# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/401 "2014-04-06T12:48:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This also shows why religious people should think for themselves, even though that probably makes the legal situation more confusing. I eat chicken with milk, because a) as you pointed out, chickens don’t give milk, and the law says, “do not boil a calf in its mothers’ milk”, and b) the Torah also says, “Do not add or subtract from this.” > > Where the rabbis seem to be clearly wrong, I ignore rabbinical wisdom. Organized religion tends to prioritize tradition over what Scripture actually says. The no poultry with milk law was based on the fact that most Jews were ignorant and uneducated at the time and it was important not to confuse them. It survives despite Jews being about the best educated group on the planet because of tradition. That’s your privilege, of course…just as it’s the privilege of observant Jews to observe the rabbis’ fence. And what’s your position on eating rabbit meat? It’s _treif_ but there’s no reason rabbit is less or more healthy than beef or goat, true? In Talmudic discussion, the _mitzvot_ are divided into _mishpatim_ and _chukkim_. The former are laws that G-d has given His chosen people that have a rational underpinning, ones for which the logical reason can be clearly seen. The latter are to be obeyed despite their incomprehensibility. But from the perspective of burdening a sincere religious belief, both must be treated equally. For nitpickers: I intentionally left out _eidot_. And I intentionally left out the Chassidic view that eliminates the distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/402 "2014-04-06T17:08:11Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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. Maybe you ought to ask a woman how many black men are enacting laws preventing women from exercising their right to choose. This shouldn’t be too hard. Women do make up 51% of the population, after all. Go ahead, ask them, and invite them to contribute to the thread. Outside the our favorite House Negro - Justice Thisisalynching - you won’t be able to cobble more than a few names. It is because, generally, blacks mind their business in regard to social issues. Unlike white people, we don’t have the luxury to picket funerals or meddle in the private affairs of 300 million people because we have bills to pay, mouths to feed, and work that needs to be done. It’s something you (and most of this board) would not understand. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Granted Honesty has also stated he thinks black women would be better off in Iran, where women who’ve Why don’t you paste and copy what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth? In the same breath, I also said blacks would be better in Canada and Europe though I see you failed to mention that. I also not specifically highlight black women, those are your words not mine. Gotta love the SDMB, it’s like _League of Legends_ where everyone picks Trundle - “outsmart anyone you can’t beat, and beat anyone you can’t outsmart.” > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’m not sure how much logic backs up his arguments. Oh, please. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/403 "2014-04-07T04:08:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s your privilege, of course…just as it’s the privilege of observant Jews to observe the rabbis’ fence. > > And what’s your position on eating rabbit meat? It’s _treif_ but there’s no reason rabbit is less or more healthy than beef or goat, true? My position is that Jews should obey the law, even if we don’t understand it. But rabbinical additions or subtractions to the law are up to the individual believer. I also don’t buy into the idea that a rabbi has to bless a slaughtering in order for it to be kosher. I actually find that eating grain fed, humanely treated cows, etc., fits the letter of the law just fine. > [@](#): > > But from the perspective of burdening a sincere religious belief, both must be treated equally. Yes. If the government can make you pay for contraception, they can also make you pay for pork. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/404 "2014-04-07T04:27:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If the government can make you pay for contraception, they can also make you pay for pork. What religion considers it sinful to pay for pork? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/405 "2014-04-07T04:37:01Z")
Not Judaism, now that I think about it, although we can’t pay for cheeseburgers. Jews can buy pork for others, but mixing milk and meat is forbidden even if we don’t eat it. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/406 "2014-04-07T12:16:15Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not Judaism, now that I think about it, although we can’t pay for cheeseburgers. Jews can buy pork for others, but mixing milk and meat is forbidden even if we don’t eat it. But even mixing dairy and meat is only sinful for Jews; if a Jew bought me dinner in a restaurant, would he have a problem if I, as a Gentile, ordered a cheeseburger? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/407 "2014-04-07T12:20:45Z")
Not sure about that one. I do know that if Jews were forced to sell cheeseburgers though, that would cross a line. But then again, an observant Jew probably would be buying you dinner at a kosher restaurant since it would be awfully weird for him to just sit there and not eat. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/408 "2014-04-07T12:35:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not sure about that one. I do know that if Jews were forced to sell cheeseburgers though, that would cross a line. And this brings us full circle. Is it a legitimate violation of First Amendment religious freedom if a business owner is compelled to offer insurance that his employee may choose to use for medical procedures the employer considers sinful? I say the employer’s religious freedom only extends as far as his own sin; government cannot compel him to use birth control, but if he wants to engage in commerce, he cannot control how his employees use compensation. An employer can make moral decisions for himself, but not for his employees; that violates their religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Hinten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecd19e/32.png) [@Hinten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hinten)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/409 "2014-04-07T12:57:31Z")
What bothers me the most about this, conceptually not legally, is the fact that individuals incorporate for a long list of benefits. One of those benefits is to shield the owners from legal and financial redress when something goes wrong with the corporation. For example, we cannot (usually) go after owners’ money when the corporation goes bankrupt. So, incorporation offers owners protection against claims against them individually. In this case, the owners want it both ways, they want the veil of protection in regards to legal and financial issues but do want to impose their personal religious views on the corporation and its employees. I’m sure this is not a legal argument but conceptually nobody has been able to explain this diametrically opposed approach to me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/410 "2014-04-07T12:59:14Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And this brings us full circle. Is it a legitimate violation of First Amendment religious freedom if a business owner is compelled to offer insurance that his employee may choose to use for medical procedures the employer considers sinful? I say the employer’s religious freedom only extends as far as his own sin; government cannot compel him to use birth control, but if he wants to engage in commerce, he cannot control how his employees use compensation. An employer can make moral decisions for himself, but not for his employees; that violates their religious freedom. The employer is buying a product that covers contraception. Could an employer be required to buy insurance that covers abortion? This question was actually asked, and the lame response by the government was, “There’s no such law.” As if the Democrats wouldn’t do it if they thought they could get away with it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/411 "2014-04-07T13:00:23Z")
> [@Hinten](#): > > What bothers me the most about this, conceptually not legally, is the fact that individuals incorporate for a long list of benefits. One of those benefits is to shield the owners from legal and financial redress when something goes wrong with the corporation. > For example, we cannot (usually) go after owners’ money when the corporation goes bankrupt. So, incorporation offers owners protection against claims against them individually. > In this case, the owners want it both ways, they want the veil of protection in regards to legal and financial issues but do want to impose their personal religious views on the corporation and its employees. > > I’m sure this is not a legal argument but conceptually nobody has been able to explain this diametrically opposed approach to me. Churches and religious nonprofits also incorporate. Does this mean they surrender their 1st amendment rights? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/412 "2014-04-07T13:21:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As if the Democrats wouldn’t do it if they thought they could get away with it. Cite for the b.s. claim, please. ---
**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 7, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/413 "2014-04-07T13:42:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Churches and religious nonprofits also incorporate. Does this mean they surrender their 1st amendment rights? No, because they’re religious organizations that can have religious obligations and duties due to their close link to their members. They’re also not for-profit corporations, which have no such religious basis. When Hobby Lobby decided to avail itself of all the benefits of being a for-profit corporation, they also don’t get to be a religious organization with the benefits that incurs. No court has ever found a for-profit corporation can exercise Free Expression of Religion rights. Which you should know already, if you’ve actually read the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Hinten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecd19e/32.png) [@Hinten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hinten)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/414 "2014-04-07T13:43:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Churches and religious nonprofits also incorporate. Does this mean they surrender their 1st amendment rights? Who is “they”? ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/415 "2014-04-07T13:47:52Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > No, because they’re religious organizations that can have religious obligations and duties due to their close link to their members. They’re also not for-profit corporations, which have no such religious basis. When Hobby Lobby decided to avail itself of all the benefits of being a for-profit corporation, they also don’t get to be a religious organization with the benefits that incurs. No court has ever found a for-profit corporation can exercise Free Expression of Religion rights. Which you should know already, if you’ve actually read the thread. Serious legal questions. Has a court ever found that they can’t? If not, which is the default view, that rights exist unless a court says so or that they don’t exist until a court affirms them? ---
**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 7, 2014, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/416 "2014-04-07T14:03:26Z")
There are two “default” views, depending on how you look at something. There is a presumption that an act is legal. There is a presumption that a law is constitutional. Where the two conflict, the latter wins. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/417 "2014-04-07T14:18:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The employer is buying a product that covers contraception. How does that violate sincere religious belief? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/418 "2014-04-07T15:19:28Z")
If I had to purchase something for someone that I considered immoral because of my religious beliefs, I’d be pretty pissed off. As for corporations=people, that issue is not in dispute here as far as issues the court is considering. That was settled 120 years ago. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/419 "2014-04-07T15:59:39Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If I had to purchase something for someone that I considered immoral because of my religious beliefs, I’d be pretty pissed off. But it does not diminish your religious freedom. Lots of things piss me off, but I have no right based on religious freedom to control the immoral behavior of others. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/420 "2014-04-07T16:12:59Z")
I should not be required to pay for the immoral behavior of others. Especially as regards the abortion issue. If one genuinely sees abortion as murder, than basically they see themselves as being forced to pay for the hit man. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=22)