# 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:** 77
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1521 "2014-07-21T19:32:41Z")
Well, I’m unblocked to the point of asking where “unanimity of purpose” came from, as a phrase and as a concept, with the goal of exploring its limits and requirements, if any, because your implication is that it’s an element in deciding if a corporation can exercise certain religious rights. ---
**Author:** ![hkepotat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hkepotat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hkepotat)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1522 "2014-07-21T19:37:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And why do you guys keep saying. “I don’t see any reason…” > > IT’S NOT YOU THAT HAS TO SEE THE REASON. The people asking about reasonableness are asking how far it can go. Where does reason kick in again when it comes to religion interacting with the secular world? I think most posters get that they do not need to follow a religion to respect and accommodate it’s views and practices. The question is, is how much accommodation is reasonable. And on that question, it is quite important for someone to see the reason, and even to debate what is in fact reasonable. It was thought that the reasonable threshold was for obviously religious institutions, like a diocese or halal market, and that a craft store would be an unreasonable stretch to the RFRA. This threshold has been well overrun by these decisions, so it is in fact, quite reasonable to question now how far reason needs to be stretched to accommodate the religious views of even publicly traded companies. What is reasonable? Can employers have a religious test for employees based on arbitrary criteria. Could I require all of my employees to participate in worship services as a condition of employment, if I sincerely believe that I will go to hell for employing pagans or heretics? Could I use a loophole, in adding to the job requirements a religious provision, say that every employee must rotate in leading a prayer each morning, as otherwise, my sincerely held religious convictions would be compromised? If it is left up to the employer to determine what is reasonable treatment and retention for their employees, it seems we will see many employers taking advantage of essentially being able to rewrite the labor laws how they see fit. So, I ask again (and as an employer in a very closely held corporation, this is more than an entirely academic question), who gets to decide what is reasonable, if it is definitely not the members of secular society who are impacted? ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1523 "2014-07-21T19:37:31Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I’m unblocked to the point of asking where “unanimity of purpose” came from, as a phrase and as a concept, with the goal of exploring its limits and requirements, if any, because your implication is that it’s an element in deciding if a corporation can exercise certain religious rights. No one understands “You don’t get to judge the validity of someone else’s religious belief?” and no one seems to care about what that means. But for some reason the phrase “unanimity of purpose” has inspired you to investigate, leave no stone unturned, until you have wrung every micron of understanding from its letters that might exist? Listen: it’s not a term of art. It’s a phrase I used to mean: the corporation has to decide to act in uniformity with a given religious practice. That’s all it means. ---
**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1524 "2014-07-21T19:43:06Z")
> [@hkepotat](#): > > The people asking about reasonableness are asking how far it can go. Where does reason kick in again when it comes to religion interacting with the secular world? > > I think most posters get that they do not need to follow a religion to respect and accommodate it’s views and practices. The question is, is how much accommodation is reasonable. And on that question, it is quite important for someone to see the reason, and even to debate what is in fact reasonable. > > It was thought that the reasonable threshold was for obviously religious institutions, like a diocese or halal market, and that a craft store would be an unreasonable stretch to the RFRA. This threshold has been well overrun by these decisions, so it is in fact, quite reasonable to question now how far reason needs to be stretched to accommodate the religious views of even publicly traded companies. > > What is reasonable? Can employers have a religious test for employees based on arbitrary criteria. Could I require all of my employees to participate in worship services as a condition of employment, if I sincerely believe that I will go to hell for employing pagans or heretics? Could I use a loophole, in adding to the job requirements a religious provision, say that every employee must rotate in leading a prayer each morning, as otherwise, my sincerely held religious convictions would be compromised? > > If it is left up to the employer to determine what is reasonable treatment and retention for their employees, it seems we will see many employers taking advantage of essentially being able to rewrite the labor laws how they see fit. But we won’t. That simply won’t happen. Why? Because the sincerity of the claim is for a court to judge. Not sure where I’m losing you. Are you clear on the difference between the sincerity of the belief and the validity of the belief? Even if the belief is sincere, the next question in the analytical process is for the government to answer: does the government requirement derive from a compelling government interest? And does the government fulfill that interest in a narrowly tailored way? So what is your nightmare scenario? Can a company evade minimum wage laws by claiming they follow the Sect of Bohphet the Empty-Pocketed One? No. Do you know why? ---
**Author:** ![hkepotat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hkepotat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hkepotat)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1525 "2014-07-21T19:57:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But we won’t. That simply won’t happen. > > Why? > > Because the sincerity of the claim is for a court to judge. > > Not sure where I’m losing you. Are you clear on the difference between the sincerity of the belief and the validity of the belief? > > Even if the belief is sincere, the next question in the analytical process is for the government to answer: does the government requirement derive from a compelling government interest? And does the government fulfill that interest in a narrowly tailored way? > > So what is your nightmare scenario? Can a company evade minimum wage laws by claiming they follow the Sect of Bohphet the Empty-Pocketed One? > > No. > > Do you know why? I do not know why, that is actually why I am asking. Does the government have a compelling interest in a narrowly fulfilled way by requiring me to hire and employee someone who does not share my religious views? If I have 25 employees who are all of similar religious backgrounds, and the we, as the owners also share strongly in those views, can the government require me to hire someone who does not share those views? For that matter, why can I not claim religious views to get around minimum wage or other labor laws? Not a nightmare scenario for me, as I said, I am an employer, and I am curious as to how much I can get away with with regard to employee hiring, treatment, and retention. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1526 "2014-07-21T20:04:39Z")
**Bricker** : Well, or course judges can’t decide on the _validity_ of religious belief, that’s beyond their purview. But determining the _sincerity_ of such belief, well, that’s perfectly amenable to objective analysis and determination! And we know that because judges say so! And its not so much your opinions that are noxious as your certainty. Please remember that an abundance of faith and a poverty of doubt is a very dangerous combination. Human history is littered with the victims of men who had such an unfortunate imbalance. This way lies madness. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1527 "2014-07-21T20:09:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Question of fact. And what test does the factfinder apply to answer 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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1528 "2014-07-21T20:22:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But determining the _sincerity_ of such belief, well, that’s perfectly amenable to objective analysis and determination! And we know that because judges say so! Judges, legislatures, and the body of common law. Yeah. Again: do you understand that when a person claims self-defense, it’s the judge’s (or jury’s) job to determine the sincerity of his claims? And do you understand that this was true in 1950, as well as 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2014, and all the intervening years? That it’s not a new thing that judges just invented to help their buddies at the craft store? ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1529 "2014-07-21T20:24:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > And what test does the factfinder apply to answer it? The same test he applies to determine the truth of any fact: he weighs the credibility of witnesses, and determines which evidence to credit and which to discard. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1530 "2014-07-21T20:35:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Judges, legislatures, and the body of common law. Yeah. > > Again: do you understand that when a person claims self-defense, it’s the judge’s (or jury’s) job to determine the sincerity of his claims? > > And do you understand that this was true in 1950, as well as 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2014, and all the intervening years? That it’s not a new thing that judges just invented to help their buddies at the craft store? Oh, goody! Its not simply an absurdity, its an absurdity of long standing! Well, that changes everything! And, of course, there are facts that can be brought to bear on a question of self-defense, yes? What facts can be brought to bear on a question of religious sincerity? Could we…oh, just to take a wild stab at it…could we examine whether the “burdened” person or corporation had made a decision at a suspiciously convenient moment? Or that they had not bothered to assure themselves before that suspiciously convenient moment? The question of self-defense is amenable to evidence. What evidence informs a decision about religious sincerity? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1531 "2014-07-21T20:38:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The same test he applies to determine the truth of any fact: he weighs the credibility of witnesses, and determines which evidence to credit and which to discard. That means “D” for diddly-squat. That means that a different judge or a different jury might very well render two entirely different verdicts on religious sincerity! Are you quite sure this is the way you want the law to work? ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1532 "2014-07-21T20:39:02Z")
> [@hkepotat](#): > > I do not know why, that is actually why I am asking. Does the government have a compelling interest in a narrowly fulfilled way by requiring me to hire and employee someone who does not share my religious views? OK, let’s tackle this. First: the RFRA applies only to federal laws. So if there’s a state law that binds your hiring somehow, stop the inquiry there. Are you only worried about federal law? Then: what religious exercise of yours is burdened by what specific federal law? I will assume you mean Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin – specifically in the case of religion, by prohibiting religious discrimination in hiring by non-religious companies with more than fifteen employees, absent a bona fide occupational qualification. Is that religious exercise of yours grounded in a sincere belief? If you can answer those questions, then the inquiry shifts to the government. Title VII’s rule against religious discrimination serves a compelling interest. I can’t think of a less restrictive way of serving that interest than requiring you not discriminate unless you can show a genuine occupational qualification that requires a particular religious component. > [@](#): > > If I have 25 employees who are all of similar religious backgrounds, and the we, as the owners also share strongly in those views, can the government require me to hire someone who does not share those views? For that matter, why can I not claim religious views to get around minimum wage or other labor laws? Apart from the above, the most obvious answer is: you don’t actually have such views. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1533 "2014-07-21T20:41:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, goody! Its not simply an absurdity, its an absurdity of long standing! Well, that changes everything! > > And, of course, there are facts that can be brought to bear on a question of self-defense, yes? > > What facts can be brought to bear on a question of religious sincerity? Could we…oh, just to take a wild stab at it…could we examine whether the “burdened” person or corporation had made a decision at a suspiciously convenient moment? Or that they had not bothered to assure themselves before that suspiciously convenient moment? Sure. Those would absolutely be things that a fact-finder could look at. A belief that’s self-serving, without any evidence that it’s being followed in other areas of the claimant’s practice, would be an example of the kinds of things a fact-finder could rely on. > [@](#): > > The question of self-defense is amenable to evidence. What evidence informs a decision about religious sincerity? The same kinds of evidence. Did the person act in conformity with his claimed beliefs? ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1534 "2014-07-21T20:42:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > That means “D” for diddly-squat. That means that a different judge or a different jury might very well render two entirely different verdicts on religious sincerity! > > Are you quite sure this is the way you want the law to work? Yes. Like, right now, a different judge or a different jury might very well render two entirely different verdicts on self-defense. This is the way the system works. You lived your whole life understanding that a claim of self-defense would require a jury or a judge to determine the sincerity of a claim, and never once raised an objection. (Or maybe you did – have to review the George Zimmerman thread). But now you seem gobsmacked that this is how the court system works. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1535 "2014-07-21T20:44:15Z")
It is true that courts assess sincerity all the time, but I think you’re downplaying how hard it is to assess _religious_ sincerity. It really is uniquely hard to assess. One way to test sincerity is consistency of actions–e.g., did the person follow that belief in circumstances in which it was less personally advantageous. But that cannot be the test when it comes to religion, since it would seem to demand that one “live without sin” as it were, and foreclose decisions to become more observant. The fact that I have never before asked for halal meat should not impact the sincerity of my request for halal meat in prison, unless we want our sincerity test to be a test of overall piety. The other way is to assess the person’s credibility of their own testimony. But here too the religious context makes it a bit weird. If you asked me how I came to believe that so-and-so was a threat to my life, I would talk about all sorts of facts out there in the world. We may not have other evidence of those facts, but we do have everyday experience and the testimony of others (often) to compare. But when it comes to the sincerity of a religious belief, there isn’t any of that. There is no counter-testimony about the facts to consider. There is no assessment of how well that belief accords with the inputs from reality. There is just a little story of personal revelation. I really don’t know how you’d go about assessing, for example, whether I sincerely believe that my salvation is to be found in the bottom of an IPA while I sit on public beaches at sunset. ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1536 "2014-07-21T20:48:41Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > There is no counter-testimony about the facts to consider. There is no assessment of how well that belief accords with the inputs from reality. There is just a little story of personal revelation. Yes. And in many a case of self-defense, there’s one story: the survivor. And his little story of personal experience. The jury listens to him speak, weighs his credibility, and uses their own life experience to decide what aspects of his testimony to accept and what to reject. > [@](#): > > I really don’t know how you’d go about assessing, for example, whether I sincerely believe that my salvation is to be found in the bottom of an IPA while I sit on public beaches at sunset. Listen to you testify, and hear evidence about what kinds of actions you’ve taken that are consistent with that claim. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1537 "2014-07-21T20:53:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. And in many a case of self-defense, there’s one story: the survivor. And his little story of personal experience. I don’t think that’s true, actually. Even in cases in which self-defense resulted in the death of the alleged assailant, there is almost always other relevant testimony about the circumstances preceding or following the incident, not to mention physical evidence. It is actually exceedingly rare for the only relevant evidence to be one person’s testimony. > [@Bricker](#): > > Listen to you testify, and hear evidence about what kinds of actions you’ve taken that are consistent with that claim. This goes to my first point, which is that consistency is something of an improper standard in the religious context. I can sincerely believe that adultery is sinful but still engage in it, no? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1538 "2014-07-21T20:54:18Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I see that substantial burden turtle heading again. > > What is the substantial burden to their religion if they give health insurance, and that insurance is used, at the discretion of their employee, for something they don’t like. It sounds like the burden is dependent on the actions of another… I know **Bricker** has addressed this many times in this thread and must have grown weary of repeating an answer once again. The issue of the substantial burden is one for the court to decide. It was not up to Hobby Lobby to determine if the government imposed burden for failing to act in the way mandated by law is substantial. The issue is not whether providing insurance that covers sinful acts is a burden on Hobby Lobby. The issue is whether the penalty the government imposes for failing to comply with the law is a substantial burden. In _Burwell v. Hobby Lobby_ the burden at question was the penalty imposed by the PPACA for failing to provide compliant coverage including all 20 methods of contraception. The penalty was estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Oddly, the penalty for providing non-compliant coverage under the PPACA is much higher than the penalty for not providing coverage at all ($36,500 vs $2,000 per year) > [@majority opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby](#): > > Because the contraceptive mandate forces them to pay an enormous sum of money—as much as $475 million per year in the case of Hobby Lobby—if they insist on providing insurance coverage in accordance with their religious beliefs, the mandate clearly imposes a substantial burden on those beliefs. The majority at the SCOTUS concluded that the $475 million annual penalty was a substantial burden. Supposing, hypothetically, that the burden was instead $1 per employee per year. Perhaps in such a hypothetical the court would have agreed that the government was imposing a burden but it was not substantial enough as to warrant protection under the RFRA. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1539 "2014-07-21T21:02:49Z")
“You’re quite right, I have acted at variance with my sincere religious convictions. However, I repent, and my sincere religious conviction is that repentance renders me whole.” ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1540 "2014-07-21T21:03:01Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t think that’s true, actually. Even in cases in which self-defense resulted in the death of the alleged assailant, there is almost always other relevant testimony about the circumstances preceding or following the incident, not to mention physical evidence. It is actually exceedingly rare for the only relevant evidence to be one person’s testimony. That’s correct, but there is also typically extrinsic evidence of sincere religious belief. It would be equally “exceedingly rare” for a plaintiff to rely on only his only “personal revelation” testimony, and not be able to point to any external evidence. And where it happens, the courts can (and have) found a lack of sincerity. > [@](#): > > This goes to my first point, which is that consistency is something of an improper standard in the religious context. I can sincerely believe that adultery is sinful but still engage in it, no? Sure. But a finder of fact is absolutely permitted to assess your penchant for adultery in determining if your claimed belief was sincere. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=76) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=78)