# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/301 "2014-03-30T23:56:18Z")
Contraception should never have been part of the mandate in the first place - not because of religious opposition, but because it is completely at odds with the purpose of health insurance. Contraception is cheap, and it’s used in response to a predictable and optional need. If you want to make it easier for people to get contraception, it would make far more sense to just subsidise it directly, instead of the idiocy of requiring all Americans to buy contraception derivatives from a third party known for ripping people off. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/302 "2014-03-31T00:06:42Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Contraception should never have been part of the mandate in the first place - not because of religious opposition, but because it is completely at odds with the purpose of health insurance. There are two ideas of what Health Insurance should cover. The minimalist view is that it should only cover medical care when something bad has happened. The more expansive, forward thinking view is that if you cover preventative care (and Contraceptives fall under this category), then you prevent bad things from happening and ultimately reduce the amount of money that needs to be spent on medical care. You also greatly increase quality of life by dealing with the little things before they become big things. Paying for contraceptives is ultimately cheaper than the medical cost of having and caring for that baby and it’s mother. Just as routine screenings for cancer greatly reduce both deaths and costs from cancer treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/303 "2014-03-31T00:56:24Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > 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. Well, I think it’s just called “malpractice,” in the purely civil realm. But you’re right: it would be foolish to discard the Free Exercise claim. And they did not. They argued it below. So, my supposition was in error: they did argue it. The Tenth Circuit did not reach the constitutional merits, though, resolving it on the RFRA, with only one judge writing separately to say he would reach the Free Exercise question and decide against Hobby Lobby. The Supremes only accepted the RFRA question for cert. > [@](#): > > Because your premise that the First Amendment protects for-profit corporations right to religious expression is bullshit. That doesn’t seem to be settled law anywhere, other than in the Hamlet Circuit. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/304 "2014-03-31T01:03:00Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > 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? I would think that once a protected class is established, the government has a compelling and direct interest in protecting that class from discrimination. So no, in my view, if a state establishes a protected class, I don’t believe a corporation has the right to disregard that law because of religion. > [@](#): > > 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. Out of curiosity, what’s your reasoning there? Do you believe every treatment is equally protected by law? > [@](#): > > 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. I think it’s silly, but it seems that Newt Gingrich and the Contract on America crowd probably had this intended when they wrote the law. ETA: have no idea why so many Dems voted for it. ---
**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 31, 2014, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/305 "2014-03-31T02:04:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I would think that once a protected class is established, the government has a compelling and direct interest in protecting that class from discrimination. So no, in my view, if a state establishes a protected class, I don’t believe a corporation has the right to disregard that law because of religion. Ask Bricker if sexual preference is a protected class. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Out of curiosity, what’s your reasoning there? Do you believe every treatment is equally protected by law? I’m not sure I understand your question. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I think it’s silly, but it seems that Newt Gingrich and the Contract on America crowd probably had this intended when they wrote the law. ETA: have no idea why so many Dems voted for it. More importantly, I don’t think the founders intended that for-profit corporations would be protected by the Free Exercise Clause. Hell, I don’t think they believed it was even possible for a for-profit corporation to have a soul, have religious duties, or have a religion to exercise. As to the RFRA, I don’t think it was a case of amazing stealth lawmaking, where no one actually mentions their intent to extend free exercise to for-profit corporation in the three years it took to pass the RFRA and it doesn’t get mentioned in the legislative history. I think the bi-partisan support clearly indicates it was written and enacted for the very purpose it stated: “to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened;” Not a mention of for profit corporations anywhere in there. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/306 "2014-03-31T03:36:24Z")
Why are you making a distinction between for profit and not for profit corporations? The writers of RFRA didn’t. ---
**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 31, 2014, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/307 "2014-03-31T03:42:43Z")
The express purpose of the RFRA was “(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” Neither _Sherbert_ nor _Yoder_ involved a corporate plaintiff. I am looking for a case that applied their holdings to one. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I think it’s silly, but it seems that Newt Gingrich and the Contract on America crowd probably had this intended when they wrote the law. ETA: have no idea why so many Dems voted for it. It was introduced and passed in response to weak enforcement of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and specific disputes over protection of tribal lands and peyote use. ---
**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 31, 2014, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/308 "2014-03-31T03:53:00Z")
The only cases I can find which involved corporate plaintiffs and were decided under _Yoder_, _Swaggart_ and _Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah_, involved churches. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/309 "2014-03-31T04:06:43Z")
After reading this thread, I can clearly see why women turn to lesbianism. You guys are off the chain. I’ll never understand why white men won’t mind their god damned business: all up in a woman’s pussy like a pap smear yet you don’t contribute anything except 23 chromosomes and a marginal amount of electrolytes and fructose. That’s it. That is all you contribute to the conception of a human being, kind sirs. Men have NO right to tell a woman what she can do with her body especially old, decrepit men from SCOTUS. Period. You, as men, should be worried about more pressing matters such as American economy, funding your broken ass, crumbling roads and briges, ensuring your sons and daughters have a quality education, and not masturbating to the panoply of pornographic websites which - surprise, surprise - objectifies women that ya’ll men claim to love so much. Just drop the farce, grab a penis, and stuff it in your mouth; it is clear ya’ll have more respect for a penis than an actual woman and her right to choose what grows in her uterus. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/310 "2014-03-31T04:12:33Z")
bridges rather ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/311 "2014-03-31T04:12:36Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The only cases I can find which involved corporate plaintiffs and were decided under _Yoder_, _Swaggart_ and _Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah_, involved churches. Churches are not persons. ---
**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 31, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/312 "2014-03-31T04:25:25Z")
No, but churches clearly fall within the ambit of the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/313 "2014-03-31T05:06:27Z")
Not if you interpret it to apply only to persons. Once you concede that organizations have 1st amendment rights, they all do. ---
**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 31, 2014, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/314 "2014-03-31T12:38:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Why are you making a distinction between for profit and not for profit corporations? The writers of RFRA didn’t. Sure they did. They mentioned non-profit, religious organizations all over the legislative history. What they didn’t mention was for-profit corporations. ---
**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 31, 2014, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/315 "2014-03-31T12:40:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not if you interpret it to apply only to persons. Once you concede that organizations have 1st amendment rights, they all do. That’s simply not true. The Supreme Court has long recognized some religious organizations can have the right to free expression. What they specifically haven’t done is find that for profit corporations can. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/316 "2014-03-31T12:57:41Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > After reading this thread, I can clearly see why women turn to lesbianism. You guys are off the chain. I’ll never understand why white men won’t mind their god damned business: all up in a woman’s pussy like a pap smear yet you don’t contribute anything except 23 chromosomes and a marginal amount of electrolytes and fructose. That’s it. That is all you contribute to the conception of a human being, kind sirs. Men have NO right to tell a woman what she can do with her body especially old, decrepit men from SCOTUS. Period. You, as men, should be worried about more pressing matters such as American economy, funding your broken ass, crumbling roads and briges, ensuring your sons and daughters have a quality education, and not masturbating to the panoply of pornographic websites which - surprise, surprise - objectifies women that ya’ll men claim to love so much. Just drop the farce, grab a penis, and stuff it in your mouth; it is clear ya’ll have more respect for a penis than an actual woman and her right to choose what grows in her uterus. > > - Honesty I’m not a white man. ---
**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 31, 2014, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/317 "2014-03-31T13:08:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not a white man. Congrats?!? 🙂 ---
**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 31, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/318 "2014-03-31T13:10:51Z")
Wait, was that post _supposed_ to be in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/319 "2014-03-31T13:12:01Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Congrats?!? > 🙂 Thank you. (It seemed important to his thesis that the group in error was “you guys,” later defined as “white men.” I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t confused with the oppressive, insensitive group of white men.) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/320 "2014-03-31T13:32:06Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Ask Bricker if sexual preference is a protected class. I’m too lazy. Can you ask him for me? > [@](#): > > More importantly, I don’t think the founders intended that for-profit corporations would be protected by the Free Exercise Clause. Hell, I don’t think they believed it was even possible for a for-profit corporation to have a soul, have religious duties, or have a religion to exercise. > > As to the RFRA, I don’t think it was a case of amazing stealth lawmaking, where no one actually mentions their intent to extend free exercise to for-profit corporation in the three years it took to pass the RFRA and it doesn’t get mentioned in the legislative history. But surely we agree that what is actually written in law may have implications beyond what the Framers or the authors of the law intended, n’est pas? And are we, as a general rule, to exclude application of the text of a law beyond the precise situation for which it was intended to address? I think, as a general proposal, that courts are better off reading the text of the law rather than trying to interpret silence (on the part of the Framers or the authors of a particular bill) as meaning that a law does not apply in a particular situation. For example, the drafters of murder statutes surely _intended_ the law to apply to humans, regardless of how it was written, and never imagined that someday intelligent, self-aware robots might take a human life by their own initiative. Shall we interpret the silence in the legislative record to mean that the law does not apply to robots? Or shall we just read the text of the murder statute and let the chips fall where they may? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=17)