# 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:** 50
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/981 "2014-07-06T03:54:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The freedoms enshrined in our Constitution are only tangentially relevant. > > Hobby Lobby won the day by invoking the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the Constitution. > > The rule under the First Amendment is that as long as the government requirement is neutral, which this is, the Constitution is not violated. “… if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [government action] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended…” > > The RFRA goes well beyond that First Amendment rule by requiring any instance in which the government substantially burdens a person’s religious exercise to be justified by a compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law. Thanks. That’s helpful. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/982 "2014-07-06T03:59:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The sincerity of that claim would be unlikely. So? It’s not like _any_ religious claim has demonstrable evidence behind it and “sincerity” isn’t provable - just what you can convince others that you are sincere about. The only thing that separates an acceptable religious claim from an unacceptable one is popularity. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/983 "2014-07-06T04:05:21Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So? It’s not like _any_ religious claim has demonstrable evidence behind it and “sincerity” isn’t provable - just what you can convince others that you are sincere about. The only thing that separates an acceptable religious claim from an unacceptable one is popularity. I have previously posted a number of cases in which courts rejected the sincerity of claims. In none of them did the courts identify “popularity,” as a factor. Can you cite any case in which a reviewing court relied on popularity? Or, in shorter words: cite? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/984 "2014-07-06T06:40:49Z")
[Hobby Lobby Instructional Video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Nzm6qzkNc) (“_we also carry knitting needles_”) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/985 "2014-07-06T12:39:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have previously posted a number of cases in which courts rejected the sincerity of claims. In none of them did the courts identify “popularity,” as a factor. > > Can you cite any case in which a reviewing court relied on popularity? > > Or, in shorter words: cite? Christianity is my first cite. David Khoresh is my other cite. There’s no practical distinction between the arbitrariness of their belief systems, but one gets “ceremonial deism” protection and the other gets burned to the ground. Anyway, the courts rejected a sincerity claim. I guess the claimant just wasn’t convincing enough. Next time get a more charismatic preacher/lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/986 "2014-07-06T14:02:12Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Christianity is my first cite. David Khoresh is my other cite. There’s no practical distinction between the arbitrariness of their belief systems, but one gets “ceremonial deism” protection and the other gets burned to the ground… Can you cite the court case that David Koresh brought against the federal government in which his religious belief was found to be “not sincere”? I missed that one. Or did you think the courts go out, proactively, to find religious organizations in order to determine the sincerity of their beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/987 "2014-07-06T14:44:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Christianity is my first cite. David Khoresh is my other cite. There’s no practical distinction between the arbitrariness of their belief systems, but one gets “ceremonial deism” protection and the other gets burned to the ground. > Anyway, the courts rejected a sincerity claim. I guess the claimant just wasn’t convincing enough. Next time get a more charismatic preacher/lawyer. Neither “cite” is responsive to the original claim you made. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/988 "2014-07-06T17:06:08Z")
A fine thread, and probably improved by my lack of participation. Any chance Richard Parker is an attractive local woman with an oddly masculine handle? Getting back to my first impression of this decision, I brought up slavery because this srtikes me as a form of nullification. South Carolina is trying to establish a state religion. What happens then, or in places like Salt Lake City or other regions with a dominant religious popularion? I also brought up aristocracy, because this seems to allow property to exempt one from the law. I suppose birth control puts women on an equal footing with men in the workplace, which makes them more competitive and upwardly mobile from the status quo. That creates more competition all the way up, and those at the top don’t always want competition, and so there is a moneyed interest in keeping women down. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/989 "2014-07-06T17:48:16Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > A fine thread, and probably improved by my lack of participation. That’s a slow ball lobbed over the plate, but I’m not going to swing… > [@](#): > > Getting back to my first impression of this decision, I brought up slavery because this srtikes me as a form of nullification. Slavery? You’re going to need to flesh that argument out. > [@](#): > > South Carolina is trying to establish a state religion. What happens then, North Carolina, and it was [stunt by a few GOP legislators.](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/north-carolina-wont-establish-state-religion/) > [@](#): > > The legislation filed by Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford stated the “North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.” > > \ > > “I didn’t expect it to go anywhere,” Warren told the newspaper, noting that the bill was referred to the committee for Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House. “Quite often bills go there and never come out.” > > Co-signer Rep. Phil Shepard said in an interview before the bill was killed, “I don’t support anything that would maintain a state religion, but … we have the right to assemble and pray.” Not to mention that the 1st amendment has been incorporated to the states, so it’s explicitly unconstitutional for a state to do so. > [@T2BC](#): > > or in places like Salt Lake City or other regions with a dominant religious popularion? Again, details, please? And by details, I don’t mean “crazy, wild speculations not base on facts”. > [@](#): > > I also brought up aristocracy, because this seems to allow property to exempt one from the law. The ACA puts requirements on corporations, so it should come as no surprise that there are going to be some exemptions for some corporations. It wouldn’t make sense to offer exemptions to entities not affected by the ACA. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/990 "2014-07-06T20:35:19Z")
John: I don’t expect slavery itself to return, but since this strikes me as a form of nullification, it brings to mind the days from Calhoun to Lincoln. I wonder how far this precedent can be pressed. In a place like Salt Lake, if a sizable percentage of organizations band together as having Mormon beliefs, it seems things could get uncomfortable for people with enough sense not to subscribe to that claptrap. Spcifically what? I’m not sure. Ginsburg called this “a decision of startling breadth” or somethi g to that effect. What was she getting at? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/991 "2014-07-06T21:05:12Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > John: I don’t expect slavery itself to return, but since this strikes me as a form of nullification, it brings to mind the days from Calhoun to Lincoln. I wonder how far this precedent can be pressed. In a place like Salt Lake, if a sizable percentage of organizations band together as having Mormon beliefs, it seems things could get uncomfortable for people with enough sense not to subscribe to that claptrap. How, specifically, is it a form of “nullification”? > [@](#): > > Spcifically what? I’m not sure. Ginsburg called this “a decision of startling breadth” or somethi g to that effect. What was she getting at? I have no idea. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/992 "2014-07-06T21:26:02Z")
It is nullification because the feds pass a law, and various entities which previously were not considered capable of religious beliefs can evade that law though religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter if those beliefs are utter bullshit, only that they are “sincere”. Like Ginsburg, I suspect there will be a broad range of attempted applications of this precedent, even if I can’t predict what they will be. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/993 "2014-07-06T21:30:49Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > [Hobby Lobby Instructional Video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Nzm6qzkNc) (“_we also carry knitting needles_”) Are you aware that the “Instructional Video” you posted isn’t an actual instructional video? Sandy and Richard Riccardi even posted a disclaimer to limit the chances that some stupid people might sue them for any injuries they might cause to themselves. _Published on Jul 3, 2014 Disclaimer: “Miss Sandy from Hobby Lobby” is a purely fictional character for the entertainment purposes only. She is in no way affiliated with actual Hobby Lobby stores, and no, you can’t make a working IUD from pipe cleaners and glitter. So don’t try. All craft materials in this video were purchased at Michael’s_. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/994 "2014-07-06T21:49:02Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > It is nullification because the feds pass a law, and various entities which previously were not considered capable of religious beliefs can evade that law though religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter if those beliefs are utter bullshit, only that they are “sincere”. Like Ginsburg, I suspect there will be a broad range of attempted applications of this precedent, even if I can’t predict what they will be. Do you understand that the method used to “evade” the law was _another law_, one also passed by the feds? Do you understand that this is not a First Amendment decision, but rests entirely on a federal law called the RFRA? Do you consider the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore capable of religious exercise? Do you understand that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore is a corporation? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/995 "2014-07-06T23:24:35Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Are you aware … Keenly. My apologies for not putting up some sort of _caveat_. > [@Bricker](#): > > Do you consider the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore capable of religious exercise? But Hobby Lobby was not, um, lobbying for some right to religious _exercise_ here, their case was based on religious _belief_. Clearly, exercise of religion does not in and of itself demand belief, or, in fact, even much in the way of adherence to doctrine (not to speak ill of the catholic church, or anything). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/996 "2014-07-06T23:38:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you cite the court case that David Koresh brought against the federal government in which his religious belief was found to be “not sincere”? I missed that one. > > Or did you think the courts go out, proactively, to find religious organizations in order to determine the sincerity of their beliefs? > [@Bricker](#): > > Neither “cite” is responsive to the original claim you made. Possibly both of you have overestimated my emotional and intellectual involvement in this issue. For me, a religion-based employer-health-insurance issue is a double opportunity for PALATR mockery. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/997 "2014-07-06T23:57:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Possibly both of you have overestimated my emotional and intellectual involvement in this issue. Unlikely. The problem is the relative weight of the two, with the former inhibiting the exercise of the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/998 "2014-07-07T00:11:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Possibly both of you have overestimated my emotional and intellectual involvement in this issue. I can’t speak for John, but I haven’t overestimated your intellectual involvement. I simply respond to your posts and let your intellectual involvement speak for itself. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/999 "2014-07-07T00:13:38Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Keenly. My apologies for not putting up some sort of _caveat_. > > But Hobby Lobby was not, um, lobbying for some right to religious _exercise_ here, their case was based on religious _belief_. Clearly, exercise of religion does not in and of itself demand belief, or, in fact, even much in the way of adherence to doctrine (not to speak ill of the catholic church, or anything). Actually, Hobby Lobby was asserting the precise claim of religious exercise: they do not wish to face a choice of violating the exercise of their religion by paying for abortions, or paying millions in fines. Why do you believe there was no exercise involved here? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2014, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1000 "2014-07-07T00:20:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can’t speak for John, but I haven’t overestimated your intellectual involvement. I simply respond to your posts and let your intellectual involvement speak for itself. Meantime, religion remains a waste of time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=49) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=51)