# Remedy for Hobby Lobby decision? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060 "2014-07-01T02:26:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**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, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/181 "2014-07-04T15:21:57Z")
> [@standingwave](#): > > I guess it doesn’t really matter now given that the court has since [expanded its decision](http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1) to include any and all forms of birth control. That’s really a kind of deceptive article, making a claim in a deceptive way. The court issued orders in pending cases that basically said, “Our reasoning applies in this case.” If next term the Supreme Court confronts Utah’s same sex marriage and rules consistent with Windsor that a same- sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, that decision will apply to other marriage equality cases, and we would certainly expect the court to issue orders reflecting this. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Court decided that the RFRA applied to closely-held for-profit companies, and so any case that was hinging on the question, “Does the RFRA apply to closely-held for-profit companies?” must apply it. It’s true that some of these other cases involve a more comprehensive objection to all contraception, instead of Hobby Lobby’s objection to only four methods. The Greens, Hobby Lobby’s owners, are not Catholic: their objection was to anything that causes the death of a fertilized embryo, not to preventing ovulation or fertilization. But. Catholic doctrine does object to artificial methods of preventing conception, and so there are Catholic business owners also suing HHS. So…the Court’s decisions always “expand,” because the Court’s decisions don’t just resolve one case: they announce an authoritative way of interpreting the law that applies to the whole country. The other somewhat deceptive (in my opinion) point comes from the article’s suggestion that the Supreme Court’s opinion leaves courts helpless to reject a fabricated religious claim. This echoes a refrain I have heard a lot here on the SDMB, along the lines of, “What if I say my religion forbids hiring redheads? What then?” Here’s the article’s text: > [@](#): > > The appeals court that rejected his motion for an injunction against the mandate was skeptical. Potter’s real position, it suggested, resembled more “a laissez-faire, anti-government screed.” The evidence came from an interview Potter gave last year to Irin Carmon of Salon, in which he stated: “I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story.” The article goes on to claim explicitly that the main problem with Alito’s opinion in Hobby Lobby is that it takes claims of religious scruples for granted. But that’s not true. In Hobby Lobby’s case, they had plenty of evidence of their genuine religious exercise, but more importantly the government chose to stipulate it’s sincerity. In other words, they agreed that Hobby Lobby was sincere. And this was a reasonably wise concession. The case was intended to test whether or not the RFRA applied to a for-profit. Even if we imagine that Hobby Lobby was faking it, clearly there exists some employer somewhere with sincere beliefs, so the question would have to be settled anyway. And of course, no one seriously questioned Hobby Lobby’s sincerity anyway. But that doesn’t mean that somehow, as a result of this decision, no claims of sincerity from other parties can ever be questioned. I earlier posted multiple examples showing courts rejecting claims of religious exercise that they found were phony. The question of whether a claim is sincere is a question of fact for the trial court to accept or reject. In response, some people (here and elsewhere) seem genuinely baffled at the idea. “A court cannot peer into a person’s mind!” they cry. But that’s exactly what courts do every day. Every claim of self-defense must be evaluated by what sincere thoughts were in the accused’s mind. The success of a charge of first-degree murder depends on what intent the defendant harbored. Few people seem surprised at that – but for some reason, this application of that well-known principle in this case seems to confuse people, even after being given specific examples of courts deciding that religious claims were self-serving and false. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/182 "2014-07-04T16:20:53Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I will believe this is not a bunch of Catholic men using the law to enable other Catholics to impose their religious values on the rest of us the day when a Muslim claim is upheld under RFRA. I have a bet with myself that this isn’t true. I bet I can show you a case in which Muslim claims were upheld under the. RFRA and you will continue to assert this false claim. Let’s see if I’m right. Small v. Lehman, 98 F.3d 762 (3rd Cir 1996), using the RFRA, appeals court reversed a district court that had ruled against a Muslim claim that prison worship services impermissibly burdened their rights. And after the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA as applied against the states, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which uses Congress’ spending power to require that the same exact RFRA standards be available to state prisoners. I mention this because there are many Muslim claims upheld under the RLUIPA, a law that cloned the RFRA’s standards and process. Well? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/183 "2014-07-04T17:27:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have a bet with myself that this isn’t true. > > I bet I can show you a case in which Muslim claims were upheld under the. RFRA and you will continue to assert this false claim. > > Let’s see if I’m right. > > Small v. Lehman, 98 F.3d 762 (3rd Cir 1996), using the RFRA, appeals court reversed a district court that had ruled against a Muslim claim that prison worship services impermissibly burdened their rights. > > And after the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA as applied against the states, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which uses Congress’ spending power to require that the same exact RFRA standards be available to state prisoners. I mention this because there are many Muslim claims upheld under the RLUIPA, a law that cloned the RFRA’s standards and process. > > Well? WHile I share your general sentiment here, I think a fair reading of EC’s post means he’d need to see the SCOTUS act to uphold a Muslim’s claim under RFRA. And, specifically, the “Catholic men” on the SCOTUS agreeing. ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/184 "2014-07-04T17:59:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > WHile I share your general sentiment here, I think a fair reading of EC’s post means he’d need to see the SCOTUS act to uphold a Muslim’s claim under RFRA. And, specifically, the “Catholic men” on the SCOTUS agreeing. Got it. That is a fair reading, I agree. So a contradictory example would need to be: [ul] [li]An RFRA claim[/li][li]Advancing a Muslim religious exercise[/li][li]Made since 2006 (in order to constitute this group of ‘Catholic men’ hearing it[/li][li]in which the religious exercise side was victorious[/li][li]and in which all five ‘Catholic men’ voted in favor of the religious side’s claim?[/li][/ul] Going from memory, I don’t believe any case fits those conditions. But: I also don’t believe there’s a contrary case, meaning one in which a case which fit all those other conditions lost. ---
**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:** [July 4, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/185 "2014-07-04T18:08:14Z")
That in itself is very slight evidence against a fair application, since it suggests the court has chosen not to hear and RFRA claims brought by Muslims (though it’s certainly possible there haven’t been any. The only one I have found since _Small_ is 10th Circuit prisoner case, _Malik v. Kindt_.) ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/186 "2014-07-04T18:41:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That in itself is very slight evidence against a fair application, since it suggests the court has chosen not to hear and RFRA claims brought by Muslims (though it’s certainly possible there haven’t been any. The only one I have found since _Small_ is 10th Circuit prisoner case, _Malik v. Kindt_.) If the only information at our disposal were the Supreme Court’s accepted cases and what they decided, your “very slight evidence” statement is true. But of course we also have the ability to search for cert denials and the federal circuits for cases that could have requested cert. If we fail to find applicable cases there, then your statement isn’t accurate, since we have better evidence than the inference you offer. Right? I can’t find a denial of cert (or a request for cert) in _Malik v. Kindt_. It’s worth noting that the Tenth Circuit found that Malik met his burden under the RFRA: they found that his Muslim belief was sincere and that the government’s action was indeed substantially burdening him. He didn’t win at the Tenth Circuit because they agreed that the government’s action were the least restrictive necessary to further a compelling government end. (Malik was a federal prisoner who was placed in Administrative Segregation because of his violent history; he wanted to attend the Jumu’ah services held in the prison, services that are congregational in nature. The Bureau of Prisons forbid his attending, afraid of the danger to others attending). Nothing about that decision strikes me as anti-Muslim: the court agreed with Malik that his beliefs were sincere and that the government was substantially burdening him. And of course the Supreme Court only needs four votes to grant cert, so their failure to do so in any current case must be imputed to at least one of Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, or Breyer. And their failure to do so in any past case similarly rests on at least one of four liberal appointees. Yes? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/187 "2014-07-04T19:44:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Got it. That is a fair reading, I agree. > > So a contradictory example would need to be: > > [ul] > [li]An RFRA claim[/li][li]Advancing a Muslim religious exercise[/li][li]Made since 2006 (in order to constitute this group of ‘Catholic men’ hearing it[/li][li]in which the religious exercise side was victorious[/li][li]and in which all five ‘Catholic men’ voted in favor of the religious side’s claim?[/li][/ul] > > Going from memory, I don’t believe any case fits those conditions. > > But: I also don’t believe there’s a contrary case, meaning one in which a case which fit all those other conditions lost. I mean that if a case comes along in which the five who voted on Hobby Lobby’s side have to decide, if say, a Muslim business can force its female employees to wear burkhas on the job or refuse to hire atheists or whatever, it would be evidence that they are not simply imposing their Catholicism on the rest of us. The specific law does not matter, and it doesn’t have to be Muslim, any other non-Catholic religious group that has beliefs that the Catholic justices might find objectionable or outlandish would do. Scientologists, for example. ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/188 "2014-07-04T21:53:30Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I mean that if a case comes along in which the five who voted on Hobby Lobby’s side have to decide, if say, a Muslim business can force its female employees to wear burkhas on the job or refuse to hire atheists or whatever, it would be evidence that they are not simply imposing their Catholicism on the rest of us. The specific law does not matter, and it doesn’t have to be Muslim, any other non-Catholic religious group that has beliefs that the Catholic justices might find objectionable or outlandish would do. Scientologists, for example. So far as I can find, no case fits these conditions – that is, the Court has never been asked to decide such a case, and so there’s no answer, either for or against your proposition. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/189 "2014-07-04T22:43:16Z")
There was a semi-hilarious op-ed in the paper today about calls to boycott Hobby Lobby over its healthcare policies. It noted that such boycotts (including the attempt to boycott Chick-Fil-A) are doomed to fail for two main reasons - first, the would-be boycotters typically don’t buy from these businesses anyway, and secondly that there’s a backlash from the sort of consumers that do and who tend to support the controversial policies that are supposedly getting the business in trouble. So while people like [this woman](http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2014/07/letter_to_the_editor_1058.html) think a boycott of Hobby Lobby is the way to go, I really doubt its customers will desert it en masse for Michael’s. (I find myself similarly handicapped when it comes to such boycotts. If I’d had to boycott Chili’s over its support for an antivax group\*, it would’ve meant skipping the one meal I eat there maybe every couple of years). \*Chili’s, to give them credit (for cowardice or good sense, probably the former) backed down on plans to contribute a hunk of its proceeds for one day to this group. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/190 "2014-07-04T22:52:54Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Bricker can correct me if I am wrong, but they could also just edit the ACA to say “RFRA does not apply here.” They could have done it in the original ACA bill. Er, the reason they didn’t “edit” ACA in the first place was, at some point between when the Senate passed its version and the House passed its different version, Ted Kennedy died and, IIRC, was replaced by a Republican, so the Democrats didn’t have the 60 votes needed to get past a Republican filibuster - they had to use “budget reconciliation” to pass it, which didn’t allow for many things to be changed. ---
**Author:** ![Mdcastle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/958977/32.png) [@Mdcastle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdcastle)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/191 "2014-07-05T00:22:56Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > There was a semi-hilarious op-ed in the paper today about calls to boycott Hobby Lobby over its healthcare policies. > > It noted that such boycotts (including the attempt to boycott Chick-Fil-A) are doomed to fail for two main reasons - first, the would-be boycotters typically don’t buy from these businesses anyway, and secondly that there’s a backlash from the sort of consumers that do and who tend to support the controversial policies that are supposedly getting the business in trouble. > > So while people like [this woman](http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2014/07/letter_to_the_editor_1058.html) think a boycott of Hobby Lobby is the way to go, I really doubt its customers will desert it en masse for Michael’s. > > (I find myself similarly handicapped when it comes to such boycotts. If I’d had to boycott Chili’s over its support for an antivax group\*, it would’ve meant skipping the one meal I eat there maybe every couple of years). > > \*Chili’s, to give them credit (for cowardice or good sense, probably the former) backed down on plans to contribute a hunk of its proceeds for one day to this group. The same editorial was published in several newspapers, and I’d tend to agree with it. Wealthy liberals that want Walmart to pay a living wage probably shop for groceries at Whole Paycheck. Young female liberals probably aren’t big scrapbookers. Companies lose customers all the time whether it’s because they found Walmart is cheaper or the checkout lines were too long or the cashier looked at them funny, so a few people from the non-core demographic pissed off at the owners religious views isn’t going to affect them too much less cause them to go out of business. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/192 "2015-07-17T03:31:19Z")
[The Obama administration has remedied the problem](http://americablog.com/2015/07/the-obama-administration-quietly-undid-some-of-the-damage-done-in-hobby-lobby-ruling.html). > [@](#): > > Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services issued new rules that work around the Supreme Court’s ruling, guaranteeing that all employees will have access to contraception through their health insurance, regardless as to where they work. > > As reported on Yahoo News: > > Under the new regulations, employers with moral objections to certain forms of contraception must tell their insurance company or the federal government. The insurance company will then need to take responsibility for providing coverage to all female employees — along with any female family members on the health insurance plans of their partners — who have requested it. This step ensures that women will have access to all forms of birth control at no cost, no matter where they work. > > Because contraception is considered to be cost-neutral — i.e. the costs of providing contraceptive coverage are balanced by cost savings from lower pregnancy rates — there will be no additional costs imposed on an individual’s health insurance plan when it provides birth control without cost-sharing with the employer. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/193 "2015-07-17T04:46:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Because contraception is considered to be cost-neutral — i.e. the costs of providing contraceptive coverage are balanced by cost savings from lower pregnancy rates Wishful thinking at its finest. It’s been over a year since the Hobby Lobby decision. When the decision was made, liberals ran around like chickens with their heads cut off, insisting that women would be denied access to birth control. Was there a single women who actually had trouble getting birth control as a result of the decision? ---
**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:** [July 17, 2015, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/194 "2015-07-17T04:52:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Wishful thinking at its finest. > It’s been over a year since the Hobby Lobby decision. When the decision was made, liberals ran around like chickens with their heads cut off, insisting that women would be denied access to birth control. Was there a single women who actually had trouble getting birth control as a result of the decision? Trouble? Yes, every single one that lost BC coverage because they had shitty dipshit Christian bosses. Increasing the difficulty of something prunes off the marginal cases. So presumably some number didn’t get it because of the increased barriers. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/195 "2015-07-17T05:18:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Because contraception is considered to be cost-neutral — i.e. the costs of providing contraceptive coverage are balanced by cost savings from lower pregnancy rates > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Wishful thinking at its finest. It’s kinda the within the purview of the HHS to know these things. If you have some information showing that contraception is not cost neutral, please provide it. I’ll not be holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/196 "2015-07-17T05:33:54Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > If you have some information showing that contraception is not cost neutral, please provide it. Use of birth control [has been](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad350FactSheet.pdf) “virtually universal” for many years, since long before Obamacare was passed. As Leo Bloom said in _The Producers_, you can only have one hundred percent of anything. Forcing insurers to pay for contraception cannot increase the number of women who use contraception, so how could it decrease the rate of pregnancy? Asking anyone to blindly trust HHS is not likely to convince. Obama and his minions have told so many lies (“If you like your health insurance, you can keep it!”), who would trust them now? ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/197 "2015-07-17T06:19:32Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Use of birth control [has been](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad350FactSheet.pdf) “virtually universal” for many years, since long before Obamacare was passed. As Leo Bloom said in _The Producers_, you can only have one hundred percent of anything. Forcing insurers to pay for contraception cannot increase the number of women who use contraception, so how could it decrease the rate of pregnancy? > > Asking anyone to blindly trust HHS is not likely to convince. Obama and his minions have told so many lies (“If you like your health insurance, you can keep it!”), who would trust them now? Your cite is mostly referring to rates of contraceptive use **ever**. [How about this](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr060.pdf): > [@](#): > > Of women at risk of an unintended pregnancy, 11% report not > currently using a method of contraception. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/198 "2015-07-17T07:29:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Wishful thinking at its finest. > > …snip… Does anyone seriously doubt that contraception is cheaper to a health provider than a pregnancy? A single doctor’s vist would run a hundred dollars. What does a delivery run these days? And the employers who really want to make pregnancy the price for the sin of sex have an incredible exposure if an employee becomes pregnant - not only maternity leave, but reduced productivity due to doctor’s visit and the logistics of an 8 month pregnancy. I would not be surprised if the morons at Hobby Lobby would find a reason to fire an unmarried but pregnant employee - the shameless, sinning hussy. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/199 "2015-07-17T09:12:42Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Use of birth control [has been](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad350FactSheet.pdf) “virtually universal” for many years, since long before Obamacare was passed. As Leo Bloom said in _The Producers_, you can only have one hundred percent of anything. Forcing insurers to pay for contraception cannot increase the number of women who use contraception, so how could it decrease the rate of pregnancy? Ok - I follow. Not asking religious employers to pay for insurance that covers contraception will not reduce the use of contraception. However, if that is the universal perception, then why allow those religious employers to back out? What is achieved by backing out from their perspective (except maybe saving a buck)? ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/200 "2015-07-17T11:42:33Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Since SCOTUS screwed this pooch on this one, and since they’re pretty much where the buck stops, what has to happen to correct their error? Do we just have to wait for the conservative activist cabal to die out, and for the issue to come up again? Or will it be possible to legislate our way out of it? If so, what would that legislation be? Would it require a constitutional amendment specifically stating that a corporation cannot pray? Or that a person has more personhood than a corporation? Would finally passing the ERA have any effect on such institutionalized misogyny? > > I mean seriously, the fight against such medieval ignorance can’t simply be over. Right? In general, the only thing that can overturn a Supreme Court ruling is another Supreme Court ruling, legislation that is not later deemed unconstitutional, or a constitutional amendment. To the best of my knowledge, this is it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=11)