# 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:** 59
**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, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1161 "2014-07-14T03:09:36Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Okay, how does this challenge my statement? > > So, does Ginsburg think this is an inherently constitutional issue rather than one addressable purely through legislation? No. ---
**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, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1162 "2014-07-14T03:17:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Doubtful. > > But so what? There’s never been a court that hasn’t issued at least one stupid, unclear, unjust, unobsoletable or misappliable decision. Casually granted. > [@](#): > > 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. Heh, well, there’s a much larger thread just over there in which _that_ issue is being analyzed. > [@](#): > > When the federal judge issues his stupid, unclear, unjust, unobsoletable and/or misappliable decision, we can’t. Well, amend the constitution to clarify the issue. “Congress shall make no law compelling a corporation to behave in a manner its equity-holders feel runs counter to their religious beliefs, whatever they are this week.” ---
**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, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1163 "2014-07-14T03:20:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Okey-dokey. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1164 "2014-07-14T04:26:43Z")
Its hard for the layman to grasp these wonders. We are instructed that the case is so clearly cut and dried, so incontrovertible, the wonder is that the minority has the temerity to pretend otherwise. Their questions were all answered, we are assured. And yet they persist in contradicting legal minds like Scalia and Alito: intellects vast, cool and unsympathetic… ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1165 "2014-07-14T11:26:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A moment’s thought would make the unwieldy nature of your advice clear. If every Christian were literally required to sell what they own and give the money to the poor, how do you imagine Christians would then live? > > Perhaps you picture sort of a Christian Ponzi scheme – the first guy to follow the advice is now himself poor, and is eligible to receive the largess of the next couple of folks to follow the guidance? > > Of course, your view that following the scriptures requires a literal adherence to the admonition to sell your possessions is the problem: it’s wrong. Of course he didn’t mean for all people just the very rich, Jesus even said the poor would also always be with us, I believe his intention was to put people in more importance than things and place. In our culture we say a noun is a person , place or thing, but our importance seems to be things, place, then people. Of course things are needed and can be a good thing, but it is because of people they gain the way to help others have a good life and a healthy happy one. There is pleasure even joy in seeing happiness in others. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1166 "2014-07-14T11:33:21Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > So I guess the shall not kill part of the bible didn’t matter to you? The Idea of not killing another is of course is also a way of self preservation as the Golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.Plain common sense. I think Jesus’s quote quote at least to me meant like his last command to his follower’s; I leave you one commandment;"That you love one another’ meaning wish and do good to others. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1167 "2014-07-14T11:36:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If taken as an abortifacient, yes, I imagine they would. > > Regards, > Shodan Then all your sperm that do not cause a conception is killing a human Life? ---
**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, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1168 "2014-07-14T13:08:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Whatever five members of SCOTUS will agree to. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Okay, how does this challenge my statement? > > So, does Ginsburg think this is an inherently constitutional issue rather than one addressable purely through legislation? It doesn’t challenge your statement. It affirmed your statement and added a few carrots to this stone soup discussion. It doesn’t appear that Ginsburg believes this is a constitutional issue. It does appear that Ginsburg believes this was a wrong decision, and based on the fact that the courts have legislated from the bench before, she sees no reason why they couldn’t do so again. Breyer and Kagan agree with Ginsburg but they aren’t the majority. _JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, dissenting. We agree with JUSTICE GINSBURG that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the contraceptive coverage requirement fails on the merits. We need not and do not decide whether either for-profit corporations or their owners may bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Accordingly, we join all but Part III–C–1 of JUSTICE GINSBURG’s dissenting opinion._ > **[13-354\_olp1.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf)** Breyer and Kagan made it clear that this Hobby Lobby ruling does not prevent other plaintiffs from bring claims under RFRA of 1993. The other claims will be addressed based on their own merit. ---
**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, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1169 "2014-07-14T13:16:30Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Then all your sperm that do not cause a conception is killing a human Life? If your key words are conception and human life, then the answer would be no. For example, you couldn’t impregnate a blue dress simply by ejaculating on it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1170 "2014-07-14T14:31:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When the federal judge issues his stupid, unclear, unjust, unobsoletable and/or misappliable decision, we can’t. Of course we can. Were you out sick for the entire balance of powers discussion in Civics class, not just the Marbury v. Madison part? If the legislature dislikes a court’s ruling on a matter of statute, they can change the statute. If they dislike a court’s ruling on a matter of the Constitution, they can (with help) amend the Constitution. It is quite extraordinary that someone could get a law degree in the US and not grasp something that most middle schoolers can grasp. ---
**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 14, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1171 "2014-07-14T14:42:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Of course we can. Were you out sick for the entire balance of powers discussion in Civics class, not just the Marbury v. Madison part? > > If the legislature dislikes a court’s ruling on a matter of statute, they can change the statute. If they dislike a court’s ruling on a matter of the Constitution, they can (with help) amend the Constitution. > > It is quite extraordinary that someone could get a law degree in the US and not grasp something that most middle schoolers can grasp. Did you actually read his post? Because “we can’t” referred to “elect their opponents next time.” Your civics class did you a disservice if you were taught that federal judges can be elected. Now, no one who knows anything about you expects you to admit an error, so let me fire up a tune while you begin your dance to avoid doing so. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1172 "2014-07-14T14:53:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Did you actually read his post? Because “we can’t” referred to “elect their opponents next time.” No, he obviously meant we’re \*stuck \*with a federal judge’s decision, schmuck. > [@](#): > > Now, no one who knows anything about you expects you to admit an error The fact that you can’t find any despite more strenuous efforts than you ever give an actual post, combined with your general superficiality and silly and lazy both-sides-do-it-ism being so frequently pointed out, really frustrates you, doesn’t it? There’s a cure for that, but there’s no reason to hope you’ll ever make use of it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1173 "2014-07-14T15:21:50Z")
And what are we to make of this: > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court ruled in a late order Thursday that a Christian college in Illinois could temporarily abstain from following the part of the regulations under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, drawing a scathing dissent from the court’s three female justices. > > “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Not so today.” > > The 6-3 order, which was unsigned, followed the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on Monday in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which it ruled that closely held companies with religious objections did not have to provide certain forms of contraception to which they objected. > > Because of the order handed down Thursday, Wheaton will not have to fill out a form sent to both the federal government and third-party insurers, which would then provide contraceptives for free with a government subsidy. Wheaton and more than 120 other nonprofits have sued, arguing this workaround violates their religious liberty by making them complicit in something that goes against their religion. > > In the dissent, Sotomayor argued the order handed down Thursday went beyond the Hobby Lobby ruling, suggesting the majority had gone far beyond its original decision. > > In their opinions on Monday, the justices signaled the Obama administration’s compromise involving the forms, which was designed to shield religiously affiliated nonprofits with paying for certain kinds of contraception, was acceptable. > > Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, wrote that the government “has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraception methods that violate their religious beliefs.” > > “After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, retreats from that position. That action evinces disregard for even the newest of this Court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution.”… > **[Female Justices Issue Scathing Dissent In The First Post-Hobby Lobby Birth...](https://www.businessinsider.com/sotomayor-ginsburg-kagan-dissent-wheaton-college-decision-supreme-court-2014-7#ixzz37SMwCjIw)** > > "Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word." ---
**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, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1174 "2014-07-14T16:27:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, amend the constitution to clarify the issue. “Congress shall make no law compelling a corporation to behave in a manner its equity-holders feel runs counter to their religious beliefs, whatever they are this week.” Sure – but as I said, we still can’t un-elect the judges. And even if we amend the constitution thusly, a vigorously intentioned interpretation could scuttle it. I suppose we could amend the constitution to remove lifetime tenure for judges. ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1175 "2014-07-14T16:29:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its hard for the layman to grasp these wonders. We are instructed that the case is so clearly cut and dried, so incontrovertible, the wonder is that the minority has the temerity to pretend otherwise. Their questions were all answered, we are assured. And yet they persist in contradicting legal minds like Scalia and Alito: intellects vast, cool and unsympathetic… The minority’s position is: using the plain text of the law produces a result so bad that we’re sure Congress didn’t intend it. ---
**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, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1176 "2014-07-14T16:34:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I suppose we could amend the constitution to remove lifetime tenure for judges. As always, Canada is way ahead of you. Mandatory retirement from the SCC at 75. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1177 "2014-07-14T17:05:08Z")
That will most likely change after annexation. ---
**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, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1178 "2014-07-14T17:10:12Z")
Yeah, when we absorb the U.S., their higher rates of obesity and diabetes might lower the overall life expectancy. ---
**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, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1179 "2014-07-14T17:17:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The minority’s position is: using the plain text of the law produces a result so bad that we’re sure Congress didn’t intend it. I see my time away from the board hasn’t resulted in any less misrepresentations from you. ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1180 "2014-07-14T18:03:02Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I see my time away from the board hasn’t resulted in any less misrepresentations from you. That’s a perfectly fair one-sentence summary of what the minority position says. But, of course, it’s irrelevant, since the minority position does not create the precedent anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=58) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=60)