# Reach of Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 21, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201 "2014-03-21T01:54:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/1 "2014-03-21T01:54:51Z")
A [liberal news website](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/supreme-court-birth-control-mandate-hobby-lobby) puts [the controversy](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/) thusly:
> [@TPM](#):
>
> The broader impacts are unknown until a ruling comes down. A defeat for the government would expand the concept of corporate personhood by concluding that a for-profit business can hold religious beliefs that afford it special treatment under the law. In the longer-term, religious business owners might feel empowered to sue to get out of other laws they say violate their religious liberty.
It’s this aspect in particular, as opposed to the actual birth control aspects, that I want to get into. Is this implication, well, implicated? What do you see as the future of lawsuits suggested in the quote should the Court rule in favor of Hobby Lobby (which TPM deems likely)? I personally can’t see things getting to the point where reams of lawsuits are filed to get out of taxes and regulations and what have you (if only because I can’t see courts opening such logistical nightmare doors), but I was wondering what y’all thought.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/2 "2014-03-21T14:20:48Z")
Some people seem to believe that the idea of corporate personhood in law was invented in the Citizens United decision. Others have the slightly more reasonable idea that the cases involving the contraceptive mandate are seeking to invent an application of the First Amendment’s religious freedom protection to corporate persons. It’s my understanding that neither is correct. Courts have held on many occasions over a long period that corporations do have rights under the Fist Amendment, though there’s room to debate the exact extent of this. If so, then it would seem that a defeat for the Obama Administration in this case would not, actually have much far reaching consequences since it would only confirm what is already law.
Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at UCLA, has been [writing a lot about this case on his blog](http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2014/03/opening-remarks-federalist-society-teleforum-on-the-contraceptive-mandate-in-the-supreme-court.html).
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/3 "2014-03-21T15:41:15Z")
I think it will be solved on a case by case basis. I think it is pretty clear that Hobby Lobby, as a closely held corporation, has legitimate religious beliefs. Now, if Microsoft would suddenly say that they are Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to get a particular tax break, then I would call bullshit.
The Court will probably attempt to find a test that allows for exemptions based on religion without going so far as to test the sincerity or reasonableness of the belief.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/4 "2014-03-21T16:11:16Z")
No one blinks when a corporation asserts that it has a First Amendment right to freedom of the press.
The plain fact is that corporations have had a long-standing recognition in the law as being able to assert various constitutional freedoms. The Hobby Lobby case won’t change much of the legal landscape in that regard.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/5 "2014-03-21T16:28:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> No one blinks when a corporation asserts that it has a First Amendment right to freedom of the press.
>
> The plain fact is that corporations have had a long-standing recognition in the law as being able to assert various constitutional freedoms. The Hobby Lobby case won’t change much of the legal landscape in that regard.
But, in fairness, religion is different. What if as in my hypo Microsoft declares that as a corporation it subscribes to the Jehovah’s Witness philosophy and challenges a provision (any provision that it claims goes against their professed faith) of the law under the RFRA? What test is applied? Should a court rule on the sincerity or the correctness of a belief? Should a court apply strict scrutiny?
---
### Author:  [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/6 "2014-03-21T16:36:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> No one blinks when a corporation asserts that it has a First Amendment right to freedom of the press.
>
> The plain fact is that corporations have had a long-standing recognition in the law as being able to assert various constitutional freedoms. The Hobby Lobby case won’t change much of the legal landscape in that regard.
Well, therein lies the rub and the crux of this case. The employee’s freedom of press is not curtailed by the corporation’s freedom of press. But the corporation’s freedom of religion can produce undue harm on an employee’s freedom of religion.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/7 "2014-03-21T17:09:06Z")
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> Well, therein lies the rub and the crux of this case. The employee’s freedom of press is not curtailed by the corporation’s freedom of press. But the corporation’s freedom of religion can produce undue harm on an employee’s freedom of religion.
You lost me here. How is a Hobby Lobby employee’s freedom of religion harmed by the corporate actions?
Because the employee doesn’t receive the morning after pill from their health insurance with no copay? How does that harm their worship (or non-worship) of their chosen diety?
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/8 "2014-03-21T17:16:43Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> You lost me here. How is a Hobby Lobby employee’s freedom of religion harmed by the corporate actions?
Same topic as [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=718243). Some people believe that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion means that employees can boss around their employers. They’re wrong, of course.
---
### Author:  [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/9 "2014-03-21T17:19:11Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> You lost me here. How is a Hobby Lobby employee’s freedom of religion harmed by the corporate actions?
>
> Because the employee doesn’t receive the morning after pill from their health insurance with no copay? How does that harm their worship (or non-worship) of their chosen diety?
I’m speaking a bit more broadly than just the morning after pill, while that’s the catalyst for their argument, it’s not the argument itself.
---
### Author:  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/10 "2014-03-21T17:19:15Z")
I guess I don’t understand this corporate/individual distinction. If I, as an individual, have employees, can I then use my religious beliefs to avoid laws about how to treat my employees? My own sincere religious dogma is that the minimum wage is heretical.
It doesn’t seem like whether it’s just me, or it’s my incorporated company, should have an effect on whether I have to follow federal laws on minimum standards for how I treat employees.
---
### Author:  [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/11 "2014-03-21T17:28:57Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> Same topic as [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=718243). Some people believe that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion means that employees can boss around their employers. They’re wrong, of course.
[Then there’s Title VII as well as the ADL includes it:](http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/religfreeres/ReligAccommodWPlace-docx.pdf)
> [@](#):
>
> Employees cannot be required to participate "or to refrain from participating "in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/12 "2014-03-21T19:18:14Z")
Well, again, how is working at a job which provides health insurance, just not health insurance that provides the morning after pill, participation or refraining from participation in any religious activity?
---
### Author:  [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/13 "2014-03-21T19:24:16Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> Well, again, how is working at a job which provides health insurance, just not health insurance that provides the morning after pill, participation or refraining from participation in any religious activity?
What is Hobby Lobby’s rationale for not providing it?
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/14 "2014-03-21T19:27:51Z")
That doesn’t answer the question.
Say I work for an Orthodox Jewish employer who provides employee meals. For religious reasons, the employee meals don’t contain pork. Is the non-presence of pork a “religious activity as a condition of employment”? Obviously not.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/15 "2014-03-21T19:31:01Z")
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> What is Hobby Lobby’s rationale for not providing it?
It is clearly religious from the employer perspective. They admit so much in their briefs. Why is that significant and how does it require participation or non-participation by an employee?
---
### Author:  [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/16 "2014-03-21T19:48:40Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> That doesn’t answer the question.
>
> Say I work for an Orthodox Jewish employer who provides employee meals. For religious reasons, the employee meals don’t contain pork. Is the non-presence of pork a “religious activity as a condition of employment”? Obviously not.
I’m sorry, are people taking the “morning after pill” at work? Because then your analogy would be relevant. Hobby Lobby’s position is affecting its employees life outside of work hours. So that would be like the Orthodox Jewish employer not allowing pork to be eaten out of work too.
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> It is clearly religious from the employer perspective. They admit so much in their briefs. Why is that significant and how does it require participation or non-participation by an employee?
Are you asking why it is significant for an employee to be forced to follow the religious tenets of their employer?
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/17 "2014-03-21T19:55:57Z")
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> Are you asking why it is significant for an employee to be forced to follow the religious tenets of their employer?
They aren’t forced to follow anything. They can buy a case of morning after pills if they like with the rest of their wages. It’s just that the employer isn’t paying through the health care plan.
---
### Author:  [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/18 "2014-03-21T20:07:27Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> They aren’t forced to follow anything. They can buy a case of morning after pills if they like with the rest of their wages. It’s just that the employer isn’t paying through the health care plan.
EXCEPT healthcare is part of their wages. Every job I’ve ever had, that my friends have had, that my family has had, actually has a compensation package. Salary, 401K, health care, vacation, et al, it’s all part of what you trade for working at that place.
---
### Author:  [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/19 "2014-03-21T20:28:27Z")
I think the Supreme Court will conclude, correctly, that Hobby Lobby is not forcing its employees to use contraceptives, but rather simply providing the option to those employees who wish to use contraceptives. It doesn’t violate Jesus’s teachings to sell a man a gun, only to use said gun in an immoral manner.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/20 "2014-03-21T20:31:26Z")
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> I’m sorry, are people taking the “morning after pill” at work? Because then your analogy would be relevant. Hobby Lobby’s position is affecting its employees life outside of work hours. So that would be like the Orthodox Jewish employer not allowing pork to be eaten out of work too.
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> EXCEPT healthcare is part of their wages. Every job I’ve ever had, that my friends have had, that my family has had, actually has a compensation package. Salary, 401K, health care, vacation, et al, it’s all part of what you trade for working at that place.
Uh, yeah. And if an employer is providing food to employees at its cafeteria, then that food is also part of their compensation. (“Compensation”, by the way, is different from “wages”. Wages are one part of compensation.)
There is no law that says that nothing an employer does can affect an employee’s life outside of work hours. Those in many military positions, for instance, can be punished for committing adultery, among other things. That surely affects what happens “outside of work hours”.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=2)