# 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:** 25
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/481 "2014-01-06T14:54:55Z")
That’s just the thing though. There’s no interplay. A statute\>administrative regulation. The administration must tailor the contraception mandate so that it exempts those with religious objections. Given how readily the administration has handed out exemptions to favored businesses, I can only imagine that they are trying to narrow freedom of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/482 "2014-01-06T15:07:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > They are required to certify their beliefs to the insurer, not to the government. Anyway, the insurance carrier is _also_ a party to the suit, so in terms of precedential value it doesn’t really matter if the nuns lose on standing grounds. The certification pretty much does do what **raventhief** suggests: it tells the insurer that the employee is eligible for exchange-funded contraceptive coverage. That’s a pretty long way from an “order”. You’re correct that the certification is to the insurer, so I mispoke there (“requiring” _by_ the government would have more been correct). And, as I understand it, the nun’s insurance carrier is a “church plan” that is, itself, exempted (so that I’m not it has standing either). But, I’m not sure how I’m incorrect on how the certification works. The final rule explains that, once self-certification is recieved, the insurer “must provide” the coverage for the contraceptives at no cost to the employee (with various rules for the source of the payments). Am I missing something? What am I missing? The self-certification operates to tell the insurer it “must provide” the coverage, how is that a “pretty long way from an ‘order’”? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/483 "2014-01-06T15:57:43Z")
> [@April\_R](#): > > I was incensed at the stupidity spewing from this letter. Well…there is a fair amount of stupid, in that they are doing something based on a religion. But this is the true issue: > [@](#): > > 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. The highlighting is mine. The government does NOT have the legal authority to tell a business what kind of insurance they have to provide. Hobby Lobby actually provides really good insurance, with the specific provision that abortion drugs are not covered. For whatever their reason is for doing that, it still boils down to a simple fact…that’s their choice, and the government is out of bounds in their claim. It will go to SCOTUS and I think HL should win it. ---
**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:** [January 6, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/484 "2014-01-06T16:22:31Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > You’re correct that the certification is to the insurer, so I mispoke there (“requiring” _by_ the government would have more been correct). And, as I understand it, the nun’s insurance carrier is a “church plan” that is, itself, exempted (so that I’m not it has standing either). > > But, I’m not sure how I’m incorrect on how the certification works. The final rule explains that, once self-certification is recieved, the insurer “must provide” the coverage for the contraceptives at no cost to the employee (with various rules for the source of the payments). Am I missing something? What am I missing? The self-certification operates to tell the insurer it “must provide” the coverage, how is that a “pretty long way from an ‘order’”? As I said, the church plan is also a party and is presenting its own challenge to the requirement (despite being exempt.) It’s not an order because the insurer doesn’t _have_ to offer the coverage. In fact, the nuns’ complaint makes that point repeatedly (for reasons I didn’t quite understand.) If it chooses to, it can provide coverage, or the nuns can go find somebody else to do it. Anyway, the self-certification is not, in and of itself, an order. The law requires the third party to offer the employee coverage, not the nuns. I analogize this requirement to one providing that a security deposit must be kept in an interest-bearing account at an FDIC insured bank. Nobody could seriously raise a religious objection on the grounds that their faith forbids usury. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/485 "2014-01-06T16:30:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > As I said, the church plan is also a party and is presenting its own challenge to the requirement (despite being exempt.) But I don’t understand how they have standing either. > [@](#): > > It’s not an order because the insurer doesn’t _have_ to offer the coverage. In fact, the nuns’ complaint makes that point repeatedly (for reasons I didn’t quite understand.) If it chooses to, it can provide coverage, or the nuns can go find somebody else to do it. That’s not my reading of the rule. (I haven’t read the complaint). And when you says “the nuns can go find somebody else” is that the collective nuns (i.e., those who object?) or individual employees. Becuase if the employer has to go to find someone to provide the coverage, then the objection is still there. > [@](#): > > Anyway, the self-certification is not, in and of itself, an order. The law requires the third party to offer the employee coverage, not the nuns. I analogize this requirement to one providing that a security deposit must be kept in an interest-bearing account at an FDIC insured bank. Nobody could seriously raise a religious objection on the grounds that their faith forbids usury. I think your bank example is more attenuated than the self-certification. But why couldn’t you raise a religious objection in your bank loan situation? You probably wouldn’t win, but that’s a function of the interest in maintaining security deposits in insured banks. ---
**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:** [January 6, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/486 "2014-01-06T16:46:14Z")
That interest would seem to be amply served by the requirement that the deposit be insured, rather than the requirement that the account be interest-bearing. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/487 "2014-01-06T17:02:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That interest would seem to be amply served by the requirement that the deposit be insured, rather than the requirement that the account be interest-bearing. I’m neither an economist or a banker, but you’d have the problem that money that does not accrue interest loses value (right?). To the extent that a security deposit isn’t actually the landlord’s money, it’s the tenant’s money held in trust, there is a compelling interest in helping it maintain value while held by the landlord (here in Virginia, for example, the Landlord-Tenant Act has a statuorily prescribed interest rate (current 0%, I think) for security deposits. ---
**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:** [January 6, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/488 "2014-01-06T17:22:44Z")
Yeah, but if religious freedom is really such a compelling purpose, it would seem to heavily outweigh the minor loss of the time value of money. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/489 "2014-01-06T17:44:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yeah, but if religious freedom is really such a compelling purpose, it would seem to heavily outweigh the minor loss of the time value of money. I don’t know. But _that_’s the question to balance, not whether we view them as valid religious objections, but whether the reasoning for violating their religious scruples is sufficient. ---
**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:** [January 6, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/490 "2014-01-06T17:46:34Z")
There has to be a point at which the religious objection is so attenuated it becomes meaningless, but your point is taken. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/491 "2014-01-07T04:39:37Z")
Here’s the thing though: RFRA requires laws infringing on religious practice to pass strict scrutiny. The contraception mandate fails in every aspect: 1. It is not a compelling government interest, merely a policy preference. 2. It is not narrowly tailored to achieve the government interest 3. There are other means for serving that interest that do not involve making Catholics pay for contraception. Such as simply having the government provide contraception directly. The strict scrutiny standard is clearly fatal to the mandate. Also, take into account the adminsitration’s argument. They are basing their case on one faulty precept: that corporations do not have 1st amendment rights. That’s a discredited concept in judicial circles and I can’t see a single justice agreeing with those arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/492 "2014-01-07T11:00:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The background is that contraception is contrary to the catholic faith, so catholics cannot buy other people birth control. Contraception is not in and of itself contrary to the Catholic faith, but some methods are considered contrary to it by the official hierarchy. Others are considered kosher even by those people who think that Pope Bennie was a damned commie. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/493 "2014-01-07T16:55:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I rather like this example. Having said that, I think it’s generally on the proponent of a slippery slope argument (which would include me, in this case) to provide an example of someone attempting to do whatever it is they’re warning people about. Abortion and contraception, it seems to me, might be _sui generis_ in this instance. We know, of course, that Jehovah’s Witnesses reject certain types of medical care but I’m not aware of any JW businesses that refuse to cover it for others. Or should a corporation have the right to use corporal punishment on their employees without being charged with assault as long as the assault is religipously mandated? I think the JW example is a good one that isn’t that much of a slippery slope. Should a company run by Jehovah’s Witnesses be able to refuse to give their employees insurance that covered blood transfusions? If the RC case is upheld will they be able to start doing so? Like it or not, the law says that a person has a legal right to obtain birth control via mandatory employer provided insurance. Personally, I think that law is an overreach - if I were king of the world I would just make BC pills available OTC and within a few years they would be as cheap as aspirin. But, like it or not, that law exists and if a wayward Little Sister of the Poor that is also a citizen of the USA wants her insurer to cough up some BC pills so she can sneak around and do the nasty she has a absolute legal right to those pills. A person does not have right to deprive another person of their legal protections for religious reasons, even if that person is a corporation. ---
**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:** [January 7, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/494 "2014-01-07T17:02:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Here’s the thing though: RFRA requires laws infringing on religious practice to pass strict scrutiny. The contraception mandate fails in every aspect: > > 1. It is not a compelling government interest, merely a policy preference. > 2. It is not narrowly tailored to achieve the government interest > 3. There are other means for serving that interest that do not involve making Catholics pay for contraception. Such as simply having the government provide contraception directly. > > The strict scrutiny standard is clearly fatal to the mandate. > > Also, take into account the adminsitration’s argument. They are basing their case on one faulty precept: that corporations do not have 1st amendment rights. That’s a discredited concept in judicial circles and I can’t see a single justice agreeing with those arguments. I’m sure SCOTUS will give your unsupported conclusions all the weight they deserve. ---
**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:** [January 7, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/495 "2014-01-07T17:02:26Z")
I still believe the dividing line should be the nature of the business. If it is a religious business (St. Mary’s Church), then they should get the religious exemption. If it is a secular business (St. Mary’s Hospital), then they should not be exempt. The church has no legitimate interest in the personal conduct of its secular employees and whether they use their compensation in cash or use their insurance to buy contraception is just a matter of semantics. In either case, the money is coming from the church. I think the nuns are out of line and I suspect that the church’s primary concern is to damage Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/496 "2014-01-07T18:28:49Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Like it or not, the law says that a person has a legal right to obtain birth control via mandatory employer provided insurance. Personally, I think that law is an overreach - if I were king of the world I would just make BC pills available OTC and within a few years they would be as cheap as aspirin. > > But, like it or not, that law exists … Yes…but equally “like it or not” the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – also a law – exists. Why are you so sanguine about telling the nuns they must obey the law when it says people have a legal right to birth control…but highly resistant to obeying the RFRA when it says that religious objections must be treated with great deference? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/497 "2014-01-07T19:13:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m sure SCOTUS will give your unsupported conclusions all the weight they deserve. My conclusions are quite well supported: This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] > **[Religious Freedom Restoration Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_freedom_restoration_act)** > > The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA, pronounced "rifra"), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected." The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D–NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and Th... Gee, that sounds like the contraception mandate! ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/498 "2014-01-07T19:57:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes…but equally “like it or not” the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – also a law – exists. > > Why are you so sanguine about telling the nuns they must obey the law when it says people have a legal right to birth control…but highly resistant to obeying the RFRA when it says that religious objections must be treated with great deference? What are the limits of such deference? Must federal law defer to any and all claims that religious freedom is being infringed? I think you are giving that law far more power than was intended, and SCOTUS will settle the issue in favor of the federal government, by deciding that all compensation is the same. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/499 "2014-01-07T20:11:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Religious people don’t see rules as something to be gotten around like politicians do Though I understand what you mean in this situation, I laughed when I read this. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/500 "2014-01-07T20:14:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] That’s true, except it opens up a can of worms. If interpreted broadly, it could exempt a religion or religious person from any law whatsoever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=26)