# 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:** 39
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/761 "2014-07-01T21:07:53Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > it’s a great store, lots of Cool stuff, a little expensive but nice none the less! may have to make a trip with the wife! she loves it there! Now that corporations are people, maybe you guys can organize a three-way. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/762 "2014-07-01T21:11:24Z")
So let’s say you’re my childhood friend, H, until recently a married woman in her 40s with one child (which is as many children as she and her husband want to have). You are allergic to latex, so most condoms are out (as are diaphragms, I believe? I’ve never had one). And your mother and sister have both had breast cancer (your sister while only in her 30s), so your doctors have advised you against using any hormonal method of birth control whatsoever. And well, diaphragms and condoms are not the most reliable methods, and you didn’t have the easiest pregnancy while in your mid-30s, so it isn’t likely to be much easier for you medically if you were to get pregnant 12 years later. A major surgery like sterilization doesn’t exactly appeal to you either. And your finances aren’t fabulous – you went back to school later in life, and though your husband has a decent job with good insurance, you aren’t working and have a pile of student loans to pay off, and your husband has some serious medical problems that require a lot of time, energy, and cash to deal with (cerebral palsy acquired at birth). And well, you have a kid to raise, too. So your choices are essentially a) never have sex with your husband; or b) risk a pregnancy in your mid-40s by using a semi-crappy, not terribly reliable barrier method of contraception; c) get a nonhormonal IUD (Paragard); or d) have major abdominal surgery. Not fabulous choices to begin with, but on top of it, the health insurance that your family pays for won’t cover the contraceptive option (Paragard) that is best for your medical needs? So you are supposed to come up with a large chunk of change out of pocket so you can avoid the need for an abortion? On what planet does that make any kind of sense? ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/763 "2014-07-01T21:19:02Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > So let’s say you’re my childhood friend, H, until recently a married woman in her 40s with one child (which is as many children as she and her husband want to have). You are allergic to latex, so most condoms are out (as are diaphragms, I believe? I’ve never had one). And your mother and sister have both had breast cancer (your sister while only in her 30s), so your doctors have advised you against using any hormonal method of birth control whatsoever. > > And well, diaphragms and condoms are not the most reliable methods, and you didn’t have the easiest pregnancy while in your mid-30s, so it isn’t likely to be much easier for you medically if you were to get pregnant 12 years later. A major surgery like sterilization doesn’t exactly appeal to you either. And your finances aren’t fabulous – you went back to school later in life, and though your husband has a decent job with good insurance, you aren’t working and have a pile of student loans to pay off, and your husband has some serious medical problems that require a lot of time, energy, and cash to deal with (cerebral palsy acquired at birth). And well, you have a kid to raise, too. > > So your choices are essentially a) never have sex with your husband; or b) risk a pregnancy in your mid-40s by using a semi-crappy, not terribly reliable barrier method of contraception; c) get a nonhormonal IUD (Paragard); or d) have major abdominal surgery. Not fabulous choices to begin with, but on top of it, the health insurance that your family pays for won’t cover the contraceptive option (Paragard) that is best for your medical needs? So you are supposed to come up with a large chunk of change out of pocket so you can avoid the need for an abortion? On what planet does that make any kind of sense? It doesn’t make any sense. Because this whole thing isn’t about making sense. It’s about a group of moronic religious fanatics staging an orgy of idiotic public self congratulations. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/764 "2014-07-01T22:45:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Conveniently located right next to the Duck Dynasty outlet? I don’t know, I don’t hunt so I don’t look for stores like that! I did all my hunting already! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/765 "2014-07-02T00:09:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think it might be stretching the truth a little to say this is Congress’ fault when it took 22 years for someone to read the RFRA this way. No… it took 22 years for Congress to pass a law that burdened Hobby Lobby’s religious exercise. It’s like the old joke about the kid who can’t talk. The family tries everything from therapists to prayer tents, but the kid, although he seems happy and otherwise healthy, never utters a word. Then one day, when he’s twelve, the family’s at the dinner table and the kid says, “These mashed potatoes are too lumpy.” Everyone’s astonished, and after they calm down, the parents ask him why he’s suddenly talking when he didn’t say a word for 12 years. “Well,” he replies, “before the potatoes, everything was okay.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/766 "2014-07-02T00:12:09Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > Not fabulous choices to begin with, but on top of it, the health insurance that your family pays for won’t cover the contraceptive option (Paragard) that is best for your medical needs? So you are supposed to come up with a large chunk of change out of pocket so you can avoid the need for an abortion? On what planet does that make any kind of sense? So you should pay for it. You’ve got a good job. You can pitch in. On what kind of planet does it make sense to require her employer to pay for it? You’re her friend; you care about her life. You want to help her out. Why should her employer be the one who simply has to, by law, pay for it? They don’t want to help her out. Why should they? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/767 "2014-07-02T00:13:59Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > It doesn’t make any sense. Because this whole thing isn’t about making sense. It’s about a group of moronic religious fanatics staging an orgy of idiotic public self congratulations. No. It’s about greedy moochers reaching their hands into the pockets of people with more money than they have. “Waaah. You’re rich so pay for your food, clothes, and housing, then pay for mine too, because you have the moral duty imposed by having money, and I say so.” ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/768 "2014-07-02T00:16:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. It’s about greedy moochers reaching their hands into the pockets of people with more money than they have. “Waaah. You’re rich so pay for your food, clothes, and housing, then pay for mine too, because you have the moral duty imposed by having money, and I say so.” This is a fun accusation, but actually, in a general view I agree with it. If you can spare you have a moral duty to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/769 "2014-07-02T00:25:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. It’s about greedy moochers reaching their hands into the pockets of people with more money than they have. “Waaah. You’re rich so pay for your food, clothes, and housing, then pay for mine too, because you have the moral duty imposed by having money, and I say so.” Huh. I didn’t know the view of the church on helping the poor had changed in the 40-odd years since I’ve been a Catholic. Learn something every day. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/770 "2014-07-02T00:53:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. It’s about greedy moochers reaching their hands into the pockets of people with more money than they have. “Waaah. You’re rich so pay for your food, clothes, and housing, then pay for mine too, because you have the moral duty imposed by having money, and I say so.” Gosh I’m Jewish and even I think of a particular something the New Testament says about a rich man, a camel and the eye of a needle. Ah. Found it: > [@](#): > > [Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."](http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm) > > And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” I’m perfectly happy to decouple health insurance from employment. We could join the civilized world in this arena. That would be good. Until then, it seems rather ridiculous for a company that does business with China – where they force abortions — and then pontificate about the evils of using the profits to help pay for birth control. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/771 "2014-07-02T01:01:38Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Until then, it seems rather ridiculous for a company that does business with China – where they force abortions — and then pontificate about the evils of using the profits to help pay for birth control. Unfortunately, the law only requires that the religious beliefs be “sincerely held”, and does not require consistent, non-hypocritical, rational, or not based on distaste for women. Paying a woman to buy contraception is OK, but paying a third party to buy contraception for the woman isn’t. It’s all a bunch of rationalizations and bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/772 "2014-07-02T01:06:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you should pay for it. > > You’ve got a good job. You can pitch in. > > On what kind of planet does it make sense to require her employer to pay for it? You’re her friend; you care about her life. You want to help her out. Why should her employer be the one who simply has to, by law, pay for it? They don’t want to help her out. Why should they? Which “you” are you talking about? I have no problem pitching in (via taxes), and I do contribute to Planned Parenthood to help people who can’t pay for their necessary reproductive health care. But I’m lucky enough to be medically able to use a form of contraception that’s cheap and reliable, not one that’s [so expensive upfront that the manufacturer offers financing.](http://www.paragard.com/What-it-costs.aspx) And that doesn’t include the cost of the medical care needed to prescribe and insert it. She doesn’t have a job at all; her husband does, and he makes decent money, but even leaving aside contraception entirely, they have much, much higher medical expenses than most families because of his cerebral palsy (which also creates other costs for them that most families don’t have, like transportation when she isn’t able to transport him and it isn’t practical for him to take public transportation - he has a driver’s license, but they can’t afford a car modified in such a way that he can drive it). They are pretty strapped living on one salary and trying to pay for her school - the sole vehicle in their household is 12 years old and has nearly 200K miles on it, and although she’s been told she shouldn’t drive it more than a few miles from home because of its mechanical condition, they can’t afford to replace it. Why should her husband’s employer pay for it? It’s not just employers - most people pay for at least a portion of their employer-provided medical insurance, and it’s not uncommon for employer plans (like both mine and my husband’s) to allow for dependent coverage, but not subsidize it at all. An attorney who just left my office to open her own firm asked what COBRA coverage would cost for her family of 3, and was told nearly $2k/month for a totally unremarkable HMO! That’s more than her mortgage. Why should her husband’s employer pay for it? It’s probably cheaper than covering maternity care for what for her is likely to be a quite complicated pregnancy. Or would you prefer she had an abortion, even out of her own pocket? Why should I pay for someone else’s drug or alcohol detox? I think drinking to excess and using narcotics are immoral. Or heck, why should I pay for Viagra? Maybe if a man can’t get an erection, it’s God’s will. Why should I pay for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when I opposed it? Why should I pay for treatment of an overweight person’s Type 2 diabetes? Let them go on a diet! Why? Because I’m a human being and I live in a fucking society (pun intended), and I recognize that sometimes I am going to be stuck indirectly supporting other people’s choices that I don’t agree with. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/773 "2014-07-02T02:48:09Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > So let’s say you’re my childhood friend, H, until recently a married woman in her 40s with one child (which is as many children as she and her husband want to have). You are allergic to latex, so most condoms are out (as are diaphragms, I believe? I’ve never had one). And your mother and sister have both had breast cancer (your sister while only in her 30s), so your doctors have advised you against using any hormonal method of birth control whatsoever. > > And well, diaphragms and condoms are not the most reliable methods, and you didn’t have the easiest pregnancy while in your mid-30s, so it isn’t likely to be much easier for you medically if you were to get pregnant 12 years later. A major surgery like sterilization doesn’t exactly appeal to you either. And your finances aren’t fabulous – you went back to school later in life, and though your husband has a decent job with good insurance, you aren’t working and have a pile of student loans to pay off, and your husband has some serious medical problems that require a lot of time, energy, and cash to deal with (cerebral palsy acquired at birth). And well, you have a kid to raise, too. > > So your choices are essentially a) never have sex with your husband; or b) risk a pregnancy in your mid-40s by using a semi-crappy, not terribly reliable barrier method of contraception; c) get a nonhormonal IUD (Paragard); or d) have major abdominal surgery. Not fabulous choices to begin with, but on top of it, the health insurance that your family pays for won’t cover the contraceptive option (Paragard) that is best for your medical needs? So you are supposed to come up with a large chunk of change out of pocket so you can avoid the need for an abortion? On what planet does that make any kind of sense? You forgot to mention… by design, your insurance also does not pay for your husband to have a vasectomy. Thank HHS. Vasectomy - Not major abdominal surgery. Overcomes issues of hormonal birth control. No latex allergy issue. Not covered. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/774 "2014-07-02T02:52:29Z")
I can’t resist popping into this thread to post [this link to this image](http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/07/02/opinion/0702OPEDopen/0702OPEDopen-master675.jpg), seen in the New York Times today. 😃 (From [this op-ed piece, FWIW](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/opinion/for-the-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-is-only-the-beginning.html?_r=0)) ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/775 "2014-07-02T02:53:49Z")
nm (Inadvertent duplicate of above post) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/776 "2014-07-02T03:23:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. It’s about greedy moochers reaching their hands into the pockets of people with more money than they have. “Waaah. You’re rich so pay for your food, clothes, and housing, then pay for mine too, because you have the moral duty imposed by having money, and I say so.” I think what this actually presents is that rarest of all, Republican humor. See, he’s taking your insanely wacko moonbat premise and turning it inside out to its insanely tighty righty opposite. _Equivalence_, you see. The premise he is somewhat obliquely defending is, then, not _uniquely_ batshit pizza, but _equally_ batshit. Which is better. I guess. Being sane and reasonable, he can see that. You’re not, so you can’t. You may not have seen the humor there, **LavenderBlue** , but in his own mind, its a dilly! Dennis Miller, look out! Your days as the ruling prince of conservative humor are numbered… ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/777 "2014-07-02T03:32:05Z")
My wife is not nearly as politically motivated as I am, but it will be a cold, cold day in Hell before she buys so much as a button from Hobby Lobby. And she did shop there now and again. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/778 "2014-07-02T03:44:09Z")
**Bricker** - I haven’t read most of this thread, and maybe this has been asked before, but I haven’t seen it, and you’re the only attorney I have access to who’s both patient and fixated enough to address this: Why do ‘closely held’ for-profit corporations get privileged status here? Why not non-closely held, either privately or publicly held, corporations? Did Hobby Lobby argue that its closely held status earned it some legal classification that other corporations don’t? I understand that ‘closely held’ has a legal definition, but why does that affect what it’s obligated to offer if it offers health insurance? ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/779 "2014-07-02T03:55:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you should pay for it. > > You’ve got a good job. You can pitch in. > > On what kind of planet does it make sense to require her employer to pay for it? You’re her friend; you care about her life. You want to help her out. Why should her employer be the one who simply has to, by law, pay for it? They don’t want to help her out. Why should they? Her employer may be writing the check, but they are _not_ paying for it, she is. She _earns_ that monthly insurance premium through her labor; her employer just redirects those earnings to a health insurance company instead of putting cash in her paycheck or into a company-sponsored retirement plan. All compensation including insurance benefits are _earned_. They aren’t gifts, and they aren’t “paid for” by anyone but the person who works for them, even if someone else is writing the check. And it should be entirely up to the person who earns those benefits, how they’re used when needed. Your boss doesn’t get to tell you where you can vacation (or where you’re forbidden from vacationing), or what illness you aren’t allowed to take a sick day to recover from. And they shouldn’t get to tell you which contraceptive you can use with the insurance your work paid for. It’s been three months since anyone brought this up in this thread, but given this ruling, I think it bears repeating: Hobby Lobby _lied_ to this Court and to the American people about their allegedly deeply held religious beliefs against paying for medical products that may cause abortions. They have no problem investing their money directly into the companies that _make_ abortifacients, including medications _actually used to induce abortions_. > [@](#): > > \*t turns out that the owners of Hobby Lobby do not appear to have any problem with profiting from the companies that manufacture the very products that so grievously offend their religious principles. > > The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan … These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT +0.13%, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE +0.2%, **the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions** ; Bayer , which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN +0.47%, which has an Indian subsidiary **that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions** ; and Forest Laboratories, **which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions**. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET -0.62% and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell. When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) assets. … > > While I may not agree with the legal position Hobby Lobby has taken in their lawsuit, I always stand in admiration of those willing to fight for their constitutional rights when they believe they are being taken. > > Hobby Lobby is entitled to no such admiration—only contempt. You simply can’t say that you will give your all in defense of your closely held beliefs when it suits you while seeking to make money in violation of those beliefs. > > [Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection](http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/) This suit had nothing whatsoever to do with their religious convictions and everything to do with _politics_. And for that, Hobby Lobby ([and every other corporation seeking to avoid their legal obligation to their employees](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-sebelius-contraceptive-for-profit-lawsuits)) should be held in contempt. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/780 "2014-07-02T04:50:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why not “Congress?” > > The Supreme Court did exactly the right thing. They applied the law as Congress wrote it. > > Why do you expect them to be the body to tweak the law so it works better? That’s _exactly_ what they did. Exactly. But because they made new law the way _you_ like it, you’re celebrating women getting screwed by their employers. > [@Ruth Bader Ginsburg](#): > > Lacking a tenable claim under the Free Exercise Clause, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga rely on RFRA, a statute instructing that “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the government shows that application of the burden is “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling governmental interest.” … > > RFRA’s purpose is **specific** and written into the statute itself. … The legislative history is correspondingly **emphatic** on RFRA’s aim. … RFRA’s purpose was “ **only** to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith” … In short, the Act reinstates the law as it was **prior** to Smith … > > "Despite these **authoritative** indications, the Court sees RFRA as a bold initiative departing from, rather than **restoring** , pre-Smith jurisprudence. … > > The Court’s reading is **not plausible**. … [A]s RFRA’s statements of purpose and legislative history make **clear** , Congress intended **only to restore, _not_ to scrap or alter** , the balancing test as this Court had applied it pre-Smith. > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a mutual fund, one of many that’s purchased by the retirement fund. They don’t direct the retirement fund, and they don’t direct the mutual fund, which in turn invests in thousands of different stocks. > > Nor is it legally relevant. Now, you may believe that a retirement fund that buys dozens of mutual funds, one of which buys thousands of stocks that include those companies, should be analyzed the same for purposes of determining religious discomfort. > > But Hobby Lobby does not. Bull. Shit. From the link I provided above\*: > [@](#): > > Not only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees, **it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.** > > ``` > To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research. > > ``` Hobby Lobby couldn’t have given a fat fuck about these products until a president they disagree with politically made it the law. They aren’t special just because they’re Christians, even though five men on this grossly partisan Court just singled them out for special treatment. Poor, poor, pitiful, put-upon Christians might have to co-exist with people who don’t share their form of religiosity. Let’s just use the Constitution as toilet paper to make them conform to our beliefs regardless of what theirs are. Fuckers. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves. \*Sorry for not noticing the 401k plan had been discussed more recently - my search of this thread only showed results from April 1. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=40)