# 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:** 8
**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 24, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/141 "2013-02-24T17:05:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, so I’m confused. Do corporations have a claim to religious freedom? Clearly, a legislature can include religious freedom among the privileges a corporation can enjoy. However, in the absence of such legislation, I don’t see how, because a corporation cannot hold a religious belief. Its owners obviously can, but a corporation is an independent legal entity. It’s like saying that a child would be deemed to believe whatever its parents believe. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/142 "2013-02-24T17:17:32Z")
I’d think that the base claim of religious beliefs being smashed is utter nonsense. No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion or birth control. They are being given the choice. The corporation might as well demand that the wages they pay are not used on pornography or flowers for slutty girls. ---
**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, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/143 "2013-02-24T17:17:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Clearly, a legislature can include religious freedom among the privileges a corporation can enjoy. However, in the absence of such legislation, I don’t see how, because a corporation cannot hold a religious belief. Its owners obviously can, but a corporation is an independent legal entity. It’s like saying that a child would be deemed to believe whatever its parents believe. Why do you keep conflating belief with freedom? ---
**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:** [February 24, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/144 "2013-02-24T17:18:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Depends on the job in question. In my opinion, yes, if the job is pastor; no, if the job is handyman. Are you sure? Jesus was a handyman. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/145 "2013-02-24T17:26:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you keep conflating belief with freedom? Where’s the conflation? The point seems to be that if an entity is intrinsically incapable of doing something (e.g., a corporation holding a religious belief), then it makes no sense to speak of that entity having the “freedom” to do that thing. ---
**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:** [February 24, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/146 "2013-02-24T17:27:04Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Where’s the conflation? The point seems to be that if an entity is intrinsically incapable of doing something (e.g., a corporation holding a religious belief), then it makes no sense to speak of that entity having the “freedom” to do that thing. Yes. Bricker, do I have the freedom to use my heat-vision to defend myself? ---
**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 24, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/147 "2013-02-24T21:51:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you keep conflating belief with freedom? > [@Kimstu](#): > > Where’s the conflation? The point seems to be that if an entity is intrinsically incapable of doing something (e.g., a corporation holding a religious belief), then it makes no sense to speak of that entity having the “freedom” to do that thing. That. I should also note (as I probably did much earlier in the thread) that IMHO the belief bit is irrelevant; this is a neutral regulation. ---
**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, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/148 "2013-02-24T22:59:02Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Where’s the conflation? The point seems to be that if an entity is intrinsically incapable of doing something (e.g., a corporation holding a religious belief), then it makes no sense to speak of that entity having the “freedom” to do that thing. No. It does make sense: > [@Bricker](#): > > …a corporation, even though it has no belief itself, may assert the belief of its owners and thus still have religious freedom. That’s the holding I quoted above. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/149 "2013-02-24T23:00:03Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Are you sure? Jesus was a handyman. No, I’m not sure. I’d need to see the BFOQ for each job. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/150 "2013-02-25T00:39:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s the holding I quoted above. What “holding”? You merely quoted your own assertion in a previous post and said “that’s the holding”. Exactly what actual legal pronouncement are you referring to in order to justify your assertion that it makes sense to speak of a corporation having the “freedom” to hold a religious belief? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/151 "2013-02-25T02:24:27Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > What “holding”? You merely quoted your own assertion in a previous post and said “that’s the holding”. Exactly what actual legal pronouncement are you referring to in order to justify your assertion that it makes sense to speak of a corporation having the “freedom” to hold a religious belief? Did you read post 121? Tyndall House Publishers: > [@](#): > > 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. Isn’t that what I posted in post 121? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/152 "2013-02-25T02:57:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did you read post 121? Yes, I did. > [@Bricker](#): > > Tyndall House Publishers: > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > Isn’t that what I posted in post 121? Yes, it is. Is that what you meant by saying the following? > [@Bricker](#): > > a corporation, even though it has no belief itself, may assert the belief of its owners and thus still have religious freedom. If so, how does a corporation’s “having standing to assert the free exercise right _of its owners_” make it meaningful to speak of a corporation “having the freedom to hold a religious belief”? To my layperson’s perception, it seems obvious that a company’s _human owners_ can indeed have a religious belief, and the actions of the company can be guided to some extent by that belief. (E.g., the reason that Hobby Lobby the corporation doesn’t have business hours on Sunday is that the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s human owners are opposed to doing business on Sunday.) But that seems entirely different from claiming that a corporation _itself_ can have a religious belief and therefore has religious freedom _of its own_. Though I doubt a layperson’s citing of legal rulings is likely to be particularly germane, here’s [a discussion](http://howappealing.law.com/ConestogaWoodVsSebelius-011113.pdf) that seemed to articulate some of the objections I had due to the idea of a corporation’s religious belief being nonsensical. > [@](#): > > Tyndale held that where the beliefs of a closely-held corporation and its owners are indistinguishable, “united by their faith . . . [and] shared, religious objectives[,]” the corporation has standing to assert the free exercise rights of its owners. Id. at \*7. Tyndale largely relied upon two cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in reaching this conclusion: Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. > 15 Case 5:12-cv-06744-MSG Document 49 Filed 01/11/13 Page 16 of 34 > 2009) and EEOC v. Townley Engineering and Manufacturing Co., 859 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1988). In Stormans and Townley, the Ninth Circuit held that a closely-held corporation that “does not present any free exercise rights of its own different from or greater than its owners’ rights . . . has standing to assert the free exercise rights of its owners.” Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1120; see also Townley, 859 F.2d at 619-20. We are not persuaded by this line of reasoning. > > “\*ncorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.” Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158, 163 (2001). “Even when a corporation is owned by one person or a family, the corporate form shields the individual members of the corporation from personal liability.” Kelleytown Co. v. Williams, 426 A.2d 663, 668 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981). It would be entirely inconsistent to allow the Hahns to enjoy the benefits of incorporation, while simultaneously piercing the corporate veil for the limited purpose of challenging these regulations. We agree with the Autocam court, which stated that this separation between a corporation and its owners “at a minimum means the corporation is not the alter ego of its owners for purposes of religious belief and exercise.”11 Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 1:12-cv-1096, slip op. at 12 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 24, 2012) (emphasis in original). > Accordingly, we conclude that Conestoga cannot assert free exercise rights under the First > Amendment, and therefore, cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for a free exercise claim. In other words, if you’re saying that a corporation is somehow asserting the free exercise of religion _only_ because its particular human owners hold a particular religious belief, then that seems like the exact _opposite_ of the corporation having any religious belief or religious freedom _on its own account_. If, for example, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is considered to “hold” the religious beliefs of Pentecostal Protestant Christianity because its owners are Pentecostal, what would happen to its “beliefs” if it were the object of a successful takeover by, say, a group of individuals who happened to be confirmed Wiccans? Would Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. still be entitled to “maintain” its original Pentecostal “beliefs”, or would it automatically “convert” to Wicca? Would that be a forced conversion and a violation of the corporation’s “freedom of religion”? How could we know what Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s “sincere” religious “beliefs” were? The fact that all these questions are intrinsically absurd seems to me to indicate that, as **RNATB** noted, it’s meaningless to speak of a corporation’s having religious freedom, because a corporation by its nature can’t hold a religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/153 "2013-02-25T15:49:16Z")
> [@Locrian](#): > > 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. I can’t wrap my head around being upset that places choose to be closed on Sunday (I see this same complaint about Chick-fil-a). There are plenty of placed around here – usually Mom-and-Pop operations – that are closed one or two days a week, or have inconveniently shorter hours on Saturday or whatever. It’s seems weird to get all indignant about it. (In general though I support the OP: HL needs to get over themselves and follow the law.) ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/154 "2013-02-25T16:36:29Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I can’t wrap my head around being upset that places choose to be closed on Sunday (I see this same complaint about Chick-fil-a). There are plenty of placed around here – usually Mom-and-Pop operations – that are closed one or two days a week, or have inconveniently shorter hours on Saturday or whatever. It’s seems weird to get all indignant about it. > > (In general though I support the OP: HL needs to get over themselves and follow the law.) The indignation comes from the near-certainty that there are non-Christians in the area who would love to have a part-time job and would be happy to work on Sundays. While at first blush it appears to be a laudable rejection of commerce and gain in compliance with a religious belief, what these people are saying is that they choose to impose their own religious Sabbath on all their employees, or else that they only employ those of their own religion. Either way it’s repugnant to those of us who were raised to believe that religious freedom is a basic tenet of the American Way; and also to the adherents of “Capitalism _uber alles_.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/155 "2013-02-25T17:11:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The fact that all these questions are intrinsically absurd seems to me to indicate that, as **RNATB** noted, it’s meaningless to speak of a corporation’s having religious freedom, because a corporation by its nature can’t hold a religious belief. Does a corporation have freedom to acquire title to real property? Does a corporation have a belief about real property, or a desire concerning real property? A corporation’s freedom to act is not tied to its ability to believe. > [@](#): > > If so, how does a corporation’s “having standing to assert the free exercise right of its owners” make it meaningful to speak of a corporation “having the freedom to hold a religious belief”? Perhaps this is where we’re getting stuck. Please note the difference between: - “Religious freedom” - “Having the freedom to hold a religious belief” Does a corporation have religious freedom? Yes: by acting in accord with the religious beliefs of its owner. Does a corporation have the freedom to hold a religious belief? No. ---
**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 25, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/156 "2013-02-25T17:30:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does a corporation have freedom to acquire title to real property? > > Does a corporation have a belief about real property, or a desire concerning real property? Protection of property rights is not tied to a sincerely held belief. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/157 "2013-02-25T17:45:11Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > The indignation comes from the near-certainty that there are non-Christians in the area who would love to have a part-time job and would be happy to work on Sundays. While at first blush it appears to be a laudable rejection of commerce and gain in compliance with a religious belief, what these people are saying is that they choose to impose their own religious Sabbath on all their employees, or else that they only employ those of their own religion. > > Either way it’s repugnant to those of us who were raised to believe that religious freedom is a basic tenet of the American Way; and also to the adherents of “Capitalism _uber alles_.” What about banks or doctor’s offices? Are they forcing employees to observe the Sabbath too? Why don’t they hire part-time workers for Sundays? It’s bizarre that a business choosing to be closed for religions reasons violates your notions of both religious freedom and capitalism, when it is the perfect embodiment of both. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/158 "2013-02-25T17:56:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Protection of property rights is not tied to a sincerely held belief. Why can’t religious freedom, as applied to corporations, be tied to the religious belief of the corporation’s owners? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/159 "2013-02-25T18:09:36Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If, for example, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is considered to “hold” the religious beliefs of Pentecostal Protestant Christianity because its owners are Pentecostal, what would happen to its “beliefs” if it were the object of a successful takeover by, say, a group of individuals who happened to be confirmed Wiccans? Would Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. still be entitled to “maintain” its original Pentecostal “beliefs”, or would it automatically “convert” to Wicca? Would that be a forced conversion and a violation of the corporation’s “freedom of religion”? How could we know what Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s “sincere” religious “beliefs” were? IANAL, but I don’t think it’d violate the corporation’s freedom of religion since the conversion was not at the behest of a state actor. Bricker, could a corporation owned by Muslims require its female staff to wear niqabs? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/160 "2013-02-25T18:32:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does a corporation have freedom to acquire title to real property? > > Does a corporation have a belief about real property, or a desire concerning real property? > > A corporation’s freedom to act is not tied to its ability to believe. This is a silly analogy. The process of acquiring title to real property doesn’t require any beliefs or desires on the part of the acquirer. It’s merely a legal procedure for changing which entity is considered the legal owner of the property. Holding a religious belief, on the other hand, by its very definition requires the holder to be capable of belief. > [@Bricker](#): > > Does a corporation have religious freedom? Yes: by acting in accord with the religious beliefs of its owner. > > Does a corporation have the freedom to hold a religious belief? No. Then a corporation does not have “religious freedom” or “free exercise of religion” in the sense that human beings do. If you want to use the words “corporate religious freedom” as a technical term to denote “corporate policies that are determined by the religious beliefs of the corporation’s owners”, sure, knock yourself out. But it is not “religious freedom” as we human beings know and exercise it, and consequently **RNATB** was not in fact “conflating belief with freedom” when he pointed that out to you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=9)