# 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:** 62
**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 15, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1221 "2014-07-15T19:33:22Z")
Atheism can’t come fast enough to America. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1222 "2014-07-15T19:45:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I am a little surprised to see you trumpeting decisions that substitute the judgment of the court for that of the legislature (or here, the executive branch acting pursuant to an express delegation). The court is effectively demanding that HHS craft a measure to accommodate all potential religious beliefs - even unforeseeable ones like a sincerely held objection to filling out forms. It’s not the judgement of the court. It’s the analysis demanded by the RFRA. The RFRA’s plain words require the government to accommodate all sincerely-held religious beliefs. It says nothing about whether they were “unforeseeable.” Does requiring Wheaton to fill out the form burden their exercise of religion? Is this the result of Wheaton’s sincere religious belief? Does the government requirement arise from a compelling government interest? And is this scheme the narrowest way to achieve that interest? That’s what the RFRA commands. It has nothing to do with elevating the court’s judgement over the executive. And of course, it’s absolutely wrong to summarize Wheaton’s objection as simply to “filling out forms.” They don’t object to filling out forms, except special forms that require them to deputize another party to sin on their behalf. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1223 "2014-07-15T19:47:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Atheism can’t come fast enough to America. When it does, I suppose Congress will happily repeal the RFRA, and these concerns will vanish. ---
**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 15, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1224 "2014-07-15T19:55:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When it does, I suppose Congress will happily repeal the RFRA, and these concerns will vanish. Insha’Allah. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1225 "2014-07-15T20:17:27Z")
One thing that I haven’t heard talked about… I thought it was a generally accepted principle that where two statutes conflict, the newer one is generally taken as binding. I would assume the thinking is that since the legislative body knew about the old one, but passed the new one anyway, it represents a de facto override. Am I mistaken in my understanding of the principle or does the principle not exist? If it does, why was it not applied here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1226 "2014-07-15T22:36:45Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > One thing that I haven’t heard talked about… > > I thought it was a generally accepted principle that where two statutes conflict, the newer one is generally taken as binding. I would assume the thinking is that since the legislative body knew about the old one, but passed the new one anyway, it represents a de facto override. > > Am I mistaken in my understanding of the principle or does the principle not exist? If it does, why was it not applied here? The two statutes do not conflict. One statute provides instructions in how to apply the other. The RFRA says, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…” And the ACA says, “Here is a new rule of general applicability.” Now, if the ACA had said, “Here is a new rule of general applicability, and the RFRA does not apply to it at all,” then you’d be correct – the newer would win. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1227 "2014-07-16T03:21:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The two statutes do not conflict. One statute provides instructions in how to apply the other. The RFRA says, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…” > > And the ACA says, “Here is a new rule of general applicability.” > > Now, if the ACA had said, “Here is a new rule of general applicability, and the RFRA does not apply to it at all,” then you’d be correct – the newer would win. Gotcha. Thanks for the info. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1228 "2014-07-16T17:24:42Z")
And this just in: Republicans forthrightly and courageously pass a Seinfeld Bill, about _nothing!_ > **[GOP Offers Birth Control Bill That Literally Does Nothing](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mcconnell-birth-control_n_5589080?1405455832=)** > > GOP Offers Birth Control Bill That Literally Does Nothing **GOP Offers Birth Control Bill That Literally Does Nothing** > [@](#): > > In response to a proposal by Senate Democrats to require for-profit employers to cover birth control in their health plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that Senate Republicans plan to offer their own bill requiring employers to allow women to buy their own birth control. > > “We plan to introduce legislation this week that says no employer can block any employee from legal access to her FDA-approved contraceptives,” McConnell told reporters. “There’s no disagreement on that fundamental point.”… Bold move, guys! Shirley, this will blunt any effect on women’s opinion about Republicans groveling and pandering to their tight-ass base! Just wait for those poll numbers to _soar_! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1229 "2014-07-16T18:14:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And this just in: Republicans forthrightly and courageously pass a Seinfeld Bill, about _nothing!_ > > [GOP Offers Birth Control Bill That Literally Does Nothing | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/mcconnell-birth-control_n_5589080.html?1405455832) > > **GOP Offers Birth Control Bill That Literally Does Nothing** But how can this be true, when the voices of the left have said that the Hobby Lobby decision blocks women’s access to birth control? This bill guarantees that any such effect is erased. And, as you correctly point out, it does nothing. Because there was no such effect to begin with. ---
**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 16, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1230 "2014-07-16T19:05:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Senate Republicans plan to offer their own bill requiring employers to allow women to buy their own birth control. Mighty white of them. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1231 "2014-07-16T19:10:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But how can this be true, when the voices of the left have said that the Hobby Lobby decision blocks women’s access to birth control? This bill guarantees that any such effect is erased. Apparently you forgot the part about _who pays_, in your haste to make a cheap partisan point. Or you thought the rest of us would. :rolleyes: ---
**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 16, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1232 "2014-07-16T19:10:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But how can this be true, when the voices of the left have said that the Hobby Lobby decision blocks women’s access to birth control? Do you hear these voices of the left saying other things, possibly about harming yourself or others? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1233 "2014-07-16T19:15:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Do you hear these voices of the left saying other things, possibly about harming yourself or others? Much of it is indistinct, but occasionally I’ll hear “Hillary / Warren 2016.” ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1234 "2014-07-16T20:21:50Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > 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. No, but your sperm’s life would be lost. that was supposed to be the sin of Onan he spilled his seed because he didn’t want his sister in-law to bear his child. ---
**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 16, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1235 "2014-07-16T20:56:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Much of it is indistinct, but occasionally I’ll hear “Hillary / Warren 2016.” Those are the Ghosts of Christmas Future. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1236 "2014-07-16T22:22:57Z")
That’s the spirit! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1237 "2014-07-16T22:23:12Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > No, but your sperm’s life would be lost. that was supposed to be the sin of Onan he spilled his seed because he didn’t want his sister in-law to bear his child. Right – but the sin of Onan was not “spilling his seed upon the ground,” but that he spilled his seed upon the ground to avoid providing his dead brother with an heir, as required by the law of _yibbum_, or levirate marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1238 "2014-07-16T22:24:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But how can this be true, when the voices of the left have said that the Hobby Lobby decision blocks women’s access to birth control? This bill guarantees that any such effect is erased. > > And, as you correctly point out, it does nothing. > > Because there was no such effect to begin with. What a dishonest, disingenuous person you are. Doesn’t it ever enter into the cloud of hate and sneering arrogance that forms your mind, that if you have to lie and be dishonest in your arguments, maybe you’re not actually right? I’m frankly amazed how utterly your parents failed to construct a moral creature in your rearing. Because you’re acting stupid, I’ll spell this out, as if to a stupid person: The Hobby Lobby decision keeps women from accessing birth control via their insurance. They can, of course, purchase it at the Piggly Wiggly for retail. Which makes it more expensive, which makes it less likely people will use it. Which is good for you, since you want women to get pregnant more, since you worship a misogynistic Babylonian Storm God with a tiny dick. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1239 "2014-07-16T22:39:28Z")
So anyway, King David was out doing his thing, slaying and smiting, hip and thigh, Amorites, Canaanites, the usual, when he was challenged by Uruk the Hittite. About eleventy seven feet tall, ate nails for breakfast, bad mofo! Also, had this huge fucking dick, mammoth. Anyway, King David made short work of him, what with having God on his side, and all. And we he saw Uruk’s equipment, he had one of the grunts cut it off and attach it to his banner as a trophy Then he led his troops back to Jerusalem, and as they got near, they came across a bunch of young women working the fields, planting kosher pickles. And the nearest looked up, turned pale and ran away screaming “Uruk the Hittite is dead! Uruk the Hittite is DEAD!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1240 "2014-07-16T23:00:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > What a dishonest, disingenuous person you are. > > Doesn’t it ever enter into the cloud of hate and sneering arrogance that forms your mind, that if you have to lie and be dishonest in your arguments, maybe you’re not actually right? > > I’m frankly amazed how utterly your parents failed to construct a moral creature in your rearing. > > Because you’re acting stupid, I’ll spell this out, as if to a stupid person: The Hobby Lobby decision keeps women from accessing birth control via their insurance. They can, of course, purchase it at the Piggly Wiggly for retail. Which makes it more expensive, which makes it less likely people will use it. > > Which is good for you, since you want women to get pregnant more, since you worship a misogynistic Babylonian Storm God with a tiny dick. The Hobby Lobby decision keeps the government from forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for the women who are employed by Hobby Lobby to access “via their insurance” four of twenty different varieties of contraception. And that’s a good thing, because Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to pay for it, and the government has no legal right to force them to do so. The qualifiers I mention above have been ignored, minimized, or outright omitted by liberal commentators on the decision. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=61) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=63)