# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/521 "2014-06-18T16:45:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I still think this issue of whether their beliefs are sincere is a sideshow. It doesn’t resolve the underlying issue, which is whether _any_ closely held corporation can do this. Absolutely. I assume **stpauler** would not like it if Hobby Lobby were permitted to deny the IUDs that they have always refused to provide, so that alone suggests that his concern is not dispositive to the whole case. In any event, I think the two contesting views are pretty clear, and each has something to recommend it. It’s beyond question that the plain text of the RFRA, combined with the plain text of the Dictionary Act, does not exclude any particular form of corporation. But it’s certainly fair to question if that’s what Congress intended as a final result. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/522 "2014-06-18T16:47:44Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Try and argue without an analogy as that doesn’t work either. Doh! Okay, I’m shutting up for now. ---
**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 18, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/523 "2014-06-18T16:58:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not exactly correct. > > Yes: they believe life starts at conception, and deliberately ending that life by drugs that stop implantation of the fertilized egg is murder. > > But they also have a belief similar to the Catholic Church, although they are of course not Catholic. They believe that it’s morally wrong to _procure_ an abortion. This goes beyond choosing to get an abortion, and beyond performing an abortion. In Catholic thinking, a person is culpable for providing any sort of support for an abortion – financial or otherwise. A Catholic incurs a _latae sententiae_ excommunication if he drives the patient to the clinic, or lends the patient the money. > > The Greens are not Catholic. > > But _they believe that paying for insurance that is used to commit murder_ is morally wrong. > > This is the belief that you are not addressing – you simply say that the belief is asinine. And in your opinion, it is. But under the law, that’s not relevant. Under the law, the questions are: > > (1) Is their belief at issue that paying for insurance that is used to purchase abortifacient drugs is morally wrong? (Yes). > > (2) Is that belief sincere? (Yes.) > > (3) Is the government imposing substantial pressure upon them to violate that belief? (Yes). > > That’s the end of the substantial burden inquiry. The answer to three, is no. The government isn’t saying to cut a check for abortions. It’s saying to cut a check for broad healthcare coverage which by statute includes abortions among a myriad of other services. If they pay a dollar to Kaiser but the plan doesn’t cover abortions, they are still supporting Kaiser, and still creating the opportunity for more abortions. Note that the wages they pay can also be used for abortions. In order to be in accordance with their beliefs, according to you, they’d need some sort of non-abortion dollars, since giving someone something that facilitates an abortion is anathema to them. It’s absurd. > [@](#): > > There are plenty of other, strong, arguments against the position the Greens have taken. Does the RFRA apply to Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation? I agree, HL deserves to lose for several reasons. Chiefly, I’d say, is that it would make people be at the whim of whatever personal weirdness their boss carries. > [@](#): > > But this hill you’ve chosen to defend isn’t defensible. The government hasn’t contested the point you’re contesting. They are substantially burdened, as the RFRA and caselaw defines the term. The questions about their success lie in other areas. I agree that they are likely to decide it based on other issues. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/524 "2014-06-18T17:23:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Follow the substantial burden analysis steps and answer your own question. During the time they were providing it, (a) they didn’t realize they were, and (b) there was no threat of a fine if they stopped. > > **Under their religious faith, they are not morally culpable for a mistake.** They only become morally culpable if they _knowingly_ provide these services. Wow. So in the course of just a couple hours you’re now able to speak on behalf of their faith when previously you hadn’t been. That’s quite the feat. Please explain to us all how you accomplished that. I’m ALL ears. After you’re done, please show how proof in **YOUR CLAIM** above how “they didn’t realize they were (providing it)”. > [@Bricker](#): > > So: > > (1) Is their belief at issue that paying for insurance that is used to purchase abortifacient drugs is morally wrong? (Yes, _and when they discovered they were accidentally doing it, they immediately stopped_). No. their belief at issue is being forced to pay for insurance that could be us used to purchase “abortifacient” drugs morally wrong. There’s a huge difference between those two statements. > [@Bricker](#): > > (2) Is that belief sincere? (Yes, _and this was not disputed at trial on on appeal to the Tenth Circuit_.) It is SO sincere that they never bothered to look into what they had been for all these years. It’s so sincere that they never bothered to check where they invest their money. It’s so sincere that a [large portion of their money for products at their store is spent in China](http://liveactionnews.org/deadly-cooperation-planned-parenthood-and-chinas-one-child-policy/)-which has been known quite well for their child abortion practices [(bujiu cuoshi).](http://liveactionnews.org/deadly-cooperation-planned-parenthood-and-chinas-one-child-policy/) Seems TOTES LEGITS. > [@Bricker](#): > > (3) Is the government imposing substantial pressure upon them to violate that belief? (Yes, to the tune of millions of dollars in fines). That “belief” that they like to otherwise ignore? That belief that they have yet to prove would be a substantial burden for them if they were to cooperate? That belief that they wouldn’t even known if they were paying for these drugs to begin with? > [@Bricker](#): > > What caselaw are you relying upon to reach the opposite conclusion? _National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius_ ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/525 "2014-06-18T17:26:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely. I assume **stpauler** would not like it if Hobby Lobby were permitted to deny the IUDs that they have always refused to provide, so that alone suggests that his concern is not dispositive to the whole case. > > In any event, I think the two contesting views are pretty clear, and each has something to recommend it. It’s beyond question that the plain text of the RFRA, combined with the plain text of the Dictionary Act, does not exclude any particular form of corporation. But it’s certainly fair to question if that’s what Congress intended as a final result. Yes. The “Dictionary Act”. The one that still [defines marriage as](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/7) "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. I’m afraid that the Death Star is quite operational on that one too. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/526 "2014-06-18T17:51:56Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Wow. So in the course of just a couple hours you’re now able to speak on behalf of their faith when previously you hadn’t been. That’s quite the feat. > > Please explain to us all how you accomplished that. I’m ALL ears. I’m parroting their own statements of their faith and beliefs, from their complaint. > [@](#): > > After you’re done, please show how proof in **YOUR CLAIM** above how “they didn’t realize they were (providing it)”. I’ve done so three times now. Here’s the fourth: again, I am linking to the quotes from the [Brief for Respondents in the current Supreme Court case.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17237334&postcount=237) Specifically, the line quoted is: > [@](#): > > Indeed, when Respondents discovered that two of these drugshad been included— **without their knowledge** —in the plan formulary, they immediately removed them. That line appears in the Brief for Respondents in the current Supreme Court case. > [@](#): > > No. their belief at issue is being forced to pay for insurance that could be us used to purchase “abortifacient” drugs morally wrong. There’s a huge difference between those two statements. You don’t get to reframe their belief to help your analysis. From the Tenth Circuit opinion: > [@](#): > > Further, Hobby Lobby and Mardel object to “participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting” the devices and drugs that yield these effects. Aplt. Br. at 27 (citing JA 14a). You don’t get to decide if that that line is unreasonable. The distinction that Hobby Lobby darws is not as important as the fact that they made it based on their religious beliefs. Once the line is drawn based on those beliefs, it does not matter whether the line is acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to you. How do I know this to be true? From the Tenth Circuit, discussing the proper analysis under the RFRA: > [@](#): > > As to the distinction between factory and foundry work, the Court reasoned that “[the plaintiff’s] statements reveal no more than that he found work in the . . . foundry sufficiently insulated from producing weapons of war. We see, therefore, that [the plaintiff] drew a line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.” Id. at 715. In other words, the distinction that the plaintiff drew was not as important as the fact that he made it based upon his religious beliefs. Once the plaintiff drew this line, it did not matter whether the line was “acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others … > [@stpauler](#): > > It is SO sincere that they never bothered to look into what they had been for all these years. It’s so sincere that they never bothered to check where they invest their money. It’s so sincere that a [large portion of their money for products at their store is spent in China](http://liveactionnews.org/deadly-cooperation-planned-parenthood-and-chinas-one-child-policy/)-which has been known quite well for their child abortion practices [(bujiu cuoshi).](http://liveactionnews.org/deadly-cooperation-planned-parenthood-and-chinas-one-child-policy/) > > Seems TOTES LEGITS. You don’t get to pass that judgement. It’s obvious you don’t agree that they’re sincere — but your opinion on the point is, legally speaking, worth less than the “bucket of warm spit” once invoked in another context by John Nance Gardner. The government conceded the sincerity of belief at trial. It can’t be relitigated now. It’s done. For the purposes of the current case, it’s as factual as the number of atoms of hydrogen in a water molecule. > [@stpauler](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > What caselaw are you relying upon to reach the opposite conclusion? > > _National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius_ That’s not an RFRA case. So far as I can recall, that case never once mentions the RFRA. Can you please quote the text of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that supports your RFRA conclusions? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/527 "2014-06-18T17:55:19Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Yes. The “Dictionary Act”. The one that still [defines marriage as](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/7) "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. > > I’m afraid that the Death Star is quite operational on that one too. Yes. And the point is…what? That section of the Dictionary Act has been subject to judicial review from US v. Windsor. You can’t be suggesting that the result of US v. Windsor was to erase the entire act, can you? So, specifically, what are you saying? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/528 "2014-06-18T18:08:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t get to decide if that that line is unreasonable. > > You don’t get to pass that judgement. Sure I do. I’ll do it now. I’ll do it next week when the judgment is passed down too. > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not an RFRA case. So far as I can recall, that case never once mentions the RFRA. > > Can you please quote the text of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that supports your RFRA conclusions? Will do, after you show me a case that mentions the RFRA in context of the ACA with a for-profit business supporting your claim. Hm…Such hoops to be jumped to show precedent when some justices ignore precedent anyways. Like Scalia, when he said “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.” in re: to the precious RFRA. > [@Bricker](#): > > That section of the Dictionary Act has been subject to judicial review from US v. Windsor. > > You can’t be suggesting that the result of US v. Windsor was to erase the entire act, can you? > > So, specifically, what are you saying? That your continued reliance on the Dictionary Act seems to ignore the holes punched in it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/529 "2014-06-18T18:47:40Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Sure I do. I’ll do it now. I’ll do it next week when the judgment is passed down too. Yes, you get to. My mistake. I should have said: the mere fact that you, personally, don’t accept their sincerity is of no legal relevance to the outcome of the case. Moreover, the question of their sincerity is a question of fact settled by the trial court, so at this stage of legal proceedings it won’t be disturbed at all. But thanks for sharing. > [@](#): > > Will do, after you show me a case that mentions the RFRA in context of the ACA with a for-profit business supporting your claim. OK: _Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius_, 723 F. 3d 1114 (10th Cir 2013) Your turn. Can you please quote the text of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that supports your RFRA conclusions? > [@](#): > > That your continued reliance on the Dictionary Act seems to ignore the holes punched in it. No. The holes punched in the Dictionary Act relate to the definition of marriage, not to the definition of the word “person.” What legal relevance does one have to the other in the context of this case? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/530 "2014-06-18T20:29:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely. I assume **stpauler** would not like it if Hobby Lobby were permitted to deny the IUDs that they have always refused to provide, so that alone suggests that his concern is not dispositive to the whole case. > > In any event, I think the two contesting views are pretty clear, and each has something to recommend it. It’s beyond question that the plain text of the RFRA, combined with the plain text of the Dictionary Act, does not exclude any particular form of corporation. But it’s certainly fair to question if that’s what Congress intended as a final result. How this thread still going on? I thought it was settled that the RFRA applies and that the RFRA applies strict scrutiny and that this requirement did not survive strict scrutiny. Are we trying to strike down the RFRA? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/531 "2014-06-19T00:07:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How this thread still going on? I thought it was settled that the RFRA applies and that the RFRA applies strict scrutiny and that this requirement did not survive strict scrutiny. > > Are we trying to strike down the RFRA? Nope. The Supreme Court accepted this case to decide two questions: “Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect for-profit corporations?” and “Does the contraceptive-coverage Mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 violate corporations’ religious exercise rights?” There’s approximately zero chance (unless the President appoints **Lobohan** to the bench in the next week) that the Court will decide that burden placed on the corporations’ religious beliefs is not substantial. And there’s an equally miniscule chance that **stpauler** will be confirmed and thus steer the Court into a finding that the beliefs are not sincere. So, yes, both of those arguments are useless. But the Court might well decide that the RFRA applies but the government’s interest survives strict scrutiny, or they might decide that the RFRA simply doesn’t apply to for-profit corporations ( **Hamlet** is the champion of that view here). In my view, of course, the plain text of the law is controlling. But while I can sneer at **Lobohan** for his lack of a black robe, the shameful truth is that Obama hasn’t called me either. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/532 "2014-06-30T14:33:43Z")
The decision is being read at the moment from the bench by Alito. Looks like a 5-4 decision. Not sure yet how broad or limited but it looks like Hobby Lobby is the winner here. [Link to SCOTUS blog](http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014) with live reaction. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/533 "2014-06-30T14:43:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s approximately zero chance (unless the President appoints **Lobohan** to the bench in the next week) that the Court will decide that burden placed on the corporations’ religious beliefs is not substantial. Make that “exactly zero.” > [@Bricker](#): > > And there’s an equally miniscule chance that **stpauler** will be confirmed and thus steer the Court into a finding that the beliefs are not sincere. So, yes, both of those arguments are useless. Also make that “equally zero chance.” > [@](#): > > But the Court might well decide that the RFRA applies but the government’s interest survives strict scrutiny, or they might decide that the RFRA simply doesn’t apply to for-profit corporations ( **Hamlet** is the champion of that view here). This didn’t fly wither, but what I’m hearing is that the Court finessed this a bit. It didn’t extend the RFRA to all corporations, but it didn’t hold the line at "non-profit,’ contrary to **Hamlet** ’s urged interpretation. It looks like closely-held for-profits can have religious expression and be burdened therein within the meaning of RFRA. O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/534 "2014-06-30T14:45:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Ugh. (See sig) ---
**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:** [June 30, 2014, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/535 "2014-06-30T14:45:51Z")
So corporations can now do everything people can except bear arms and receive custodial sentences. Orwell would have been proud. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/536 "2014-06-30T14:48:57Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Ugh. (See sig) Lemme try that again. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/537 "2014-06-30T14:51:11Z")
So the government has a less restrictive means so long as it can spend more money to solve the problem? I can’t wait to try this out in the prison context. I’ll let you know if the courts are as accommodating of Muslim prisoners are they are Christian corporations. Don’t hold your breath. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/538 "2014-06-30T14:54:01Z")
One wonders if Hobby Lobby could have pulled this off if it was a Muslim-owned corporation. At the very least, it is limited to closely held corporations and is not to be interpreted to beliefs against blood transfusions or vaccinations and isn’t to be used as a shield for employers that wish to use it for racial discrimination. In my opinion, the court blew both decisions today but at least they didn’t go as extreme as they could have. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/539 "2014-06-30T14:56:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So corporations can now do everything people can except bear arms … Shhhh, not so loud. Seriously though, as a religious person myself, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that a corporation can hold religious beliefs, sincere or not. _Especially_ a for-profit company. I hope the ruling touches upon the question of a corporation having a religious objection to women not keeping their heads covered or other “religious freedoms” that are infringed upon by government regulations. Would a business closely held by a Christian Scientist be allowed to not provide any medical healthcare at all? I’m looking forward to hearing more details about this decision. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/540 "2014-06-30T15:03:09Z")
At first glance, it doesn’t look like Alito even attempted to explain how a corporation can have a sincere religious belief. He just references existing cases asserting that they may. Since this was the primary logical hurdle the court had to overcome it’s not a very satisfying method of deciding the issue. Nice strawman, too: > [@](#): > > Finally, the results would be absurd if RFRA merely restored this Court’s pre-Smith decisions in ossified form and did not allow a plaintiff to raise a RFRA claim unless that plaintiff fell within a category of plaintiffs one of whom had brought a free-exercise claim that this Courtentertained in the years before Smith. For example, weare not aware of any pre-Smith case in which this Court entertained a free-exercise claim brought by a resident noncitizen. Are such persons also beyond RFRA’s protective reach simply because the Court never addressed theirrights before Smith? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=28)