# 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:** 28
**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, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/541 "2014-01-08T17:05:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > 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. > > 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. > > But you agree that they couldn’t sue for an exemption to the employment laws of the state, right? > > 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. Your basic problem is that you feel competent to declare yourself the arbiter of what religious beliefs are “legitimate” and then deny exemptions based on the legitimacy of the belief (as opposed to the government interest). That’s a ridiculous position. Although, the applicability of employment laws to religious employers had been the subject of discussion recently. The nuns certainly could object to a state law forbidding them from terminating an employee engaged in sinful behavior; I don’t know if they would. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/542 "2014-01-08T17:47:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again: the caselaw that dealt with religious exceptions to laws had to confront this kind of thing. And I’m explaining what I think the result would be, or at least should be. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/543 "2014-01-08T17:49:37Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Your basic problem is that you feel competent to declare yourself the arbiter of what religious beliefs are “legitimate” and then deny exemptions based on the legitimacy of the belief (as opposed to the government interest). That’s a ridiculous position. Not at all. I’m explaining that the government, or the courts, are the arbiter. They MUST be in order to decide the case. I was merely pointing out what a judge might reasonably decide. > [@](#): > > Although, the applicability of employment laws to religious employers had been the subject of discussion recently. The nuns certainly could object to a state law forbidding them from terminating an employee engaged in sinful behavior; I don’t know if they would. I’d say that would be up for serious debate too. ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/544 "2014-01-08T17:53:21Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’d say that would be up for serious debate too. What are your thoughts on the ministerial exception? ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/545 "2014-01-08T18:07:21Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And I’m explaining what I think the result would be, or at least should be. Not so far as I can see from this post: > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > 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? > > 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? In this post, you pose a set of questions that is somewhat trivially answered under the existing analytical framework, and you pose them in a tone that suggests they are not trivial. ---
**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, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/546 "2014-01-08T18:28:09Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > What are your thoughts on the ministerial exception? Details on what exception you’re talking about, please. ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/547 "2014-01-08T18:30:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not so far as I can see from this post: > > In this post, you pose a set of questions that is somewhat trivially answered under the existing analytical framework, and you pose them in a tone that suggests they are not trivial. I was noting that a) the post I originally responded to didn’t consider that framework and b) the framework is far from simple and involves new challenges all the time, such as the one we’re discussing. No big deal. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/548 "2014-01-08T18:34:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Details on what exception you’re talking about, please. Broadly speaking, the First Amendment exempts religious organization from labor laws with respect to employees in religious capacities. It’s often thought of in the context of religious leaders (hence “ministerial exception”), but it’s been applied to people engaged in religious job functions. The Supreme Court decision on it is discussed [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission). ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/549 "2014-01-08T18:58:02Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Broadly speaking, the First Amendment exempts religious organization from labor laws with respect to employees in religious capacities. It’s often thought of in the context of religious leaders (hence “ministerial exception”), but it’s been applied to people engaged in religious job functions. > > The Supreme Court decision on it is discussed [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission). Okay. We all know that. But we have to move past “broadly speaking” and dig into the details, such as those presented inthis case. That was my point before. The ACA already includes the equivalent of a ministerial exemption. The nuns don’t qualify for that, under the law at least. The nuns aren’t even being asked to provide birth control coverage. They’re being asked to sign an objection so that they can get out of it. They refuse even to do that. It’s pretty silly. ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/550 "2014-01-08T19:01:01Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > 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). We _haven’t_ dealt with that type of complaint, though. We’ve avoided dealing with it by deciding the issue on standing grounds, rather than on the merits (see _Flast_ et al.) ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/551 "2014-01-08T19:24:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We _haven’t_ dealt with that type of complaint, though. We’ve avoided dealing with it by deciding the issue on standing grounds, rather than on the merits (see _Flast_ et al.) The standing cases are about challenging the expenditure as impermissible. In our hypothetical, the nuns aren’t objecting to the government paying for the contraceptives; they’re objecting to paying the taxes that are used to pay for it (or objecting that their taxes are being used, etc.). Courts have heard this sort of claim numerous time. Lee was that sort of case. There are a bunch at the circuit level. Jenkins v. Commissioner in the Second Circuit is pretty well known. They almost always involve pacifists that object to taxes that are used for war purposes. But the objector never wins; but I don’t think there’s typically a standing problem (in fact, the nuns in our general revenue scenario are exactly in the position of a pacifist who does not want to pay the portion of his taxes that go to the Defense Department). ---
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/552 "2014-01-08T19:30:12Z")
Ok, I see. Still, the idea that paying from general revenues is _less restrictive_ does not depend on whether that course would be legally objectionable. It depends on whether the _nuns_ would find it less objectionable. I see no reason to believe they would rather give contraceptive money to the federal government than to an insurer. ---
**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 8, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/553 "2014-01-08T20:01:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? I would think if it was such a slam dunk under existing caselaw, the lower courts would not have disagreed. ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/554 "2014-01-08T20:24:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I would think if it was such a slam dunk under existing caselaw, the lower courts would not have disagreed. On the contrary, judges will sometimes buck existing case law. _Bowers v. Hardwick_ was controlling precedent for the proposition that a state had the power to criminalize sodomy between consenting adults. Any new case that turned on that issue was a slam dunk – and yet a mere seventeen years later, the Court said in deciding _Lawrence v. Texas_: “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.” It’s even more of a likelihood here, where the analytical framework is well-established but the particular fact pattern is one of first impression. ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/555 "2014-01-08T20:31:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > On the contrary, judges will sometimes buck existing case law. _Bowers v. Hardwick_ was controlling precedent for the proposition that a state had the power to criminalize sodomy between consenting adults. Any new case that turned on that issue was a slam dunk – and yet a mere seventeen years later, the Court said in deciding _Lawrence v. Texas_: “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.” Yep, and thank God for that. Some decisions are just wrong. Another was Austin, which Citizens United rejected (though there was a conflicting precedent to follow). ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/556 "2014-01-08T20:32:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Ok, I see. Still, the idea that paying from general revenues is _less restrictive_ does not depend on whether that course would be legally objectionable. It depends on whether the _nuns_ would find it less objectionable. I see no reason to believe they would rather give contraceptive money to the federal government than to an insurer. The nuns may not dictate policy based on what they find personally objectionable. All personal objections, religious or not, are not automatically respected. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/557 "2014-01-08T20:46:10Z")
The nuns aren’t dictating policy. However, their views are relevant to whether the measure in question is as narrowly tailored as possible to meet strict scrutiny. ---
**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, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/558 "2014-01-08T21:09:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The nuns aren’t dictating policy. Not if you don’t let them. > [@](#): > > However, their views are relevant to whether the measure in question is as narrowly tailored as possible to meet strict scrutiny. I don’t agree. The law should be considered objectively, not just based on how strongly some nuns feel about it. They are objecting to signing a document that says they want to be exempt from the law in the first place! It’s absurd to say that a law that allows someone to be exempt from it based on religious belief infringes on religion. Catholics can argue that they shouldn’t be forced to use or directly provide birth control. They might argue that they shouldn’t have to provide coverage for it. Saying they shouldn’t have to sign a simple document saying they claim an exemption from that law because of their religion is out there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/559 "2014-01-09T02:10:57Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Not if you don’t let them. > > I don’t agree. The law should be considered objectively, not just based on how strongly some nuns feel about it. They are objecting to signing a document that says they want to be exempt from the law in the first place! It’s absurd to say that a law that allows someone to be exempt from it based on religious belief infringes on religion. Catholics can argue that they shouldn’t be forced to use or directly provide birth control. They might argue that they shouldn’t have to provide coverage for it. Saying they shouldn’t have to sign a simple document saying they claim an exemption from that law because of their religion is out there. Why do you dismiss the effect of signing that simple document from your analysis? And what if I don’t agree with you that it’s out there? ---
**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:** [January 9, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/560 "2014-01-09T02:25:13Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I think you’re confusing the steps of the analysis. Requiring someone to do something that violates their religious scruples clearly places a “burden” on their religious freedom. These people draw the line at paying for insurance policies that cover certain drugs. Maybe you would draw the line at paying for the drug; maybe I would draw the line at using it myself. None of that matters for the purposes of the burden on the objector. “It is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.” (Thomas v. Review Board; which presents a similar “remote” burden issue and, I think, got that part right). And this is the part where religious freedom starts to look like it makes every man a law unto himself. > [@Falchion](#): > > I guess I’m not getting what you mean by “distinguishable burden.” I think he’s saying that because there is no extra cost to the employer for providing a policy that doesn’t include birth control, what is the burden other than moral outrage that someone is having non-procreative sex? > [@](#): > > \*Thomas \*says (to me) that it’s up to the objector how attenuated is to attenuated for the purpose of the belief and we just don’t get into it. Law unto himself? > [@Bricker](#): > > But – as do the nuns – I object to the effect. If signing a form indicating that I approved of hugs and puppies somehow caused the procural of an abortion, I’d object to that too. But at this point aren’t you butting into other people’s business rather than trying to keep the government out of yours? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Can someone boil this down for me, since I can’t see an interpretation other than the nuns discovering a way to be self righteously spiteful. These nuns sound like the nuns from Philomena. > [@adaher](#): > > The opt out document only opts out of paying for contraception directly. It acts as a request to the insurance company to pay for contraception out of the insurance company’s pockets. Which in the real world is impossible, since funds are fungible and the insurance company would pass the extra cost on to all customers, including the nuns. Does it have to be the same insurance company the nuns use? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m not sure indulging someone’s irrationality is giving them credit, TruCelt. Let them try to put a “by agreeing to work for us, you also agree to forego oral contraception” condition in place and see where that takes them. I’m pretty sure that would be unenforceable in most states. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Though I understand what you mean in this situation, I laughed when I read this. Religious folks wheedle out of religious requirements all the time, the older the religion, the more work arounds people have come up with. > [@adaher](#): > > 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. Don’t you think they are going to talk more broadly about the integrity of a comprehensive health insurance scheme that requires a comprehensive basket of health benefits to citizens? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=29)