# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/101 "2014-07-02T14:01:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > First, religious nonprofit groups are challenging HHS’ _alternative_ method as [an infringement on their religious liberty](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=712552). > > Second, the alternative method is basically a subsidy (or cost shifting) from religious employers to insurers. > > Third, people are mostly panty-bunched because the majority opinion by its own terms can be applied to almost anything. 1. The nun case is sticky because the insurer is also religious. 2. According to the HHS’ extensive and mind-numbing explanations of how it works, the insurers will make up the cost on the other end in fee reductions. Net zero. 3. The majority opinion was pretty careful to specify that the opinion cannot be applied almost anything: > [@](#): > > 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 require- ments, such as immunizations, may be supported by dif- ferent 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 discrim- ination 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 work- force without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that criti- cal goal. ---
**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 2, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/102 "2014-07-02T14:06:44Z")
See all that “may” stuff? The court was able to point to a compelling interest prohibiting employment discrimination, but it was not able to point to any others that limit the scope of this ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/103 "2014-07-02T14:07:33Z")
nm ---
**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 2, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/104 "2014-07-02T14:09:00Z")
Hey, _déjà vu_. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/105 "2014-07-02T14:09:22Z")
They specifically stated that the ruling was limited in scope, and it is they who decide. ---
**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 2, 2014, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/106 "2014-07-02T14:12:41Z")
Well, I’m convinced. After all, your legal scholarship speaks for itself. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/107 "2014-07-02T14:31:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There is nothing wrong with saying that the guy who pays for a thing is “providing” the thing, even if that guy doesn’t personally hand it out. There is also nothing wrong with saying that the person who works for a thing is earning the thing, even if the check comes from someone else’s bank account. What’s more important, whose name is on the check courtesy of the accounting department, or who worked their asses off for 2,000 hours a year to earn health care for themselves and their family? I suppose since the accountants have decided on paying the bill before it hits the employee earning statement, rather than after, HL gets to decide what kind of health care women have earned with their labor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/108 "2014-07-02T14:34:47Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I suppose since the accountants have decided on paying the bill before it hits the employee earning statement, rather than after, HL gets to decide what kind of health care women have earned with their labor. Just like they get to decide how many dollars women have earned with their labor. ---
**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, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/109 "2014-07-02T14:38:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Just like they get to decide how many dollars women have earned with their labor. As long as they comply with certain federal regulations, of course. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/110 "2014-07-02T14:40:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > See all that “may” stuff? The court was able to point to a compelling interest prohibiting employment discrimination, but it was not able to point to any others that limit the scope of this ruling. Sort of like Lawrence, huh? The majority says that this ruling is only for private consensual sexual behavior and has nothing, nothing at all, I tells ya, to do with whether or not the government must recognize same sex marriage. Nothing, you silly Justice Scalia, you! Scalia says that’s absurd because the logic almost mandates it. Fast forward ten years and the SAME JUSTICE cites Lawrence as a rationale for same sex marriage. I agree with you. The Court tries to make a narrow ruling, but its logic almost compels the same treatment for publicly traded corporations and for employers who would choose not to cover blood transfusions or vaccinations. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/111 "2014-07-02T14:41:27Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > As long as they comply with certain federal regulations, of course. And, of course, federal regulations which go against a sincerely held religious belief must be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal. ---
**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, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/112 "2014-07-02T14:47:08Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > And, of course, federal regulations which go against a sincerely held religious belief must be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal. Religious beliefs of persons, certainly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/113 "2014-07-02T14:54:28Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > As long as they comply with certain federal regulations, of course. Of course. ANd since they are complying with federal regulations, it’s all good! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/114 "2014-07-02T14:55:28Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Religious beliefs of persons, certainly. Sure. And by those federal regulations you were so hot for in the last post, “person” includes corporations. Right? ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/115 "2014-07-02T14:57:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. And by those federal regulations you were so hot for in the last post, “person” includes corporations. > > Right? You don’t yet know my response? Dozens of posts in this and other threads, and you’re still confused as to where I stand? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/116 "2014-07-02T15:01:26Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > You don’t yet know my response? Dozens of posts in this and other threads, and you’re still confused as to where I stand? I’m hoping your answer will be, “Well, yes, per Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, you’re completely correct, although I think it’s poor public policy.” ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/117 "2014-07-02T15:18:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Just like they get to decide how many dollars women have earned with their labor. I totally missed the part of this where HL was arguing that it cost too many dollars, I was under the impression they were unhappy about what the dollars were purchasing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/118 "2014-07-02T15:27:51Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I totally missed the part of this where HL was arguing that it cost too many dollars, I was under the impression they were unhappy about what the dollars were purchasing. No – but my post was in response to your apparent surprise that Hobby Lobby gets to decide what kind of health care women have earned with their labor. Yes, they get to decide that, since they are the ones providing it as part of their compensation. Just like they get to decide how many dollars they pay. (Subject to federal minimums). ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/119 "2014-07-02T15:44:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > (Subject to federal minimums). Unless they think that minimum violates their religion, of course. Let’s try a slight change to the scenario. Instead of directly buying insurance, HL (and other companies) are required to negotiate for qualifying insurance, but then must pay their employees a stipend (of equivalent value), from which the employee may only purchase qualifying health insurance. Let’s also assume this change is transparent for tax purposes, it is identical to the current situation for both employer and employee. Does HL still have the right to refuse insurance with certain contraception? Technically, it’s now the employee’s money being spent on insurance, and they can spend however they want (subject to federal guidelines). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060/120 "2014-07-02T16:24:22Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Unless they think that minimum violates their religion, of course. > > Let’s try a slight change to the scenario. Instead of directly buying insurance, HL (and other companies) are required to negotiate for qualifying insurance, but then must pay their employees a stipend (of equivalent value), from which the employee may only purchase qualifying health insurance. Let’s also assume this change is transparent for tax purposes, it is identical to the current situation for both employer and employee. > > Does HL still have the right to refuse insurance with certain contraception? Technically, it’s now the employee’s money being spent on insurance, and they can spend however they want (subject to federal guidelines). In my view, that interposes a clear dividing line, and no company could successfully object. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remedy-for-hobby-lobby-decision/692060.md?page=7)