# Let The Slippery Slope Begin: Government Contractors Using Hobby Lobby Ruling To Deny LGBT Rights
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [July 3, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238 "2014-07-03T00:22:30Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/61 "2014-07-05T18:28:25Z")
Where do you get the idea that a corporation is “property”?
Is The Sierra Club “property”?
Read [the wikipedia article on CORPORATION](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coporation) and you will see the word “property” used exactly twice. Both times in the context of the corporation owning property, not being property.
---
### Author:  [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/62 "2014-07-05T18:38:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Where do you get the idea that a corporation is “property”?
>
> Is The Sierra Club “property”?
>
> Read [the wikipedia article on CORPORATION](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coporation) and you will see the word “property” used exactly twice. Both times in the context of the corporation owning property, not being property.
Yeah, remember, we fought a costly war to free the corporations!
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/63 "2014-07-05T18:49:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Where do you get the idea that a corporation is “property”?
They’re generally owned by someone, aren’t they?
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/64 "2014-07-05T19:33:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> …You sort of missed the step where we first insisted that the business pay for its employees’ contraception. We, in other words, insisted that a business concern itself with its employees’ reproductive health by ordering the business to pay for insurance coverage of contraception.
>
> Having done so, we now must live with the restrictions we placed on such government orders: they must not substantially burden religious practice, unless certain other conditions are met…
Is reproductive health some special category of health care, inherently suspect, and therefore subject to restrictions that do not apply to blood pressure medication or vaccinations? And what “burden to religious practice” are we talking about? The dreadful burden of knowing that other people do not adhere to my religious opinions?
> [@](#):
>
> …Whether or not sincerity can or cannot be quantified or objectified, you seem to be unaware that we already, and uncontroversially, purport to do so almost every day.
>
> Every time we ask a court to judge someone guilty of first degree murder, we’re asking that court to judge the sincerity of the accused’s state of mind, because determining his intent is how we distinguish first degree murder from lesser crimes. Every time we ask a court to weigh a claim of self-defense, we require that court to pass judgement on the sincerity of the claim that the accused truly felt fear – not just any fear, but the kind of specific fear that justified self-defense.
>
> This is a well-known fact, to the populace in general and certainly to watchers of TV shows from Perry Mason to Franklin and Bash. Courts are routinely asked to judge the sincerity of claims about a person’s thoughts as well as their actions.
Ah! So we are going to submit all of these disagreements to trial by jury, then?
Though i was not aware that the “state of mind” of the accused had any bearing on a murder trial. The question is whether or not he actually committed the action he is accused of committing. True, he may be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but can he be found not guilty by reason of religious opinion?
Perhaps we are better served by restricting ourselves to the actual matter at hand without drawing in inferences from entirely unrelated legal issues.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/65 "2014-07-05T20:04:17Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> They’re generally owned by someone, aren’t they?
A corporation is a legal entity that itself can own property, like a building. How can a piece of property own a piece of property? How can you sue a piece of property?
If you and I incorporate to buy a building, then Miller-Mace Development, Inc. owns the building. Neither you nor I own the building. We own shares in the corporation that entitles us to a share of the profits generated by the corporation or by the sale of the corporation’s assets. We ARE the corporation. Or, rather, the corporation is US, acting as a separate Legal Entity.
It’s an important legal distinction, even if we might say, in the vernacular, that you and I “own” Miller-Mace Development, Inc. It’s not that we OWN it, it’s that we ARE it.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/66 "2014-07-05T20:09:49Z")
Whoa! Existential! You are it, but it isn’t you?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/67 "2014-07-05T20:24:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Whoa! Existential! You are it, but it isn’t you?
It’s a zen thing.
Seriously, though, to say a corporation is a piece of property, like a house, simply isn’t correct. If you want to call it “property”, you have to create a different class of property that distinguishes it from all other types of property. If you don’t believe me, try suing my house sometime.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/68 "2014-07-05T21:01:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Seriously, though, to say a corporation is a piece of property, like a house, simply isn’t correct. If you want to call it “property”, you have to create a different class of property that distinguishes it from all other types of property.
I think we’ve already done that.
We call it a “corporation.”
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/69 "2014-07-05T21:09:00Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> I think we’ve already done that.
>
> We call it a “corporation.”
Let say, for the sake of argument, that is true. Then you agree that **elucidator’s** argument, which led to this discussion, is bunk right?
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> But when did we begin to assume that a business is an incarnation of its owners? That it legitimately takes on the religious restrictions of its owners? Is it the divine miracle of property? I own a piece of land, haven’t noticed that I’m all brown and loamy, covered with grass and weeds. Not has my property become noticeably witty, charming, and warm-hearted. Still just a bunch of dirt.
IOW, comparing a corporation to a piece of land is a logical fallacy. Because the one is NOT like the other.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/70 "2014-07-05T21:28:29Z")
I don’t know. As a general policy, I try to avoid reading **elucidator** ’s posts whenever possible.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/71 "2014-07-05T21:57:22Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> I don’t know. As a general policy, I try to avoid reading **elucidator** ’s posts whenever possible.
You could have your corporation do it for you.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/72 "2014-07-05T22:26:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Assuming your traditional tone of humorless sarcasm, I take it I am supposed to be impressed by the early date, and offer the respect due to wrong that is of venerable standing?
Elucidator, you asked the question:
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> But when did we begin to assume that a business is an incarnation of its owners? That it legitimately takes on the religious restrictions of its owners?
I answered:
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I would guess about the time we permitted the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore to organize under the law as a corporation. 1789, I think. I could be off base.
Your response to my answer:
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Assuming your traditional tone of humorless sarcasm, I take it I am supposed to be impressed by the early date, and offer the respect due to wrong that is of venerable standing?
I have no idea. I don’t know why you asked the question.
One way to read your question is that it’s rhetorical, and suggests that this is a new thing, this idea that corporations are imbued with the religious exercise rights of their owners. If that’s what your line meant, then my response rebuts the notion that it’s new.
Another way to read your question is as a straightforward factual inquiry. If that’s the case, then my post answers the inquiry.
And of course I always leave room for the possibility that it was a “joke” of some kind. But if it is, I don’t get it.
> [@](#):
>
> And wasn’t this decision made long before corporations were endowed by their Creator etc. etc.?
No, roughly contemporaneously. A corporation’s creators are the initial owners.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/73 "2014-07-05T22:31:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> You could have your corporation do it for you.
Lacks the personal touch of a gratuitous insult. Without that sharing, its like a Valentine from a celibate.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/74 "2014-07-05T22:45:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Is reproductive health some special category of health care, inherently suspect, and therefore subject to restrictions that do not apply to blood pressure medication or vaccinations? And what “burden to religious practice” are we talking about? The dreadful burden of knowing that other people do not adhere to my religious opinions?
Well, the RFRA applies to all acts of Congress.
Reproductive health is certainly singled out as a special category by the Affordable Care Act.
The burden to religious practice arises from the requirement by the ACA that companies must pay for insurance coverage for twenty different contraceptives. Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs inform that that four of these contraceptives can act to prevent a fertilized eggs from implanting, which their faith regards as morally wrong.
The “substantial” calculation arises from the fines the ACA imposes upon companies that fail to comply with the regulation to cover all twenty contraceptives.
> [@](#):
>
> Ah! So we are going to submit all of these disagreements to trial by jury, then?
Sure. It will be a tiny fraction of the things are that are submitted to trial.
> [@](#):
>
> Though i was not aware that the “state of mind” of the accused had any bearing on a murder trial. The question is whether or not he actually committed the action he is accused of committing.
Not at all correct. Virtually every crime requires proof of both a guilty act, as you say (the _actus reus_) and proof of a guilty state of mind (_mens rea_). I mentioned first degree murder above; to convict on first degree murder we must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill.
> [@](#):
>
> True, he may be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but can he be found not guilty by reason of religious opinion?
Insanity is also an example: the court must find that the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect that either left him unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act, or left him aware the act was wrong but unable to resist the impulse to commit the act anyway.
I could even craft a hypothetical in which religious opinion did make a difference in the criminal liability for an act, sure.
> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps we are better served by restricting ourselves to the actual matter at hand without drawing in inferences from entirely unrelated legal issues.
Well, you suggested that the concept of placing a mental state or belief at issue before a court was difficult or impossible. It seems very relevant to rebut that suggestion by reminding you, and others reading, that it is uncontroversially done every day in courtrooms across the land.
---
### Author:  [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)
#### Post date: [July 6, 2014, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/75 "2014-07-06T04:29:18Z")
Related question, what is the bare minimum required to be deemed a ‘religion’ in the United States? Cause people, if we work together we can get some good shit made legal.
---
### Author:  [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2014, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/76 "2014-07-08T03:20:38Z")
> [@Sitnam](#):
>
> Related question, what is the bare minimum required to be deemed a ‘religion’ in the United States? Cause people, if we work together we can get some good shit made legal.
Why not. There’s some seriously stupid shit out there already.
---
### Author:  [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2014, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/77 "2014-07-08T03:22:12Z")
So how about that “corporate veil” thing?
---
### Author:  [@Morgyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgyn)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/78 "2014-07-08T04:05:06Z")
Do you suppose the [Supremes saw this coming](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/guantanamo-bay-hobby-lobby-decision-court-filing-read)?
[QUOTE=Mother Jones]
In a new court filing, attorneys for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have invoked the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby … ask[ing] the court to bar military officials from preventing Gitmo inmates from participating in communal prayer during Ramadan.
[/QUOTE]
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2014, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/79 "2014-07-08T09:41:29Z")
> [@Morgyn](#):
>
> Do you suppose the [Supremes saw this coming](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/guantanamo-bay-hobby-lobby-decision-court-filing-read)?
What should they have seen coming?
Back in 2009, an appeals court rejected a claim brought under the RFRA by detained persons at Guantanamo. That court said said that the RFRA did not protect aliens outside the United States:
> [@](#):
>
> We therefore held that the term “person” as used in RFRA should be read consistently with similar language in constitutional provisions, as interpreted by the Supreme Court at the time Congress enacted RFRA. Rasul I, 512 F.3d at 670-72. Congress legislated against the background of precedent establishing that nonresident aliens were not among the “person[s]” protected by the Fifth Amendment, Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at 783, 70 S.Ct. 936, and were not among “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 269, 110 S.Ct. 1056. See also Cuban Am. Bar Ass’n v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412, 1428 (11th Cir.1995) (Cuban and Haitian refugees at Guantanamo Bay lack First Amendment rights). Reading RFRA in line with these precedents, we held that plaintiffs are not protected “person[s]” under this statute. Rasul I, 512 F.3d at 672. We reinstate that judgment today.
The current petition tries to suggest that the reasoning in Hobby Lobby somehow should change this decision.
But the problem the _Rasul_ petitioners faced was not a lack of personhood. They faced the problem of being aliens not resident in the United States.
Can you explain what you mean by your question?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2014, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/80 "2014-07-08T09:42:31Z")
> [@SteveG1](#):
>
> So how about that “corporate veil” thing?
What about it?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238.md?page=5)