# 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:** 25
**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, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/481 "2014-06-16T04:49:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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). All the RFRA is is a reiteration that laws that infringe on religious liberty are subject to strict scrutiny, am I wrong? That should have been the courts’ position to begin with, given that it’s a core liberty interest. ---
**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, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/482 "2014-06-16T04:55:24Z")
Actually, RFRA was passed in response to that decision, wasn’t it? ---
**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, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/483 "2014-06-16T05:07:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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): Uh, how is That abortion is _kiwwing wittle babies!_ inconsistent with thinking life begins at conception? Isn’t that pretty obviously what I meant? I think they’re fools, so I dismissively described their position. I even mentioned meds that stop implantation above. This is why I let you state what you wanted, because of disingenuous jibba-jabba like this. ---
**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, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/484 "2014-06-16T05:15:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > All the RFRA is is a reiteration that laws that infringe on religious liberty are subject to strict scrutiny, am I wrong? As a very broad overview, yes. But there are particulars that this broad outline blurs. Prior to the RFRA, the rule was that a “generally applicable” law would stand even if it “incidentally” burdened religious exercise. > [@](#): > > That should have been the courts’ position to begin with, given that it’s a core liberty interest. Not exactly. See Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association and the aforementioned Employment Division v. Smith. ---
**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, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/485 "2014-06-16T05:19:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As a very broad overview, yes. But there are particulars that this broad outline blurs. Prior to the RFRA, the rule was that a “generally applicable” law would stand even if it “incidentally” burdened religious exercise. Ahhhh. So that’s why the 1st amendment doesn’t work here. ---
**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, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/486 "2014-06-16T05:22:55Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Uh, how is That abortion is _kiwwing wittle babies!_ inconsistent with thinking life begins at conception? Isn’t that pretty obviously what I meant? I think they’re fools, so I dismissively described their position. I even mentioned meds that stop implantation above. > > This is why I let you state what you wanted, because of disingenuous jibba-jabba like this. It was not clear that “abortion,” as you used the term, referred to prevention of implantation as well as the removal of an implanted embryo. But the bigger and more critical items you missed were: > [@](#): > > 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). Your summary did not include this aspect of their religious belief. ---
**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, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/487 "2014-06-16T05:25:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Ahhhh. So that’s why the 1st amendment doesn’t work here. Correct. The whole reason the federal RFRA was passed was Congress’ reaction to Employment Division. ---
**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, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/488 "2014-06-16T05:45:01Z")
That’s what I thought, but I always saw RFRA as Congress telling the courts how to apply the 1st amendment. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/489 "2014-06-16T08:13:54Z")
The thing is, if **Bricker** ’s interpretation is correct, it completely destroys a law that was previously found to be constitutional. If any corporation can claim any religious belief, then there can be no mandate. Form a religion where providing health insurance of any kind is immoral, adhere to that religion, and then no more mandate. Clearly it is not possible for any organization to claim any religion. That would fly in the face of everything the law stands for. Clearly there are limitations to the RFRA, and clearly those will be determined. And, again, I ask, why couldn’t the court say that Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay for emergency contraception coverage, but they must allow their employees to choose to have said coverage? Why can’t the money come directly from the employees so that Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to touch it? And, note, I said coverage. Coverage for contraception is not the same thing as the ability to purchase contraception. The whole point of coverage is to spread the cost and decrease the burden of having to buy it directly. Paying a $1 a month for contraceptive coverage is not the same thing as paying $100 the one time you need it. I’m trying my best to bring up other ideas here, so the discussion can actually get out of the gridlock it is currently in. I also previously brought up the idea why a for-profit company can’t have a religion, as it can’t compel its workers to practice their religion, as religion is a protected class for employment, which I thought was directly addressing why the RFRA might be decided not to apply to for-profit companies. I know I’m not remotely an expert on any of this. Maybe I’m looking at this incorrectly. But if I can come up with this, surely others can too, so why not explain why I’m 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, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/490 "2014-06-16T11:32:28Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The thing is, if **Bricker** ’s interpretation is correct, it completely destroys a law that was previously found to be constitutional. If any corporation can claim any religious belief, then there can be no mandate. Form a religion where providing health insurance of any kind is immoral, adhere to that religion, and then no more mandate. Well, one of the prongs I discuss above is the sincerity of the belief. The Hobby Lobby claim is limited to objecting to prove certain types of coverage — they don’t even object to all birth control, just to anything that causes the death of a fertilized embryo. That is a difference from objecting to all insurance. And the basis of their belief is a long-standing and very famous religious belief about when human life begins. It’s easy to understand how their belief can be sincere, and yet still imagine a principled line against a new religion that holds health insurance immoral. > [@](#): > > Clearly it is not possible for any organization to claim any religion. That would fly in the face of everything the law stands for. Clearly there are limitations to the RFRA, and clearly those will be determined. Sure. The particular line that Lobohan is arguing is not going to be it, of course. The government at trial and on appeal focused on the idea that the RFRA does not permit a corporation, especially a for-profit corporation, to assert religious belief period. While the plain text of the RFRA as understood by the Dictionary Act obviously does, there’s something to the argument that **Hamlet** made here: Congress never intended that result. Obviously I disagree, but that’s a very possible line to draw. > [@](#): > > And, again, I ask, why couldn’t the court say that Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay for emergency contraception coverage, but they must allow their employees to choose to have said coverage? Why can’t the money come directly from the employees so that Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to touch it? I don’t know that Hobby Lobby could possibly prevent such a thing. There’s no legal barrier to that right now. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/491 "2014-06-16T13:26:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is this some kind of legal argument? > > Can you explain in a bit more detail what your claim entails? I’m stating that if they’re claiming the (already struck down as unconstitutional once) RFRA as their defense against providing Health Care, that they as a “Religious corporation” need to act as such and not violate one of the 10 basic tenets of their said religion. It’s more snark than anything. What it really comes down to is that the [RFRA](http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm), which is the only thing buttressing Hobby Lobby’s claim, is just pure bullshittingly unconstitutional. Look at _[Adams v Commissioner:](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4364015158387191279&q=tax+%22Religious+Freedom+Restoration+Act%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,55,192)_ > [@](#): > > Prior to Smith, the Supreme Court repeatedly held that neutral, generally applicable tax laws meet the compelling interest test. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699-700 (1989) (stating that the Government had a “broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system free of myriad exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs”); United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 258-259 (1982) (holding that the Government’s “very high” interest in maintaining a comprehensive Social Security system justified denying an Amish employer an exemption from Social Security taxes); see also S. Rept. 103-111, supra at 5 n.5, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1895 (citing the aforementioned decisions). In United States v. Lee, supra at 260, the Supreme Court stated: > > The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief. Because the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such high order, religious belief in conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax. [The Supreme Court has already confirmed that ACA is considered a tax.](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf) > [@](#): > > CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. > The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is thatit commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality,” > > (b) > Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Here’s the relevant part of the[RFRA](http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm) > [@](#): > > SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED. > (a) IN GENERAL. – Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). > > (b) EXCEPTION. – Government may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person – > (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and > > (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. > > (c) JUDICIAL RELIEF. – A person whose religious exercise has been substantially burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. As Scalia himself said before: > [@](#): > > They assert, in other words, that “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as “abridging the freedom . . . of the press” of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, **the First Amendment has not been offended.** So if 1)the ACA has already proven to be a tax and 2) exemption from taxes based on “religious burden” has been dismissed, where does Hobby Lobby have solid ground to stand on? ---
**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, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/492 "2014-06-16T13:57:44Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > I’m stating that if they’re claiming the (already struck down as unconstitutional once) RFRA as their defense against providing Health Care, that they as a “Religious corporation” need to act as such and not violate one of the 10 basic tenets of their said religion. It’s more snark than anything. Two problems with that claim: one is that according to your link, they don’t admit to doing anything wrong, and are settling to avoid the costs and risks of portracted litigation. Secondly, the conduct that they’re alleged to have done is not “false witness against a neighbor” in the same sense that claiming a woman is unchaste when she is not. They are alleged to have advertised “sale” prices but never ending the sales. Most states, New York included, forbid that practice because a sale that never ends amounts to the real price, as opposed to a special deal. That’s not exactly a violation of core Christian principles. And from a legal perspective, it would be irrelevant information in this case. > [@](#): > > What it really comes down to is that the [RFRA](http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm), which is the only thing buttressing Hobby Lobby’s claim, is just pure bullshittingly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agrees with you insofar as the RFRA’s application to the states, but disagrees with you concerning the application to the federal government. > [@](#): > > 1)the ACA has already proven to be a tax and > 2) exemption from taxes based on “religious burden” has been dismissed, > where does Hobby Lobby have solid ground to stand on? (1) is correct in the sense Congress has the power to impose it under the taxation power (2) is not. It’s true that exemption from general income taxes has been dismissed. But that case, and no other case, says that ANY tax is therefore permissible. The portion of the ACA that Hobby Lobby complains of is not a generally applicable tax, and thus is easily distinguishable from _US v Lee_, upon which the Adams case you cite rests. So, yes, it’s a tax, but it’s not a “generally applicable,” tax. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/493 "2014-06-16T14:09:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your summary did not include this aspect of their religious belief. Yes, Lobohan is conflating the 3 prongs (if he’s considering them at all). He seems to think that if he finds a sincerely held religious belief absurd, he gets to dismiss it. He doesn’t seem to realize that the “sincerely held belief” prongs, having been established (I think he concedes that they have been), leave him only with arguing whether or not the government is applying substantial pressure for the plaintiff to act contrary to these beliefs. Period. $26M does the trick by any reasonable standard. But it’s at this point that Lobohan applies the “absurd test,” somehow thinking the “substantial” aspect applies to the plaintiff’s burden within the first two prongs. The principal non sequitur in his logic is the one that asserts that there is no belief at all being violated, while simultaneously ignoring the implication of a plaintiff actually going to the trouble and effort of defending a belief they apparently don’t really hold. Re: the first 2 prongs, the plaintiff need only have a religious belief, sincerely held, that would be violated in complying with the legislation in question–whatever anyone else’s opinion is on those beliefs (Lobohan included). And then around and around we go again. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/494 "2014-06-16T14:50:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Two problems with that claim: one is that according to your link, they don’t admit to doing anything wrong, and are settling to avoid the costs and risks of portracted litigation. Secondly, the conduct that they’re alleged to have done is not “false witness against a neighbor” in the same sense that claiming a woman is unchaste when she is not. They are alleged to have advertised “sale” prices but never ending the sales. Most states, New York included, forbid that practice because a sale that never ends amounts to the real price, as opposed to a special deal. > > That’s not exactly a violation of core Christian principles. And from a legal perspective, it would be irrelevant information in this case. Lying in the Bible is more than just the Ten Commandments™ though. Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight. Proverbs 13:5 A righteous man hates lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and comes to shame. Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies. Proverbs 17:7 Excellent speech becomes not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince. Colossians 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his deeds; I’d say that claiming something on sale when it’s the regular price would fit. > [@Bricker](#): > > The Supreme Court agrees with you insofar as the RFRA’s application to the states, but disagrees with you concerning the application to the federal government. If you’re talking about _Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal_ and its application there, is towards a church and not a for profit business (or the for profit persons of a business). SCOTUS has yet to decide either way on that matter, thus this case. > [@Bricker](#): > > (2) is not. It’s true that exemption from general income taxes has been dismissed. But that case, and no other case, says that ANY tax is therefore permissible. The portion of the ACA that Hobby Lobby complains of is not a generally applicable tax, and thus is easily distinguishable from _US v Lee_, upon which the Adams case you cite rests. > > So, yes, it’s a tax, but it’s not a “generally applicable,” tax. I think the burden of proof that it’s not a generally applicable tax would then be on Hobby Lobby. Frankly, Hobby Lobby has yet to show how that the goverment is imposing a substantial burden for them to provide the health care that they were already providing. ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/495 "2014-06-16T19:06:00Z")
ACA isn’t a tax, the individual mandate is a tax. The coverage requirements under ACA are part of Congress’ interstate commerce regulatory powers. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/496 "2014-06-16T19:16:19Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, Lobohan is conflating the 3 prongs (if he’s considering them at all). He seems to think that if he finds a sincerely held religious belief absurd, he gets to dismiss it. He doesn’t seem to realize that the “sincerely held belief” prongs, having been established (I think he concedes that they have been), leave him only with arguing whether or not the government is applying substantial pressure for the plaintiff to act contrary to these beliefs. Period. $26M does the trick by any reasonable standard. But it’s at this point that Lobohan applies the “absurd test,” somehow thinking the “substantial” aspect applies to the plaintiff’s burden within the first two prongs. The principal non sequitur in his logic is the one that asserts that there is no belief at all being violated, while simultaneously ignoring the implication of a plaintiff actually going to the trouble and effort of defending a belief they apparently don’t really hold. > > Re: the first 2 prongs, the plaintiff need only have a religious belief, sincerely held, that would be violated in complying with the legislation in question–whatever anyone else’s opinion is on those beliefs (Lobohan included). And then around and around we go again. True, although one shouldn’t read your post to suggest that Hobby Lobby must succeed in their suit…just that Hobby Lobby must (and has) succeed on the question of substantial burden. There remain the question of whether the RFRA even reaches a for-profit corporation, and whether the government’s approach is narrowly tailored. It’s amusing that even though those are the questions argued at trial and on appeal, **Lobohan** ’s attempt at analysis lands squarely on a point the government has essentially conceded, and for which there is no dispute beyond, it seems, Lobohan himself. ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/497 "2014-06-16T19:31:03Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Lying in the Bible is more than just the Ten Commandments™ though. > Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight. > > Proverbs 13:5 A righteous man hates lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and comes to shame. > > Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies. > > Proverbs 17:7 Excellent speech becomes not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince. > > Colossians 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his deeds; > > I’d say that claiming something on sale when it’s the regular price would fit. Two problems: (1) Who cares what you say? The question is what their belief is, not what your belief is. (2) At what point do you contend it becomes a lie? That is, the item was priced at $10, then placed on sale for $8.50. Next week it’s on back-to-school special for $8.50. The next week it’s a Manager’s special for $8.75, then a month of October Madness for $8.50, then November it’s $10 each but you can buy two for $17, then December’s Christmas Special of $8.25, marked down from $10. When did they break the commandment, according to you? > [@](#): > > If you’re talking about _Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal_ and its application there, is towards a church and not a for profit business (or the for profit persons of a business). SCOTUS has yet to decide either way on that matter, thus this case. Absolutely correct. The plain text of the Dictionary Act makes no distinction between for-profit and non-profit entities, but the argument is that Congress simply never intended to extend RFRA protection to for-profit retail outlets, so notwithstanding the plain language, the RFRA doesn’t protect Hobby Lobby. As you say, that’s the crux of this case. And that’s what the Court will settle. Either way, Congress can cure any defect. If the Court rules Hobby Lobby is protected, Congress can amend the RFRA to remove for-profit corporations from its reach; if the Court finds Hobby Lobby is not shielded, Congress can amend the RFRA to say, in effect, yes, we meant non-profits also. > [@](#): > > I think the burden of proof that it’s not a generally applicable tax would then be on Hobby Lobby. Frankly, Hobby Lobby has yet to show how that the goverment is imposing a substantial burden for them to provide the health care that they were already providing. They weren’t already providing it. Health plans covered by ERISA must include coverage for FDA-approved contraceptive methods. There are twenty. Hobby Lobby only objects to covering four of the 20: two types of IUDs, Plan B, and Ella. They are indeed already providing the other sixteen and plan to continue. They are not providing the four that cause a fertilized embryo to die, and don’t plan to. So their objection is not to participating in the generally applicable ACA requirements as a whole. ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/498 "2014-06-16T20:03:32Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, Lobohan is conflating the 3 prongs (if he’s considering them at all). He seems to think that if he finds a sincerely held religious belief absurd, he gets to dismiss it. He doesn’t seem to realize that the “sincerely held belief” prongs, having been established (I think he concedes that they have been), leave him only with arguing whether or not the government is applying substantial pressure for the plaintiff to act contrary to these beliefs. Period. You almost have it. But you’re a little mixed up. I accept that they have these beliefs. I’ll even grant that they’re likely sincere, although, as I said upthread, they used to allow Plan B, but that was probably because they simply didn’t have any idea. But once the government says they gotta, it’s tyranny, by gum! Anywho, what you miss is that the government isn’t meaningfully asking them to act against their beliefs. Paying a check out to Joe’s Abortion and Crablegs™ would reasonably, I think be shaky. But they aren’t paying for abortions, or abortifacients, or baby murder. They’re paying for health insurance. Can you understand the distinction? Think hard about it, it’ll come to you, maybe. > [@](#): > > $26M does the trick by any reasonable standard. But it’s at this point that Lobohan applies the “absurd test,” somehow thinking the “substantial” aspect applies to the plaintiff’s burden within the first two prongs. The principal non sequitur in his logic is the one that asserts that there is no belief at all being violated, while simultaneously ignoring the implication of a plaintiff actually going to the trouble and effort of defending a belief they apparently don’t really hold. The 26 million isn’t really an issue. Because paying for insurance isn’t against their beliefs by any sane measure. They are okay with paying for insurance, which can be used for thousands or millions of services. But they don’t want that insurance to pay for things they don’t like, that’s where they go off the rails. As I said above, you give me a sausage, I might sexually defile it. But if I do, that’s not on you. You’re paying for a sausage, that’s all. I’m the one using it for reasons you dislike. > [@](#): > > Re: the first 2 prongs, the plaintiff need only have a religious belief, sincerely held, that would be violated in complying with the legislation in question–whatever anyone else’s opinion is on those beliefs (Lobohan included). And then around and around we go again. Someone using something you give them in a way you don’t like doesn’t mean you are being oppressed. ---
**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, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/499 "2014-06-16T20:13:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Anywho, what you miss is that the government isn’t meaningfully asking them to act against their beliefs. You can’t even correctly enunciate their beliefs, Lobohan. Why in the world would you expect to be able to tell whether the government is meaningfully asking them to act against their beliefs if you don’t understand what their beliefs are? ---
**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, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/500 "2014-06-16T20:13:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s amusing that even though those are the questions argued at trial and on appeal, **Lobohan** ’s attempt at analysis lands squarely on a point the government has essentially conceded, and for which there is no dispute beyond, it seems, Lobohan himself. I would argue that the SCOTUS, and government in general, is overly deferential to religion. For instance ceremonial deism is utter nonsense, but it’s an attempt to bend over backwards to be nice to the religious. By no sane measure is paying for a service that might be used in a way you don’t like is an impediment on your beliefs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=26)