and I somehow doubt the courts would, either. But what would they say if a corporation actually argued this? ---
**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 27, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/228 "2013-11-27T15:26:09Z")
> [@ricksummon](#): > > If a corporation really does have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion above and beyond the 1st Amendment rights of its employees… then a corporation could legally compel its employees to practice the corporate faith or be fired. > > But doesn’t the Civil Rights Act forbid this? Yes, but it’s a federal statute, which must give way to the Constitution. A statute that requires corporations to hire non-believers is a violation of the corporation’s 1st Amendment right to practice its faith without government interference. > > But don’t the _employees_ have 1st Amendment rights? Of course, but, again, it only protects them against _government_ interference, not against the acts of private companies. > > Therefore, as Johnny Cochran wouldn’t really have said — _“If you work for Chick-Fil-A, you’ve gotta pray!”_ QED. 🙂 > > Now, I must say that I don’t really believe this, and I somehow doubt the courts would, either. But what would they say if a corporation actually argued this? I think the point that is trying to be made is that as a privately held company its not really some faceless corporation. Its a family that is being made to go against their religious beliefs. I think a publicly held company might be looked at differently. We’ll see how the court sees it. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/229 "2013-11-27T15:29:49Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a sign that indicates that a business will be closed on a non-Christian holiday/Sabbath that’s not a secular holiday, as well. Some businesses in Skokie, Illinois do - “We will be closed on Rosh Hashannah,” for instance. Conversely, one of my favorite signs was “We will be open on December 25th.” ---
**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:** [November 27, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/230 "2013-11-27T15:46:09Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I think the point that is trying to be made is that as a privately held company its not really some faceless corporation. Its a family that is being made to go against their religious beliefs. I think a publicly held company might be looked at differently. We’ll see how the court sees it. The problem here is that this isn’t just a company; it’s a _corporation_, closely held or no. A sole proprietorship or partnership has no existence independent of its owners; a corporation does. Hobby Lobby wants to have its cake and eat it too. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/231 "2013-11-27T15:56:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The problem here is that this isn’t just a company; it’s a _corporation_, closely held or no. A sole proprietorship or partnership has no existence independent of its owners; a corporation does. Hobby Lobby wants to have its cake and eat it too. So what? A corporation has rights. One of those rights, says the Seventh circuit in Korte v. Sibelius, and the Tenth Circuit in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, is religious expression. I suppose you can say that’s “having a cake and eating it, too,” but in what way is that different than other protections provided by the corporate veil? You may as lief say that Hobby Lobby wants to “have their cake and eat it too” because they earn profits for their shareholders but shield their shareholders from financial liability for tortious acts committed by the company. No shit. That’s what a corporate structure does. ---
**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:** [November 27, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/232 "2013-11-27T16:08:29Z")
I am not saying the distinction I made is the correct answer. I am saying no family is being forced to go against their religious beliefs. As you say, the right of religious expression is one that must inure _to the corporation_ for this case to go forward. Any rights of Hobby Lobby’s owners are irrelevant. For what it’s worth, I stand by the principle I pointed out early on in this thread: that the idea that a corporation can hold sincere religious beliefs merits about as much consideration as the idea that a toaster has the right of free expression. But that’s neither here nor there. IMHO, a much stronger argument is the fact that the corporation has no constitutional right _to exist_, and thus it cannot have any other constitutional rights. It has what it has by virtue of the enabling statutes, and no more. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/233 "2013-11-27T16:09:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Lynn Bodoni** [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16882596#post16882596) I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a sign that indicates that a business will be closed on a non-Christian holiday/Sabbath that’s not a secular holiday, as well. > [@Loach](#): > > I have. Mostly in NYC. Probably the biggest and most famous is [B&H Photo](http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/HoursOfOperation.jsp) the big electronics store near Penn Station. Never open on Saturday. > [@bup](#): > > Some businesses in Skokie, Illinois do - “We will be closed on Rosh Hashannah,” for instance. > > Conversely, one of my favorite signs was “We will be open on December 25th.” Huh. Either I don’t patronize businesses by observant Jews, or they just aren’t very thick on the ground around here. Probably a combination of these two factors. I go to a deli that won’t carry pork products…but it will happily serve meat and cheese on the same sandwich, and it’s open on Saturdays, closed on Sundays. ---
**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 27, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/234 "2013-11-27T16:12:51Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > Huh. Either I don’t patronize businesses by observant Jews, or they just aren’t very thick on the ground around here. Probably a combination of these two factors. I know B&H because they advertise on NYC radio. I don’t know of any that are close by that I would patronize regularly. But then again, there aren’t many businesses that are closed strictly on Sunday either. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/235 "2013-11-27T16:37:29Z")
Around here, we do have a lot of businesses that are closed on Sundays. We have a large evangelical Christian population, as well as other flavors of Christianity, mostly Catholic (large Hispanic population) and Protestant. I’ve seen a few synagogues, but I don’t believe that I’ve seen a mosque around, though it’s possible that I’ve seen one and didn’t know what it was. After a quick Google, it appears that there are three within about 30 minutes of me, but none of them are in areas that I regularly go to. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/236 "2013-11-27T16:44:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I am not saying the distinction I made is the correct answer. I am saying no family is being forced to go against their religious beliefs. As you say, the right of religious expression is one that must inure _to the corporation_ for this case to go forward. Any rights of Hobby Lobby’s owners are irrelevant. > > For what it’s worth, I stand by the principle I pointed out early on in this thread: that the idea that a corporation can hold sincere religious beliefs merits about as much consideration as the idea that a toaster has the right of free expression. But that’s neither here nor there. > > IMHO, a much stronger argument is the fact that the corporation has no constitutional right _to exist_, and thus it cannot have any other constitutional rights. It has what it has by virtue of the enabling statutes, and no more. Mebbe. But on the flip side: persons clearly have a constitutional right of assembly. One such method is organizing as a corporation. So when people organize as a corporation, do they vitiate their right to religious expression? “All signs point to no,” as the Magic 8-Ball used to say. Even so, the cases that have gone forward have, IIRC, relied on the RFRA and not directly on the First Amendment. So even if I _arguendo_ accept your view that corporations have only those religious rights granted by statute, at least two circuits have held that the RFRA protects corporations’ free exercise of religion. (The DC circuit says, confusingly, that the corporations don’t have free exercise rights, but that the contraception mandate fight can be fought by the owners of the corporations on behalf of them, or something.) But the Seventh and Tenth circuits come down squarely for the proposition that corporations are “persons” within the meaning of the RFRA, the contraception mandate substantially burdens their exercise of religion, and the government fails to meet its strict scrutiny standard to overcome that burden. Of course, the Third Circuit says the opposite. Which is why the Supremes are going to weigh in. ---
**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 27, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/237 "2013-11-27T16:57:57Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > Around here, we do have a lot of businesses that are closed on Sundays. We have a large evangelical Christian population, as well as other flavors of Christianity, mostly Catholic (large Hispanic population) and Protestant. I’ve seen a few synagogues, but I don’t believe that I’ve seen a mosque around, though it’s possible that I’ve seen one and didn’t know what it was. After a quick Google, it appears that there are three within about 30 minutes of me, but none of them are in areas that I regularly go to. When I was a kid we had weird blue laws. Most businesses were closed. The ones that were open could only sell certain products. I remember going into a hardware store and seeing large sections roped off. Most of that went away long ago. Really the only places that I can think of that are closed on Sunday are non-chain hair salons and Chik-Fil-A/Hobby Lobby. CFA and HL are not very widespread here. HL recently came into the area with one store. I had never heard of it before. Quite frankly, I don’t exactly agree with their politics but I’m glad to see a store take over for the K-Mart that went under and left the property abandoned. ETA: Oh and car dealers. Its illegal for a car dealership to be open on Sunday. I really hope that goes away. Most aren’t open too late during the week. It was a real pain in the ass to do car shopping the last time I needed to. ---
**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:** [November 27, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/238 "2013-11-27T17:13:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Even so, the cases that have gone forward have, IIRC, relied on the RFRA and not directly on the First Amendment. So even if I _arguendo_ accept your view that corporations have only those religious rights granted by statute, at least two circuits have held that the RFRA protects corporations’ free exercise of religion. I admit I don’t understand the RFRA claim very well. In a conflict between two federal statutes, the one enacted later governs, no? Given the varying conclusions reached by the members of the 10th circuit, [it seems they don’t understand it much either](http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6294.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/239 "2013-11-27T17:19:12Z")
Heya **Rick** , how’s every little thing? > [@Bricker](#): > > But on the flip side: persons clearly have a constitutional right of assembly. One such method is organizing as a corporation. So when people organize as a corporation, do they vitiate their right to religious expression? “All signs point to no,” as the Magic 8-Ball used to say. Certainly not as individuals. But as a collective legal entity? We have decided that business cannot discriminate against certain people. Prohibiting corporate/businesses discrimination against protected classes does not vitiate the individual members’ rights to be racist, but it forces corporations to fall in line. If I had a hypothetical corporation whose ownership were all Christian Identity adherents, wouldn’t I arguably have a case against the Civil Rights Act for violating my company’s right to religious expression? ---
**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:** [November 27, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/240 "2013-11-27T17:26:01Z")
Yes, but the conflict there is between the individual rights of employees (and Congress’ 14th amendment power to protect them) and those of ownership. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=13)