# 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:** 17
**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, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/321 "2014-03-31T13:33:52Z")
Both. We rely on the text, but we look at the legislative history to determine if a particular application is at least _plausible_. ---
**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, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/322 "2014-03-31T14:11:06Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m too lazy. Can you ask him for me? I haven’t seen him around. While it depends based on state, the Supreme Court has not recognized that sexual preference is a suspect class. > [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Sure, as a general rule of statutory construction, the text is always the first, and most often most important, thing to consider. But it isn’t by any stretch the last thing to consider either. Which is why the Dictionary Act specifically says that the context of an undefined term needs to be considered also. And, in this case, it’s pretty clear that the context shows that the legislation was never intended to extend rights to the free exercise of religion to for-profit corporations. So, the question becomes, does blind adherence to textualism trump the intent of the legislation? I don’t believe so. But others, others who may very well scream about “the will of the people!!!” in other contexts are more than happy to ignore that very will in favor for the simplistic textual definition. > [@Ravenman](#): > > 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? Quite the hypothetical there. My response would be that these self-aware robots don’t meet the definition of persons, thus they don’t have the right to be charged, to trial, or anything else that would require the need for a murder statute. So law enforcement could simply shoot, or seize, or destroy them without concern for charging them with murder. So I’m not sure that’s the best hypothetical to go with. ---
**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, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/323 "2014-03-31T15:13:52Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > After reading this thread, I can clearly see why women turn to lesbianism. You guys are off the chain. Dial back the hate. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/324 "2014-03-31T22:27:05Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/325 "2014-04-01T19:52:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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.) I also think quite a few minority women would be more than a little taken aback by the suggestion that men of color are less sexist and less eager to control women than white men. Granted Honesty has also stated he thinks black women would be better off in Iran, where women who’ve given birth out of wedlock face execution. I’m not sure how much logic backs up his arguments. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/326 "2014-04-01T20:40:13Z")
Guess what $73 million dollars worth of Hobby Lobby’s mutual funds for retirement is invested in? Companies that make emergency contraception, including day after, IUD’s, and other objects they object to in their lawsuit. I suppose it’s OK to give money to companies to use to create contraceptives, but not to give money to insurance companies that might be used to use contraceptives. Fucking hypocrites. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/327 "2014-04-01T21:09:49Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Guess what $73 million dollars worth of Hobby Lobby’s mutual funds for retirement is invested in? What’s the point of being morally superior if you can’t use it as a cudgel to control the behavior of others? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/328 "2014-04-01T21:30:40Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Guess what $73 million dollars worth of Hobby Lobby’s mutual funds for retirement is invested in? > > Companies that make emergency contraception, including day after, IUD’s, and other objects they object to in their lawsuit. > > I suppose it’s OK to give money to companies to use to create contraceptives, but not to give money to insurance companies that might be used to use contraceptives. > > Fucking hypocrites. [Here’s a link about it all.](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers) ---
**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:** [April 1, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/329 "2014-04-01T22:34:57Z")
Come on, that’s weak sauce. > [@](#): > > The information on Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) investments is included in the company’s 2013 annual disclosure to the Department of Labor. The records contain a list, dated December 31, 2012, of 24 funds that were included in its employer-sponsored retirement plan. MorningStar, an investment research firm, provided Mother Jones with the names of the companies in nine of those funds as of December 31, 2012. Each fund’s portfolio consists of at least dozens if not hundreds of different holdings. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/330 "2014-04-01T23:14:51Z")
I dunno, if you’re going to be upstanding and moral enough to prevent your employees from having insurance paid birth control, perhaps you should apply that ideal to your own money first. You know, something that Jesus guy said about a plank in the eye, or something like that. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/331 "2014-04-01T23:16:00Z")
Yeah, but they have no control over their mutual funds. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/332 "2014-04-01T23:34:26Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Guess what $73 million dollars worth of Hobby Lobby’s mutual funds for retirement is invested in? > > Companies that make emergency contraception, including day after, IUD’s, and other objects they object to in their lawsuit. > > I suppose it’s OK to give money to companies to use to create contraceptives, but not to give money to insurance companies that might be used to use contraceptives. > > Fucking hypocrites. No. The question of how many steps removed you must be to purge the taint of a sinful association is one that all systems must address. They object to paying for insurance (one step) that is used to fund abortion or abortion-like therapies (two steps). But they don’t object to paying into a retirement fund (one step) that buys mutual funds (two steps) administered by people outside the retirement funds’ control and the companies’ control, which invest in many hundreds of companies, some few of which (three steps), make, among many other things, some of those products (four steps). Your objection is a strawman characterization of Hobby Lobby’s position if you believe it is hypocritical. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/333 "2014-04-01T23:34:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yeah, but they have no control over their mutual funds. Yes, they do. They can choose not to use the ones that invest in companies that make contraception. There are mutual funds specifically designed for the religious out there. But it wasn’t important enough for Hobby Lobby to actually be concerned about it. Let’s hear about that “sincerely held” religious belief again. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/334 "2014-04-02T00:03:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > The question of how many steps removed you must be to purge the taint of a sinful association is one that all systems must address. They object to paying for insurance (one step) that is used to fund abortion or abortion-like therapies (two steps). > > But they don’t object to paying into a retirement fund (one step) that buys mutual funds (two steps) administered by people outside the retirement funds’ control and the companies’ control, which invest in many hundreds of companies, some few of which (three steps), make, among many other things, some of those products (four steps). OOOOOooo, I wanna play. Hobby Lobby (step 1) makes a promise to pay an insurance company (step 2), to provide health care for their workers. The bank (step 3) pays the insurance company, who puts the money into a gigantic fund (step 4), from which they pay money (step 5) to a contraceptive dispenser (step 6), for workers who actually go to the doctor (step 7) to get contraception, and then they use it (step 8). Or Hobby Lobby puts money in a retirement fund (step 1) which gives money to companies that make contraception (step 2). 8 steps to 2. I win. > [@Bricker](#): > > Your objection is a strawman characterization of Hobby Lobby’s position if you believe it is hypocritical. Bullshit. Giving money to firms that make contraception is no different than giving money to an insurance company that may pay for contraception. Your steps are silly rationalizations that let Hobby Lobby raise objections to the law in one case, all the while doing the same thing in another. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/335 "2014-04-02T00:27:21Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > OOOOOooo, I wanna play. > > Hobby Lobby (step 1) makes a promise to pay an insurance company (step 2), to provide health care for their workers. The bank (step 3) pays the insurance company, who puts the money into a gigantic fund (step 4), from which they pay money (step 5) to a contraceptive dispenser (step 6), for workers who actually go to the doctor (step 7) to get contraception, and then they use it (step 8). > > Or > > Hobby Lobby puts money in a retirement fund (step 1) which gives money to companies that make contraception (step 2). > > 8 steps to 2. I win. > > Bullshit. Giving money to firms that make contraception is no different than giving money to an insurance company that may pay for contraception. Your steps are silly rationalizations that let Hobby Lobby raise objections to the law in one case, all the while doing the same thing in another. Ok. I don’t see either of us budging. I’ll let the Glenfiddich decide. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/336 "2014-04-02T00:53:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok. I don’t see either of us budging. I don’t either. Of course I didn’t see a moral difference between “I give money to A who buys contraception”, and “I give money to B who gives money to C, who gives contraception to A”, so I find the whole thing, including your steps, to be an exercise in rationalizations. > [@Bricker](#): > > I’ll let the Glenfiddich decide. Yes, because however the Supreme Court rules will decide the moral issue too. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/337 "2014-04-02T01:15:37Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I don’t either. Of course I didn’t see a moral difference between “I give money to A who buys contraception”, and “I give money to B who gives money to C, who gives contraception to A”, so I find the whole thing, including your steps, to be an exercise in rationalizations. Yes, because however the Supreme Court rules will decide the moral issue too. :rolleyes: No, but you have no more claim than I to assert a moral rule that we must both accept. So I will settle for a clarified legal rule that the RFRA is available to for-profit corporations. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/338 "2014-04-02T01:25:07Z")
Fortunately for me, a the first Chick Fil A in town is opening near the newish Hobby Lobby, so a single obscenity laden tirade against their collective corporate jackassdom will reach both sites. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/339 "2014-04-02T01:31:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, but you have no more claim than I to assert a moral rule that we must both accept. Yet Hobby Lobby would have their moral rule (one they don’t actually conform to unless they happen to want to file suit) be accepted by the Supreme Court. I’m simply pointing out the failings and hypocrisy of said rule. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/340 "2014-04-02T01:40:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yeah, but they have no control over their mutual funds. Did you read the whole article? It makes it clear that the Greens could have chosen a mutual fund tailored to their religious sensitivities, but they clearly have chosen not to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=18)