# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/281 "2013-12-03T18:39:53Z")
Jehovah Witnesses and transfusions were already mentioned… So what if the CEO or someone on the board, or the proprietor is a Christian Scientist, and doesn’t believe in ANY medical preocdures? As in, he/she/they only believes things can be cured or healed or “whatever” by prayer? Does that person then get to deny ALL health insurance benefits? Where does it stop? And what if there is a change of ownership? Do all the rules then change on the whim of the new guy? A corporation does NOT have a religion. I don’t CARE how clever any argument for it is. It is not a lvining breathing human person, and so it does not have its own religious belief. It’s a company, in existence to make money. Period. If it IS a REAL person, I want to see one get executed. Then we’ll talk. ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/282 "2013-12-03T20:04:40Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. Well, that’s what we’re going to find out. I maintain that this particular instance of a “standard level of health care” is not, as you would have it, superior to the employers right to pick and choose. But I could be wrong. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/283 "2013-12-03T20:09:12Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Jehovah Witnesses and transfusions were already mentioned… > > So what if the CEO or someone on the board, or the proprietor is a Christian Scientist, and doesn’t believe in ANY medical preocdures? As in, he/she/they only believes things can be cured or healed or “whatever” by prayer? Does that person then get to deny ALL health insurance benefits? I’m not sure when the concept of an employer not providing health insurance became so bizarre as to constitute hyperbole. But, yes, I think there’s a fairly credible argument that the employer mandate could violate RFRA. For much the same reason that the Amish are exempted from the individual mandate. > [@](#): > > A corporation does NOT have a religion. I don’t CARE how clever any argument for it is. It is not a lvining breathing human person, and so it does not have its own religious belief. It’s a company, in existence to make money. Period. If it IS a REAL person, I want to see one get executed. Then we’ll talk. It gets tiresome to see the same one liners trotted out as if they are clever (“A corporation isn’t a person unless Texas executes one! haha!”). Still, it always seemed to me that the “legal fiction” argument bolstered, rather than undermined, the argument that it was the owners religious freedoms that were being violated (much like the confiscation of corporate property without due process violates the rights of the shareholders). The more fictional one wants to view the corporate form, the more plausible I find it that the rights of the individual owners are violated. Still, I have trouble believing that you would change your mind if Hobby Lobby was a partnership. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/284 "2013-12-03T21:11:25Z")
> [@David Green](#): > > “We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. […] We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. […] But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one.” However… Hobby Lobby sends their “Christian” money to China and its policy of one child per family and forced abortions. Apparently,when it comes to purchasing cheap goods from Chinese slave labor, Hobby Lobby’s “Christian values” are nowhere to be seen. Yet when it comes to telling its employees how to run their private lives, suddenly, it’s “Christian values” time. * * * [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/15/why-chinas-one-child-policy-still-leads-to-forced-abortions-and-always-will/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/15/why-chinas-one-child-policy-still-leads-to-forced-abortions-and-always-will/) > [@Wash Post](#): > > China is relaxing its 34-year-old one-child policy, which prohibits most families from having more than one child. Parents who themselves do not have siblings are now permitted to have two children, a change that one demographer estimated could boost the birthrate by about 10 percent. It’s a big deal for human rights in China, as well as for the country’s economic and demographic future. > > The policy is controversial for a number of reasons, but maybe the one that Americans hear about most is the practice of forcing abortions on mothers who become pregnant with an unapproved second child. And that may get to the biggest misunderstanding that most Americans have about the policy: why these things keep happening. As my Beijing-based colleague William Wan writes in an insightful explainer, “practices of forced abortions, infanticide and involuntary sterilizations [are] all banned in theory by the government,” but they still happen. They’re no longer frequent, but they do happen. > > In July 2012, for example, a 23-year-old mother became pregnant with her second child. Local officials arrested her, seven months into her pregnancy, and demanded her family pay $6,000 in fines for violating the one-child policy. When the family couldn’t get the money together, the officials gave her an injection that killed the baby, whom the mother delivered stillborn while in police custody. It became an international news story when the mother, outraged at her child’s death and at the indignity of being forced to wait alongside the body, posted a gruesome photo of the scene on social media. In China, it generated a national debate over the question, Why is this still happening? > > The awful persistence of forced abortions, sterilizations and infanticide in China reflect a contradiction in the Chinese system – and in the one-child policy itself. The senior leadership in Beijing may set national policy, such as today’s relaxation of the one-child policy, but it’s local- and provincial-level officials who choose when, whether and how to actually enforce those policies. * * * [http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/](http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/) > [@report from the Walk Free Foundation](#): > > Walk Free Foundation, The Global Slavery Index, has estimated that there are 30 million slaves in the world today, with more than half of them in production hubs such as India, China and Russia. > > Slavery, as defined by the Walk Free Foundation, comprises any situation in which an individual is forced into servitude against their will. In come cases, products produced using slave labor are shipped around the world – making it a global rather than a local concern. > > Some examples, per Quartz: > > • China has an estimated three million slaves working to create electronics and designer handbags. The report also alleges that forced labor was used to create headphones for several airlines. So the Hobby Lobby is devoutly christian except whe money is to be made. Christian? HARDLY. More like a lying hypocrite who is using the Bible and Gawd. to keep more ill gotten gains in his hands. And to a real christian who actually believes in something (anything) - doing business with China of ALL places and thereby approving of slavery and government mandated abortion, would be abhorrent. David Green is a hypocrite and a liar. He can go straight to hell. Obviously money comes before any “ideals” which he so obviously does NOT have. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/285 "2013-12-03T21:20:25Z")
> [@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. Be careful with that statement. Is the religious belief: 1. To not use contraception themselves? or 2. To not provide contraception to others? or 3. To stop everyone in the world from using contraception? ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/286 "2013-12-03T22:06:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. If Hobby Lobby were organized as a parternship or some form of proprietorship, then it would be the Green’s money. Even if HL is a closely held corporation (which I believe it is), the Greens finances and the corporations finances are separate. So the question really comes down to a corporation having a religion. And while SCOTUS may end up disagreeing, that concept seems ridiculous. ---
**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, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/287 "2013-12-03T22:24:25Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Be careful with that statement. Is the religious belief: > > 1. To not use contraception themselves? > or > 2. To not provide contraception to others? > or > 3. To stop everyone in the world from using contraception? I think the real issue is: 1. To stop people from having sex and “getting away with it”. It’s all about power. These people want the power to run other people’s lives- that their status as “job creators” comes with it the power to dictate the sex lives of their employees. ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/288 "2013-12-03T22:39:20Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > If Hobby Lobby were organized as a parternship or some form of proprietorship, then it would be the Green’s money. Even if HL is a closely held corporation (which I believe it is), the Greens finances and the corporations finances are separate. > > So the question really comes down to a corporation having a religion. And while SCOTUS may end up disagreeing, that concept seems ridiculous. There is some precedent for the proposition that corporations have standing to assert its shareholders’ religious rights. That was the whole basis of Judge Walton’s opinion in the Tyndale case. There’s also a fairly interesting short article by Stephen Bainbridge on veil-piercing in these contexts. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/289 "2013-12-04T00:34:49Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > So the question really comes down to a corporation having a religion. And while SCOTUS may end up disagreeing, that concept seems ridiculous. Many churches are incorporated. They do not have a religion? What’s weird about the mandate is that it gives special privileges to certain types of corporations, while denying the right to individuals entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/290 "2013-12-04T00:59:30Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > It gets tiresome to see the same one liners trotted out as if they are clever (“A corporation isn’t a person unless Texas executes one! haha!”). What’s even more ridiculous about that ‘argument’ is that they _are_ _regularly_ “executed” when they get fined into bankruptcy and liquidation. What _else_ could constitute the ‘death’ of a corporation? And the crimes that will get them _that_ are far lower than the standards of what will get a human executed. No victim even has to die for a corporation to get fined more than they can pay and still stay in business. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/291 "2013-12-04T01:53:33Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > What’s even more ridiculous about that ‘argument’ is that **they _are_ _regularly_ “executed” when they get fined into bankruptcy and liquidation.** What _else_ could constitute the ‘death’ of a corporation? And the crimes that will get them _that_ are far lower than the standards of what will get a human executed. No victim even has to die for a corporation to get fined more than they can pay and still stay in business. I won’t assert that they aren’t. But a few cites of some that were would be nice to see. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/292 "2013-12-04T02:51:26Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I won’t assert that they aren’t. > > But a few cites of some that were would be nice to see. [Arthur Andersen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen) would be a good place to start. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/293 "2013-12-04T04:18:58Z")
> [@Nawth\_Chucka](#): > > I support this pitting, especially as it comes from a Mormon who used the term Moronic irrespective of the Book of Moroni. Well pitted, April. Not quite sure how serious you were being here, but just in case : “moron” and “moronic” have precious little to do with Moroni, etymologically speaking. ---
**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 4, 2013, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/294 "2013-12-04T05:33:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? Well, as far as I can tell, the RFRA tells the courts how they are supposed to interpret federal law so that they do not infringe on the religious liberty unless the law meets strict scrutiny. I was just asking whether this meets strict scrutiny. > [@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 can have whatever rights you negotiate, the question is whether the government can require you to pay your employee with a particular form of compensation. Social security and medicare payroll taxes are part of the employees compensation that the government requires employers to pay, They are paying for insurance and some people might have a religious objection to insurance (if not they might quickly develop one if they think they can get away with it). So at least in some cases, the government can tell employers how to pay their employees. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. Have they threatened to fold their business over this?!?!?! If they close up shop, then an AC Moore or a Michaels will open up in their place but I will bet anyone a case of scotch that Hobby Lobby shops stay open even if they are forced to provide contraception coverage to their employees. The worst that will happen is they decide to cash in their chips and sell the business. ---
**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 4, 2013, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/295 "2013-12-04T11:36:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Have they threatened to fold their business over this?!?!?! Actually, they have. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/296 "2013-12-04T13:39:18Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You as an employee can have whatever rights you negotiate, the question is whether the government can require you to pay your employee with a particular form of compensation. Social security and medicare payroll taxes are part of the employees compensation that the government requires employers to pay, They are paying for insurance and some people might have a religious objection to insurance (if not they might quickly develop one if they think they can get away with it). So at least in some cases, the government can tell employers how to pay their employees. I understand that the question in this case is the relationship between the rights of the employer and the powers of the government. What I was taking issue with was the notion that the rights of the employees to recieve a certain form of compensation was implicated. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/297 "2013-12-04T14:10:40Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > So the question really comes down to a corporation having a religion. And while SCOTUS may end up disagreeing, that concept seems ridiculous. Are you aware that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is a corporation? ---
**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 4, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/298 "2013-12-04T14:13:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Many churches are incorporated. They do not have a religion? > > What’s weird about the mandate is that it gives special privileges to certain types of corporations, while denying the right to individuals entirely. The church itself would be exempt from the contraception requirement, which seems logical since their direct employees would presumably follow its teachings. It’s when the church runs a secular business that they, too, would have to comply. So St. Mary’s Church can choose not to offer birth control coverage while St Mary’s Hospital would not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/299 "2013-12-04T14:20:54Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The church itself would be exempt from the contraception requirement, which seems logical since their direct employees would presumably follow its teachings. It’s when the church runs a secular business that they, too, would have to comply. So St. Mary’s Church can choose not to offer birth control coverage while St Mary’s Hospital would not. And if St. Mary’s Hospital only exists because its founders and employees all believe they are supporting corporal works of mercy by assisting the sick? ---
**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 4, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/300 "2013-12-04T14:22:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And if St. Mary’s Hospital only exists because its founders and employees all believe they are supporting corporal works of mercy by assisting the sick? I don’t see where that makes a difference. Presumably they have Protestants, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. all under their employment. What right do they have to treat their employees any differently than any other secular employer? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=16)