# 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:** 70
**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 19, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1381 "2014-07-19T03:32:47Z")
So… lynching today at noon? ---
**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 19, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1382 "2014-07-19T03:34:44Z")
For what it’s worth, I respect the original purpose of the RFRA and as far as I’m concerned the Hobby Lobby owners can chug all the peyote they want. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1383 "2014-07-19T03:41:22Z")
The spectacle of a bunch of fundamentalist Baptists tripping balls? Not ready. Not going to get ready. Besides, they’d never get past the first bite, that shit tastes like Satan’s sack. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1384 "2014-07-19T03:50:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > For what it’s worth, I respect the original purpose of the RFRA and as far as I’m concerned the Hobby Lobby owners can chug all the peyote they want. THat’s just the thing with laws, they tend to encompass a wide variety of situations when written as broadly as RFRA is. Since Congress is made up mostly of lawyers, it should be assumed that they knew what they were passing. If Congress had only wanted to protect a very narrow range of religious practices, and further, limited that those protections to individuals, they could have done that quite easily. Regardless of their intent, they wrote the protections broadly. ---
**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 19, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1385 "2014-07-19T04:11:45Z")
Okay, the Forest Service can’t build any roads through Hobby Lobby’s sacred lands, either. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1386 "2014-07-19T07:19:07Z")
How about if they are sincere Druids? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1387 "2014-07-19T09:19:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because someone whose opinion of religious practice includes, “I mean they think crackers turn into meat, via magic. Those nutjobs shouldn’t be allowed to drive cars on public roads, much less tell women how to handle their reproductive lives,” is not a person who understands how to apply a law that says, “This law shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted.” They don’t even _understand_ how to apply it? Why not? ---
**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 19, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1388 "2014-07-19T13:36:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The question of sincerity is a question of fact, for the courts to decide. I’m curious as to how you feel about the revelation that HL actually offered an ACA-compliant plan for years and (seemingly) switched solely for the purpose of triggering this case. Now, while I don’t agree with the decision, I accept that it has been made. So, my specific question is: Given the seemingly contradictory behavior of HL, would you be okay with keeping the decision (thus allowing other companies to use it), but denying HL itself the right to abrogate ACA since there are legitimate doubts about their sincerity? ---
**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 19, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1389 "2014-07-19T13:37:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Surely I do understand it. I respect your right to exult in delusion every week. I don’t respect your right to force others to act in accordance with your delusions. Who is being forced to act in a certain way here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1390 "2014-07-19T13:57:23Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > They don’t even _understand_ how to apply it? Why not? I’m not sure what’s blocking his understanding, actually. I’ve asked, but he seems hostile to the question. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1391 "2014-07-19T14:25:53Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > I’m curious as to how you feel about the revelation that HL actually offered an ACA-compliant plan for years and (seemingly) switched solely for the purpose of triggering this case. No such revelation has been made. For years, Hobby Lobby provided 18 of the 20 contraceptives that the ACA required. They never offered an ACA-compliant plan, either before or after the ACA existed. After reviewing their offerings, they learned to their surprise that their plan included two treatments that they objected to. They removed those. > [@](#): > > Given the seemingly contradictory behavior of HL, would you be okay with keeping the decision (thus allowing other companies to use it), but denying HL itself the right to abrogate ACA since there are legitimate doubts about their sincerity? No. At best, I would have allowed some inquiry into the sincerity of their objection to the ella and Plan B. They always objected to the IUD-based ones. But that “inquiry” would be to evaluate their testimony that they didn’t know that Ella and Plan B was on their plan in the first place. And even that inquiry was conceded by the government at trial. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1392 "2014-07-19T15:37:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not sure what’s blocking his understanding, actually. I’ve asked, but he seems hostile to the question. But as a general point, you’re content to say that even without knowing the reason behind his lack of understanding, that his views on religion are what they are means he (or anyone else who shares those views) is _incapable_ of understanding? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1393 "2014-07-19T15:55:53Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But as a general point, you’re content to say that even without knowing the reason behind his lack of understanding, that his views on religion are what they are means he (or anyone else who shares those views) is _incapable_ of understanding? No, no, not at all. I mean that he, specifically, Lobohan, lacks the capacity to understand. I can easily imagine someone who views religion as complete bunk nonetheless able to read and apply the requisite standards to a particular set of facts. I don’t think the Harry Potter magical universe is real, but I can certainly explain why people cannot Apparate into Hogwarts. I can, in other words, apply the rules as laid out in the story to a given set of facts, even if I believe the rules describe something imaginary, and even if I believe they constitute something foolish to believe in. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1394 "2014-07-19T16:08:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, no, not at all. I mean that he, specifically, Lobohan, lacks the capacity to understand. I can easily imagine someone who views religion as complete bunk nonetheless able to read and apply the requisite standards to a particular set of facts. I don’t think the Harry Potter magical universe is real, but I can certainly explain why people cannot Apparate into Hogwarts. I can, in other words, apply the rules as laid out in the story to a given set of facts, even if I believe the rules describe something imaginary, and even if I believe they constitute something foolish to believe in. I don’t think that’s consistent with your prior posts; [QUOTE=Bricker] I mean, I understand you personally believe the claim to be absurd – but since you also believe religion in general to be absurd, perhaps you’re not the best person to turn to for judgement on a claim of a burden on religious exercise. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bricker] Because someone whose opinion of religious practice includes, “I mean they think crackers turn into meat, via magic. Those nutjobs shouldn’t be allowed to drive cars on public roads, much less tell women how to handle their reproductive lives,” is not a person who understands how to apply a law that says, “This law shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted.” [/QUOTE] In both cases, you did not declare that it was **Lobohan** , specifically, who lacks that capacity. Your first post pointed out that you believed\*\* Lobohan\*\* would not be the best person to turn to - not because of him being himself, but because of the particular views that he held. “You believe this is absurd - and it is your belief that religion in general that is absurd that might render you an inferior judge in this matter.” As opposed to your point now, which appears to be that in fact holding such views doesn’t necessarily mean anything at all. Your second post is even clearer a contradiction of your latest argument. I don’t know if you’re directly quoting **Lobohan** in your post, but regardless, again you make it not about _him_ but about his (or any person’s) _view_, and how it is those _views_ which make someone incapable of understanding how to apply a particular religion protection law. I was going to to use much the same argument you use here (maybe not Harry Potter. Probably Pokemon, since I seem to recall you’re familiar enough with that :)). ---
**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 19, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1395 "2014-07-19T16:12:06Z")
Is it so hard to understand that someone who thinks religious people shouldn’t be allowed to drive on public roads doesn’t know how to interpret a law whose purpose is to protect religious freedom? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1396 "2014-07-19T16:20:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Is it so hard to understand that someone who thinks religious people shouldn’t be allowed to drive on public roads doesn’t know how to interpret a law whose purpose is to protect religious freedom? I don’t believe it’s impossible. I’m not saying that such a person could not exist. I’m saying that you can’t assume the latter based on the former. I’ll start this point off by saying that I in no way think the groups I’m going to be analogising are in any way similar to that of religious persons aside from the protection of exercise from the law. I mean no offense. But how about this; I don’t believe that serial killers should be allowed to drive on public roads. Am I incapable therefore of interpreting a law whose purpose is to ensure a fair trial? I don’t believe that drunk persons should be allowed to drive on public roads. Am I incapable therefore of interpreting a law whose purpose is preventing prohibition? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1397 "2014-07-19T16:26:15Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I don’t think that’s consistent with your prior posts; > > In both cases, you did not declare that it was **Lobohan** , specifically, who lacks that capacity. Your first post pointed out that you believed\*\* Lobohan\*\* would not be the best person to turn to - not because of him being himself, but because of the particular views that he held. “You believe this is absurd - and it is your belief that religion in general that is absurd that might render you an inferior judge in this matter.” I was intending the pronoun to be understood in its definite sense, not its indefinite sense: “You believe this is absurd – and it is your belief that religion in general that is absurd that might render YOU an inferior judge in this matter.” I am suggesting that it’s his belief that hobbles him – not that the same belief would hobble anyone. > [@](#): > > I don’t know if you’re directly quoting **Lobohan** in your post, but regardless, again you make it not about _him_ but about his (or any person’s) _view_, and how it is those _views_ which make someone incapable of understanding how to apply a particular religion protection law. > > I was going to to use much the same argument you use here (maybe not Harry Potter. Probably Pokemon, since I seem to recall you’re familiar enough with that :)). I am quoting him directly: > [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t necessarily dislike Catholics. Unless they try to push their delusional world-view on others. > > I mean they think crackers turn into meat, via magic. Those nutjobs shouldn’t be allowed to drive cars on public roads, much less tell women how to handle their reproductive lives. His views make HIM incapable. They don’t have that effect on everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1398 "2014-07-19T16:32:06Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I don’t believe it’s impossible. I’m not saying that such a person could not exist. I’m saying that you can’t assume the latter based on the former. > > I’ll start this point off by saying that I in no way think the groups I’m going to be analogising are in any way similar to that of religious persons aside from the protection of exercise from the law. I mean no offense. But how about this; I don’t believe that serial killers should be allowed to drive on public roads. Am I incapable therefore of interpreting a law whose purpose is to ensure a fair trial? I don’t believe that drunk persons should be allowed to drive on public roads. Am I incapable therefore of interpreting a law whose purpose is preventing prohibition? On the contrary, I assume you’d be very capable of reading, understanding, and applying such a law. It’s just that Lobohan isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1399 "2014-07-19T16:40:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > His views make HIM incapable. They don’t have that effect on everyone. How does saying it’s his views that make **Lobohan** incapable of understanding jive with your other claim that you don’t know what it is that’s blocking his understanding? > [@](#): > > On the contrary, I assume you’d be very capable of reading, understanding, and applying such a law. It’s just that Lobohan isn’t. Let’s not go that far! Suffice it to say those opinions wouldn’t be an impediment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1400 "2014-07-19T16:47:37Z")
I’m not sure what’s blocking his understanding in the sense that I’m not sure why his understanding is blocked by his belief when others do not suffer the same fate. What, in other words, is Lobohan’s barrier to understanding the operation of the law in spite of his beliefs? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=69) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=71)