# 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:** 24
**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:** [June 16, 2014, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/461 "2014-06-16T03:37:27Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > Hobby Lobby provides birth control for its employees as a part of its insurance coverage but don’t let that get in the way of your faux outrage. Don’t they disallow birth control that prevents implantation? Or is that some other group of loons? Ah, they did allow birth control, until the filed suit because they had a hardon for the ACA. > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts company founded by self-made billionaire David Green and owned by the Evangelical Christian Green family with about 21,000 employees.[2] It provided the contraceptives Plan-B and Ella until it dropped its coverage in 2012, the year it filed its lawsuit. And I assure you, my outrage is pretty real. Hobby Lobby is looking to impose their backwards beliefs on people and I honestly think that’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/462 "2014-06-16T03:38:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I think if you were serious you’d make the case, since you don’t, I assume you’re just throwing smoke. This is a particularly interesting quote. It reminds me of [this Dilbert strip](http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-05-28/). > [@Pointy-Haired Boss](#): > > Logically, anything I don’t understand is unimportant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/463 "2014-06-16T03:41:03Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > I think Hobby Lobby has a substantial burden to prove that they’re a “Christian” company that follows those tenets. > > [Hobby Lobby settles New York suit that accused it of false advertising](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hobby-lobby-false-advertising-settlement-20140612-story.html) Is this some kind of legal argument? Can you explain in a bit more detail what your claim entails? ---
**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:** [June 16, 2014, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/464 "2014-06-16T03:43:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again you try to use your personal idea of a “substantial burden” instead of what the caselaw mandates. > > Why? Because there is literally no burden. A burden can’t, I would think, be legally substantial, if it’s not really there. > [@](#): > > BWAHAHAHAHA!! > > OK. Sure. > > The Supreme Court in _Thomas v. Review Board_, 450 U.S. 707 (1981), and _US v. Lee_, 455 U.S. 252 (1982), laid out the test for a substantial religious burden. Shockingly, it does not track with your proposed analytical framework. Instead, it mandates a reviewing court must: > > [ol] > [li]identify the religious belief in question[/li][li]determine whether the belief is sincere[/li][li]determine whether the government places substantial pressure on the religious believer to act in any fashion that runs contrary to those beliefs[/li][/ol] > > In this case, Hobby Lobby has averred that by providing insurance coverage for contraceptives that could prevent a human embryo from implanting in the uterus, their religion says that they themselves would be morally complicit in the death of a fertilized embryo. The government did not contest the existence of that religious belief, nor did the government question the sincerity of that belief. Finally, by observing that the choice Hobby Lobby faced was acting in opposition to their belief or incurring liability in the neighborhood of $26 million and dropping healthcare (or paying penalties of $475 million), the court found that the pressure qualified as “substantial.” I have no doubt that their belief is sincere. Stupid people rarely ask questions that lead do doubt. But paying someone something, and them not using it the way you’d like isn’t acting against your beliefs. If you gave me a sausage, and I took it and ass-to-assed Justin Beiber with it, you have not had pressure put on your Catholic beliefs. You can be repulsed, sure. Upset sure. But in this world, grown ups have to deal with that. Not throw a tantrum that rises all the way to the SCOTUS. > [@](#): > > If Hobby Lobby’s penalty was to spend five or six hours at the DMV, I would agree their burden was not substantial, because the third prong – government pressure – would not qualify as substantial. > > And if someone were told that they had to pay $26 million to vote, I would agree their burden was substantial. Well, it’s nice to know it’s only a question of how much. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/465 "2014-06-16T03:43:47Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Hobby Lobby is looking to impose their backwards beliefs on people and I honestly think that’s wrong. But does the RFRA allow them to impose their backward beliefs? Regardless of how wrong you think it is? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/466 "2014-06-16T03:46:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I have no doubt that their belief is sincere. Stupid people rarely ask questions that lead do doubt. > > But paying someone something, and them not using it the way you’d like isn’t acting against your beliefs. How can you be the one to define what their beliefs are? > [@](#): > > If you gave me a sausage, and I took it and ass-to-assed Justin Beiber with it, you have not had pressure put on your Catholic beliefs. You can be repulsed, sure. Upset sure. But in this world, grown ups have to deal with that. Not throw a tantrum that rises all the way to the SCOTUS. If I give you the sausage intending that use, or knowing you intended to put it to that use, then it does violate my Catholic beliefs. And if you pass a law mandating my continuing to provide sausages you use for this purpose, that too would violate my Catholic beliefs. Why do you think you can declare what does, or does not, violate my beliefs? Are you suggesting you know my beliefs better than I? ---
**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:** [June 16, 2014, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/467 "2014-06-16T03:49:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is a particularly interesting quote. > > It reminds me of [this Dilbert strip](http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-05-28/). I do understand that you’re arguing for the legal definition of “substantial burden” and I’m saying that there is simply no burden at all. Your beliefs end at the tip of my nose. Nothing someone else does privately can hurt your practice of your religion. If Jains have to pay taxes that go to missile drones, the idea that paying for health insurance that may, just may, be used in a disapproving manner is utterly nonsense. Money is fungible. Your hands don’t have blood on them because you held the dollar that paid for one of that missile’s machine screws. ---
**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:** [June 16, 2014, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/468 "2014-06-16T03:50:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But does the RFRA allow them to impose their backward beliefs? > > Regardless of how wrong you think it is? Only if there is a substantial burden, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/469 "2014-06-16T03:52:16Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I do understand that you’re arguing for the legal definition of “substantial burden” and I’m saying that there is simply no burden at all. > > Your beliefs end at the tip of my nose. Nothing someone else does privately can hurt your practice of your religion. > > If Jains have to pay taxes that go to missile drones, the idea that paying for health insurance that may, just may, be used in a disapproving manner is utterly nonsense. > > Money is fungible. Your hands don’t have blood on them because you held the dollar that paid for one of that missile’s machine screws. Nothing in what you wrote addresses the actual test used in caselaw. Why do you keep dodging that, and substituting your own version? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/470 "2014-06-16T03:55:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Only if there is a substantial burden, right? Yes. But “substantial burden” is calculated by the tests mandated by Thomas v. Review Board. Not by your decision that the burden simply doesn’t exist. 1. What are the religious beliefs involved? Your answer? 1. Are those beliefs sincerely held? Your answer? 1. Does the challenged government scheme put substantial pressure on the religious believer to act contrary to the beliefs? Your answer? ---
**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:** [June 16, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/471 "2014-06-16T04:06:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How can you be the one to define what their beliefs are? I agree they have beliefs about supporting abortion. At least since the ACA was passed. They used to allow Plan B until someone they loathe said they have to do it. In any case, their belief, that it is wrong is real, I’ll grant. At least since 2012. But the government has said that health insurance is a part of the compensation of a big company, or you pay a penalty. Their beliefs don’t enter into it. They pay a check, they pay insurance. Both the check and insurance can be used in ways they don’t like. That’s not an impediment on their beliefs. So, I don’t question their beliefs, much, I question where the harm comes. Just because they don’t like how it’s spent, I don’t see how that keeps them from believing in the divinity of Jesus, keeping a holy life, and growing up some shitty, shitty grandkids. > [@](#): > > If I give you the sausage intending that use, or knowing you intended to put it to that use, then it does violate my Catholic beliefs. And if you pass a law mandating my continuing to provide sausages you use for this purpose, that too would violate my Catholic beliefs. Justin is sad. We had a picnic planned. As of 2012 they provided plan B. Because, probably, they didn’t even think of it. You don’t know if I’m going to eat that sausage, doubleteam JB with it, and then eat it, or give it to a homeless person. They aren’t paying for abortions, or in this amazing analogy (heh) a sausage. They are paying for healthcare. Which includes thousands or maybe millions of different services. They aren’t writing a check to Abortificants Inc.™. They’re writing a check to Kaiser. In no way are they specifically paying for abortions. They are paying for healthcare, that someone might use for an abortion. A huge difference. > [@](#): > > Why do you think you can declare what does, or does not, violate my beliefs? Are you suggesting you know my beliefs better than I? Because your beliefs can’t be violated by something I do privately. Simply impossible. If I burn down your church, or make peyote illegal, or say Seventh Day Adventists have to work the weekend, that would hurt your practice of your religion. That hypothetical woman is using he wage, her healthcare to do her private business. And I am taking my kelbasa that you handed me and giving a prostate orgasm to a racist Canadian man-boy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/472 "2014-06-16T04:16:52Z")
(omitted) ---
**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:** [June 16, 2014, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/473 "2014-06-16T04:18:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. But “substantial burden” is calculated by the tests mandated by Thomas v. Review Board. Not by your decision that the burden simply doesn’t exist. > > 1. What are the religious beliefs involved? > > Your answer? That abortion is kiwwing wittle babies! > [@](#): > > 1. Are those beliefs sincerely held? > > Your answer? Probably. But they allowed Plan B until recently. > [@](#): > > 1. Does the challenged government scheme put substantial pressure on the religious believer to act contrary to the beliefs? > > Your answer? They aren’t killing babies. They are giving heathcare, which among millions of other things can be used for abortions. They are also paying taxes which are used to send missiles into wedding parties. They are also paying wages that are used for cheap, methed-out blowjobs. They are also buying things from China, and are supporting any number of non-Christian actions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/474 "2014-06-16T04:22:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 1. What are the religious beliefs involved? > [@Lobohan](#): > > That abortion is kiwwing wittle babies! This answer is not correct. Hobby Lobby has identified their religious belief in the court filing, and at trial. It was not, “That abortion is kiwwing wittle babies!” Are you able to accurately identify the religious beliefs involved? ---
**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:** [June 16, 2014, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/475 "2014-06-16T04:23:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the government has ALSO said that when they pass a rule that impacts religious belief, that law may possibly not be enforced. > > You continue to elevate one law the government passed and ignore the other. > > Why? Well obviously, it should be Last in First Out, like Magic the Gathering cards. I’m not saying to ignore the RFRA, I’m saying it doesn’t apply, because their beliefs aren’t being burdened. Although, in any case, I’d say that there is a plenty compelling reason even if there were a burden. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/476 "2014-06-16T04:26:50Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m not saying to ignore the RFRA, I’m saying it doesn’t apply, because their beliefs aren’t being burdened. Back to the pointy-haired boss. You have so far been unable to correctly identify the religious belief asserted by Hobby Lobby – how can you judge the RFRA’s applicability correctly when you can’t even correctly answer the first of the three steps necessary to apply the RFRA’s test? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/477 "2014-06-16T04:28:25Z")
Free contraception is a mere policy preference, not a compelling government interest. If you can override the 1st amendment for that, you can override it for virtually anything. And if you can override the 1st amendment for such things, none of our rights are safe. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/478 "2014-06-16T04:32:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Free contraception is a mere policy preference, not a compelling government interest. If you can override the 1st amendment for that, you can override it for virtually anything. And if you can override the 1st amendment for such things, none of our rights are safe. Just to be clear, I am not arguing that the First Amendment applies. **adaher** is welcome to carry that water if he wishes. My point is that the RFRA applies. (In fact, Employment Division v Smith eviscerates adaher’s First Amendment claim, but I don’t have the energy for a two front war). ---
**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:** [June 16, 2014, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/479 "2014-06-16T04:33:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This answer is not correct. > > Hobby Lobby has identified their religious belief in the court filing, and at trial. It was not, “That abortion is kiwwing wittle babies!” > > Are you able to accurately identify the religious beliefs involved? I’m sure I could, but I’ll just wait for you to correct me. You’re not gonna say that they have a religious belief that they have to provide insurance, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/480 "2014-06-16T04:43:13Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m sure I could, but I’ll just wait for you to correct me. You’re not gonna say that they have a religious belief that they have to provide insurance, right? Can you explain how you were analyzing the RFRA without being able to accurately state the religious beliefs involved? From [the Tenth Circuit](https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6294.pdf) (PDF page 16 at link): > [@](#): > > As is particularly relevant to this case, one aspect of the Greens’ religious > commitment is a belief that human life begins when sperm fertilizes an egg. In > addition, the Greens believe it is immoral for them to facilitate any act that causes > the death of a human embryo. > . > . > . > Because the Greens believe that human life begins at conception, they also > believe that they would be facilitating harms against human beings if the Hobby > Lobby health plan provided coverage for the four FDA-approved contraceptive > methods that prevent uterine implantation (Ella, Plan B, and the two IUDs). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=25)