# 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:** 41
**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, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/801 "2014-07-02T16:12:46Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Eh. > > But they are a bunch of religious fanatics at Hobby Lobby. They’re also a bunch of hypocrites. They make money by buying cheap crap from China, a place where, as I pointed out, abortion is legal, safe and state funded. There’s the real greed. When it comes to making a profit, the fuckers at Hobby Lobby have no problem whatsoever setting aside their alleged principles. They then turn around and have the nerve to lecture us on morality. It’s laughable. Doesn’t that strike you as just the slightest bit indefensible, Bricker? > > They are, as you so quaintly phrased it, “greedy moochers,” perfectly willing to deal with a notoriously awful government that oppresses their own people and literally forces them into abortions. The people paying for the food, clothing and housing of those who run Hobby Lobby are probably sweatshop laborers working under terrible conditions. And the federal government also deals with China – to a much greater extent than Hobby Lobby does. You seem to be suggesting that no moral stance is permitted unless the entity taking the stance is somehow completely pristine. But that’s an absurd standard that would make any moral stance impossible. I have pointed out several areas in which Hobby Lobby willingly forgoes profits for the sake of their religious beliefs. They don’t open Sundays. They reject a deal that would have allowed their otherwise empty trucks to move beer. They don’t sell shot glasses. (This is an area in which I disagree with them; I don’t feel there is any particular religious reason to abstain from alcohol in moderation, but they do.) On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they were willing to keep a Hobby Lobby location open even if a liquor store opened next door. Because at some point, they get to decide that the taint of the objectionable conduct is attenuated by time or distance. You insist that you be the one to decide, for them, what that point is. If you feel their dealing with China is troublesome, that proves they should also feel that way, and since they don’t, you conclude they are hypocritcal. But what makes your view of the proper place to draw the line the correct one? ---
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/802 "2014-07-02T16:14:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More](http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html) > > Not quite sure what to make of this, so I toss it out for the legal-beagles to parse. > Pretty sure its not good, but how bad? It’s the end of the world as you know it. Or, in the alternative, it means that not just Hobby Lobby, who objected to just four of the twenty contraception methods, is affected. The same logic supports a Catholic company that objects to funding all contraceptives. ---
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/803 "2014-07-02T16:14:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re a very bad loser. I posted the exact same critique before the ruling. It’s not about being a bad loser at all, it’s about you repeating the same disingenuous crap over and over. ---
**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, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/804 "2014-07-02T16:16:54Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Eh. > > But they are a bunch of religious fanatics at Hobby Lobby. They’re also a bunch of hypocrites. And any more comments about nasty posts? ---
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/805 "2014-07-02T16:18:01Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I posted the exact same critique before the ruling. It’s not about being a bad loser at all, it’s about you repeating the same disingenuous crap over and over. Yes…but before the ruling, your critique was not settled law. Now it is. ---
**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, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/806 "2014-07-02T16:25:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes…but before the ruling, your critique was not settled law. > > Now it is. Nowhere in the Supreme Court opinion does the majority (or anyone) conclude that RFRA is unambiguous. Quite the opposite, for Alito specifically says: “RFRA itself does not define the term “person”.” Which means it is … and stay with me here … ambiguous. My critique of your disingenuousness, both then and now, is absolutely correct. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/807 "2014-07-02T16:46:48Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Nowhere in the Supreme Court opinion does the majority (or anyone) conclude that RFRA is unambiguous. Quite the opposite, for Alito specifically says: “RFRA itself does not define the term “person”.” Which means it is … and stay with me here … ambiguous. My critique of your disingenuousness, both then and now, is absolutely correct. RFRA also does not define the term “burden.” Nonetheless… But look: you’re hanging too much meaning on a too-quick response. I gladly concede that the RFRA, standing in isolation from all other federal laws, may indeed be ambiguous. The RFRA, read together with the Dictionary Act, is not. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/808 "2014-07-02T16:46:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And any more comments about nasty posts? You keep defending Hobby Lobby. You then turn around and have the nerve to call employees of theirs who want to have health insurance that provides them with the means of avoiding abortions via an IUI “greedy moochers.” It is both nasty and hypocritical. Hobby Lobbyists present themselves as so utterly pristine that the practically the mere thought of a potential embryo possibly being prevented from implanted gives them the vapors. So they then to go their own employees and our highest court in the land with self congratulatory nonsense about how utterly moral they are and they should never be forced to spend a single penny-wenny on the possible thing that may prevent an embryo from being implanted. Meanwhile they do business with China. Excuse while I vomit. ---
**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, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/809 "2014-07-02T16:54:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Waaaaahhhhh!!! > > Notice the paucity of quotes from Justice Ginsburg from the TEXT of the RFRA? And notice the liberal (ha!) references to the intent of the RFRA? > > That’s because the TEXT of the RFRA is unambiguous. The dissenting justices hang their hat on what they feel was Congress’ unwritten but clear intent. > > Seriously. If all you had to go on was the words of the RFRA and the Dictionary Act, how is this a close call? > > You’re upset because the justices actually followed the written law No, fuckwad, I’m upset because this misogynist Court intentionally misinterpreted the law with a twisted, absurd reading that served their personal ends, not the true intent of the legislature _or_ our founding documents … for _political_ purposes. That’s not what a Supreme Court is supposed to do and you bloody well fucking know it, you pus stain. I notice how you ignore the fact that Hobby Lobby are proven _liars_ about their supposed deeply held religious convictions and the fact that they have no problem investing their money in the _manufacture_ of _actual_ abortion drugs (as opposed to contraceptives that are scientifically proven not to be the abortifacients they “believe” them to be). But G-d forbid _women_ want to have control over their own reproductive rights and oh no no no, we can’t have _that_ now, can we? > [@Hamlet](#): > > At this point, this cannot simply be a mistake anymore, you have to be lying. Of course the text of RFRA is ambiguous, that’s why they have to go the Dictionary Act in the first place. RFRA doesn’t define “person”, hence the definition is ambiguous by it’s very definition. You can’t argue that we should use the Dictionary Act AND that it is unambiguous without contradicting yourself. > > You can, of course, resort to “NYAAAAAH NYAAAAAAH the majority agreed with me!” But you don’t have to lie about it. Of course he’s a lying jackass - it seems to be his entire raison d’etre. If you squint really tightly and twist your head exactly so, you can read whatever the hell you want into the clear, unambiguous language of any text and have it say whatever the hell you want if you’re Bricker. ---
**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, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/810 "2014-07-02T16:55:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But look: you’re hanging too much meaning on a too-quick response. And had you done it only once, I never would have mentioned it again. But I corrected you before on this very issue. And yet, here you are, repeating the same shit in a different thread. Once can be a mistake. Twice is lying. ---
**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, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/811 "2014-07-02T17:12:06Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And had you done it only once, I never would have mentioned it again. But I corrected you before on this very issue. And yet, here you are, repeating the same shit in a different thread. > > Once can be a mistake. Twice is lying. Or it could be busily refuting the ridiculous claims of outraged liberals, and not having time to carefully type out, “…the RFRA, as understood by the Dictionary Act…” ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/812 "2014-07-02T17:18:19Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > No, fuckwad, I’m upset because this misogynist Court intentionally misinterpreted the law with a twisted, absurd reading that served their personal ends, not the true intent of the legislature _or_ our founding documents … for _political_ purposes. _sigh_ The Dictionary Act 1 USC § 1: > [@](#): > > the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb et seq: > [@](#): > > (b) Purposes > . > . > . > (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government. > . > . > . > Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— > (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and > (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. So where, specifically, is the misinterpretation, Shayna? ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/813 "2014-07-02T17:19:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or it could be busily refuting the ridiculous claims of outraged liberals, and not having time to carefully type out, “…the RFRA, as understood by the Dictionary Act…” Or you could be a lying scumbag who enjoys misleading the uninitiated or uneducated in law in order to serve your political views and ego. I think the truth lies somewhere in between those two. ---
**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, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/814 "2014-07-02T17:21:05Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Or you could be a lying scumbag who enjoys misleading the uninitiated or uneducated in law in order to serve your political views and ego. > > I think the truth lies somewhere in between those two. Lovely. Funny how my “misleading” turned out to be the Court’s actual decision, and your fearlessly correct views turned out not to be. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/815 "2014-07-02T17:47:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think _Rowland v. California Men’s Colony_ was poorly decided. It should have been resolved the same way this was: by pointing out that the text is clear and Congress can amend the relevant statute to encompass only natural persons. > > I concede that courts have not always construed the Dictionary Act as unambiguous. But I also contend that it is, and the Rowland court succumbed to the desire to fix the problem itself. That’s fine. But **Bricker** doesn’t make the law. The Supreme Court does. So \*\*Bricker’s \*\*opinion on the subject of when the Dictionary Act applies isn’t the law. Under the law–according to both Scalia in the majority and even the dissenters in Rowland (!)–application of the Dictionary Act turns on a judgment about how well the Dictionary Act definition fits in the context of the statute in question. Since that’s the whole ball game here, the question of whether it makes sense to say a corporation has religious beliefs, it is simply incorrect to say that Alito’s decision need only have involved applying the Dictionary Act because RFRA supplied no definition. ---
**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, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/816 "2014-07-02T17:48:25Z")
A corporation is a person wrt RFRA. OK. How did this for-profit corporation come to have a religious belief, so that it could suffer a religious burden? The purpose of a corporation is to legally separate the owners from the business - they are distinct entities. Do we really legally allow the religious beliefs of the owners to be the religious beliefs of the corporation? That’s having it both ways. ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/817 "2014-07-02T17:50:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That’s fine. But **Bricker** doesn’t make the law. The Supreme Court does. So \*\*Bricker’s \*\*opinion on the subject of when the Dictionary Act applies isn’t the law. Under the law–according to both Scalia in the majority and even the dissenters in Rowland (!)–application of the Dictionary Act turns on a judgment about how well the Dictionary Act definition fits in the context of the statute in question. Since that’s the whole ball game here, the question of whether it makes sense to say a corporation has religious beliefs, it is simply incorrect to say that Alito’s decision need only have involved applying the Dictionary Act because RFRA supplied no definition. You know, I wish that you were available to make the same corrections when it’s someone on the left that spews out their view instead of the actual caselaw. You’re right that context is appropriately considered. In Rowland, the Court found that a corporation couldn’t file a lawsuit _in forma pauperis_ – as a pauper – and thus not have to pay filing fees. Only a natural person gets that break. But what context would have allowed the finding that some corporations are covered and others aren’t? ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/818 "2014-07-02T17:53:00Z")
> [@bup](#): > > A corporation is a person wrt RFRA. OK. > > How did this for-profit corporation come to have a religious belief, so that it could suffer a religious burden? > > The purpose of a corporation is to legally separate the owners from the business - they are distinct entities. Do we really legally allow the religious beliefs of the owners to be the religious beliefs of the corporation? That’s having it both ways. How does a corporation get free speech rights? The New York Times, a corporation, published the Pentagon Papers. Because the corporation had free speech rights, they avoided criminal penalties. But how? Didn’t that corporation legally separate the owners from the business? ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/819 "2014-07-02T17:53:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Funny how my “misleading” turned out to be the Court’s actual decision, and your fearlessly correct views turned out not to be. Not a single justice on the Supreme Court pretended that the RFRA was unambiguous; they all used the Dictionary Act because it was ambiguous. It’s really hard to give you any benefit of the doubt for not being a lying scumbag when you double down on your attempts to mislead people. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/820 "2014-07-02T17:55:29Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Not a single justice on the Supreme Court pretended that the RFRA was unambiguous; they all used the Dictionary Act because it was ambiguous. > > It’s really hard to give you any benefit of the doubt for not being a lying scumbag when you double down on your attempts to mislead people. I said above: I gladly concede that the RFRA, standing in isolation from all other federal laws, may indeed be ambiguous. The RFRA, read together with the Dictionary Act, is not. And the next time I’ll take you for a case of hootch and six months of a sig that proclaims how fucking stupid you are. Your loss didn’t humble you in the slightest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=42)