# 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:** 34
**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, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/661 "2014-06-30T23:38:56Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Do those religious rights affect anyone? What rights are they asserting? Let’s say they’re in a jurisdiction that requires stores to close on Sunday. Being Jewish, they are happy to be open Sunday, but are closed Friday evening and Saturday. They sue to be allowed to stay open Sunday, citing their 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, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/662 "2014-06-30T23:42:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Stores decide when to be open and what to sell, every store decides that. Why they choose it is irrelevant. (and yes, I already knew that) With the Crown Kosher reference, I take it you mean the blue laws case in 61? If so, I agree with them that blue laws shouldn’t exist. I don’t care about their religious rationale, but those laws are asinine. ---
**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, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/663 "2014-06-30T23:44:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let’s say they’re in a jurisdiction that requires stores to close on Sunday. Being Jewish, they are happy to be open Sunday, but are closed Friday evening and Saturday. They sue to be allowed to stay open Sunday, citing their religious exercise rights. Was writing my other reply when this came up. Blue laws should be done away with anyway, why someone wants them done away with is immaterial. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/664 "2014-06-30T23:48:46Z")
I’m thinking this may be a [Kelo v. New London](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) style decision; that is, it ignited a firestorm of controversy, but had little practical impact. In response to _Kelo_, many states passed laws or state constitutional amendments that forbade using eminent domain for the benefit of private corporations. Since the Hobby Lobby decision hinges on the RFRA, which does not restrict state laws, might it be possible for a state to pass a law restricting the religious rights of corporations to non-profit corporations with a declared religious purpose? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/665 "2014-07-01T00:03:15Z")
> [@ricksummon](#): > > I’m thinking this may be a [Kelo v. New London](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) style decision; that is, it ignited a firestorm of controversy, but had little practical impact. > > In response to _Kelo_, many states passed laws or state constitutional amendments that forbade using eminent domain for the benefit of private corporations. Since the Hobby Lobby decision hinges on the RFRA, which does not restrict state laws, might it be possible for a state to pass a law restricting the religious rights of corporations to non-profit corporations with a declared religious purpose? Yes. But since the issue here is the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) which is a federal law, I don’t really see how that helps all that much. But yes: since the federal RFRA is not applicable to the states, a state could restrict the rights of corporations as you suggest. But that wouldn’t change their obligations under the federal ACA. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/666 "2014-07-01T00:06:54Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Was writing my other reply when this came up. Blue laws should be done away with anyway, why someone wants them done away with is immaterial. Antinor, pretty much all of your posts in this thread consist of you just announcing what you feel the correct answer to every social policy question is. But the reason Hobby Lobby was on the hook to pay for contraceptives was a federal law, the ACA. The reason they fought back was they felt another federal law, the RFRA, protected them. I guess I was hoping that you would consider the existence of those laws and and reason out what they required. I’d say that if your approach is simply to state what you believe the best overall result would be, without reference to any existing laws, then have at it. But do you have any reason, other than your own preferential result, for saying that a non-profit can exercise religion but a for-profit cannot? Like, a law, or something? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/667 "2014-07-01T00:19:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Antinor, pretty much all of your posts in this thread consist of you just announcing what you feel the correct answer to every social policy question is. > > But the reason Hobby Lobby was on the hook to pay for contraceptives was a federal law, the ACA. The reason they fought back was they felt another federal law, the RFRA, protected them. > > I guess I was hoping that you would consider the existence of those laws and and reason out what they required. I’d say that if your approach is simply to state what you believe the best overall result would be, without reference to any existing laws, then have at it. > > But do you have any reason, other than your own preferential result, for saying that a non-profit can exercise religion but a for-profit cannot? Like, a law, or something? I would agree with the dissent in this case. Specifically - > [@](#): > > The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged … substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts. It’s not a law of course, it’s just Justice Ginsberg announcing what she feels is the correct answer. She even notes that for profit companies have never been extended RFRA protection. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/668 "2014-07-01T00:38:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They [Hobby Lobby] close the store Sundays, which represents an enormous loss of profit… cite? Chick Fil A doesn’t seem to be hurting from being closed Sundays and eating is more necessary on Sunday than buying hobby supplies. > [@](#): > > 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. So? They choose what to sell as any company does and they choose what transportation arrangements they want. While Hobby Lobby used your two examples as evidence of their strong religious belief system, what about their [retirement plan](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers) with investments in makers of contraceptive devices, including those that they are supposedly so opposed to. There is a big difference in making operational decisions and having a policy which affects their employees. Don’t conservatives believe in a “right to work” without being penalized by having to pay for medical coverage that employees of other companies receive. What if there were a religious objection (which there may well be) to paying the federal or state minimum wage. Surely you don’t think there is any compelling interest in requireing some arbitrary wage to be paid to employess. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/669 "2014-07-01T00:54:53Z")
I am less than impressed with this opinion. It takes pains to clearly state that this is a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation. However, it never actually explains why the logic it applies to this situation is invalid in others. For example, the ruling says: > [@](#): > > In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them. > > The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. See post, at 32-33. Our decision today provides no such shield. The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal. However, the logic for the ACA failing RFRA is this: > [@](#): > > HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases. See §§2000bb-1(a) , (b) (requiring the Government to “demonstrat[e] that application of [a substantial] burden to the person . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest” (emphasis added)). > > The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections. This would certainly be less restrictive of the plaintiffs’ religious liberty, and HHS has not shown, see §2000bb-1(b)(2) , that this is not a viable alternative. That exact same logic can be applied to vaccinations. Why couldn’t government assume payment for vaccinations the same as it could for contraception? Or to take the racism/sexism angle, can the government really prove that current laws are the least restrictive way of addressing inequality? For example, can they prove that substantial tax breaks to corporations employing minorities is less effective than current laws? It seems doubtful to me that they can. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/670 "2014-07-01T01:11:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > She should immediately resign from the Court and run for Congress, so that she would be in the proper governmental role to implement her vision of what the law should be. Scalito first. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/671 "2014-07-01T01:12:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But you don’t question the idea that corporations have free speech rights, correct? I don’t. Not akin to you and me. > [@](#): > > I mean, NBC News is a corporation. > > So – does it have ideas, and can it rely on the right of free speech? Can you use foul language on NBC News? Will they get fined if they use foul language? What about a [nip slip](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy)? Howard Stern’s show certainly got in trouble: > [@](#): > > Between 1990 and 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued fines totalling $2.5 million to radio licensees for airing material it deemed indecent from The Howard Stern Show, the highest amount of any American radio show. [SOURCE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fines_of_The_Howard_Stern_Show) Apparently the government can and does restrict speech of businesses. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/672 "2014-07-01T01:21:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. The government should have questioned the sincerity of their belief. Starts to get at the whole problem of having the courts decide what is a sincere belief…especially as it relates to a corporation. > [@](#): > > **Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers** > > Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). > > Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby’s retirement plan have stock holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby’s health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices. > > SOURCE: [Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers – Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/673 "2014-07-01T01:23:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I don’t. Not akin to you and me. Ack! :smack: Should read: “I do.” (As in “I do question that corporations should have free speech rights akin to you and me.”) ---
**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:** [July 1, 2014, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/674 "2014-07-01T01:44:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A church, sure. A bookstore, no. So a corporation with a religious but non-charitable purpose cannot have a religious belief while a corporation with a religious and charitable purpose can? 😕 This is not the inevitable result of the constitution but as Bricker pointed out to me earlier on, it is almost the very likely result of the RFRA (in the absence of the RFRA, I think Hobby Lobby loses). > [@Skammer](#): > > Churches and bookstores and craft stores are not living beings with self-awareness and conscience, except in a metaphorical or anthropomorphic sense. So no, they cannot believe anything. > > Churches as a matter of practice may declare certain teachings or doctrines, and we metaphorically speak of a church denomination ‘believing’ this or that, but churches do not literally believe anything. A church, like a corporation, is a legal entity but not a natural person. Only people believe things. So we can make the church pay for contraception coverage for its clergy?😕 > [@Skammer](#): > > To determine if some entity can hold sincere beliefs (or ANY beliefs), subject it to the Shylock test: > > Hath a corporation eyes? Hath a corporation hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick one, does it bleed? If you tickle it, does it laugh? If you poison it, does it die? And if you wrong it, shall it revenge? So churches cannot have sincerely held religious beliefs?😕 > [@jtgain](#): > > No! She should resign on January 21, 2017. 🙂 I suspect Hillary will nominate from the same short list as Obama would. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The problem with the umpire analogy is … Its been a while since law school but IIRC con law was mostly trying to figure out what the justices had for breakfast that morning. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/675 "2014-07-01T01:47:50Z")
> [@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. A few quick thoughts: > > 1. If anything, this decision underscores the fact that health insurance has NO GAWDDAMN BUSINESS being tied to employment at all, given that employers can pick & choose the types of services that it wants to facilitate. As much as I’m a fan of the ACA writ large, one of its biggest flaws is its reliance on employment-sponsored insurance. This ruling further reinforces the stupidity of the US health care system. > > 2. On a personal note, this decision adds even more fuel to my own desire to just completely expat myself altogether, as if I needed any more reasons to disengage myself from this nonsense. John Oliver? That guys’s about as credible as Fox News. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/676 "2014-07-01T02:18:33Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > I would agree with the dissent in this case. Specifically - > > It’s not a law of course, it’s just Justice Ginsberg announcing what she feels is the correct answer. She even notes that for profit companies have never been extended RFRA protection. Until today. Now, of course, they have been. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/677 "2014-07-01T02:24:58Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > cite? > Chick Fil A doesn’t seem to be hurting from being closed Sundays and eating is more necessary on Sunday than buying hobby supplies. Are you asking me to cite the proposition that a store that closes one day a week loses sales? > [@](#): > > So? They choose what to sell as any company does and they choose what transportation arrangements they want. While Hobby Lobby used your two examples as evidence of their strong religious belief system, what about their [retirement plan](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers) with investments in makers of contraceptive devices, including those that they are supposedly so opposed to. What about it? Their retirement fund contains a dozen mutual funds; one mutual fund contains thousands of different company stocks. They view that as much mire distant and attenuated than directly funding contraception insurance. And of the twenty types of contraception approved by HHS they object to only four. > [@](#): > > There is a big difference in making operational decisions and having a policy which affects their employees. Don’t conservatives believe in a “right to work” without being penalized by having to pay for medical coverage that employees of other companies receive. What if there were a religious objection (which there may well be) to paying the federal or state minimum wage. Surely you don’t think there is any compelling interest in requireing some arbitrary wage to be paid to employess. On the contrary, there’s a clear compelling interest in a government minimum wage. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/678 "2014-07-01T02:29:01Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I don’t. Not akin to you and me. > > Can you use foul language on NBC News? Will they get fined if they use foul language? What about a [nip slip](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy)? > > Howard Stern’s show certainly got in trouble: > > Apparently the government can and does restrict speech of businesses. Nor could you use the broadcast airwaves and avoid those fees. The hook there is the use of public airwaves, and the FCC doesn’t limit their rules to corporations. In fact, Howard Stern got in trouble. As you just said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/679 "2014-07-01T02:30:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The government should have questioned the sincerity of their belief. Starts to get at the whole problem of having the courts decide what is a sincere belief…especially as it relates to a corporation. So Hobby Lobby has invested $73 million in companies that make Plan B and Ella? Is that what your quote said? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/680 "2014-07-01T02:36:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So Hobby Lobby has invested $73 million in companies that make Plan B and Ella? Is that what your quote said? What are you asking? I’m honestly not sure. The quote is as, well, quoted. Link provided too for the whole thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=35)