# 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:** 14
**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:** [December 2, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/261 "2013-12-02T22:30:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Because the 14th amendment empowered Congress to pass laws guaranteeing the civil rights of the citizenry. The 14th Amendment, like the 1st, restricts _government_ action, not the actions of private businesses. As far as I know, the Civil Rights Act was justified on the basis of regulating interstate commerce, not the 14th Amendment. The landmark case [_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) was argued on those grounds. (I should point out that I’m in favor of the Civil Rights Act. I’m just playing devil’s advocate, otherwise known as Ron Paul. 😃 ) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/262 "2013-12-02T22:51:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Because the regulation forces people to act against their religious beliefs. Any law that infringes on 1st amendment rights has to survive strict scrutiny. I don’t think freedom of speech is subject to strict scrutiny. Thats in the first amendment right? > [@](#): > > Yes, there’s rational basis, but I don’t see how you lower the standard to rational basis when we’re dealing with the 1st amendment. Rational basis is what applies to regulations of commerce that do not impact basic constitutional rights. Hey, YOU’RE the one that said: “To claim that persons lose their religious freedoms when operating in the business sector is basically to say that religious people may not run businesses, since their freedoms can be infringed in regards to the business **at any time for any reason**.” YOU said that, not me. I happen t think that you can’t force a doctor to perform an abortion, you can’t force a priest to perform a gay marriage, you can’t force a pharmacist to dispense morning after pills but you can’t force someone to provide comprehensive health care to their employees even if they object to some individual elements of that insurance coverage. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure the state can even prove a compelling interest in free contraception. That’s a policy preference based on the political needs of the 2012 election. There is no contraception access crisis needing a solution, plus the government has other means of solving the problem, such as paying for contraception through tax dollars. It wasn’t a political policy preference. It was one of the things on a long list of things recommended by a non-partisan panel of health experts that defined what constituted comprehensive health insurance coverage. Letting people cherry pick parts of that laundry list to ignore because of personal religious beliefs would (in the words of Anthony Scalia) make each man a law unto himself. > [@](#): > > That does not mean that employers do not have religious freedom, or that the government can force them to violate their beliefs in the name of labor law. Until now, nothing was asked of any religious employer that would force them to violate their beliefs. There is no religious objection to overtime, or equal rights(even for gays), or safety regulations, or the right to organize. Or even the to require health insurance. There is, however, an issue with contraception in the catholic church, which is going to cause Catholics some conscience dilemmas. The Obama adminstration’s attitude is “Suck it up, you’re in a profit seeking business, your morality doesn’t matter.” Which again, is also untenable since Obama’s one of those guys who pontificates on business being about more than profits. So apparently, HE is the decider of what constitutes morality in the business sector. YOU said that Obama already conceded the religious freedom issue by exempting churches. So what did he concede? Do you know how we decided what to require in health insurance policies? You think Obama sat there and told people that contraception had to be in there? The fact of the matter is that contraception is a standard element of comprehensive health insurance and THATS why its in there. > [@](#): > > My religious beliefs don’t involve a problem with contraception. For my people, the main challenge is Sunday laws. Also, there is a wide gulf between preventing me from doing something and forcing me to do something. 90% of religious law, no matter what your religion, is “don’t”. There are very few things that you must do to avoid the wrath of your deity. Rastafarians don’t HAVE to smoke marijuana anymore than Jews HAVE to drink wine. So you don’t like the example? OK, how about a jehovah’s witness that doesn’t want to cover blood transfusions. Or how about some other religious nutjob that doesn’t want to cover any illnesses caused by “sins” like gluttony, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Now, what if they told me that by law, they had to charge me exactly the same amount for the inferior coverage. If I’m not paying any more money for the plan with the contraception than the plan without the contraception then I’m just imposing my religious beliefs on my employees, aren’t I? > [@](#): > > In that case, the government can probably demonstrate a compelling interest. Contraception, on the other hand, is not a medical necessity, and even if you argue that it is, even unemployed people don’t seem to have a problem getting their hands on it. They don’t have a problem getting their hands on antibiotics either. So maybe we shouldn’t cover that.:dubious: > [@](#): > > There’s one more distinction: Catholics believe contraception to be morally wrong, no matter who is doing it. Witnesses, as far as I know, only believe blood transfusions are wrong for Witnesses, just as Jews only believe pork is wrong for Jews to eat. There aren’t Witnesses protesting outside hospitals or Jews protesting outside meat markets. Yeah, thats what we call imposing your beliefs on other people. Our democracy isn’t really keen on having the government facilitate that sort of thing. > [@adaher](#): > > Because the 14th amendment empowered Congress to pass laws guaranteeing the civil rights of the citizenry. There is no civil rights issue at stake with the contraception mandate. Have you heard of Griswold v Connecticut? > [@](#): > > Secondly, we’re talking about a mere regulation, which gets a lot less deference from the courts than laws. It depends. This might be what we call a legislative regulation, it is not an interpretation of the law, the agency isn’t reading the law and telling the world how they intend to interpret it, it is an example of the legislature delegating legislative power to fill out the details of a law. > [@Bricker](#): > > Um… because federal law explicitly says it does. 42 USC § 2000bb. Huh! Would you look at that. So is this law more like forbidding the use of peyote or requiring people to pay taxes that are used to fund wars? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/263 "2013-12-03T15:58:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why would strict scrutiny apply here again? > [@Bricker](#): > > Um… because federal law explicitly says it does. 42 USC § 2000bb. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Huh! Would you look at that. So is this law more like forbidding the use of peyote or requiring people to pay taxes that are used to fund wars? Forbidding the use of peyote was the issue in _Employment Division v. Smith_. Taxes for war was the issue in _Wisconsin v. Yoder_. But 42 USC 2000bb, while it explicitly mentions those cases, does not rest on either of those cases’ premises. Congress enacted the RFRA to say, inter alia, that all subsequent Congressional acts that infringe religion, unless they explicitly exclude themselves from the reach of the RFRA, are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3(b). So it’s unclear from your comment if you understand, now, why strict scrutiny applies. Do you? ---
**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:** [December 3, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/264 "2013-12-03T16:04:14Z")
That seems like a rather heavy-handed encroachment on the power of the judiciary. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/265 "2013-12-03T16:15:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Taxes for war was the issue in _Wisconsin v. Yoder_. _Yoder_ was about truancy. I think you’re thinking about _Lee_, which was about social security taxes but talked about taxes for war. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That seems like a rather heavy-handed encroachment on the power of the judiciary. What does? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/266 "2013-12-03T16:16:57Z")
Could the Monday Supreme Court [decision not to hear the Liberty University challenge against Obamacare](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/1202/Supreme-Court-rejects-challenge-to-Obamacare-by-Christian-university-video) be an indicator as to where they may go with the Hobby Lobby case? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/267 "2013-12-03T16:17:58Z")
I have a lot more sympathy for the rights of Hobby Lobby employees than I do for Hobby Lobby management. These people signed on to provide a service for this company and receive compensation. If they spend their free time going to church every night or engaging in wild orgies, it is none of their employer’s business. So management doesn’t like contraception. Fine, then management doesn’t have to use it. For them to insist that the insurance that they provide doesn’t provide contraception is an infringement on the rights of their employees. It’s twenty fucking thirteen, contraception is here to stay and it’s time these fuddy duddies grew up and dealt with it. If these clowns are granted the right to impose their religion on their employees, what next? Would a Jehovah Witness boss have the right to insist that their employees have no access to blood transfusions? Would he have the right to fire employees who donate blood? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/268 "2013-12-03T16:28:52Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I have a lot more sympathy for the rights of Hobby Lobby employees than I do for Hobby Lobby management. These people signed on to provide a service for this company and receive compensation. If they spend their free time going to church every night or engaging in wild orgies, it is none of their employer’s business. So management doesn’t like contraception. Fine, then management doesn’t have to use it. For them to insist that the insurance that they provide doesn’t provide contraception is an infringement on the rights of their employees. It’s twenty fucking thirteen, contraception is here to stay and it’s time these fuddy duddies grew up and dealt with it. If these clowns are granted the right to impose their religion on their employees, what next? Would a Jehovah Witness boss have the right to insist that their employees have no access to blood transfusions? Would he have the right to fire employees who donate blood? Why do I (as an employee) have a right that my employer provide me any particular form of compensation? Also, the JW’s and the blood transfusion has become an incessant trope, so I have to ask (since I’m unfamiliar with their theology): is there any reason to believe that a Jehovah’s Witness would object to facilitating another having a blood transfusion? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/269 "2013-12-03T16:38:20Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Why do I (as an employee) have a right that my employer provide me any particular form of compensation? > > Also, the JW’s and the blood transfusion has become an incessant trope, so I have to ask (since I’m unfamiliar with their theology): is there any reason to believe that a Jehovah’s Witness would object to facilitating another having a blood transfusion? You as an employee have a right to buy the prescription drugs that you and your doctor think you should have. For an employer to say “oh, no, THESE drugs violate MY morality, YOU can’t have them” is imposing his religion on you. I don’t know if a JW would obect to others having a transfusion, but if they did, would they have the right to insist that you don’t get one? ---
**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:** [December 3, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/270 "2013-12-03T16:45:47Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > What does? 42 USC § 2000bb, cited by **Bricker** above, requiring that strict scrutiny be applied to all neutral laws burdening religion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/271 "2013-12-03T16:47:21Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > _Yoder_ was about truancy. I think you’re thinking about _Lee_, which was about social security taxes but talked about taxes for war. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/272 "2013-12-03T16:47:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > You as an employee have a right to buy the prescription drugs that you and your doctor think you should have. For an employer to say “oh, no, THESE drugs violate MY morality, YOU can’t have them” is imposing his religion on you. > > I don’t know if a JW would obect to others having a transfusion, but if they did, would they have the right to insist that you don’t get one? I think you’re confused about what the employer is saying in this scenario. He’s not saying “YOU can’t have them;” he’s saying “I won’t help pay for them” (or, more accurately, pay for a plan that pays for them). Similarly, our hypothetical JW isn’t insisting that I don’t get a transfusion, he’s insisting that he not foot the bill for it. (I ask about the nature of their beliefs, because I understand it to be an extension of the kosher rule against eating blood. It doesn’t matter for the purposes of this discussion, but there would be a difference, for example, between a religious belief that I can’t eat beef and one against the slaughtering of cows. The latter belief is more likely to prevent me from buying you a hamburger). The employer is not asking for the ability to prevent me from doing something (which it shouldn’t have) or even the right to lobby me not to do it. It’s asking not to have to pay for it. I’m not suggesting that the employer should win. I’m just not sure how the employee’s rights are being violated. Just because some employees get compensated in the form of coverage for blood transfusion? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/273 "2013-12-03T16:52:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 42 USC § 2000bb, cited by **Bricker** above, requiring that strict scrutiny be applied to all neutral laws burdening religion. I don’t see it. RFRA operates not unlike the Dictionary Act. It provides an default interpretative principle for statutory interpretation. We talk about it in terms of constitutional doctrines (like strict scrutiny), because it applied a previous constitutional scheme (and took its statutory language from those cases), but it’s really Congress just telling courts what it means in the statutes. Providing guidance on how to interpret the text of a statute is hardly legislative encroachment. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/274 "2013-12-03T16:58:01Z")
Let’s go a step further, suppose the Hobby Lobby ayatollah wins in court, would he then have the right to insist that you not buy contraception even on your own? After all, you’re taking money that was once his to buy it. Or would he have the right to refuse cancer treatment on the grounds that your cancer is the will of God and you shouldn’t fight it? In my opinion, Hobby Lobby is in the wrong and if they lose their case and fold their business rather than give their employees complete health care coverage, I say good riddance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/275 "2013-12-03T16:58:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That seems like a rather heavy-handed encroachment on the power of the judiciary. No. While it’s true that Congress does not have the power to supersede a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution (City of Boerne v. Flores), they certainly have the power to change judicially-created rules that are not specifically mandated by the Constitution. Carlisle v. US, Vance v. Terrazas. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/276 "2013-12-03T17:06:19Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Let’s go a step further, suppose the Hobby Lobby ayatollah wins in court, would he then have the right to insist that you not buy contraception even on your own? After all, you’re taking money that was once his to buy it. No. This hypothetical glosses over a kind of key point: once you’re paid, the money is yours. There is nothing in this argument that remotely suggests that anyone is arguing for a right to dictate what you do with your money – what Hobby Lobby and the Kortes demand is the right to dictate what they do with their money. It’s possible that as a liberal, you reject the concept of personal property, and believe so strongly in a single communal pot into which all contribute according to their ability and draw from according to their need, and so are unable to comprehend this distinction. Nonetheless, the distinction exists. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/277 "2013-12-03T17:09:29Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Let’s go a step further, suppose the Hobby Lobby ayatollah wins in court, would he then have the right to insist that you not buy contraception even on your own? After all, you’re taking money that was once his to buy it. Or would he have the right to refuse cancer treatment on the grounds that your cancer is the will of God and you shouldn’t fight it? Of course not. If only becuase the burden on the employers religious rights is increasingly diminished and the societal interest in my ability to spend the money on what I want is increased. I don’t have the right to make my Methodist employer pay me in Lotto tickets, but he has no right to prevent me from buying them when he pays me in cash. It’s not a totally unreasonable balance, actually. But while the question of whether or not the government can compel you to do something is unclear (and interesting), I was primarily taking issue with your claim that the employees had the right to compel their employer to provide compensation in a certain form. ---
**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:** [December 3, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/278 "2013-12-03T17:35:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. While it’s true that Congress does not have the power to supersede a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution (City of Boerne v. Flores), they certainly have the power to change judicially-created rules that are not specifically mandated by the Constitution. Carlisle v. US, Vance v. Terrazas. But the applicable level of scrutiny in First Amendment cases _is_ mandated by the Constitution. In _Carlisle_, the Court was dealing with the rules of procedure, which are clearly not constitutional imperatives. In _Vance_, the Court was require to defer to the foreign policy branches. I like Falchion’s explanation a bit better, but I think it’s misleading to analogize review for constitutionality to pure statutory interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/279 "2013-12-03T18:00:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > But the applicable level of scrutiny in First Amendment cases _is_ mandated by the Constitution. In _Carlisle_, the Court was dealing with the rules of procedure, which are clearly not constitutional imperatives. In _Vance_, the Court was require to defer to the foreign policy branches. > > I like Falchion’s explanation a bit better, but I think it’s misleading to analogize review for constitutionality to pure statutory interpretation. So I’m not sure what you’re saying here. The Hobby Lobby case isn’t a First Amendment case (I mean, Hobby Lobby does claim a First Amendment issue, but I don’t think it’s a winner; in any event that’s a seperate issue). And I guess I’m not sure what you think is “misleading.” Something I said? Or the fact that Congress provided statutory protections that invoked constitutional language? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/280 "2013-12-03T18:14:48Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > But while the question of whether or not the government can compel you to do something is unclear (and interesting), I was primarily taking issue with your claim that the employees had the right to compel their employer to provide compensation in a certain form. Of course, this is why we have courts to resolve cases of conflicting rights. I simply maintain that your right to a standard level of health insurance is independent of and superior to the employers’ “right” to pick and choose which coverages do and don’t fit their own particular version of morality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=15)