# 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:** 38
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/741 "2014-07-03T13:42:09Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > Sorry for reposting my entire post #708, but I never saw any response or comment on any of what I posted. I seem to have missed it. I’ll reply as soon as I finish this post. > [@](#): > > I would still like to know why conservatives can pick and choose when to consider original _meaning_ and _intent_. The RFRA was clearly not intended to include corporations as being protected from restrictions on religious freedom. I thought conservatives were opposed to an activist court expanding the original reach of a law. Why do you say it “clearly” was not so intended? he Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore is a corporation. I am absolutely confident that when the RFRA was passed, the legislators voting it meant to include the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore among the entities that could claim the protections of the RFRA. Therefore, I disagree that this in any way amounts to expanding the original reach of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/742 "2014-07-03T14:02:41Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > Do you mean these?: > > a) Can a corporation be a “person” within the meaning of RFRA? Not exactly. The RFRA says “person.” The Dictionary Act, 1 USC § 1, says, “…the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals…” So it seems to me that the law answers that question. The debate has been over whether the “context” of the law was meant to include corporations, but as I mentioned in the previous post, every Catholic diocese in the country is a corporation, as are the vast majority of other churches. So there’s very little question in my mind that the “context” does not include corporations. > [@](#): > > b) Does the birth control mandate place a “substantial burden” on Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs? Again, not exactly. The issue is not beliefs, but “exercise.” Quoting the RFRA, 42 USC § 2000bb: > [@](#): > > Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. . . . [but] Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— > (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and > (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. > [@](#): > > c) Does the birth control mandate meet the two-pronged strict scrutiny test (compelling interest + least restrictive means)? Yes. Exactly. > [@](#): > > WRT a), That can be argued but is clearly at odds with the “original intent” and the “original meaning”. I thought that was very importatant for the conservative Justices. Asked and answered. The Dictionary Act says “person” = “corporation.” The RFRA was clearly intended to cover a church, even if the church was a corporation. > [@](#): > > WRT b), Well, I am not a lawyer, but I hope that I am a reasonable person. As such, it is clear to me that the answer to b) is NO. I don’t see a citation to the following claim: > [@](#): > > The second is a question of fact, which can be proved or disproved via science. Individuals should not be able to declare that anything they dislike causes abortion and therefore avoid any laws relating to that item. Because there is no steady, safe line to draw between those who think IUDs cause abortions and those who think Tylenol causes abortion. Both are scientifically incorrect statements. I don’t agree. But let’s figure out where our area of disagreement is. I say – and Hobby Lobby says – that an abortion occurs when an artificial method is used to prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterine wall. Is that your understanding? If it is, then the statement above is incorrect. IUDs cause fertilized embryos to not implant in the uterine wall. A moment’s thought would confirm this, since IUDs can be used as emergency contraception following unprotected intercourse. [Cite.](http://ec.princeton.edu/info/eciud.html) ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/743 "2014-07-03T14:34:05Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > How could employees be “clearly OK” with a policy that didn’t exist when they were hired? Hobby Lobby employees were covered for two of the four so-called abortifacients until the ACA came along and the HL owners got (more) religion. > I’m not all that worked up about the decision, especially after the Court gave additional instruction to lower courts on Tuesday to reconsider similar cases involving _ **any** _ type of contraception. Considering that [a recent Gallup poll](http://www.gallup.com/poll/170789/new-record-highs-moral-acceptability.aspx) showed that 88% of Republicans view birth control as morally acceptable (only 5 point less than Dems) it seems like the Hobby Lobby case isn’t going to win them any new votes in a general election. 🙂 The problem is that Rush and Sean and Glenn have already twisted this to be about religious freedom, and convinced their mobs that sluts are trying to infringe on the poor Christian multimillionaires’ beliefs. Facts have nothing to do with it, and polls have nothing to do with it. If you poll people on the individual aspects of Obamacare, people love everything the law does. Ask them if they like Obamacare, and they overwhelmingly say no. The same thing is a work here. It’s totally irrational. ---
**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 3, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/744 "2014-07-03T16:50:20Z")
Just keeps getting better and better: > [@](#): > > Less than a day after the United States Supreme Court issued its divisive ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has already begun to toss aside the supposedly narrow interpretation of the decision. On Tuesday, the Supremes ordered lower courts to rehear any cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for any type of contraception, not just the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to. > > SOURCE: [Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control – Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception) Can this still be about “sincerely” held beliefs or can we reliably say this is really a shot at the ACA? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/745 "2014-07-04T00:35:10Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > That was sarcasm as counterpoint to **furt’s** opinion stated as fact. Perhaps we are referring to sincerity in regards to different things. I was not simply giving my opinion: I was drawing the obvious conclusion from the fact that HHS stipulated in the case that HL’s belief was held sincerely for all legal purposes. Again, if HHS thought there was any chance whatsoever of getting any legal traction on that score, it seems awfully likely they would have done so; it’s not like they are short on resources. Ergo, HL is well above the legal bar. A meaningful responses on your part would probably include an attempt to spell out what legal argument you would make that would have invalidated their RFRA protections. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/746 "2014-07-04T01:02:28Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Just keeps getting better and better: > > Can this still be about “sincerely” held beliefs or can we reliably say this is really a shot at the ACA? Were you not aware that before the ACA was even …um…conceived, there was a very large Christian denomination sincerely opposed to almost all contraception? ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/747 "2014-07-04T01:53:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you say it [corporation as “person” within RFRA] “clearly” was not so intended? > > he Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore is a corporation. I am absolutely confident that when the RFRA was passed, the legislators voting it meant to include the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore among the entities that could claim the protections of the RFRA. > > Therefore, I disagree that this in any way amounts to expanding the original reach of the law. [This article from March](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/birth-control-coverage-stake) has a lot of historical background. (Bolding is mine.) > [@](#): > > [Previous lower court cases using the RFRA argument] …leaves many of the initial backers of RFRA, many of whom foresaw it as a protecting religious freedom against government interference, **not as a license to foist one’s religious beliefs on someone else,** somewhere between baffled and furious. > > ‘It was never intended as a sword as opposed to a shield,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler, one of the architects of RFRA in the House. “Once you went into the commercial sector, you couldn’t claim a religious liberty to discriminate against somebody. That never came up. **It was completely obvious we weren’t talking about that.** ” > > The vaunted left-right alliance on RFRA has fallen apart over such claims. “If anyone had ever come up with a scenario like what’s been proposed by Hobby Lobby, that coalition would have exploded like someone hitting a watermelon with a shotgun,” said Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “There would have never been a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” I’m sure you are aware that the motivation for the RFCA was to protect a couple of Native Americans who were fired for using Peyote in their religious ceremonies. > [@](#): > > The two men argued that their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion had been violated. The Supreme Court disagreed. Siding with the former counselors, wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, would “open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” The court majority lowered the legal standard by which governments were generally expected to accommodate individuals’ religious beliefs. The risk, Scalia wrote, would be “in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” > > The backlash to the decision was swift. > > “Nothing mattered except that the religious community thought that the Supreme Court had slapped them in the face,” said William Galston, the former Clinton administration policy adviser who pushed for RFRA’s passage from the White House. ”It wasn’t just the liberals, it wasn’t just the conservatives, it wasn’t just the mainstream Protestants, it was everybody.” > > Shortly after the decision, Lynn said, activists across the political spectrum met with then-Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy and Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch to organize a coalition to overturn the decision. Despite the Rep-Dem coalition, the religious right was adamantly opposed to the RFCA. > [@](#): > > No less a fevered opponent of abortion than Rep. Henry Hyde initially opposed RFRA because he feared “proabortion groups” would claim that a woman had a right to an abortion on a religious basis. Hyde also thought it was probably unconstitutional to undo a decision by the Court that way: “We are a legislature, not the Court.” The Supreme Court later ruled that RFRA could only apply to federal laws, not state laws. If you have any historical background that contradicts the above quoted text, please share it. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/748 "2014-07-04T02:36:58Z")
> [@](#): > > The vaunted left-right alliance on RFRA has fallen apart over such claims. “If anyone had ever come up with a scenario like what’s been proposed by Hobby Lobby, that coalition would have exploded like someone hitting a watermelon with a shotgun,” said Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “There would have never been a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” Wouldn’t that mean that a substantial portion of those who voted for the RFRA WOULD consider the protection to cover a situation like Hobby Lobby at the time of passage? FWIW, this is the problem with attempting to figure out legislative intent - who’s intent? It was unanimously passed by the House and 97-3 in the Senate. That’s a lot of intent to sift through. Why I vastly prefer textual readings without trying to discern what intent controls. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/749 "2014-07-04T02:46:36Z")
To expand - it is easy to look in hindsight and say, oh we never meant this when a controversial ruling comes about. But Congress has passed a lot of laws since 1947 (it may not seem like it now, but I assure you its the case!) and has known that corporations have been considered legal persons since then. You would think that if they didn’t want corporations to have rights under the RFRA, they would have realized, maybe we should actually write out corporations since in every other bill corporations are understood to be persons. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/750 "2014-07-04T02:53:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not exactly. The RFRA says “person.” The Dictionary Act, 1 USC § 1, says, “…the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals…” > > So it seems to me that the law answers that question. The debate has been over whether the “context” of the law was meant to include corporations, but as I mentioned in the previous post, every Catholic diocese in the country is a corporation, as are the vast majority of other churches. So there’s very little question in my mind that the “context” does not include corporations. You keep using this argument about incorporated churches but I don’t see the connection. Law of incorporation is governed by the individual states. The RFRA does not apply to states (although some have their own version), therefore incorporation of churches is a specious argument. > [@](#): > > [Regarding “substantial burden” on Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs.] > Again, not exactly. The issue is not beliefs, but “exercise.” Quoting the RFRA, 42 USC § 2000bb: [Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion…] Since I don’t agree a corporation is a person, burden upon a person’s belief (or “exercise”) is a non sequitur in regards to a corporation. > [@](#): > > Asked and answered. The Dictionary Act says “person” = “corporation.” The RFRA was clearly intended to cover a church, even if the church was a corporation. The first line of the Dictionary Act is “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise — [definitions follow]” I believe I have shown that the context of the RFRA indicates otherwise based on historical intent and meaning. [quote] I don’t see a citation to the following claim: > [@](#): > > I don’t agree. But let’s figure out where our area of disagreement is. > > I say – and Hobby Lobby says – that an abortion occurs when an artificial method is used to prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterine wall. Is that your understanding? My understanding doesn’t matter since the question is moot. The day following the Hobby Lobby decision, the Court provided further instruction to lower courts that the ruling should be applied to all contraceptives. I also notice that Hobby Lobby has given millions to Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Life Principles. Gothard has said "mental illness is merely ‘varying degrees of irresponsibility.’ " What is to stop Hobby Lobby from refusing to pay for insurance that covers mental illness? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/751 "2014-07-04T03:57:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It should (I hope) come as no surprise to you that media sources are not especially reliable…especially these days. If they give no more than an assertion with no backup it doesn’t hurt to give the claims a closer look. I totally agree. However, absent any additional information other than conjecture by SDMB members it seems to be the best data we currently have. If Time was a conservative-leaning magazine I’d be more willing to accept conjecture but I don’t see any obvious reason that Time would quote a larger loss than is warranted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/752 "2014-07-04T04:02:30Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > You keep using this argument about incorporated churches but I don’t see the connection. Law of incorporation is governed by the individual states. The RFRA does not apply to states (although some have their own version), therefore incorporation of churches is a specious argument. What?? My argument is very simple: The RFRA’s context does include corporations, and did when it was passed, because churches are generally corporations. Yes, state law governs all corporations. So what? The question is: does the context of the RFRA cover corporations? Yes. How do we know? Because when we think of who the RFRA was meant to cover, we certainly think of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington and Temple Rodef Shalom, which are both corporations. > [@](#): > > I believe I have shown that the context of the RFRA indicates otherwise based on historical intent and meaning. No, you haven’t. Historical intent and meaning shows that corporations like Temple Rodef Shalom and the Episcopal Diocese of Scranton were certainly intended to be covered by the RFRA. > [@](#): > > My understanding doesn’t matter since the question is moot. The day following the Hobby Lobby decision, the Court provided further instruction to lower courts that the ruling should be applied to all contraceptives. No. The ruling should be applied to all plaintiffs who have a sincere religious objection to paying for contraception. This is different from a blanket waiver against covering contraception. > [@](#): > > I also notice that Hobby Lobby has given millions to Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Life Principles. Gothard has said "mental illness is merely ‘varying degrees of irresponsibility.’ " What is to stop Hobby Lobby from refusing to pay for insurance that covers mental illness? Hobby Lobby has no religious exercise concerns that prevents their paying for mental health coverage. Having no such religious objections, then, is what stops them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/753 "2014-07-04T04:06:41Z")
[QUOTE=rsa] If you have any historical background that contradicts the above quoted text, please share it. [/QUOTE] Nothing in that quoted text rules out corporations like churches and temples. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/754 "2014-07-04T14:59:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So Hobby Lobby has invested $73 million in companies that make Plan B and Ella? Is that what your quote said? Not his quote, but that quote definitely leads others to report that as a fact. See: > **[The Hobby Lobby Mess: 3 Quick Facts You Need to Know](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleleinbachreyhle/2014/07/02/the-hobby-lobby-mess-3-quick-facts-you-need-to-know-about/)** > > The Supreme Court announced on Monday, June 30, 2014, that the "Hobby Lobby" case - as it's widely recognized, although increasingly being referred to as the "Hobby Lobby Mess", as well - would not be forced to pay for insurance that covers... Hobby Lobby – as reported by various media outlets that include Mother Jones – has about $73 million invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill… I believe that writer earns the “liar liar pants on fire” award. But Mother Jones knew what they were doing when they were reporting it - the above quote is their intended result. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/755 "2014-07-04T16:31:16Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Not his quote, but that quote definitely leads others to report that as a fact. See: > > [The Hobby Lobby Mess: 3 Quick Facts You Need to Know](http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleleinbachreyhle/2014/07/02/the-hobby-lobby-mess-3-quick-facts-you-need-to-know-about/) > > Hobby Lobby – as reported by various media outlets that include Mother Jones – has about $73 million invested in the company that makes the Plan B morning-after pill… > > I believe that writer earns the “liar liar pants on fire” award. But Mother Jones knew what they were doing when they were reporting it - the above quote is their intended result. Perfect example. Mother Jones writes their claim in a way that’s technically defensible, but leads an ordinary reader to reach a vastly incorrect conclusion…and then other authors explicitly advance that incorrect conclusion. And of course, now the false claim can gain even more traction, as future writers cite Reyhle’s false claim and repeat it. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/756 "2014-07-04T19:26:29Z")
"Those who are bound by our [The Supreme Court’s] decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today. After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, retreats from that position. That action evinces disregard for even the newest of this Court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution" From Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Wheaton College v. Burwell, which can be found [here](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf). Sotomayor clearly thinks that the majority was lying when they said their opinion in Hobby Lobby was limited and that the religious accomodations that Alito relied so heavily on his majority opinion isn’t going to be used at all. That sure didn’t take long. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/757 "2014-07-04T22:30:17Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > "Those who are bound by our [The Supreme Court’s] decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today. > > After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, retreats from that position. That action evinces disregard for even the newest of this Court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution" > > From Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Wheaton College v. Burwell, which can be found [here](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf). > > Sotomayor clearly thinks that the majority was lying when they said their opinion in Hobby Lobby was limited and that the religious accomodations that Alito relied so heavily on his majority opinion isn’t going to be used at all. > > That sure didn’t take long. In my view, Justice Sotomayor overstates the reliance involved. It’s true the majority opinion described the offered alternative as “achiev[ing] all the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.” But so what? The standard is not to “provide greater respect” but to provide the least restrictive alternative. The majority’s opinion does not say that _exemption-but-you-have-to-sign-the-form_ is the least restrictive alternative. It simply says that _exemption-but-you-have-to-sign-the-form_ provides greater respect for religious liberty than _no-exemption-at-all._ In this case, since the government is obligated to take the least restrictive means, and since the government already agrees that an exemption is warranted, the only question is whether there’s some compelling reason that they have to sign the form. Is there? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/758 "2014-07-05T15:19:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, Justice Sotomayor overstates the reliance involved. It’s true the majority opinion described the offered alternative as “achiev[ing] all the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.” > > But so what? One of the very reason that Alito and Kennedy gave for finding the mandate unconstitutional was that there was already a system in place for exceptions based on religious ground; that it was a least restrictive alternative. "In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. … according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage. Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections." Then, they decide that that system may not be the least restrictive alternative, but only AFTER they decide Hobby Lobby. When you can even be bothered to respect your own opinion for one day, it’s hard to argue we should give that opinion any respect at all. > [@Bricker](#): > > The standard is not to “provide greater respect” but to provide the least restrictive alternative. The majority’s opinion does not say that _exemption-but-you-have-to-sign-the-form_ is the least restrictive alternative. It simply says that _exemption-but-you-have-to-sign-the-form_ provides greater respect for religious liberty than _no-exemption-at-all._ The ruling was for an emergency injunction to stop a properly enacted law, and requires, as Sotomayor pointed out: "Injunctions of this nature are proper only where “the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” The burden was on Wheaton College, not on the government, to grant the injunction. > [@Bricker](#): > > In this case, since the government is obligated to take the least restrictive means, and since the government already agrees that an exemption is warranted, the only question is whether there’s some compelling reason that they have to sign the form. > > Is there? Again, the burden isn’t on the government, it’s on the petitioner, Wheaton College. They have to show that somehow requiring them to fill out a form violates their religious liberties. That’s where the inanity of the Hobby Lobby decision really shines. Where even filling out a form to take advantage of the accomodation, is magically an infringement on their religious rights. For all the silly rationalizations Hobby Lobby raised, this one, filling out a damn form, is even more silly. Do you honestly think that filling out a form, as required by law, actually infringes upon Wheaton College’s religious rights? We’re not even talking about the tenuousness of paying for insurance that will pay for contraception, Wheaton is pretending that even filling out a form just saying they won’t pay is somehow immoral. They’re asserting, as Sotomayor points out: “that filing the self-certification form might ultimately result in the provision of contraceptive services to itsemployees, thereby burdening its religious exercise.” They’re arguing not that they will be forced to provide contraception is the violation, they’re arguing that ANYONE providing their employees with contraception will burden their practice of religion. You don’t really buy that, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/759 "2014-07-05T16:47:49Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > One of the very reason that Alito and Kennedy gave for finding the mandate unconstitutional was that there was already a system in place for exceptions based on religious ground; that it was a least restrictive alternative. No, they never say the alternative is the least restrictive – it is simply LESS restrictive than requiring Hobby Lobby to pay. > [@](#): > > Then, they decide that that system may not be the least restrictive alternative, but only AFTER they decide Hobby Lobby. When you can even be bothered to respect your own opinion for one day, it’s hard to argue we should give that opinion any respect at all. They never decided otherwise. Nothing in their opinion identifies that alternative as the “least restrictive.” As a simpler example, let’s imagine that the discussion was about lightest elements, with the government contending that boron was required. The majority opinion points out that the government has already approved the use of helium, which is lighter, and therefore proves that lighter alternatives are available. Now they point out that there is also an element, hydrogen, that’s even lighter than helium. See? The identification of a _less restrictive_ alternative does not say or imply that it is the _least restrictive_. > [@](#): > > The ruling was for an emergency injunction to stop a properly enacted law, and requires, as Sotomayor pointed out: "Injunctions of this nature are proper only where “the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” The burden was on Wheaton College, not on the government, to grant the injunction. But this is a different criticism than saying the Court’s prior opinion was almost immediately contradicted. I agree that the question of burden relating to filling out a form is not what was previously litigated. On the hand, the opinion observes, at least somewhat reasonably, that since the government is aware of the fact that the college qualifies for the exemption, it doesn’t seem to make much sense to require them to fill out the form. > [@](#): > > Again, the burden isn’t on the government, it’s on the petitioner, Wheaton College. They have to show that somehow requiring them to fill out a form violates their religious liberties. They have alleged sufficient facts which, if believed, do just that. > [@](#): > > That’s where the inanity of the Hobby Lobby decision really shines. Where even filling out a form to take advantage of the accomodation, is magically an infringement on their religious rights. For all the silly rationalizations Hobby Lobby raised, this one, filling out a damn form, is even more silly. In your opinion. Once again, I feel we need to define this, since we’re discussing what the court should do as well as your reaction. The legal standard is that the college has drawn a line, and it’s not for the court to decide that this line is “magic” or “silly.” > [@](#): > > Do you honestly think that filling out a form, as required by law, actually infringes upon Wheaton College’s religious rights? We’re not even talking about the tenuousness of paying for insurance that will pay for contraception, Wheaton is pretending that even filling out a form just saying they won’t pay is somehow immoral. They’re asserting, as Sotomayor points out: “that filing the self-certification form might ultimately result in the provision of contraceptive services to itsemployees, thereby burdening its religious exercise.” They’re arguing not that they will be forced to provide contraception is the violation, they’re arguing that ANYONE providing their employees with contraception will burden their practice of religion. > > You don’t really buy that, do you? Yes, because you miscast their belief. They don’t believe, as you say, that “ANYONE providing their employees with contraception will burden their practice of religion.” Instead, they believe that if they take any action, however small, to assist their employees in this regard, it violates their beliefs. Against that, we have the government, which has already agreed to exempt them from providing coverage. Why must they sign the form? Why can’t the government note that they have refused to sign, and they’re exempt, and provide the exemption anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/760 "2014-07-05T17:19:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, they never say the alternative is the least restrictive – it is simply LESS restrictive than requiring Hobby Lobby to pay. From Kennedy’s opinion: "“The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it. **That accommodation equally furthers the Government’s interest but does not impinge on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs.** ” Can’t get much more clear than that, can it? Alito is much cagier. You can parse that quote the way you want and pretend he was only referring to the accomodation as a less restrictive means, but not least restrictive means However, if you want to believe that Alito is disingenuous enough to refer to the accommodation as a less, but not the least, restrictive means and also fail to mention any other least restrictive means, I suppose that’s possible. But your reading clearly makes Alito a weasel at the very least. But hey, it worked to get Kennedy on his side. > [@Bricker](#): > > See? The identification of a _less restrictive_ alternative does not say or imply that it is the _least restrictive_. Again, Alito is quite good at his weaseling, but it is weaseling. > [@Bricker](#): > > But this is a different criticism than saying the Court’s prior opinion was almost immediately contradicted. Yes, Sotomayor criticized the opinion on numerous points. And? > [@Bricker](#): > > In your opinion. Once again, I feel we need to define this, since we’re discussing what the court should do as well as your reaction. The legal standard is that the college has drawn a line, and it’s not for the court to decide that this line is “magic” or “silly.” Yes, but again, as Sotomayor points out: “The sincerity of Wheaton’s deeply held religious beliefs is beyond refute. But as a legal matter, Wheaton’s application comes nowhere near the high bar necessary to warrant an emergency injunction from this Court.” The determination isn’t just that the belief is sincere, but also that it is substantially burdened. Again, Sotomayor: “Not every sincerely felt “burden” is a “substantial” one, and it is for courts, not litigants, to identify which are.” > [@Bricker](#): > > Instead, they believe that if they take any action, however small, to assist their employees in this regard, it violates their beliefs. Yes, they do. And do you agree with that? And if you do, what wouldn’t be a substantial burden if sending in a form is? Giving notice itself? Doesn’t that do the exact same thing as signing the form? Is requiring notice a substantial burden? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=39)