# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/61 "2014-07-01T23:01:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Amen to that. The worst think about the ACA is that makes a stupid system-- employer provided health insurance-- even more entrenched in our legal and economic system. > > I mean, seriously, do we _really_ need the government to tell employers that they must provide _20 different types of contraceptives_ to their employees? You’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. Making 20 choices available to a doctor leaves the medical decision in the doctor’s hands. To limit it to fewer choices would be to preempt that medical decision. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/62 "2014-07-01T23:01:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Please. > > Go back and ask James Madison if he thought the Bill of Rights applied to corporations. He’d look at you like you were insane. Corporate personhood is pure judicial invention. No, it isn’t. For goodness sake, we are talking about the RFRA and the Dictionary Act. The Dictionary Act is not a judicial invention. The organization of corporations is a complete creation of state law. Corporate personhood arises from corporate existence at state law. ---
**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 1, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/63 "2014-07-01T23:22:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Please. > > Go back and ask James Madison if he thought the Bill of Rights applied to corporations. He’d look at you like you were insane. Corporate personhood is pure judicial invention. This is an argument that needs to be buried, never to be seen again. Madison would have looked at you like you were insane if you mentioned the Civil Rights Act(s) or SSM or even the 13th Amendment. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/64 "2014-07-01T23:26:34Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > First, Hobby Lobby doesn’t object to all drugs that “may prevent implantation,” and not all drugs that they object to are so labeled. So let’s not pretend that Hobby Lobby was relying on the FDA for this little bit of theology. And second, reliance on the FDA label is clearly misplaced by anyone familiar with the history of that labeling decision. It’s like saying that Cheney was justified in relying on the intelligence he cooked. OK. Hobby Lobby shouldn’t rely on the FDA. And of course, if the positions were reversed, and the FDA’s position hurt Hobby Lobby, you’d still say that. BWAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, hilarious. You’d trot out the FDA label as a presumption of accuracy, and say that Hobby Lobby had no business second-guessing the FDA. In short, you’ll readily, and fluidly, adopt any standard which helps your current position. ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/65 "2014-07-01T23:27:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No. The Supreme Court used religion as an excuse to make an ideological decision it wanted to make. A happy coincidence that the plain text of the law they were interpreting ran in precisely the same direction as the majority opinion, then. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/66 "2014-07-01T23:28:19Z")
What is the remedy for the Hobby Lobby decision? Easy. Amend or repeal [The Religious Freedom Restoration Act.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act) ---
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/67 "2014-07-01T23:37:03Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > (I think it was an awful decision. The court should have thrown out the RFRA as a “law regarding an establishment of religion,” something the constitution says that Congress cannot pass.) That’s certainly a more defensible attack against the RFRA than any that have been offered up previously in this thread. People can contort themselves into weird shapes arguing that the law which makes no textual distinction between non-profit and for-profit corporations nonetheless absolutely mandates such a distinction. But all those arguments are simply a wish that the Court super-legislates to arrives at a preferred policy goal. Your point is more… meta. The RFRA arguably does “establish” religion, by elevating it to a area which the lawmakers are required to show great deference. But of course, that’s what the law did before the RFRA was passed, anyway. (And before the Court decided _Employment Division v. Smith_.) The RFRA only rec-creates the same analytical framework that existed prior to Employment Division. So at one time, the Court decided that the First Amendment provided RFRA-type protections. Then it decided that it didn’t – in an opinion by Scalia, I might add. In response, Congress passed the RFRA. So here’s my question: are you saying the RFRA amounts to an establishment of religion because you think that’s what First Amendment caselaw supports, or just because you’d like to get rid of the RFRA and that seems like a vulnerable attack spot? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/68 "2014-07-01T23:40:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. Hobby Lobby shouldn’t rely on the FDA. And of course, if the positions were reversed, and the FDA’s position hurt Hobby Lobby, you’d still say that. > > BWAHAHAHAHA! > > Yeah, hilarious. You’d trot out the FDA label as a presumption of accuracy, and say that Hobby Lobby had no business second-guessing the FDA. > > In short, you’ll readily, and fluidly, adopt any standard which helps your current position. Projection by the guy quoting prolife talking points. ---
**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, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/69 "2014-07-01T23:43:40Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I do not think judges are “super-senators,” because they can’t actually create law. But you wanted them to pencil in a clause to the RFRA that says, “…for corporations, this applies only to non-profit corporations, not all corporations.” That line isn’t anywhere in the actual written law. What does “create law” mean, if not that? > [@](#): > > My argument goes deeper than that. I say that all moral people have to place morality above everything else. I don’t think this is unique to judges. My argument is that it doesn’t matter why you are in what position you are in. You, just like every other human being on the planet, have an obligation to do what you think is right. My job was at one time to defend, among others, factually guilty people – to ensure that they escaped punishment if the Commonwealth couldn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; to argue to a judge or jury that they shouldn’t trust evidence that tended to show guilt, regardless of my feelings about the truth of the matter. Can you explain how you envision that job being done under the rule you propose? ---
**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, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/70 "2014-07-01T23:45:27Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Projection by the guy quoting prolife talking points. No, I’ll take your word for it. You’re telling me that if the positions were reversed, and the FDA’s position hurt Hobby Lobby, you would NOT valorize their position as the nation’s drug information gatekeeper and argue that Hobby Lobby had no business disregarding them? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/71 "2014-07-01T23:47:13Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The Supreme Court ruled in favor of freedom of religion. If you believe that freedom of religion is an “error”, then you’ll need to pass an amendment which says that the American people no longer have freedom of religion. Right now, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion to all Americans. Moreover, the vast majority of Americans want freedom of religion, so passing such an amendment is likely to be difficult. Whose freedom of religion is being protected here? This decision says that my employer can deduct my money from my paycheck and use it to fund health care according to **their** religion. What happened to my religious rights? What does this do to _my_ freedom of religion? Or is mine so much less important than the corporation’s? ---
**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 1, 2014, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/72 "2014-07-01T23:49:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I’ll take your word for it. You’re telling me that if the positions were reversed, and the FDA’s position hurt Hobby Lobby, you would NOT valorize their position as the nation’s drug information gatekeeper and argue that Hobby Lobby had no business disregarding them? I think it’s safe to assume that depends on the merits of the FDA’s position. The approval process for Plan B and similar drugs was heavily politicized. Heck, we discussed it here at length. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/73 "2014-07-01T23:58:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think it’s safe to assume that depends on the merits of the FDA’s position. The approval process for Plan B and similar drugs was heavily politicized. Heck, we discussed it here at length. So it’s safe to assume that the process would still be heavily politicized. Let’s assume the process was still heavily politicized, but the FDA decision went the other way. Do you use that FDA decision in support of your argument? Honestly? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/74 "2014-07-02T00:05:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I’ll take your word for it. You’re telling me that if the positions were reversed, and the FDA’s position hurt Hobby Lobby, you would NOT valorize their position as the nation’s drug information gatekeeper and argue that Hobby Lobby had no business disregarding them? I don’t think the FDA’s label for Plan B has anything to do with the current weight of evidence regarding Plan B because I understand how FDA labeling works. I also understand that the decision in Hobby Lobby–which I think was probably correct!–has nothing to do with science. You’re the one with a political axe to grind here. I’ve spent the day telling my liberal friends why they are wrong. Your suggestion that I’m some kind of anti-Hobby Lobby crusader is so far off the mark as to be laughable. Have you bothered to read that NYTimes report yet? If so, what did you think? Did it change your opinion at all about whether Plan B prevents implantation? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/75 "2014-07-02T00:06:18Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > This decision says that my employer can deduct my money from my paycheck and use it to fund health care according to **their** religion. What happened to my religious rights? What does this do to _my_ freedom of religion? Or is mine so much less important than the corporation’s? No one has legally obligated you to pay for anything you find religiously objectionable. Prior to the SCOTUS ruling, the ACA did create such an obligation for Hobby Lobby. See the difference? ---
**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 2, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/76 "2014-07-02T00:18:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you seriously believe that the second “rational analysis” is easier to implement than the first? > > The first simply requires HHS to establish regulations as to what birth control must be provided, using the same process by which HHS determines what the minimum standards of coverage are for an insurance plan. > > The second requires some types of means testing and probably involves an analysis of a woman’s income, which would of course draw in the IRS, and if she’s receiving other benefits (like maybe food stamps or rent subsidies) perhaps those need to be considered too, leading to case-by-case decisions on who really qualifies as poor enough for free birth control. > > Congratulations, your “simpler” solution feeds the bureaucracy even more. Roll it into Medicaid. How complicated is that? Actually, I wonder if that’s already done. ---
**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 2, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/77 "2014-07-02T00:24:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not that limited. > > However, this is not a constitutional decision. The Court decided this case (correctly, I might add) on the basis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that Hobby Lobby was entitled to the protections of the RFRA. > > So all that has to happen here to change that is for Congress to modify the RFRA. If Congress changes the RFRA to say, “…and this applies only to non-profit corporations and natural persons…” then Hobby Lobby is out of luck. Wait. Aren’t you the guy who would have ruled the exact same way if there wasn’t a RFRA and instead this case was brought up under the First Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Karen\_Lingel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karen_lingel/32/18649_2.png) [@Karen\_Lingel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karen_Lingel)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/78 "2014-07-02T00:25:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > To that end, you could create a hobble Hobby Lobby lobby. Sounds like an excellent topic for Bob Loblaw’s Law Blog. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/79 "2014-07-02T00:27:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A happy coincidence that the plain text of the law they were interpreting ran in precisely the same direction as the majority opinion, then. The happy coincidence is that the Supreme Court happened to agree with the “religious freedom” argument offered in this case. They said in Boerne that they don’t feel bound by the RFRA. So I guess they abide by the law when they feel like it and ignore it when they don’t. I can’t imagine how anyone would feel there’s any arbitrariness in such a policy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/80 "2014-07-02T00:32:01Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > This is an argument that needs to be buried, never to be seen again. Madison would have looked at you like you were insane if you mentioned the Civil Rights Act(s) or SSM or even the 13th Amendment. Now go get a shovel and dig it back up. The Civil Rights Amendments were enacted long after Madison was dead. But the First Amendment? He wrote that. So the only two people who know the original meaning of freedom of religion are James Madison and Antonin Scalia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=5)