# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/101 "2013-02-22T02:41:59Z")
Update: Some Republican congresspeople have filed an amicus curiae brief with the [10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.](http://newsok.com/u.s.-lawmakers-rally-to-support-oklahomas-hobby-lobbys-legal-challenge/article/3757421/?page=1) I so hope this bankrupts them. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/102 "2013-02-22T14:45:21Z")
This gets even more retarded. I didn’t even realize Hobby Lobby was incorporated. How can they possibly have any claim to religious freedom? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/103 "2013-02-22T15:02:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > This gets even more retarded. I didn’t even realize Hobby Lobby was incorporated. How can they possibly have any claim to religious freedom? My CEO is Scientologist and says he’ll refuse to pay for any insurance that covers psychiatry. OK - that didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/104 "2013-02-22T15:14:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > This gets even more retarded. I didn’t even realize Hobby Lobby was incorporated. How can they possibly have any claim to religious freedom? Could you expand on your reasoning a bit here? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/105 "2013-02-22T15:20:35Z")
A corporation is a legal person which exists entirely apart from the “founder of the company”. It has no beliefs. Its purpose (assuming, as here, that it is a for-profit entity) is to maximize shareholder value. ETA: It’s apparently [not publicly traded](http://www.hobbylobby.com/customer_service/faq.cfm), so there is no fiduciary duty issue, but the same reasoning applies. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/106 "2013-02-22T16:36:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A corporation is a legal person which exists entirely apart from the “founder of the company”. It has no beliefs. Its purpose (assuming, as here, that it is a for-profit entity) is to maximize shareholder value. > > ETA: It’s apparently [not publicly traded](http://www.hobbylobby.com/customer_service/faq.cfm), so there is no fiduciary duty issue, but the same reasoning applies. Can you identify some authority which excludes for-profit corporations from religious freedom guarantees? For example, I don’t find anything in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.) limiting its reach to non-profit entities. Because religious associations are most often non-profit, I understand the tendency would be to conflate the two. But I can easily imagine a corporation set up to be politically influential not wanting to risk IRS trouble and deciding to become a for-profit entity without surrendering its religious character. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/107 "2013-02-22T16:55:16Z")
I’m not really sure how that’s relevant, since Hobby Lobby is not challenging a zoning ordinance and isn’t in prison. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/108 "2013-02-22T17:00:03Z")
And what if the founders or owners were Christian Scientist? Could they limit the insurance to covering the cost of contacting and transportation for a “Healer”? The trouble with allowing any leeway at all is that the employees will eventually need medical care, and when they do, they will go to the ERs, which do not have the right to refuse them; so the rest of us end up paying for it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/109 "2013-02-22T17:04:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because religious associations are most often non-profit, I understand the tendency would be to conflate the two. But I can easily imagine a corporation set up to be politically influential not wanting to risk IRS trouble and deciding to become a for-profit entity without surrendering its religious character. Okay, I see what you’re saying. That’s irrelevant. The First Amendment protects “sincerely held religious beliefs” (_Employment Division v. Smith_, etc.) A corporation, by definition, _cannot have_ a sincerely held religious belief. It can’t even have an insincere one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/110 "2013-02-22T17:40:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Okay, I see what you’re saying. That’s irrelevant. The First Amendment protects “sincerely held religious beliefs” (_Employment Division v. Smith_, etc.) A corporation, by definition, _cannot have_ a sincerely held religious belief. It can’t even have an insincere one. A corporation is an association of individual natural persons. Such individual natural persons may indeed have sincerely held religious beliefs, as well as the desire to freely associate with each other in accord with, or to further those, beliefs. In Illinois, to pick an example, 805 ILCS 110/35 provides: > [@](#): > > Any church, congregation or society formed for the purposes of religious worship, may become incorporated in the manner following: By electing or appointing, according to its usages or customs, at any meeting held for that purpose, two or more of its members as trustees, wardens and vestrymen, (or such other officers whose powers and duties are similar to those of trustees, as shall be agreeable to the usages and customs, rules or regulations of such congregation, church or society), and may adopt a corporate name; and upon the filing of the affidavit, as hereinafter provided, it shall be and remain a body politic and corporate, by the name so adopted. Are you suggesting that a corporation formed in accord thereto would not have First Amendment protections? My own state does not carve out a special religious incorporation category. This makes it even more clear that a corporation in Virginia can exist for religious worship, religious proselytization, or religious association purposes and receive First Amendment protection. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/111 "2013-02-22T17:44:08Z")
That’s why I am distinguishing based on profit motive. ---
**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:** [February 22, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/112 "2013-02-22T17:53:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A corporation is an association of individual natural persons. Such individual natural persons may indeed have sincerely held religious beliefs, as well as the desire to freely associate with each other in accord with, or to further those, beliefs. oK, I am a little confused. This corporate entity, the purpose of which is to sell stuff, not to further any religious beliefs, can claim religious belief based on the the fact that it is a collection of individuals? What if not everyone in that collection holds the same religious beliefs? Would that throw a monkey wrench in the collection of sincere beliefs? If some executives go to synagogue, is that relevant to the corporation’s belief? Can they dismiss people who hold different beliefs to keep the collection of individuals homogenous in religious belief? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/113 "2013-02-22T18:00:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A corporation is an association of individual natural persons. Such individual natural persons may indeed have sincerely held religious beliefs, as well as the desire to freely associate with each other in accord with, or to further those, beliefs. Yes, natural persons may have sincerely held religious beliefs. However, an association of persons, in all probability, does not have sincerely held religious beliefs. Some will believe in one thing, others in another. Within your church, there are lots of people who sincerely believe contraception is a perversion of God’s will. There are others, you’ll concede, who do not. The fact that one group or the other is in the majority does not mean the corporation “has a belief”. Beliefs cannot be formed democratically. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/114 "2013-02-22T18:38:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A corporation is an association of individual natural persons. Such individual natural persons may indeed have sincerely held religious beliefs, as well as the desire to freely associate with each other in accord with, or to further those, beliefs. > > In Illinois, to pick an example, 805 ILCS 110/35 provides: > > Are you suggesting that a corporation formed in accord thereto would not have First Amendment protections? > > My own state does not carve out a special religious incorporation category. This makes it even more clear that a corporation in Virginia can exist for religious worship, religious proselytization, or religious association purposes and receive First Amendment protection. Can a church discriminate based on religion those they serve in the same fashion as a corporation? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/115 "2013-02-22T18:41:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s why I am distinguishing based on profit motive. Is there – in the law – some authority for this distinction? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/116 "2013-02-22T18:42:48Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Can a church discriminate based on religion those they serve in the same fashion as a corporation? I don’t understand the question. A church can BE a corporation. A corporation can discriminate based on religion under certain circumstances, and is not free to do so under other circumstances. Without more detail, i can’t answer this question. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/117 "2013-02-22T18:45:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes, natural persons may have sincerely held religious beliefs. However, an association of persons, in all probability, does not have sincerely held religious beliefs. Some will believe in one thing, others in another. Within your church, there are lots of people who sincerely believe contraception is a perversion of God’s will. There are others, you’ll concede, who do not. The fact that one group or the other is in the majority does not mean the corporation “has a belief”. Beliefs cannot be formed democratically. It’s meaningless to speak of the “belief” of a corporation in this way, since there is no way to guarantee uniformity of belief. But that’s not necessary in order to answer the question, “Do corporations have a First Amendment claim to religious freedom?” ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/118 "2013-02-22T18:51:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t understand the question. > > A church can BE a corporation. A corporation can discriminate based on religion under certain circumstances, and is not free to do so under other circumstances. Without more detail, i can’t answer this question. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC allowed a Church to ignore the ADA because it was a religious institution. Are the same rights to ignore the ADA afforded to any corporation that is not a church? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/119 "2013-02-22T18:55:32Z")
Sure. Not much, though. Perhaps more importantly, I am unable to identify any authority providing that corporations enjoy the right of religious freedom. > [@](#): > > The final questions for decision are whether the Maryland Sunday Closing Laws conflict with the Federal Constitution’s provisions for religious liberty. First, appellants contend here that the statutes applicable to Anne Arundel County violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion in that the statutes’ effect is to prohibit the free exercise of religion in contravention of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.5 But appellants allege only economic injury to themselves; they do not allege any infringement of their own religious freedoms due to Sunday closing. In fact, the record is silent as to what appellants’ religious beliefs are. Since the general rule is that ‘a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities,’ United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22,80 S.Ct. 519, 523, 4 L.Ed.2d 524, we hold that appellants have no standing to raise this contention. > > McGowan v. State of Md., 366 U.S. 420, 429 (1961) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/120 "2013-02-22T19:26:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s meaningless to speak of the “belief” of a corporation in this way, since there is no way to guarantee uniformity of belief. That’s pretty much my point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=7)