# 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:** 63
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1241 "2014-07-16T23:28:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. So it doesn’t do nothing, like you said above. It does something, right? You’re an angry dipshit, but you’re consistent. And I guess that’s something. > [@](#): > > 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. According to 5/9ths of the SCOTUS, and I agree they’re final. But those men, addled by the same angry cult that you’re a member of, decided it. Let’s not pretend that it’s an obvious or clear as day decision. It’s a split. > [@](#): > > The qualifiers I mention above have been ignored, minimized, or outright omitted by liberal commentators on the decision. So, only a few birth control items, and they can buy them at the Piggly Wiggly. I think most people know that. However, once some cunt Catholic decides that all birth control… well that’s okay too. Because the right of some cunt Catholic to decide that their delusional devotion to a misogynistic Babylonian Storm God is such that an employee taking something they provide as compensation and using it in a way they don’t like is somehow, perhaps by transubstantiation, a burden on their faith, well Jumpin’ Jesus on the Cross, this must be dealt with!!1 Your side won because the five Catholic men on the SCOTUS think, like you do, that it isn’t a woman’s business how she reproduces. Well praise be to Jeesus and pass the plate! ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1242 "2014-07-17T00:55:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Atheism can’t come fast enough to America. Amen, brother. Amen. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1243 "2014-07-17T01:18:01Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your side won because the five Catholic men on the SCOTUS think, like you do, that it isn’t a woman’s business how she reproduces. And to get to that result, they had to carve out exceptions and invent new definitions that went against the clear intent of the law, but that’s all right too because those things were only “modest” and didn’t count as a precedent, at least until the very next day. ---
**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 17, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1244 "2014-07-17T02:10:48Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So it doesn’t do nothing, like you said above. It does something, right? > > You’re an angry dipshit, but you’re consistent. And I guess that’s something. > > According to 5/9ths of the SCOTUS, and I agree they’re final. But those men, addled by the same angry cult that you’re a member of, decided it. Let’s not pretend that it’s an obvious or clear as day decision. It’s a split. > > So, only a few birth control items, and they can buy them at the Piggly Wiggly. I think most people know that. > > However, once some cunt Catholic decides that all birth control… well that’s okay too. Because the right of some cunt Catholic to decide that their delusional devotion to a misogynistic Babylonian Storm God is such that an employee taking something they provide as compensation and using it in a way they don’t like is somehow, perhaps by transubstantiation, a burden on their faith, well Jumpin’ Jesus on the Cross, this must be dealt with!!1 > > Your side won because the five Catholic men on the SCOTUS think, like you do, that it isn’t a woman’s business how she reproduces. Well praise be to Jeesus and pass the plate! Note to self: Making employers pay for Health Insurance is fraught with problems. Find a better way. Because there is no intrinsic reason that employers should pay for Health Insurance. You might was well require that they pay for food and then require that 16 different vegetables are paid for in addition to cold water fish, organic chicken and no beef. ---
**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 17, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1245 "2014-07-17T02:22:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Note to self: Making employers pay for Health Insurance is fraught with problems. Find a better way. Because there is no intrinsic reason that employers should pay for Health Insurance. You might was well require that they pay for food and then require that 16 different vegetables are paid for in addition to cold water fish, organic chicken and no beef. Of course it’s stupid for employers to pay for health care. The trouble, is that because of the standing filibuster by the GOP, exactly sixty votes were needed in the senate. Which means no such huge change to our system is possible, because you had to placate the very most conservative of the Democrats to get anything passed. So, what I’m trying to say, is you’re right, but you might as well be bitching about a drought. In the real world we live in the ACA is what was possible and it only got past the line by an onion skin. So go ahead, bitch about the drought. It isn’t gonna help, but yeah, sure is dry. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1246 "2014-07-17T03:06:33Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So it doesn’t do nothing, like you said above. It does something, right? Learn to read. Or, in the alternative, use quote tags to quote me, and show where I said that it does nothing. > [@](#): > > According to 5/9ths of the SCOTUS, and I agree they’re final. Great. Shut the fuck up. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1247 "2014-07-17T03:26:16Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > **Bricker** , I get it. Let’s see- courts as a Super-Congress? Violates the concept of checks and balances on the face of it, but OTOH it is the role of the Court to _interpret_ the law, and this was a 5-4 decision that could easily have gone the other way if not for certain shenanigans in Dade county way back when. Since again, on the face of it, we know it when we see it. > > But more to the big picture, grok this: I don’t really mind Hobby Lobby getting their exemption from the ACA due to their sincere religious objection (as long as the entire culture doesn’t go bananas with this precedent). I can see the religious freedom/infringement argument. Earlier you said this: > > I get it, **Bricker**. Say a devout Christian owns a hammer, mostly because shingles keep getting broken off his roof. If somehow the government has a law that says hammer owners have to use their hammers to pound nails through the limbs of convicted criminals to execute them, I think it would be un-American to force the devout, objecting Christian to use his hammer in this stark contradiction of his religious convictions. > > Now, the hammer is a multi-billion dollar, colossal corporation with thousands of employees. Same thing. Only the owners have any legal presence (plus, of course, the legal ‘person’ of Hobby Lobby), the employees are all tools. > > Anyway, I really don’t mind Hobby Lobby getting their religious exemption. My real problem turns out to be the conferring of personhood onto corporations. What is my precise issue with that? I dunno, maybe you can help me see how, pedantically speaking, the whole notion is utter nonsense. But I suspect we’re experiencing a decline into plutocratic aristocracy, which is also distinctly un-American. > > And speaking of sloppy liberal thinking, have you seen the latest [Tom Tomorrow](http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/tmw2014-07-09colorlarge.jpg)? Don’t get me wrong, I love this stuff, but am I the only one who senses some demagoguery in this one? It’s simple. Whenever the court rules in favor of white right wing conservative male rich people, and against anyone else - including the employees (along party lines of course), then the court is acting correctly. Whenever it goes the other way, it’s those no good liberal activist judges. Or to look at it another way, money has more and better religion than “not money”. Disgusting. Freedom of religion my ass. ---
**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 17, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1248 "2014-07-17T03:34:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Learn to read. > > Or, in the alternative, use quote tags to quote me, and show where I said that it does nothing. Sure thing, liar: > [@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. _There is no such effect_, is, what I believe the lying pig said. In that, the lying pig was referring to _Hobby Lobby blocking women’s access to birth control_. The lying pig further says, that the bill does nothing, because there is no effect to a woman’s access to birth control. So, lying pig, does it have an effect, or does it not? Oink? > [@](#): > > Great. Shut the fuck up. Why, does losing this hard hurt your bitch ass? Maybe you should pray. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1249 "2014-07-17T03:50:26Z")
I just love how corporations are now the guardians of “our” immortal souls and are “religious” all of a sudden, BUT whenever talk turns to taxes (not paid) or obscene CEO bonuses, or benefits/retirement funds raided, or jobs are “outsourced” to some foreign shit hole, or land/people get poisoned to save a few pennies, all of a sudden THEN the sole purpose of the same damn company is to make money for its stockholders. Double standard bullshit. ---
**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 17, 2014, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1250 "2014-07-17T04:02:06Z")
Just out of curiosity, how much did Hobby Lobby spend on legal fees and was it more than the insurance they didn’t want to pay for out of principle? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1251 "2014-07-17T12:55:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Insurance is part of one’s wages so one can use any money spent at Hobby Lobby and use it to supply woman with Contraception that way the women would be compensated. They are in a way forcing women who don’t share their beliefs to have children they don’t want, can’t care for and add to the welfare roles… ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1252 "2014-07-17T14:05:55Z")
> [@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. Hahahaha. Did Onan file suit against HHS or ACA? Did Onan file a friend of court brief in the Hobby Lobby case? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1253 "2014-07-17T14:06:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Sure thing, liar: > > _There is no such effect_, is, what I believe the lying pig said. In that, the lying pig was referring to _Hobby Lobby blocking women’s access to birth control_. The lying pig further says, that the bill does nothing, because there is no effect to a woman’s access to birth control. > > So, lying pig, does it have an effect, or does it not? Oink? Yes, it has an effect. But NOT the effect of “blocking women’s access to birth control.” ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1254 "2014-07-17T14:09:25Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > …They are in a way forcing women who don’t share their beliefs to have children they don’t want, can’t care for and add to the welfare roles… (post shortened) Horseshit. In a way, you can still pay for your own contraception. No one is preventing you from obtaining your own contraception. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1255 "2014-07-17T14:09:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Just out of curiosity, how much did Hobby Lobby spend on legal fees and was it more than the insurance they didn’t want to pay for out of principle? I have no idea, but if I were to hazard a guess, it was more money spent on legal fees than the insurance coverage would have cost. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1256 "2014-07-17T14:11:47Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I just love how corporations are now the guardians of “our” immortal souls and are “religious” all of a sudden, BUT whenever talk turns to taxes (not paid) or obscene CEO bonuses, or benefits/retirement funds raided, or jobs are “outsourced” to some foreign shit hole, or land/people get poisoned to save a few pennies, all of a sudden THEN the sole purpose of the same damn company is to make money for its stockholders. > > Double standard bullshit. Who preventing you from paying for your own contraceptives? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1257 "2014-07-17T14:18:27Z")
Which brings up another question: did Hobby Lobby pay its own legal bills in their entirety, or did they get some assistance from well-funded persons who share their questions and concerns about the moral integrity of the ACA? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1258 "2014-07-17T14:27:24Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Insurance is part of one’s wages… Wrong. Insurance is a benefit. It’s not “part of one’s wages.” It’s an additional benefit provided to induce people to work for the company. Free coffee in the employee breakroom is not part of one’s wages. Neither is the shuttle bus from the nearest subway station to the workplace. Women employees, and employees in general, do not have any right to demand that their employers buy them insurance. Now, it’s true that the government recently passed a law that says IF you buy your employees insurance, then you must include certain things in that insurance. But they also passed another law, one that adds, “…unless doing so would burden your exercise of religion.” So you can’t claim Hobby Lobby is not complying with the law. They are. You can’t claim Hobby Lobby somehow owes their employees insurance coverage for contraception. They don’t. Technically, the law requires them to provide insurance coverage for sixteen of the twenty different contraceptives, because providing coverage for those sixteen does not burden their exercise of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1259 "2014-07-17T14:30:35Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Which brings up another question: did Hobby Lobby pay its own legal bills in their entirety, or did they get some assistance from well-funded persons who share their questions and concerns about the moral integrity of the ACA? Hobby Lobby is not bereft of cash. They are the “well-funded person.” I believe they paid their own way, as well as contributing to the Beckett Fund, which in turn helped finance other HHS/ACA cases, like Little Sisters of the Poor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1260 "2014-07-17T14:43:55Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I just love how corporations are now the guardians of “our” immortal souls and are “religious” all of a sudden, BUT whenever talk turns to taxes (not paid) or obscene CEO bonuses, or benefits/retirement funds raided, or jobs are “outsourced” to some foreign shit hole, or land/people get poisoned to save a few pennies, all of a sudden THEN the sole purpose of the same damn company is to make money for its stockholders. > > Double standard bullshit. Double strawman. First strawman: The decision in question simply says that corporations have a legal right to religious exercise, and that means simply that the corporation’s exercise of religion is protected in order to protect the religious exercise rights of its officers, directors, and shareholders. So your characterization of the opposing side as arguing that corporations are guardians of your soul is a blatant strawman. Second strawman: the argument is not that the “sole” purpose of a corporation is to make money. Certainly a purpose of a corporation is to make money. But corporations have other purposes as well. And one such purpose s to exercise the religious rights of its officers, directors, and shareholders. The owners of a Christian bookstore certainly want to make money. But that’s not their sole purpose. If it were, they’d make more money selling other things. They want to make some money, and support their view of Christianity. The owners of a kosher supermarket certainly want to make money. But that’s not their sole purpose. If it were, they’d make more money by ceasing costly rabbinical supervision of slaughter and stocking non-kosher items. They want to make some money, and provide a place for the Jewish community to get food that observes the commandments of their faith. So your characterization of the opposing side as arguing that corporations’ sole goal is to make money is a blatant strawman, too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=62) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=64)