# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/521 "2014-01-08T15:39:33Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Which half would that be? > > Suppose I claimed that following traffic signals was against my religion. Suppose I even founded a religious group that held this belief. My beliefs are sincere, if not strange (like most religion). Could I claim exemption from observing traffic lights despite traffic laws being neutral? No. Again, making sure there’s an orderly flow of traffic is definitely a compelling government interest. > [@](#): > > Would you have the government decide what is a legitimate religious view, and reject those that it deems not religious? The government can define religion and reject religious views it says aren’t really religious? Should only old, established religions or beliefs be protected? There is a bias towards established religions, but courts do try to determine if religious beliefs are sincerely held or whether someone is just trying to get out of something. If beliefs are sincerely held, and no compelling government interest is at stake, then not only should the courts allow them an exemption, but there’s no harm in it either. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/522 "2014-01-08T15:41:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Hypothetically speaking, a court would say traffic control is a compelling government interest, and traffic lights are closely tied to that interest (though traffic laws are state matters and the RFRA wouldn’t apply.) I don’t think it’s a terrible counterexample, though, because it’s actually kind of hard to argue that the state interest in the purely administrative matter or ordering traffic is compelling. You phrase it as a public safety matter, though. Not administrative ordering. The government has compelling interest in regulating traffic flow as a public safety matter and traffic lights are a good way to do it (and, like the social security case, individual exemptions would be a disaster). Yesterday there was a Fourth Circuit case invalidating a liability release on public policy grounds because safe driving was a matter of public interest (more or less). You’d just adopt those arguments. (You’re right about the state government and RFRA issue, of course, but what about traffic lights on a federal installation? Or a national park? That’s the fun of hypotheticals). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/523 "2014-01-08T15:44:10Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Health care and health insurance isn’t? Whether health care is or isn’t is a tough one. The Amish got an exemption tough, so maybe Obama just doesn’t care if Amish people die because they don’t have access to 21st century medical care. But we don’t have to answer that question, because the President already wisely avoided that fight by granting exemptions to groups that genuinely are opposed to health insurance. The question we have to answer is whether access to free contraception, paid for by an employer, is a compelling government interest. It’s hard to argue that it is, given that it’s not a life and death issue(well, maybe life, but you get my meaning.), and there is no access problem that requires a government solution. Reproductive medicine is mostly dirt cheap as far as medicine goes, with the exception of some exotic procedures like embryo implantation. So the government doesn’t have a compelling interest in contraception itself, and even if it did, access to contraception is already near-universal. It is a simple policy preference, and religious freedom trumps simple policy preferences. ---
**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 8, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/524 "2014-01-08T15:44:16Z")
You could equally pose contraception as a public health matter, though. > [@Bricker](#): > > Are you completely unaware of the considerable body of existing caselaw devoted to handling these types of inquiries? One might point out that SCOTUS receded from _Yoder_ and _Sherbert_ because the standard they established was unworkable. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/525 "2014-01-08T15:54:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You could equally pose contraception as a public health matter, though. Okay. Assume that there is a compelling government interest in making sure that (certain) people get contraceptive services at no expense to them. Is this the least restrictive way to do it? Does an individualized exemption destroy the system? > [@](#): > > One might point out that SCOTUS receded from _Yoder_ and _Sherbert_ because the standard they established was unworkable. I think that they got abandoned because some justices had a fundamentally different viewpoint about the baseline of the religion clauses. ---
**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 8, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/526 "2014-01-08T15:57:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Hypothetically speaking, a court would say traffic control is a compelling government interest, Well, then, that would mean not all laws must yield to religious freedom - even if they are “neutral.” I’m not challenging the strict scrutiny standard, I’m just shining a light on it. ---
**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 8, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/527 "2014-01-08T16:02:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Whether health care is or isn’t is a tough one. The Amish got an exemption tough, so maybe Obama just doesn’t care if Amish people die because they don’t have access to 21st century medical care. Except the nuns aren’t being forced to get insured, so that’s a little different issue. > [@](#): > > But we don’t have to answer that question, because the President already wisely avoided that fight by granting exemptions to groups that genuinely are opposed to health insurance. Did it grant religious exemptions to groups required to provide insurance as employers though? > [@](#): > > The question we have to answer is whether access to free contraception, paid for by an employer, is a compelling government interest. But you could break out other types of coverage one at a time like that and dispense with them all, one by one, until you had no insurance. Is access to free flu shots a compelling government interest, when they are pretty cheap too? No? Next item. ---
**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 8, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/528 "2014-01-08T16:03:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No. Again, making sure there’s an orderly flow of traffic is definitely a compelling government interest. Yes. The problem is that the law cited, as described, didn’t really leave room for strict scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/529 "2014-01-08T16:04:00Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Well, then, that would mean not all laws must yield to religious freedom - even if they are “neutral.” > > I’m not challenging the strict scrutiny standard, I’m just shining a light on it. I can’t tell if you don’t understand the way strict scrutiny works or if you’re bravely taking on some strawman argument that “all laws must yield to religious freedom.” ---
**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 8, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/530 "2014-01-08T16:08:44Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Okay. Assume that there is a compelling government interest in making sure that (certain) people get contraceptive services at no expense to them. Is this the least restrictive way to do it? Does an individualized exemption destroy the system? Leaving aside the exception issue for a moment, I can’t think of a less restrictive way. Can you? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Well, then, that would mean not all laws must yield to religious freedom - even if they are “neutral.” When did anyone say they did? ---
**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 8, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/531 "2014-01-08T16:09:07Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > The second half. The test has two questions (it has always had two questions, even when it was a constitutional test). First, does it substantially burden a religious belief and then Second, is the regulation the least burdensome way to advance a compelling government interest. > > Your traffic law example fails in part two. (So does the inevitable example about taxes or murder laws). In the test that’s used (and the one I endorse) at no point does the government define religion or decide which is a legitimate religious view. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I was just noting that the law cited, as described, didn’t allow for the strict scrutiny test (or at least didn’t mention it). > [@](#): > > I’m neither a nun nor even a Roman Catholic (in fact, like all good American protestants, I despite Popery in all its forms). So how would I know what the limits of the nuns’ religious scruples are? And how is it my place to draw the line for them? (Although, I’m willing to bet that handing out condoms is also objectionable). Well, if you don’t know, we could ask them. In fact, to apply the test you just described, a court would have to explore this. But my point is that I think we can assume that nuns would not object to such ridiculous scenarios (I meant simply handing someone a box of condoms they were buying or already owned, not handing them out in the street). There’s a huge difference between using contraception and providing the means for others to use it. A someone already mentioned, insurance is compensation - like salary, it is the worker’s to do what she wants with it. Nuns couldn’t tell workers they can’t spend their salary on birth control either. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/532 "2014-01-08T16:09:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But you could break out other types of coverage one at a time like that and dispense with them all, one by one, until you had no insurance. Is access to free flu shots a compelling government interest, when they are pretty cheap too? No? Next item. No. Blood transfusions are life and death, so I doubt Jehovahs Witnesses would get anywhere if they took the requirement to court. That of course assumes that blood transfusions are required by ACA, which is not clear at all to me. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that one. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/533 "2014-01-08T16:11:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Leaving aside the exception issue for a moment, I can’t think of a less restrictive way. Can you? Easily. The government can pay for contraceptive services itself through general tax revenue. How do you think schools get all those condoms to hand out? Employer donations?🙂 The reason for doing an employer mandate is political. To get a government contraception program in place would require a Congressional debate, which would be contentious even if Democrats still controlled Congress, and the public might not warm to the idea. There is risk. The employer mandate makes it someone else’s problem. Political preferences deserve even less consideration from the courts than policy preferences. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/534 "2014-01-08T16:12:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You could equally pose contraception as a public health matter, though. > > One might point out that SCOTUS receded from _Yoder_ and _Sherbert_ because the standard they established was unworkable. Or that they receded from _Yoder_ and _Sherbert_ because they were making a public policy choice, and Congress passed the RFRA to restore the _Yoder_/_Sherbert_ test as an overriding policy choice. The point I was suggesting to **lance strongarm** , though, was that the questions he raise already had a framework with which to evaluate them. ---
**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 8, 2014, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/535 "2014-01-08T16:15:56Z")
In general, whether a specific procedure is covered remains up to insurers and state governments. The PPACA itself only mandates that certain categories of medical care be covered (such as maternity/newborn care, substance dependency screening, and ambulatory patient care.) Normally a medically necessary blood transfusion would be covered under a health plan, though not necessarily at 100%. > [@](#): > > Easily. The government can pay for contraceptive services itself through general tax revenue. How is that _less restrictive_? Bear in mind that the nuns’ objection here wouldn’t be resolved at all under your alternative plan. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/536 "2014-01-08T16:18:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Leaving aside the exception issue for a moment, I can’t think of a less restrictive way. Can you? I would think the easiest answer would be to fashion a way in which the government pays for it directly (place the burden on the pharmacy to apply for reimbusement?). Or some sort of refundable tax credit for contraceptive services. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I was just noting that the law cited, as described, didn’t allow for the strict scrutiny test (or at least didn’t mention it). I don’t know what this means. > [@](#): > > There’s a huge difference between using contraception and providing the means for others to use it. A someone already mentioned, insurance is compensation - like salary, it is the worker’s to do what she wants with it. Nuns couldn’t tell workers they can’t spend their salary on birth control either. There is obviously a difference between using it and providing it. But the nuns find both objectionable, so so what? Could the nuns object to employing someone who engages in sinful off-duty behavior? Maybe, maybe not (probably depends on the employment laws of the state), but they could certainly object to it. I would agree that once the insurance coverage is provided to the employee it’s the employee’s business how (or if) they use it; but the objection isn’t to the use of the insurance, it’s to the requirement that the “compensation” take a particular form. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/537 "2014-01-08T16:26:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > How is that _less restrictive_? Bear in mind that the nuns’ objection here wouldn’t be resolved at all under your alternative plan. I suppose the answer is that we’ve already dealt with that type of complaint (e.g., tax dollars paying for war) or that the money surrendered to the government is the equivalent of money paid in direct compensation being used for sinful products (which the nuns are not objecting to). The nuns object to paying for the services or ordering someone else to pay for the services. (leave aside whether they’re right that that’s what they’re doing). Paying for something out of the general revenues strikes me as several steps beyond that. You have to draw the line somewhere; that seems logical. I certainly don’t feel as morally responsible for the behaviors of the government as I do for my personal moral failings. ---
**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 8, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/538 "2014-01-08T16:27:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No. Blood transfusions are life and death, so I doubt Jehovahs Witnesses would get anywhere if they took the requirement to court. I don’t understand this response. ---
**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 8, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/539 "2014-01-08T16:55:30Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I don’t know what this means. I wasn’t clear - I was pointing out there are limits to the protection of religious freedom when it conflicts with the law, that’s all. > [@](#): > > There is obviously a difference between using it and providing it. But the nuns find both objectionable, so so what? But they could find anything objectionable, but that doesn’t make it religious. They could say they object to being in the same room with non-Catholics, but that wouldn’t be a tenet of their faith, nor would a law requiring them to be in the same room as non-Catholics be said to be a burden on their religious freedom. They can’t just go making up any objection they want and hang religion on it. > [@](#): > > Could the nuns object to employing someone who engages in sinful off-duty behavior? Maybe, maybe not (probably depends on the employment laws of the state), but they could certainly object to it. But you agree that they couldn’t sue for an exemption to the employment laws of the state, right? > [@](#): > > I would agree that once the insurance coverage is provided to the employee it’s the employee’s business how (or if) they use it; but the objection isn’t to the use of the insurance, it’s to the requirement that the “compensation” take a particular form. And I’m saying that’s not a legitimate objection. The law doesn’t burden the nuns or their religious beliefs enough to justify an exemption. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/540 "2014-01-08T16:59:02Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > They could say they object to being in the same room with non-Catholics, but that wouldn’t be a tenet of their faith, nor would a law requiring them to be in the same room as non-Catholics be said to be a burden on their religious freedom. They can’t just go making up any objection they want and hang religion on it. Again: the caselaw that dealt with religious exceptions to laws had to confront this kind of thing. Don’t you think there’s already a method in place for evaluating the validity of a claim? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=28)