# 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:** 9
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/161 "2013-02-25T19:51:36Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 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. I don’t agree. Can you explain specifically why “religious freedom” requires “religious belief?” What, specifically, is the definition of “religious freedom?” ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/162 "2013-02-25T19:55:10Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Bricker, could a corporation owned by Muslims require its female staff to wear niqabs? I have no idea. Of course, this question introduces another variable – to what EXTENT a corporation’s religious freedom may go. But surely you can see that a corporation is not a necessary element. Let’s imagine a sole proprietorship: a single man owns a business, unincorporated. If he is a Muslim, can he require his female staff to wear niqabs? Now we see the answer is: maybe. It depends on what the job is. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/163 "2013-02-25T20:12:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post > Bricker, could a corporation owned by Muslims require its female staff to wear niqabs? Hooters has a dress code. Not sure why another business couldn’t require niqabs. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/164 "2013-02-25T21:15:04Z")
“Socrates” is not actually working toward a real point. He’s just jerking you around. Which he can only do because you’re letting him. ---
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/165 "2013-02-25T22:33:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Socrates” is not actually working toward a real point. He’s just jerking you around. Which he can only do because you’re letting him. Did someone just say “Socrates”? What? What about him? My signature proves that I am a Socrates fanboy. ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/166 "2013-02-25T23:12:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. Okay, fine, but you’re still wrong. And at this point, all you’re doing is repeating the same unconvincing legalistic nitpicks that you originally offered in lieu of a persuasive argument. > [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain specifically why “religious freedom” requires “religious belief?” Well, religious freedom _as human beings exercise it_ requires religious belief because religious belief is the essence of religion. As [James Madison](http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html) put it, > [@](#): > > The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. […] > > If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,” all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience. “Free exercise of religion” as it applies to human beings implies the human attributes of “conviction and conscience”: i.e., the ability to hold a personal belief. A corporation, as you admit, doesn’t and cannot have those attributes, so a corporation cannot enjoy the same “free exercise of religion” as humans do. Like I said, if you want to use a related term such as “corporate religious freedom” to designate corporate business practices that are determined by their owners’ religious beliefs, no problem. But it’s silly to try to pretend that corporations have the same sort of religious freedom that human beings do, or that religious freedom as human beings exercise it is not based on the concept of human religious belief. ---
**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, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/167 "2013-02-25T23:14:33Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > Did someone just say “Socrates”? What? What about him? A disparaging reference to a certain “Pseudosocrates” not a million miles away from this thread, who sometimes falls into the error of confusing disingenuous quibbling with genuine reasoned debate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/168 "2013-02-26T00:18:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Okay, fine, but you’re still wrong. And at this point, all you’re doing is repeating the same unconvincing legalistic nitpicks that you originally offered in lieu of a persuasive argument. I understand that you’re not persuaded. But that’s not quite the same as labeling the argument unconvincing – after all, others have been persuaded. Those others include the court considering Tyndale’s motion: > [@](#): > > According to the defendants, Tyndale is unable to assert such claims on its > own behalf because it is a “for-profit corporation [that] does not exercise religion” within the meaning of the RFRA and the First Amendment…The plaintiffs respond that > “[t]here is no business or corporation ‘exception’” to the RFRA or the Free Exercise Clause, and that these provisions protect the religious exercise of any entity, regardless of for-profit status. > . > . > . > 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. . . . Instead, the Court will assess whether Tyndale has standing to assert the free exercise rights of its owners. > . > . > . > Accordingly, because Tyndale does “not present any free exercise rights of its own different from or greater than its owners’ rights,” it has “standing to assert the free exercise rights of its owners. You may continue to speak disparagingly of “legalistic nitpicks” if you wish. But the thing is – we’re talking about a court case. And in a court case, oddly enough, legalistic nitpicks often have persuasive value. So: both the Ninth Circuit and the current Hobby Lobby court have accepted the rationale that a corporation has FREEDOM under the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Restoration Act to assert the beliefs of its owners. Why should I care in the least if you find that reasoning unconvincing? Why should any reader of this thread care? Readers of this thread may be interested in what the courts find convincing, because that will shape both future caselaw as well as determine the outcome of the very controversy which animates this thread. > [@](#): > > Well, religious freedom _as human beings exercise it_ requires religious belief because religious belief is the essence of religion. As [James Madison](http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html) put it, > > “Free exercise of religion” as it applies to human beings implies the human attributes of “conviction and conscience”: i.e., the ability to hold a personal belief. A corporation, as you admit, doesn’t and cannot have those attributes, so a corporation cannot enjoy the same “free exercise of religion” as humans do. > > Like I said, if you want to use a related term such as “corporate religious freedom” to designate corporate business practices that are determined by their owners’ religious beliefs, no problem. But it’s silly to try to pretend that corporations have the same sort of religious freedom that human beings do, or that religious freedom as human beings exercise it is not based on the concept of human religious belief. I think that this is a needlessly narrow definition. Not that my opinion matters much either, since I’m not sitting on the bench deciding these cases. But this definition you propose treats religion as mystical. Some religions are indeed primarily mystical – Christianity comes to mind. But Judaism, in contrast, is an _ethical_ religion, concerned much more with how you behave rather than what you believe. Observing the mitzvoth is a matter of action, not belief. So – not that it matters – but I absolutely reject your attempt to shoehorn “religious freedom” into something that requires belief. More to the point, I can cite federal circuit caselaw which agrees that a corporation has the freedom to assert its owners’ religious beliefs, and that this freedom gives a corporation standing under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If you wish to contest the claim that a corporation is free to act under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that this doesn’t mean it has religious freedom… well, you go right ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/169 "2013-02-26T02:28:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So: both the Ninth Circuit and the current Hobby Lobby court have accepted the rationale that a corporation has FREEDOM under the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Restoration Act to assert the beliefs of its owners. > > Why should I care in the least if you find that reasoning unconvincing? I never said I found it unconvincing. I just pointed out that a corporation’s being free to assert the beliefs of its owners is not the same thing as having the same religious freedom that actual human beings have. Which is still true, no matter how much you try to tapdance around it. > [@Bricker](#): > > So – not that it matters – but I absolutely reject your attempt to shoehorn “religious freedom” into something that requires belief. Nice try at moving the goalposts, but the type of religious freedom that human beings have **does** in fact require belief. Of course, I never denied (in fact, I repeatedly pointed out) that you can legitimately define a **different** type of religious freedom that properly applies to corporations, which are not capable of having belief. But you already know that, and are merely trying to cloud the issue by pretending I said something I didn’t. > [@Bricker](#): > > If you wish to contest the claim that a corporation is free to act under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that this doesn’t mean it has religious freedom… well, you go right ahead. I think you must have meant to say “admit” the claim. Because of course I never have denied that a corporation is free to act under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And it still doesn’t mean that corporations have the same sort of religious freedom that human beings do. Consequently, it is still true that **RNATB** was not incorrectly conflating freedom with belief, as you asserted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/170 "2013-02-26T02:41:37Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I never said I found it unconvincing. I just pointed out that a corporation’s being free to assert the beliefs of its owners is not the same thing as having the same religious freedom that actual human beings have. > . > . > . > And it still doesn’t mean that corporations have the same sort of religious freedom that human beings do. > > Consequently, it is still true that **RNATB** was not incorrectly conflating freedom with belief, as you asserted. When did the claim morph into corporations having “the same sort” of religious freedom as humans? **RNATB** asked how corporations could possibly have _any_ claim to religious freedom. Now, you are indignantly denying that corporations have _the same sort_ of religious freedom as humans. I agree that corporations do not have the same sort of religious freedom as humans. I do not agree with the implication of this quote: > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I didn’t even realize Hobby Lobby was incorporated. How can they possibly have \*\*any \*\*claim to religious freedom? (Emphasis added). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/171 "2013-02-26T03:18:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When did the claim morph into corporations having “the same sort” of religious freedom as humans? > > **RNATB** asked how corporations could possibly have _any_ claim to religious freedom. In which he was clearly speaking of religious freedom _in the sense that humans exercise it_: in his own words, “because a corporation cannot hold a religious belief”. What corporations have is the freedom to assert the religious beliefs of their owners. Religious freedom as it is generally understood is a right of human beings which does **not** consist in being free to assert the religious beliefs of their owners, because humans don’t have owners but they do have beliefs. > [@Bricker](#): > > I agree that corporations do not have the same sort of religious freedom as humans. Good. Of course, you could have just acknowledged that **RNATB** in the first place, along the lines of “Well, while corporations don’t have the same sort of religious freedom as humans, it can reasonably argued that they do have a claim to a different sort of religious freedom, in that they can assert the religious beliefs of their owners.” But no, you had to play your usual vocabulary-gotcha game of deliberately using a technical term in a different sense from the way somebody else was clearly using it, and then acting all faux-puzzled that the other person did not immediately concur with your interpretation of the term. And as usual, you had to spin out your nitpicking for some additional dozen posts or so before finally admitting that you understood all along the sense in which the term was being used by others. You just prefer dragging out all ambiguities of interpretation as long as possible rather than pointing them out explicitly to clear them up as soon as you encounter them; apparently because it lets you cherish a sense of superiority during the interval when you’re the only one who knows what you mean. I doubt we’ll ever be able to break you of that irritating and pointless habit, **Bricker** , but at least it’s some satisfaction to know that you realize that nobody’s falling for it. ---
**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 26, 2013, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/172 "2013-02-26T07:34:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. > > That just means that a corporation’s right to religious freedom isn’t absolute – not that it doesn’t exist. Yes, my point was to moot the question about its existence. No answer to the underlying needed or given. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/173 "2013-02-26T10:07:57Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Hooters has a dress code. Not sure why another business couldn’t require niqabs. True. What if the owners saw one of the staff outside the store without a niqab and determined they were of insufficient moral character to continue working for the corporation? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/174 "2013-02-26T13:43:16Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In which he was clearly speaking of religious freedom _in the sense that humans exercise it_: in his own words, “because a corporation cannot hold a religious belief”. > > What corporations have is the freedom to assert the religious beliefs of their owners. Religious freedom as it is generally understood is a right of human beings which does **not** consist in being free to assert the religious beliefs of their owners, because humans don’t have owners but they do have beliefs. > Good. > > Of course, you could have just acknowledged that **RNATB** in the first place, along the lines of “Well, while corporations don’t have the same sort of religious freedom as humans, it can reasonably argued that they do have a claim to a different sort of religious freedom, in that they can assert the religious beliefs of their owners.” > > But no, you had to play your usual vocabulary-gotcha game of deliberately using a technical term in a different sense from the way somebody else was clearly using it, and then acting all faux-puzzled that the other person did not immediately concur with your interpretation of the term. > > And as usual, you had to spin out your nitpicking for some additional dozen posts or so before finally admitting that you understood all along the sense in which the term was being used by others. You just prefer dragging out all ambiguities of interpretation as long as possible rather than pointing them out explicitly to clear them up as soon as you encounter them; apparently because it lets you cherish a sense of superiority during the interval when you’re the only one who knows what you mean. > > I doubt we’ll ever be able to break you of that irritating and pointless habit, **Bricker** , but at least it’s some satisfaction to know that you realize that nobody’s falling for it. What utter horseshit. If that were so, why the attempts to distinguish between a non-profit corporation and a for-profit corporation? If your theory were the truth, then even a non-profit corporation cannot be said to have any religious freedom (in the sense that humans do). But RNATB clearly advanced an argument in which he distinguished for-profit and non-profit corporate entities. How does that fit into your crafted fairytale? ---
**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 26, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/175 "2013-02-26T14:15:25Z")
I advanced two arguments: the latter acknowledges that the law may (and does) grant corporations religious freedom, though the concept is inconsistent with logic and reason. The first is based on the idea that they shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/176 "2013-02-26T14:30:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I advanced two arguments: the latter acknowledges that the law may (and does) grant corporations religious freedom, though the concept is inconsistent with logic and reason. The first is based on the idea that they shouldn’t. Do you believe that Kimstu’s defense of your argument is correct, and captures the nuance that you were actually arguing two different points? My initial question to you was based on the existing caselaw. I am interested in what the law of the land is. When, as here, we have differing results reached by different courts, with no clear guidance from the Supreme Court, I am interested in your view of what the court decision ultimately will be, based on your ability to understand and apply legal concepts to the issues in play. When you share a seemingly definitive offering like, “How can [Hobby Lobby] possibly have any claim to religious freedom?” I am interested in seeing you defend it as a matter of law. If that was simply your opinion of what the law should be, then I think you gave it much more emphasis than an unsupported opinion deserves. In short, I’m interested in seeing you argue like a lawyer. ---
**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 26, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/177 "2013-02-26T14:36:22Z")
If I had asserted that the sky is blue, I would have been unable to support my position with case law. That would not have undermined the validity of my statement. Let me ask you this: do you dispute that a corporation is not _inherently_ capable of holding a religious belief (as opposed to enjoying some sort of freedom of exercise based on the beliefs of its owners)? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/178 "2013-02-26T15:09:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Let me ask you this: do you dispute that a corporation is not _inherently_ capable of holding a religious belief (as opposed to enjoying some sort of freedom of exercise based on the beliefs of its owners)? No, I don’t dispute that. And if you had said that, I wouldn’t have taken issue with you. But here is what you said: > [@](#): > > I didn’t even realize Hobby Lobby was incorporated. How can they possibly have any claim to religious freedom? The word “belief” does not appear in your quote. The word “freedom” does. A corporation does have religious freedom – even though it doesn’t have any religious beliefs. It can act to express its owners’ religious beliefs, and be protected in those by guarantees of religious freedom. You now acknowledge this – why do you keep returning to questions that ask me about belief held directly by a corporation? > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If I had asserted that the sky is blue, I would have been unable to support my position with case law. That would not have undermined the validity of my statement. It would have undermined your abilities at legal research. _US v. Martinez-Cintron_, 136 F. Supp. 2d 17 (Dist Court, Dist of PR 2001) at FN1: > [@](#): > > In my original ruling, I took for granted that the reliability of a fingerprint technician’s methods is properly taken for granted (like saying the sky is blue or the sun rose in the east yesterday, see United States v. Havvard, 117 F.Supp.2d 848, 849 (S.D.Ind.2000))… ---
**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 26, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/179 "2013-02-26T15:22:29Z")
Hardly. I did actually do the research - because I knew you would - and chose not to quote that opinion because it was presumably not deciding an issue argued by the parties. Same goes for Tyler v. Heywood, 8 Neb. App. 553, 562-63, 598 N.W.2d 73, 79 (Neb. Ct. App. 1999) rev’d, 258 Neb. 901, 607 N.W.2d 186 (2000). > [@](#): > > A corporation does have religious freedom – even though it doesn’t have any religious beliefs. It can act to express its owners’ religious beliefs, and be protected in those by guarantees of religious freedom. You now acknowledge this – why do you keep returning to questions that ask me about belief held directly by a corporation? Because we are not talking about religious freedom in the abstract. The Hobby Lobby litigation is apparently a constitutional claim, not one premised on statute. The corporation has no _constitutional_ right to free expression - though the legislature could have given it one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/180 "2013-02-26T17:32:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Hardly. I did actually do the research - because I knew you would - and chose not to quote that opinion because it was presumably not deciding an issue argued by the parties. Same goes for Tyler v. Heywood, 8 Neb. App. 553, 562-63, 598 N.W.2d 73, 79 (Neb. Ct. App. 1999) rev’d, 258 Neb. 901, 607 N.W.2d 186 (2000). True enough – and I agree you’re unlikely to find a case in which the sky’s color was an ultimate issue of fact. But again you miss the specifics of what you say: > [@](#): > > If I had asserted that the sky is blue, I would have been unable to support my position with case law. In both quoted cases, the proposition that the sky is blue is offered as an example of a commonly known, clearly established fact, something – should it be necessary – of which a court could take judicial notice. In other words, it absolutely COULD support your position. > [@](#): > > Because we are not talking about religious freedom in the abstract. The Hobby Lobby litigation is apparently a constitutional claim, not one premised on statute. The corporation has no _constitutional_ right to free expression - though the legislature could have given it one. First – what difference does it make if the religious freedom is grounded in statute or the constitution? > [@](#): > > I didn’t even realize Hobby Lobby was incorporated. How can they possibly have any claim to religious freedom? Nothing in your quote about constitutional freedoms as opposed to freedoms granted by statute, is there? Let’s test this theory: a natural person, according to you, has constitutionally grounded freedom of religion. _What claim could he assert that Hobby Lobby cannot?_ Nor do I even concede the claim that a corporation does not have constitutionally-guaranteed religious freedom. A corporation clearly has other constitutional rights, rights also found in the First Amendment: freedom of speech, for example. I don’t see any authority for the claim that a corporation cannot claim First Amendment religious protection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=10)