# 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:** 33
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/641 "2014-06-30T21:01:57Z")
Is there any group that finds vaccines sinful? And can these groups also start businesses according to their religion? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/642 "2014-06-30T21:16:28Z")
Does this ruling go beyond abortions? Could this mean for instance that a company owned by someone who follows a religion that believes in sex segregation could go single-sex (either all-male or all-female)? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/643 "2014-06-30T21:36:26Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > I mean, I get that that corporations desperately want to be on equal footing as human beings in this country, but as John Oliver so brilliantly pointed out last night, part of being a person is that you sometimes have to **pay for shit that you don’t like.** Similarly, part of being a person is that you sometimes have to **sign up to get drafted and possibly sent off to war**. Also, part of being a person is that sometimes you have to **be confined to a 9x9 room with bars on the windows.** “Sometimes” sure does a lot of work … ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/644 "2014-06-30T21:43:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Is there any group that finds vaccines sinful? And can these groups also start businesses according to their religion? > [@Quartz](#): > > Does this ruling go beyond abortions? Could this mean for instance that a company owned by someone who follows a religion that believes in sex segregation could go single-sex (either all-male or all-female)? You would both do well to read **Bricker** ’s numerous posts in this thread about the significance of the phrase “compelling government interest.” ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/645 "2014-06-30T21:45:41Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Does this ruling go beyond abortions? Could this mean for instance that a company owned by someone who follows a religion that believes in sex segregation could go single-sex (either all-male or all-female)? > [@furt](#): > > You would both do well to read **Bricker** ’s numerous posts in this thread about the significance of the phrase “compelling government interest.” It’s more about narrow tailoring. The government does have a compelling governmental interest in gender equality and sex discrimination laws are narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling governmental interest (there is no better option out there). ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/646 "2014-06-30T21:53:50Z")
> [@furt](#): > > You would both do well to read **Bricker** ’s numerous posts in this thread about the significance of the phrase “compelling government interest.” Actually, I have, and **stpauler** ’s. And I’m none the wiser. Not being American and having the background likely doesn’t help. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/647 "2014-06-30T22:01:13Z")
I have read it, and yes compelling government interest is key here. In order for the government to infringe on religion, it has to do so while furthering a compelling interest. Contraception is not a compelling interest. Vaccines would be. ---
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/648 "2014-06-30T22:09:40Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > IANAL, but damn…I’m still wrapping my head around the idea that corporations can exert religious liberties. Seriously, from my outsider’s perspective, this entire decision comes off as pure, unadulterated nonsense. I mean, I get that that corporations desperately want to be on equal footing as human beings in this country, but as John Oliver so brilliantly pointed out last night, part of being a person is that you sometimes have to **pay for shit that you don’t like.** If Hobby Lobby hated this mandate so much, they could have just sucked it up & either provided it anyway or otherwise pay the non-compliance fee. Like I said, this is pure, unadulterated nonsense IMO, but I digress. But you don’t question the idea that corporations have free speech rights, correct? I mean, NBC News is a corporation. So – does it have ideas, and can it rely on the right of free speech? It’s just as silly, right? NBC News as a corporation has only the ideas of its owners, not its own ideas. But that’s the same deal as religious exercise. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore is a corporation: does it not have religious exercise rights? I suspect John Oliver’s “brilliant” points did not include the existence of the RFRA. That’s a law, just like the ACA. In fact, it’s older than the ACA. Why is the ACA’s command to “pay for shit that you don’t like,” to be followed so closely, but the RFRA’s command that laws that burden the free exercise of religion be required to narrowly implement a compelling government interest can be safely ignored? Did John Oliver explain why he was ignoring the RFRA? Can you? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/649 "2014-06-30T22:13:08Z")
Does Oliver see the irony of being given a platform to reach millions of viewers by a large corporation and using that platform to question whether corporations have 1st amendment rights? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/650 "2014-06-30T22:16:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Contraception is not a compelling interest. Vaccines would be. So says **adaher** and 5 of the 6 men on the Supreme Court. Oddly enough, the 3 women (and one man) disagree. ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/651 "2014-06-30T22:32:42Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > So says **adaher** and 5 of the 6 men on the Supreme Court. Oddly enough, the 3 women (and one man) disagree. No, the Supreme Court did not say this. indeed, five justices said the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/652 "2014-06-30T22:36:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But you don’t question the idea that corporations have free speech rights, correct? > > I mean, NBC News is a corporation. > > So – does it have ideas, and can it rely on the right of free speech? > > It’s just as silly, right? NBC News as a corporation has only the ideas of its owners, not its own ideas. But that’s the same deal as religious exercise. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore is a corporation: does it not have religious exercise rights? > > I suspect John Oliver’s “brilliant” points did not include the existence of the RFRA. That’s a law, just like the ACA. In fact, it’s older than the ACA. Why is the ACA’s command to “pay for shit that you don’t like,” to be followed so closely, but the RFRA’s command that laws that burden the free exercise of religion be required to narrowly implement a compelling government interest can be safely ignored? > > Did John Oliver explain why he was ignoring the RFRA? > > Can you? Can NBC News use it’s ideas to say ‘we shouldn’t have to follow the law’ and expect to win in court? ---
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/653 "2014-06-30T22:40:14Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Can NBC News use it’s ideas to say ‘we shouldn’t have to follow the law’ and expect to win in court? No. But then again, neither did Hobby Lobby. To the contrary, they argued that they SHOULD be allowed to follow the law. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/654 "2014-06-30T23:10:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > But then again, neither did Hobby Lobby. To the contrary, they argued that they SHOULD be allowed to follow the law. One, but not another. I can see ‘religious exercise’ applying to actual religious, non-profit organizations for things like this, but not for for profit companies. Especially when their religious beliefs are actually affecting other people in a real way, not just a ‘we disagree with it’ way. I haven’t read the thread until today, so most of what I would have to say was probably already covered. The NBC analogy just didn’t make sense to me. ---
**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, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/655 "2014-06-30T23:21:16Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > One, but not another. I can see ‘religious exercise’ applying to actual religious, non-profit organizations for things like this, but not for for profit companies. Especially when their religious beliefs are actually affecting other people in a real way, not just a ‘we disagree with it’ way. > > I haven’t read the thread until today, so most of what I would have to say was probably already covered. The NBC analogy just didn’t make sense to me. OK, let’s try another approach. Does the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore, a corporation, have any rights to exercise religion? I assume you answer “Yes.” But, you say, that’s because the Archdiocese is non-profit. But why is that the distinction? If you agree a corporation, as well as a natural person, can exercise religious rights, what is it about how the corporation is organized under the law that removes religious rights when we add profit? Specifically: what changes? The _Treatise of the Law of Corporations_ says: > [@](#): > > Each American jurisdiction today either expressly or by implication authorizes corporations to be formed under its general corporation act for any lawful purpose or business. So there’s nothing actually in the law that says a for-profit corporation can’t do anything a non-profit can. Indeed, a non-profit corporation can make money. What it can’t do is distribute its profits to its owners. But it can make and accumulate stacks of dough. So why, specifically, do you feel a non-profit and a for-profit are treated differently under the law when it comes to religious exercise? ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/656 "2014-06-30T23:28:38Z")
Bonus question: how about the Crown Kosher Super Market? Does it have any religious exercise rights? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/657 "2014-06-30T23:29:16Z")
Because one is specifically a religious group, the other is not. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/658 "2014-06-30T23:30:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bonus question: how about the Crown Kosher Super Market? Does it have any religious exercise rights? Do those religious rights affect anyone? What rights are they asserting? ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/659 "2014-06-30T23:32:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bonus question: how about the Crown Kosher Super Market? Does it have any religious exercise rights? As to who they may hire? No. ---
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/660 "2014-06-30T23:37:16Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Because one is specifically a religious group, the other is not. Would it change your mind to learn that in Hobby Lobby’s official statement of purpose, the following commitment appears: “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.” Does that not suggest that they intend the company to have a religious purpose? They close the store Sundays, which represents an enormous loss of profit, because they believe that Sunday should be a day of rest. They are religiously opposed to alcohol, and so they don’t sell shot glasses, and refused a deal with a beer company that would have put their empty trucks to use and offset the cost of driving back empty to the warehouse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=34)