# Reach of Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby? **URL:** \ **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:** 15
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/281 "2014-03-30T18:22:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > By “pisses off,” do you mean “violates their sincerely held religious belief?” What standard does the court use for determining what beliefs are sincerely held, and which are not? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/282 "2014-03-30T18:38:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If there is, it’s up to Congress to amend the law to draw a line where they want it. How could they if it’s the First Amendment itself that protects a secular, for-profit corporation’s right to free expression of it’s religion? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/283 "2014-03-30T18:43:50Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Companies obviously can’t discriminate on the basis of the religion of their employees because the government has a compelling interest in the equal application of laws. Until ENDA becomes law - let’s hope soon - businesses can discriminate against gay people for all sorts of unethical reasons. Not in the states and municipalities that have statutory protection for discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Wouldn’t those have to be useless against a corporation’s free exercise rights to discriminate against homosexuals? > [@Ravenman](#): > > And I think the government has a compelling interest in requiring coverage of blood transfusions because of the clear link between that treatment and death.I’m just frankly not so sure what the compelling government interest is in requiring that employers cover birth control. I think it is outstanding policy - makes sense for tons of reasons - but the medical necessity for BC is slightly different than for blood. There are excellent medical reasons why BC is a very important medication for a number of reasons; but I don’t believe that “good medical reasons” is synonymous with the government having a compelling reason to require people to adhere to physicians’ or public health experts’ judgment. Personally, I think it is as compelling as blood transfusions or vaccinations, but I’m very skeptical of the men on the Supreme Court would agree. > [@Ravenman](#): > > When did a slippery slope go from being a logical fallacy to a reasoned argument? I’m not advocating that Hobby Lobby should lose their argument simply because of slippery slope, I’ve given numerous reasons other in this very thread. But what I am pointing out is that absurdity of a belief that the First Amendment protects a secular, for profit corporation’s exercise of its religion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/284 "2014-03-30T20:17:05Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > How could they if it’s the First Amendment itself that protects a secular, for-profit corporation’s right to free expression of it’s religion? Two-thirds of Congress, and three-fourths of the states. And since the current case involves the RFRA, all they have to do is change it and they get some breathing room. Half of Congress, plus one in each house, plus the President and they remove for-profit companies from the RFRA. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/285 "2014-03-30T20:18:12Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > What standard does the court use for determining what beliefs are sincerely held, and which are not? Same standard as any factual issue in any civil trial: preponderance of the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/286 "2014-03-30T20:57:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Same standard as any factual issue in any civil trial: preponderance of the evidence. So if I present evidence that I have consistently opposed foreign wars because they violate my sincerely held religious beliefs, can I legally withhold income taxes? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/287 "2014-03-30T20:58:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Two-thirds of Congress, and three-fourths of the states. Funny you didn’t mention that first time around. And I’d put the odds of a Constitutional Amendment taking away your for-profit corporation’s right to free exercise up there with one to make Obama King for Life and mandatory flag burning. > [@Bricker](#): > > And since the current case involves the RFRA, all they have to do is change it and they get some breathing room. I asked before, did Hobby Lobby raise your First Amendment Free Exercise claim? If they didn’t, why do you suppose that is? > [@Bricker](#): > > Half of Congress, plus one in each house, plus the President and they remove for-profit companies from the RFRA. Or they could actually get beyond simplistic textualism, look to the context, and conclude the RFRA was never intended, and doesn’t, extend free exercise protections to for-profit corporations. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/288 "2014-03-30T20:59:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Same standard as any factual issue in any civil trial: preponderance of the evidence. I’m a little surprised you chose to go there. ISTM that any religious person would be outraged by a judicial inquiry into the sincerity of their beliefs. Hell, _I_ would be outraged by such an inquiry and I’m not even religious. “Mr. Bricker, is it your sincere belief that bread and wine become flesh and blood after the words of consecration?” “Yes.” “Have you ever observed a physical change in the bread or wine?” “No.” “Would it be fair to say that you do not literally believe that transubstantiation takes place?” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/289 "2014-03-30T21:17:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I really don’t care to explore a hypothetical based on “it seems obvious to you.” > > Because in the actual world, courts have had no trouble rejecting absurd religious belief claims. > > So can you explain how the courts could do that, when “it seems obvious” to you that they can’t? Please point out where I said they could not. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/290 "2014-03-30T21:20:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Can Scientology be sincerely held? Because if so, all bets are off. **You don’t have to be a primitive dude in a desert to make a religion people believe in**. You can be a 19th century con-artist, or a shitty Sci-Fi writer. Hey hey hey! I’m not exactly primitive! I’ve got one of these here computer things, after all! ---
**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:** [March 30, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/291 "2014-03-30T21:32:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. I am unaware of any aspect of the law that precludes Scientolgy from being a sincerely held religious belief. Which means any old horseshit will pass the test. Which means something packaged a little more reverently than Snowboarder’s Relapse Cult could be a legal religion, right? > [@](#): > > By “pisses off,” do you mean “violates their sincerely held religious belief?” No, I mean pisses off. They aren’t violating their beliefs. Someone else is doing something that violates their (Hobby Lobby’s) beliefs. Again, they are just angry that their wages are being used for something they disagree with. They are in no way being forced to act, any more than if the money they pay their employees with pays for abortive drugs. They are okay with giving dollars that can cause abortions, but not with giving health-care that can be used for it. It’s just silly. > [@](#): > > Because you don’t get to decide that question. If you believe, as you have signaled, that Scientology per SE fails to qualify, why do you imagine your assessment of how the words are applied elsewhere is in any way accurate? Don’t get me wrong, even your ancient and august faith is as goofy as Scientology. If one gets a pass they all should. I’m saying that Scientologist employers shouldn’t get to tell you that you can’t get mental health coverage, when the law says you can. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/292 "2014-03-30T21:37:53Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Hey hey hey! I’m not exactly primitive! I’ve got one of these here computer things, after all! Wanna go down to the quarry and throw some holy books in? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/293 "2014-03-30T21:43:23Z")
The justices implicitly acknowledged that the owners’ religious beliefs were burdened though, so that’s no longer even an issue. The issue is whether it’s sufficient that they can opt out of providing insurance at all. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/294 "2014-03-30T21:56:05Z")
Eh? Things aren’t not at issue just because justices “implicitly acknowledge” them at oral argument. They are speaking hypothetically. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/295 "2014-03-30T22:01:23Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So if I present evidence that I have consistently opposed foreign wars because they violate my sincerely held religious beliefs, can I legally withhold income taxes? No. But you would certainly pass the sincere belief prong. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/296 "2014-03-30T22:05:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Eh? Things aren’t not at issue just because justices “implicitly acknowledge” them at oral argument. They are speaking hypothetically. We won’t know for sure until they write the decisions. But it sure sounds like the liberal justices are seeking to uphold the mandate based on the fact that it’s not really a mandate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/297 "2014-03-30T22:07:17Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I asked before, did Hobby Lobby raise your First Amendment Free Exercise claim? If they didn’t, why do you suppose that is? They did not. I suspect they did not because the First Amendment approach allows for whatever balancing tests or compromises the Hamlet-school judges might devise, unbound by any reference to text. The RFRA, in contrast, is straightforward and clear, and ignoring its text is at least difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/298 "2014-03-30T22:16:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Which means any old horseshit will pass the test. Which means something packaged a little more reverently than Snowboarder’s Relapse Cult could be a legal religion, right? I have no idea. I expect your outright antipathy to religion makes your premises a bit difficult for me to understand. > [@](#): > > No, I mean pisses off. They aren’t violating their beliefs. Someone else is doing something that violates their (Hobby Lobby’s) beliefs. Why in the world should your opinion about the substance of their beliefs be of interest? A vegan may be a vegan because he objects to eating meat. Or he may object, on a religious basis, to killing any living creature. That makes a difference if he has to pay a butcher. Your opinion might be that he’s not doing any killing, but his religious objection might extend to subsidizing the killing that anyone else does. In simpler words, Hobby Lobby’s belief is that paying an insurance company to provide abortions violates their beliefs. Although they are not Catholic, that belief is completely consistent with Catholic belief. On what legal basis can you say the government should find that this is not a sincerely held religious belief? I’ll go back and check, but I think that even in the circuits that ruled against Hobby Lobby, there was no court that found this was not a sincere religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/299 "2014-03-30T22:41:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They did not. > > I suspect they did not because the First Amendment approach allows for whatever balancing tests or compromises the Hamlet-school judges might devise, unbound by any reference to text. The RFRA, in contrast, is straightforward and clear, and ignoring its text is at least difficult. Let me ask. As an attorney, did you ever not use a supposedly clear Constitutional argument and instead rely solely on a statutory one? Because, I have never really heard of a team of high priced, very well respected attorneys, passing on a Constitutional argument simply because a statutory one is available. In fact, I would be willing to bet that would be close to ineffective assistance, to specifically avoid a Constitutional argument (especially before the Supreme Court) in favor of a weaker statutory one. But I think you know why I asked, and I know you know why you’re trying so desperately to pretend those attorneys would just throw away a Constitutional argument. Because your premise that the First Amendment protects for-profit corporations right to religious expression is bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/300 "2014-03-30T22:49:36Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > If Hobby Lobby should lose, could a group of like-minded employees challenge the law on the grounds that their compensation plan now requires them to purchase coverage that they find religiously objectionable? Wouldn’t this avoid the “corporate personhood” issue? Hamlet? Bricker? Any other Doper legal beagles? I’d really like to get your opinions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=16)