# 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:** 74
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1461 "2014-07-21T01:16:17Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Because the status quo at the time was that no one had extended religious exercise protections to for-profit corporations. The fact none of the corporations in the past 200 years had tried also indicates that was the status quo. And, as Ginsberg points out, had Congress intended to change the status quo in such a drastic way (to do something that had never been done before), someone tends to mention it. Why then did not a single person mention it? Why during the debates, during the speeches, during the enactment, did not a single person say “hey, this applies to for-profit corporations for the first time ever”. > > “Had Congress intended RFRA to initiate a change so huge, a clarion statement to that effect likely would have been made in the legislation. See Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 468 (2001) (Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes”). The text of RFRA makes no such statement and the legislative history does not so much as mention for profit corporations.” Yet it’s inconceivable to think Congress didn’t intend to extend protections to the tiny Christian bookstore or the tiny Jewish deli that are nonetheless organized as for-profit corporations. They would have emphatically said that they were passing this law just so the owner of that Jewish deli would have recourse against his exercise of religion being burdened. You agree that the RFRA reaches non-profit corporations. So what you’re asking is that the word “persons” as used in the RFRA be construed to mean natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations, even though that distinction isn’t written anywhere, and even though Congress would certainly have agreed that their broad, sweeping law, which includes the command that the law be construed as “…a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution,” must protect poor Avi Cohen’s tiny corner kosher deli. You think Congress meant to exclude poor Avi Cohen’s deli simply because Avi organized it as a for-profit corporation? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1462 "2014-07-21T01:27:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You agree that the RFRA reaches non-profit corporations. Some _religious_ non-profit corporations, yes. Because, as Ginsburg points out: " The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations. See 42 U. S. C. §§2000e(b), 2000e–1(a), 2000e–2(a); cf. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 80–81 (1977) (Title VII requires reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious exercise, but such accommodation must not come “at the expense of other[employees]”). The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight. > [@Bricker](#): > > So what you’re asking is that the word “persons” as used in the RFRA be construed to mean natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations, even though that distinction isn’t written anywhere, And Alito would take the word “persons” as used in the RFRA to be construed to mean natural persons, religious corporations, and closely held for-profit corporations, but not to larger, or perhaps publicly traded corporations, even though that distinction isn’t written anywhere. Yet I don’t see you using the same language to attack Alito. Funny how that happens. As I’ve already said: “You don’t get to bitch about people drawing a line between for-profit corporations and religious organizations when you’re drawing a line between closely held and not closely held corporations. Both sides are drawing lines. The one drawn between for-profits and non-profits is the much better, more reasoned, and more in line with the clearly stated intent of RFRA.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1463 "2014-07-21T03:16:36Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And Alito would take the word “persons” as used in the RFRA to be construed to mean natural persons, religious corporations, and closely held for-profit corporations, but not to larger, or perhaps publicly traded corporations, even though that distinction isn’t written anywhere. > > Yet I don’t see you using the same language to attack Alito. Funny how that happens. Because he explains that what stops larger, publicly traded corporations from is the intrinsic difficulty of unanimity of religious direction from a large, publicly traded company. He does not claim the law magically contains his limitation; he points out that the very structure of a publicly-traded company prevents it from happening. > [@](#): > > As I’ve already said: “You don’t get to bitch about people drawing a line between for-profit corporations and religious organizations when you’re drawing a line between closely held and not closely held corporations. Both sides are drawing lines. The one drawn between for-profits and non-profits is the much better, more reasoned, and more in line with the clearly stated intent of RFRA.” Nah. Not true. And what about Avi Cohen Deli, Inc? No answer for Avi? ---
**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 21, 2014, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1464 "2014-07-21T03:31:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because he explains that what stops larger, publicly traded corporations from is the intrinsic difficulty of unanimity of religious direction from a large, publicly traded company. What, the shareholders couldn’t _vote_ on it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1465 "2014-07-21T03:37:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What, the shareholders couldn’t _vote_ on it? That simply won’t happen. ---
**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 21, 2014, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1466 "2014-07-21T03:46:16Z")
Why not? The board proposes an issue to establish and clarify the corporation’s religious views and puts it to the shareholders. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1467 "2014-07-21T03:49:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Why not? The board proposes an issue to establish and clarify the corporation’s religious views and puts it to the shareholders. Because publicly-traded large corporations won’t have any unanimity of religious purpose. The board won’t propose any such issue; the shareholders won’t vote in favor of it. I’m certain. ---
**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 21, 2014, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1468 "2014-07-21T03:52:08Z")
Is unanimity required? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1469 "2014-07-21T04:20:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is unanimity required? Irrelevant, it won’t happen. ---
**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 21, 2014, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1470 "2014-07-21T04:48:09Z")
Then we’re back to “why not?” and if you can’t or won’t answer, I throw the question out to the general readership. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1471 "2014-07-21T04:57:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Then we’re back to “why not?” and if you can’t or won’t answer, I throw the question out to the general readership. I am psychic and can see the future. That’s how I won the earlier bet. Kind of cheating, if you really think about it. ---
**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 21, 2014, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1472 "2014-07-21T05:15:21Z")
I don’t know or care about your betting history unless it involves me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1473 "2014-07-21T06:49:44Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The one drawn between for-profits and non-profits is the much better, more reasoned, and more in line with the clearly stated intent of RFRA." Only if you don’t think religious people should be allowed to run businesses in accordance with their faith. I guess religious folks should be limited to just being worker bees for non-religious(the only kind allowed) corporations? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1474 "2014-07-21T08:50:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because publicly-traded large corporations won’t have any unanimity of religious purpose. The board won’t propose any such issue; the shareholders won’t vote in favor of it. I’m certain. As a practical matter, it won’t happen, but it could. Our shareholders vote (or get the opportunity to) on all kinds of things. Technically, I think the most logical conclusion would be that all corporations get RFRA protection, including non-closely held corporations in the extremely unlikely event that they demonstrate such a unanimity of religious purpose. But I agree that’s pretty academic. Even if the typical board permitted such a vote, there would be about a 2% response or some other small number. If Alito was inconsistent, it was in choosing “this can’t possibly occur” over “it is tremendously unlikely to occur” regarding unanimity of purpose for non-closely held corporations, if that’s what he did. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1475 "2014-07-21T09:29:42Z")
Seems to me that the ownership of a corporation tells us more in regards to how religious freedom protections apply than whether the corporation exists to make a profit or not. Last I checked, there are no religions that forbid making money, so religious people will naturally seek to make money in ways consistent with their religious beliefs. When the government bars religious people from doing so, they leave them with the choice to either violate their religion or take a vow of poverty. I’d say that’s a pretty substantial burden. ---
**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 21, 2014, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1476 "2014-07-21T13:27:12Z")
I’ve searched [this](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354#writing-13-354_OPINION_3) and I can’t find a reference to “unanimity”, let alone a requirement for it. Is it described elsewhere or under a different name? I see this: > [@](#): > > In these cases, the owners of three closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that… …and while I can see this vaguely implying unanimity, is it actually a requirement? Could four of the owners be claiming sincere belief while the fifth is silent? For that matter, were all the owners of Hobby Lobby called to testify before SCOTUS and if so, will this be the norm for all future corporate religious claims? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1477 "2014-07-21T13:31:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > For that matter, were all the owners of Hobby Lobby called to testify before SCOTUS and if so, will this be the norm for all future corporate religious claims? Questions of fact are resolved by testimony at the trial court. People don’t testify before courts of appeal. The only time anyone would testify before the Supreme Court would be in a case involving the Court’s original jurisdiction. (Even then, it doesn’t happen, for reasons I will explain if anyone actually cares). But for any disputed question of fact, the way it gets resolved with via evidence at the trial court, which certainly would include testimony from owners of a company that was claiming a burden on their religious exercise. ---
**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 21, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1478 "2014-07-21T13:36:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Questions of fact are resolved by testimony at the trial court. People don’t testify before courts of appeal. Well, SCOTUS must have _somehow_ gotten the idea that unanimity existed, or _you_ have on SCOTUS’s behalf. At what point (if any) did unanimity become a requirement? ---
**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:** [July 21, 2014, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1479 "2014-07-21T13:38:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Only if you don’t think religious people should be allowed to run businesses in accordance with their faith. I guess religious folks should be limited to just being worker bees for non-religious(the only kind allowed) corporations? > [@adaher](#): > > Seems to me that the ownership of a corporation tells us more in regards to how religious freedom protections apply than whether the corporation exists to make a profit or not. Last I checked, there are no religions that forbid making money, so religious people will naturally seek to make money in ways consistent with their religious beliefs. When the government bars religious people from doing so, they leave them with the choice to either violate their religion or take a vow of poverty. I’d say that’s a pretty substantial burden. The government is not attempting to bar religious people from making money. Even if Hobby Lobby had lost religious people would be free to continue making money however they saw fit. They just wouldn’t be able to do so using the corporate form. ---
**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 21, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1480 "2014-07-21T13:42:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > They just wouldn’t be able to do so using the corporate form. Well, they wouldn’t be able to use a corporate form different from non-religious people using the corporate form, i.e. a form partly immune to laws about corporate behaviour. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=73) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=75)