# 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:** 42
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/821 "2014-07-02T17:57:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re right that context is appropriately considered. > > But what possible context allows the finding that some corporations are covered and others aren’t? I think that’s exactly the best argument for the majority in _Hobby Lobby_. Once the government concedes that RFRA applies to non-profits (and maybe it had to, to cover churches, I don’t know), it is hard to then maintain that corporations can’t have religious beliefs. Ginsburg has some counter-arguments to that position in her dissent, but I do not find them especially persuasive. But the whole point is that this is not a textual argument. The Court had to decide whether it made sense in some abstract, extra-textual sense for corporations to have religious beliefs. You simply cannot answer that question by the text alone. And Alito didn’t do so. He makes extra-textual arguments about why it makes sense to protect corporate religious belief as it is an expression of individual beliefs. ---
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/822 "2014-07-02T18:09:28Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But the whole point is that this is not a textual argument. The Court had to decide whether it made sense in some abstract, extra-textual sense for corporations to have religious beliefs. You simply cannot answer that question by the text alone. You can certainly take judicial notice of the existence of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington, a corporation. I suppose that’s abstract and extra-textual, but every word in every statute must be resolved at some point by leaving the statute, and, indeed, by some kind of context. “Bay,” can mean a reddish-brown color if we’re discussing horses or a body of water or a section of a cargo building or the act of pursuing and cornering while barking or a type of window. But there’s a clear and obvious dividing line between that kind of “context” and the kind that would discover that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington, a corporation, did not have religious exercise rights…or, having conceded that, discovering that the same law nonetheless does not extend those rights to other corporations. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/823 "2014-07-02T18:19:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I said above: I gladly concede that the RFRA, standing in isolation from all other federal laws, may indeed be ambiguous. And immediately thereafter, you tried to pretend the majority agreed with your “misleading” conclusion that RFRA was unambiguous. For every step forward you take when pressed, you soon backslide to lying. > [@Bricker](#): > > Your loss didn’t humble you in the slightest. Nope. Occupational hazard with being right all the time. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/824 "2014-07-02T18:19:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? The _ **New York Times** _ is publicly traded. Why did SCOTUS say this decision only applies to closely held private corporations? Besides, I see how a corporation can have free speech rights - those rights come without any actions on the part of the entity. I don’t see how a corporation came to have religious beliefs. Did they file a document? Did they vote at a stockholders’ meeting? ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/825 "2014-07-02T18:27:23Z")
As the recent line has it, I will believe that corporations are people just as soon as Texas executes one. And I will believe they have sincere religious convictions just as soon as one goes to Heaven. Will they need lawyers when they arrive at the Pearly Gated Community? I certainly hope that both of them are available… ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/826 "2014-07-02T18:27:43Z")
> [@bup](#): > > The _ **New York Times** _ is publicly traded. Why did SCOTUS say this decision only applies to closely held private corporations? I don’t know – what’s the relevance of that to my question? If that bothers you, let’s talk about the Podunk News-Times, a privately-held corporation that prints a local paper for Podunk. > [@](#): > > Besides, I see how a corporation can have free speech rights - those rights come without any actions on the part of the entity. I don’t see how a corporation came to have religious beliefs. Did they file a document? Did they vote at a stockholders’ meeting? Um… if the corporation takes no action, how does it exercise the right to free speech? How does it determine what to say? Does it file a document about what to print on the editorial page? Does it vote at a stockholder’s meeting? ---
**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, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/827 "2014-07-02T18:28:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You can certainly take judicial notice of the existence of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington, a corporation. I suppose that’s abstract and extra-textual, but every word in every statute must be resolved at some point by leaving the statute, and, indeed, by some kind of context. “Bay,” can mean a reddish-brown color if we’re discussing horses or a body of water or a section of a cargo building or the act of pursuing and cornering while barking or a type of window. > > But there’s a clear and obvious dividing line between that kind of “context” and the kind that would discover that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington, a corporation, did not have religious exercise rights…or, having conceded that, discovering that the same law nonetheless does not extend those rights to other corporations. No, that’s still not correct. Taking judicial notice of the fact that churches are corporations doesn’t get you there. What gets you there is all kinds of extra-textual argument. To quote from the opinion: **Looking to the purpose of RFRA and congressional intent** > [@](#): > > As we have seen, RFRA was designed to provide very broad protection for religious liberty. By enacting RFRA, Congress went far beyond what this Court has held is constitutionally required. 18 Is there any reason to think that the Congress that enacted such sweeping protection put small-business owners to the choice that HHS suggests? **Reasoning about why it makes sense to protect corporations in order to protect individuals** > [@](#): > > \*t is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people. For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations protects the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation protects all those who have a stake in the corporations’ financial well-being. And protecting the free-exercise rights [\*14] of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies. **Reliance on the government’s concession that RFRA applies to some corporations** > [@](#): > > This concession effectively dispatches any argument that the term “person” as used in RFRA does not reach the closely held corporations involved in these cases. No known understanding of the term “person” includes some but not all corporations. **Arguing that it doesn’t make sense to distinguish profit from non-profit** > [@](#): > > HHS would draw a sharp line between nonprofit corporations (which, HHS concedes, are protected by RFRA) and for-profit corporations (which HHS would leave unprotected), but the actual picture is less clear-cut. Not all corporations that decline to organize as nonprofits do so in order to maximize profit. For example, organizations with religious and charitable aims might organize as for-profit corporations because of the potential advantages of that corporate form, such as the freedom to participate in lobbying for legislation or campaigning for political candidates who promote their religious or charitable goals. None of that is textual. None of it is merely taking judicial notice. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/828 "2014-07-02T18:29:47Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Nope. Occupational hazard with being right all the time. That’s fine. I let you off too easy. The next time you’re “right” like this time, let’s make it a serious bet, something that will shut your whiny mouth when you lose. Or if you still won’t shut up, I’ll be too drunk on good scotch to care. ---
**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, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/829 "2014-07-02T18:32:58Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > No, that’s still not correct. Taking judicial notice of the fact that churches are corporations doesn’t get you there. What gets you there is all kinds of extra-textual argument. To quote from the opinion: > > **Looking to the purpose of RFRA and congressional intent** > > **Reasoning about why it makes sense to protect corporations in order to protect individuals** > > **Reliance on the government’s concession that RFRA applies to some corporations** > > **Arguing that it doesn’t make sense to distinguish profit from non-profit** > > None of that is textual. None of it is merely taking judicial notice. None of that is necessary. And it’s foul ball to put the government’s concession in there as some sort of extra-textual argument. That’s not in the same ballpark as your other examples, which do indeed represent arguments beyond the text. But so what? I don’t claim that there are no arguments beyond the text that exist. I’m saying they are not necessary to resolve the issue. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/830 "2014-07-02T18:35:10Z")
Bricker, you are always in the mood to place a bet. What do you think the odds are that by the end of the year there is at least one Hobby Lobby employee getting an abortion to end an unplanned pregnancy that could have been prevented with easier access to birth control via their insurance? ---
**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, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/831 "2014-07-02T18:36:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s fine. I let you off too easy. The next time you’re “right” like this time, let’s make it a serious bet, something that will shut your whiny mouth when you lose. You’re again conflating the Court’s ruling, which I was wrong about; and your misleading statement that RFRA was unambiguous, which you were absolutely wrong about. The bet we made was about the Supreme Court opinion, not about whether or not you should be allowed to lie without being called on it. ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/832 "2014-07-02T18:37:20Z")
> [@WreckingCrew](#): > > Bricker, you are always in the mood to place a bet. What do you think the odds are that by the end of the year there is at least one Hobby Lobby employee getting an abortion to end an unplanned pregnancy that could have been prevented with easier access to birth control via their insurance? I have no idea. But since Hobby Lobby doesn’t carry that insurance now, I have no idea how you’d begin to show that such a thing had happened. And what do you imagine the relevance of this question is? Let’s say that we knew for sure it would happen. Does that knowledge somehow change the correct legal result in the case? ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/833 "2014-07-02T18:39:17Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > You’re again conflating the Court’s ruling, which I was wrong about; and your misleading statement that RFRA was unambiguous, which you were absolutely wrong about. The bet we made was about the Supreme Court opinion, not about whether or not you should be allowed to lie without being called on it. For the last time: when I said “the RFRA” I referred to the federal law _as applied by other relevant federal law._ Your initial decision to seize upon that was perfectly understandable. I have now made perfectly clear what my position really is. ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/834 "2014-07-02T18:41:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > _sigh_ > > The Dictionary Act 1 USC § 1: > > The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb et seq: > > So where, specifically, is the misinterpretation, Shayna? _sigh_ yourself, asshole. The misinterpretation is spelled out in Ginsburg’s dissent, which I’m not retyping for your sorry ass. But again, this entire case relies on the assumption that Hobby Lobby is “paying for” these insurance policies, which they most emphatically are _not_. They may be writing the check, but these are benefits _earned_ by the employees themselves by virtue of their labor. But for the labor of the employee, the expense does not exist. But for the agreement between laborer and employer that the laborer will accept a portion of their earned income in the form of insurance coverage in lieu of cash, the expense does not exist. These policies are paid for entirely by the employees, not the corporation. That this Court found that health insurance was somehow a benevolent gift religious people were showering on their employees and they should therefore have control over what’s included in them because of their (erroneous) “beliefs” is unconscionable. Especially given the fact that these so-called religious pricks don’t _really_ give a fuck about spending their money on actual abortifacients, since they’re _still doing it as of today_ without any government coercion whatsoever. They perpetrated a lie upon the Court and yet you celebrate it. That’s just sick. ---
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/835 "2014-07-02T18:42:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know – what’s the relevance of that to my question? If that bothers you, let’s talk about the Podunk News-Times, a privately-held corporation that prints a local paper for Podunk. That wouldn’t bother me. It bothers me that SCOTUS ruled that the decision applies to closely held private corporations, and not to all corporations. So your example of a hypothetical closely held private corporation having free speech rights does nothing to address SCOTUS’ need to distinguish between closely held corporations and others. What’s the legal definition of closely held? [35 or so?](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Close_corporation) What if it’s 60? Why can’t that company suffer a religious burden and be exempt? > [@](#): > > Um… if the corporation takes no action, how does it exercise the right to free speech? How does it determine what to say? Does it file a document about what to print on the editorial page? Does it vote at a stockholder’s meeting? Well, anything the corporation publishes is protected. It doesn’t matter what opinions the newspaper holds. I guess I agree that a corporation is allowed to have any religious beliefs, by the same first amendment, but…I’m asking how we know what the corporation’s religious beliefs _are_, so we can test whether those beliefs are being burdened. That assumed transfer of the small group of owners’ beliefs to the corporation is troubling to me. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/836 "2014-07-02T18:48:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no idea. But since Hobby Lobby doesn’t carry that insurance now, I have no idea how you’d begin to show that such a thing had happened. > > And what do you imagine the relevance of this question is? Let’s say that we knew for sure it would happen. Does that knowledge somehow change the correct legal result in the case? That damned HIPPA ruins all of our fun doesn’t it. Change the outcome of the case, no. But since this is a thread pitting Hobby Lobby, and not the Court decision, I decided to let fly. I believe it does raise a question as to whether or not Hobby Lobby Inc gave any thought to what the possible consequences would be to their actions - unintended or not. Since they don’t seem to object to contraception in general, just specific forms of it, I wonder how they feel about the likelihood that their actions will lead to an increase in abortions. Or hey, something for you and the fellas to kick around at the next K of C meeting. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/837 "2014-07-02T18:50:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > None of that is necessary. This is an assertion, not an argument, and I’ve offered now several paragraphs about why the text alone is not enough. Is your argument that the only reasoning necessary was judicial notice that churches are corporations? > [@Bricker](#): > > And it’s foul ball to put the government’s concession in there as some sort of extra-textual argument. That’s not in the same ballpark as your other examples, which do indeed represent arguments beyond the text. No it isn’t. The Supreme Court is not obligated to accept either side’s view of the law. They often reject both sides’ positions. They accept them when they agree with them. ---
**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, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/838 "2014-07-02T18:53:34Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Well, anything the corporation publishes is protected. It doesn’t matter what opinions the newspaper holds. > > I guess I agree that a corporation is allowed to have any religious beliefs, by the same first amendment, but…I’m asking how we know what the corporation’s religious beliefs _are_, so we can test whether those beliefs are being burdened. That assumed transfer of the small group of owners’ beliefs to the corporation is troubling to me. Why can’t we simply adopt the same approach as the First Amendment – anything the company says is protected. The Podunk Journal’s editorial page publishes the content its owners want to publish. we have no trouble determining what beliefs the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington has: it publishes them, publicly teaches them, and spreads them as part of its mission. What’s wrong with that rule? A corporation’s beliefs are what it says they are, what it publishes them to be. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/839 "2014-07-02T18:56:17Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This is an assertion, not an argument, and I’ve offered now several paragraphs about why the text alone is not enough. Is your argument that the only reasoning necessary was judicial notice that churches are corporations? The text alone is never enough…if by “text alone” you literally mean only the words on the page. The statute does not define the majority of words it uses. All laws require an understanding of the framework of the English language and the rules of statutory construction, and all those are “extra textual.” But that’s not in the same ballpark as what you’re peddling. > [@](#): > > No it isn’t. The Supreme Court is not obligated to accept either side’s view of the law. They often reject both sides’ positions. They accept them when they agree with them. “Often?” ---
**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, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/840 "2014-07-02T19:03:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The text alone is never enough…if by “text alone” you literally mean only the words on the page. The statute does not define the majority of words it uses. All laws require an understanding of the framework of the English language and the rules of statutory construction, and all those are “extra textual.” > > But that’s not in the same ballpark as what you’re peddling. This is an evasion. Yes, obviously even textual arguments require some outside knowledge. But the question of whether it makes sense to say corporations have religious beliefs has nothing to do with the text of RFRA or the Dictionary Act. Your assertion that the answer to that question is in the text, or somehow available by common knowledge, is so silly that I find it hard to believe you really believe it. By it’s very nature, it isn’t a question that can be answered except by extra-textual reasoning and argument about the purposes of religious liberty and the nature of corporations, which is of course exactly what Alito did in the opinion. > [@](#): > > “Often?” Yes, often. Several times per term. Not that it matters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=43)