# 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:** 7
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/121 "2013-02-22T19:30:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure. Not much, though. Perhaps more importantly, I am unable to identify any authority providing that corporations enjoy the right of religious freedom. This case doesn’t seem on point at all. I asked for some authority that distinguishes corporations with a profit motive from corporations without one, as related to issue of religious freedom. You offer up a case in which the appellants are natural persons, not corporations. In your case, the appellants allege that the Sunday prohibition against selling merchandise is violative of the Establishment Clause and the court disposes of this claim by means of the rational basis test: > [@](#): > > It would seem that a legislature could reasonably find that the Sunday sale of the exempted commodities was necessary either for the health of the populace or for the enhancement of the recreational atmosphere of the day – that a family which takes a Sunday ride into the country will need gasoline for the automobile, and may find pleasant a soft drink or fresh fruit; that those who go to the beach may wish ice cream or some other item normally sold there; that some people will prefer alcoholic beverages or games of chance to add to their relaxation; that newspapers and drug products should always be available to the public. Your quoted paragraph only notes the appellants’ religious belief is not relevant – as indeed, it cannot be. They were never alleging an infringement of their own religious belief, but rather an infringement of their economic activity by the state’s religious belief. The Court pointed out that Sunday sales restrictions could be justified quite easily by non-religious rationale. As for bring unable to identify any authority claiming that corporations have religious freedom – did you read the Seventh Circuit’s grant of an injunction in _Korte v. HHS_, 2012 WL 6757353 ? How about _Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Sebelius_, 2012 WL 5817323 ? Tyndale is a for-profit company, and the district court said: > [@](#): > > This Court, like others before it, declines to address the unresolved question of whether for-profit corporations can exercise religion within the meaning of the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause. However: > [@](#): > > At least one Circuit Court of Appeals has “held that a corporation has standing to assert the free exercise right of its owners.” Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1120 (citing EEOC v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 620 n.15 (9th Cir. 1988)) > . > . > . > Thus, as in Townley and Stormans, the beliefs of Tyndale and its owners are indistinguishable. Tyndale is a closely-held corporation owned by four entities united by their Christian faith, each of which plays a distinct role in achieving shared, religious objectives. Christian principles, prayer, and activities are pervasive at Tyndale, and the company’s ownership structure is designed to ensure that it never strays from its faith-oriented mission. Didn’t you find that relevant? ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/122 "2013-02-22T19:34:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s pretty much my point. No. It may have morphed into your point now, but to refresh your recollection, here is the line I questioned: > [@](#): > > This gets even more retarded. I didn’t even realize Hobby Lobby was incorporated. How can they possibly have any claim to religious freedom? One answer is: a corporation, even though it has no belief itself, may assert the belief of its owners and thus still have religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/123 "2013-02-22T19:45:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. It may have morphed into your point now, but to refresh your recollection, here is the line I questioned: > > One answer is: a corporation, even though it has no belief itself, may assert the belief of its owners and thus still have religious freedom. And how is it determined what exactly the religious beliefs are of a corporation with multiple owners _are_? Is it oficially the belief of the Chairman of the Board, the majority stockholder, or maybe a frankensteinian mashup/blending of all the stockholders? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/124 "2013-02-22T20:24:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And how is it determined what exactly the religious beliefs are of a corporation with multiple owners _are_? Is it oficially the belief of the Chairman of the Board, the majority stockholder, or maybe a frankensteinian mashup/blending of all the stockholders? Why, whatever religious belief that best serves the interest of the corporation at the time, of course! ---
**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, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/125 "2013-02-22T20:40:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As for bring unable to identify any authority claiming that corporations have religious freedom – did you read the Seventh Circuit’s grant of an injunction in _Korte v. HHS_, 2012 WL 6757353 ? > > How about _Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Sebelius_, 2012 WL 5817323 ? Tyndale is a for-profit company, and the district court said: > > Didn’t you find that relevant? I didn’t find either of those cases (partly because I limited my search only to reported cases). > [@Bricker](#): > > No. It may have morphed into your point now, but to refresh your recollection, here is the line I questioned: It didn’t “morph” into my point. That’s exactly what I was saying. The distinction between profit and nonprofit corporations is a bit of a morph. ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/126 "2013-02-22T20:42:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And how is it determined what exactly the religious beliefs are of a corporation with multiple owners _are_? Is it oficially the belief of the Chairman of the Board, the majority stockholder, or maybe a frankensteinian mashup/blending of all the stockholders? That’s a question of fact. In the case of Tyndale, the stock was completely owned by four entities which all had statements on the record in agreement with the goals presented. In the case of Hobby Lobby, they’re a 501(c)(3) that donate half their profits to various faith-based ministries. The stock is held completely by the founder and his three children, and is not publicly traded. This also presents an easy factual determination. For some other corporation, where the ownership issues were less clear cut, I would imagine the same methods would be in play to resolve any other issues of control. A Board of Directors would be elected by the stockholders, and that board would hire operating officers who would steer the company in accord with the wishes of the Board. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/127 "2013-02-22T20:46:01Z")
> [@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? > [@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. > [@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. > > But that’s not necessary in order to answer the question, “Do corporations have a First Amendment claim to religious freedom?” > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s pretty much my point. OK, so I’m confused. Do corporations have a claim to religious freedom? ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/128 "2013-02-22T21:02:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, so I’m confused. Do corporations have a claim to religious freedom? That’s my question, too. Anyone have an answer? But if _ **Bricker** _’s confused… uh, oh. What chance do we armchair jurists have? ---
**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, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/129 "2013-02-22T21:17:37Z")
> [@digs](#): > > That’s my question, too. Anyone have an answer? > > But if _ **Bricker** _’s confused… uh, oh. What chance do we armchair jurists have? I’m confused about **RNTAB** ’s position. On the underlying substantive question, it’s fair to say there’s no definitive Supreme Court ruling on it, but there’s case law on each side of the proposition. So it’s fair to call the question unsettled, but not to say there’s no authority in support of either proposition. ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/130 "2013-02-22T22:05:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, so I’m confused. Do corporations have a claim to religious freedom? People give up rights all time when they take certain actions related to government activities - permitting searches of property when at an airport for example or losing the right to bear arms when you commit a felony. When the government has a legitimate interest in requiring all employers to provide insurance, I see no reason why the government cannot require those that choose to employ others in a for-profit venture to give up any rights that the corporation may have with regard to complying with that law that when choosing to engage in that activity (which is voluntary). ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/131 "2013-02-22T22:20:31Z")
Shrug, I’ll vote with my wallet. They have tools and materials that I like, but I can prolly find them elsewhere. ---
**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, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/132 "2013-02-22T23:38:48Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > People give up rights all time when they take certain actions related to government activities - permitting searches of property when at an airport for example or losing the right to bear arms when you commit a felony. When the government has a legitimate interest in requiring all employers to provide insurance, I see no reason why the government cannot require those that choose to employ others in a for-profit venture to give up any rights that the corporation may have with regard to complying with that law that when choosing to engage in that activity (which is voluntary). Sure. That just means that a corporation’s right to religious freedom isn’t absolute – not that it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![kath94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/67e7ee/32.png) [@kath94](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kath94)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/133 "2013-02-23T00:06:07Z")
I endorse this pit. (but I’m not going to get into the legal mumbo-jumbo) A Hobby Lobby opened up a few months ago down the street from me. They even mailed coupons to the neighborhood inviting us to try them out and offering 30% off any single item. Cool. Hubby & I walked over to a local restaurant which is across the parking lot from Hobby Lobby and had breakfast. I took the coupon with me, thinking that we’d wander the store to check it out, and if I found something worth buying, I’d be prepared. The store was closed. WTF?!? :mad: There are signs all over saying “Hobby Lobby now open!” “Come on in!” “Grand opening”. Smaller signs in the grassy areas lining the parking lot and facing the main streets. We weren’t the only ones to be surprised. Several other people walked up and paused when the automatic doors didn’t open. And then we read the disclaimer about being closed on Sundays. All the way back home whenever I came across one of those “Hobby Lobby now open” signs stuck into the grass, I pulled it out and laid it flat on the grass. It’s a lie! A LIE! JoAnn’s is about a 1/2 mile north, and Michael’s is about a mile east. Plenty of alternatives, and not just on a Sunday. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/134 "2013-02-23T01:13:59Z")
So it’s not only their fault that you failed to pick up on the fact that they close on Sunday, but also they’re lying by having signs out saying that they’re now open for business when in point of fact they are closed during a time they aren’t open for business? Would you have ripped out their signs if you had driven by at midnight and saw they were closed then too? ---
**Author:** ![kath94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/67e7ee/32.png) [@kath94](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kath94)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/135 "2013-02-23T02:12:12Z")
Yes. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/136 "2013-02-23T07:37:45Z")
> [@kath94](#): > > I endorse this pit. (but I’m not going to get into the legal mumbo-jumbo) > > A Hobby Lobby opened up a few months ago down the street from me. They even mailed coupons to the neighborhood inviting us to try them out and offering 30% off any single item. Cool. > > Hubby & I walked over to a local restaurant which is across the parking lot from Hobby Lobby and had breakfast. I took the coupon with me, thinking that we’d wander the store to check it out, and if I found something worth buying, I’d be prepared. > > The store was closed. WTF?!? :mad: There are signs all over saying “Hobby Lobby now open!” “Come on in!” “Grand opening”. Smaller signs in the grassy areas lining the parking lot and facing the main streets. We weren’t the only ones to be surprised. Several other people walked up and paused when the automatic doors didn’t open. And then we read the disclaimer about being closed on Sundays. > > All the way back home whenever I came across one of those “Hobby Lobby now open” signs stuck into the grass, I pulled it out and laid it flat on the grass. It’s a lie! A LIE! > > JoAnn’s is about a 1/2 mile north, and Michael’s is about a mile east. Plenty of alternatives, and not just on a Sunday. 🙂 A Christian and “moral” company playing the mumbojumbo game? In press and with coupons?? This is not surprising. They’re following the example of their storybook: be vague. I hope you found some good frames and pottery at Michael’s. ---
**Author:** ![Beastly\_Rotter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@Beastly\_Rotter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beastly_Rotter)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/137 "2013-02-23T07:50:50Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Not as much as I hate cutesy rhymes. You’ll be fucked come payday. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/138 "2013-02-23T13:16:14Z")
> [@Beastly\_Rotter](#): > > You’ll be fucked come payday. I get fucked every payday! ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/139 "2013-02-23T23:56:19Z")
Can a for profit corporation church discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/140 "2013-02-24T00:19:44Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Can a for profit corporation church discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion? Depends on the job in question. In my opinion, yes, if the job is pastor; no, if the job is handyman. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=8)