# 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:** 58
**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 13, 2014, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1141 "2014-07-13T02:32:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There’s no rationale to treat non-profits differently from for-profits under our law when it comes to basic rights. I don’t have a problem (in theory, anyway) with carving out a category of corporation that has a specifically religious set of policies, even if it is for-profit, i.e. a Catholic bookstore that applies some degree of Catholic limitations on employees, though their actual business is selling books. For this privilege, there will have to be some limitations, i.e. they must be closed on Sunday, or something - they’re not allowed to pick-and-choose just the convenient parts of their religion and claim their beliefs are sincere. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1142 "2014-07-13T02:44:30Z")
OK, this is what confuses me, and it may have been covered already. if so, please point me to the correct post in the above 23 pages. Insurance benefits are part of an employee’s compensation, right? Salary + benefits = compensation package. HL has the right to say that paying for what they consider to be abortion causing medical treatment is sinful, and that they do not have to do it. HL pays for the benefits, the benefits are or are not used by the employee, sin happens. HL \> insurance \> employee \> abortion, and that’s too close. BUT if an employee takes the money paid as a wage, and procures an actual abortion, or to keep things the same, Plan B, then that is even closer in steps but HL has no right to say anything at all, right? In the second scenario, HL \> employee \> abortion, and sin. Could a company make a legal argument that they should be allowed to have employees - I don’t know, sign an agreement or something - that says that their wages will not be used what they consider to be a sinful way? I am having a hard time understanding why a company, who pays another company who then gives employees the ability to do something that the company believes is a terrible thing, can say no, \*these \*insurance benefits are not to be used in this way, but the same company can’t argue to have influence over the way \*those \* other, monetary benefits are used. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1143 "2014-07-13T03:25:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The rules were supposed to apply to corporations in general as the norm for conducting business and employing people in America. Hobby Lobby just wants to whine and unfortunately, people are buying into it. > [@Bricker](#): > > When you say “the rules,” you appear to mean the Affordable Care Act, but not the RFRA. > > Can you explain why only one federal law is “the rules?” in your mind? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, one of them sort-of makes sense (though it’s really just a poor way-station on the road to where you should be - single payer) and the other one doesn’t since religious beliefs are arbitrary and thus granting exemptions based on them is arbitrary. > > Of course, that’s merely my opinion. I don’t really care for the purposes of this thread what the legislature passed, what the executive signed, and what the judiciary upheld, so any attempt to lecture me thus is fruitless. But you’re willing to announce how the rules are applied. ---
**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 13, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1144 "2014-07-13T04:00:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But you’re willing to announce how the rules are applied. My opinion of what the rules should be, you mean? Yeah… so? ---
**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 13, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1145 "2014-07-13T04:13:28Z")
It belatedly occurs to me what the point of Bricker’s question actually was. I’d like to point that what prompted my earlier comment about how the “rules were supposed to apply” was prompted by this statement: > [@adaher](#): > > If the government can make Hobby Lobby do anything it wants, then they can make you do anything they want with your possessions and property, without regard for your religion, on the logic that your property has no rights. …which was sufficiently strawmanny and slippery-slopey that it didn’t really warrant a precision response. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1146 "2014-07-13T15:15:32Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > OK, this is what confuses me, and it may have been covered already. if so, please point me to the correct post in the above 23 pages. > > Insurance benefits are part of an employee’s compensation, right? Salary + benefits = compensation package. HL has the right to say that paying for what they consider to be abortion causing medical treatment is sinful, and that they do not have to do it. HL pays for the benefits, the benefits are or are not used by the employee, sin happens. HL \> insurance \> employee \> abortion, and that’s too close. BUT if an employee takes the money paid as a wage, and procures an actual abortion, or to keep things the same, Plan B, then that is even closer in steps but HL has no right to say anything at all, right? In the second scenario, HL \> employee \> abortion, and sin. Could a company make a legal argument that they should be allowed to have employees - I don’t know, sign an agreement or something - that says that their wages will not be used what they consider to be a sinful way? > > I am having a hard time understanding why a company, who pays another company who then gives employees the ability to do something that the company believes is a terrible thing, can say no, \*these \*insurance benefits are not to be used in this way, but the same company can’t argue to have influence over the way \*those \* other, monetary benefits are used. Before the ACA was ever enacted, or even before the RFRA was ever enacted, what stopped a company from doing that? How has that answer changed now? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1147 "2014-07-13T16:43:21Z")
My suspicion would be that before these events unfolded, the were not motivated by the opportunity to stick their thumb in Obama’s eye. ---
**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 13, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1148 "2014-07-13T17:36:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > My suspicion would be that before these events unfolded, the were not motivated by the opportunity to stick their thumb in Obama’s eye. I’m prepared to assume their stupidity predates 2008, myself. ---
**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 13, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1149 "2014-07-13T17:40:50Z")
C’mon, guys, make hay while the sun shines! It’s time to open that chain of dark, Satanic mills and hire me an army of minions. What laws do you think I can evade? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1150 "2014-07-13T18:44:09Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > C’mon, guys, make hay while the sun shines! It’s time to open that chain of dark, Satanic mills and hire me an army of minions. What laws do you think I can evade? 1. You can’t evade any state laws: the RFRA is powerless against the states. City of Boerne v. Flores, AND 2. You can’t evade any federal law for which the government has a compelling justification and the narrowest implementation, AND 3. You can’t evade any federal law that does not burden your sincere exercise of religion. So you tell me what that leaves. ---
**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 13, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1151 "2014-07-13T19:23:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you tell me what that leaves. Whatever five members of SCOTUS will agree to. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1152 "2014-07-13T20:51:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Whatever five members of SCOTUS will agree to. It would be a better situation if the members of SCOTUS all agreed to just go by whatever the law actually says, then? And in this case, they DID go by what the law actually says, didn’t they? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1153 "2014-07-13T23:12:11Z")
Do you mean “follow the law” as simply not doing anything that actually goes against the law? Or do you mean that the decision of the majority is so clearly correct that no other interpretation is possible? ---
**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 14, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1154 "2014-07-14T00:06:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Do you mean “follow the law” as simply not doing anything that actually goes against the law? Or do you mean that the decision of the majority is so clearly correct that no other interpretation is possible? No, he means “go by the text as I interpret it and don’t bother being concerned with what the actual intent of the law was”. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1155 "2014-07-14T00:17:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Whatever five members of SCOTUS will agree to. Five members of the SCOTUS (aka a majority) ruled that since the RFRA, as passed by Congress in 1993, still exists, then it applies to BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC… The majority of the court followed the law. On pg 91 of the opinion pdf - _GINSBURG, J., dissenting - Why should decisions of this order be made by Congress or the regulatory authority, and not this Court? Hobby Lobby and Conestoga surely do not stand alone as commercial enterprises seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws on the basis of their religious beliefs._ > **[13-354\_olp1.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf)** Ginsburg indicates that she wants to legislate from the court and ignore Congress’s input. Ginsburg doesn’t want to follow the law. Ginsburg wants to create law. ---
**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 14, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1156 "2014-07-14T00:29:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 1. You can’t evade any state laws: the RFRA is powerless against the states. City of Boerne v. Flores, AND > > 2. You can’t evade any federal law for which the government has a compelling justification and the narrowest implementation, AND > > 3. You can’t evade any federal law that does not burden your sincere exercise of religion. > > So you tell me what that leaves. You got me, though if someone’s sincere belief were “do as thou wilt”, all federal laws would potentially burden their free exercise of religion (though this doesn’t describe my outlook), but this response raises another interesting question: Does the fact that the RFRA is powerless against state laws have any connection with the fact that the red states have avoided using state insurance exchanges, putting that burden instead on the feds? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1157 "2014-07-14T02:02:50Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > You got me, though if someone’s sincere belief were “do as thou wilt”, all federal laws would potentially burden their free exercise of religion (though this doesn’t describe my outlook), but this response raises another interesting question: Does the fact that the RFRA is powerless against state laws have any connection with the fact that the red states have avoided using state insurance exchanges, putting that burden instead on the feds? No. We can be certain that the Supreme Court decided that the RFRA did not apply to the states without being influenced by its possible effect on the Affordable Care Act for two reasons. One is because judges don’t make decisions that way. And because the case was _City of Boerne v. Flores_, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), well before anyone had ever heard of Obamacare – or for that matter, of _President_ Obama; Barack Obama was just beginning his first term as an Illinois State legislator. ---
**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 14, 2014, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1158 "2014-07-14T02:21:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It would be a better situation if the members of SCOTUS all agreed to just go by whatever the law actually says, then? That would be great, if the legislature never passed a law that was stupid, unclear, unjust, unobsoletable and/or misappliable. Has there ever _been_ such a legislature? ---
**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 14, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1159 "2014-07-14T02:25:01Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Five members of the SCOTUS (aka a majority) ruled that since the RFRA, as passed by Congress in 1993, still exists, then it applies to BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC… The majority of the court followed the law. Okay, how does this challenge my statement? So, does Ginsburg think this is an inherently constitutional issue rather than one addressable purely through legislation? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1160 "2014-07-14T03:08:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That would be great, if the legislature never passed a law that was stupid, unclear, unjust, unobsoletable and/or misappliable. > > Has there ever _been_ such a legislature? Doubtful. But so what? There’s never been a court that hasn’t issued at least one stupid, unclear, unjust, unobsoletable or misappliable decision. The difference is that we can elect legislators, and if they offend us greatly with their stupid, unclear, unjust, unobsoletable and/or misappliable decisions, we can elect their opponents next time. When the federal judge issues his stupid, unclear, unjust, unobsoletable and/or misappliable decision, we can’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=57) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=59)