10 ms·

The founder of Hobby Lobby has an amazing collection of historic religious texts (I've seen them). The retail chain does not.

simonklitj 7y ago
Which ones? Primarily Christian?
- ctdonath 7y ago
  Mostly Christian, yes. There are some Jewish relics, and a few other items. Much of the collection is very old/rare, seriously museum-level content & quantity. Content includes: Gutenberg Bible, first-printing King James Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, metal-imprinted Torah, famous misprints ("thou shalt commit adultery"), jewel-encrusted Bible given by Yassar Arafat, bible illustrated by Salvador Dali, and lots of ancillary relics I don't recall at the moment. If you get a chance to view the traveling museum, do so (regardless of your inclinations).
  - simonklitj 7y ago
    Oh, wow! Thanks. Would seriously love to see that.
totalperspectiv 7y ago
Is his name L Bob Rife?
- taneq 7y ago
  I just wanna try using Reason.
commandar 7y ago
FWIW, and with minimal snark, they literally went all the way to SCOTUS to blur the line between the two.
- rayiner 7y ago
  That’s not quite the correct framing. The RFRA allows a “person” to sue the government where a law impinges on the person’s “exercise of religion.” Hobby Lobby involved two separate issues. One, does “person” for purposes of the RFRA include a corporation? The Court answered yes, that’s the usual meaning absent contrary intent. Two, is a privately held for profit corporation a “person” capable of "exercising religion?" DHHS conceded that non-profit corporations were capable of exercising religion. (The dissent did not dispute that either.) So the Court's decision was a straight-forward application of that concession, based on finding no reason why a for-profit corporation should be treated differently.[1] The underlying principle therefore wasn’t “blurry." Corporations have separate assets from their owners. But they are controlled and operated by people for various purposes. The government cannot use the fact that the inanimate entity lacks rights in order to indirectly impinge on the rights of the people who legally own and operate the corporation. That basic principle wasn't disputed by either DHHS or the dissent. The only issue was whether for-profit corporations should somehow be treated differently than non-profits. And that general principle is clearly correct. Thought experiment: can Donald Trump issue an executive order requiring Google to post in its front page a banner encouraging people to vote for him? If not, why not? Whose rights are violated? [1] I actually disagree with the DHHS's concession. Corporations can't "exercise religion." For this particular case the distinction ends up being academic, because that just means that the owners are the ones who should have brought the RFRA suit, not the corporation. The owners of Hobby Lobby definitely can exercise religion, and regulating a corporation they have the right to control can be an infringement of that right. As Kennedy noted in concurrence, the holding of the case is narrow.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    And how does the law go with regard to participation in criminal activity by a privately held corporation?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 7y ago
mey 7y ago
https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-artifacts-trnd/index.html https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-arti... The company itself was receiving artifacts in the past.
- jandrese 7y ago
  Was the founder just using the company as a front to collect dubiously legal artifacts perhaps? Basically as a way to insulate himself behind his company in case some irate government came looking for them.
  - mey 7y ago
    Considering the relation between Hobby Lobby (father) and the Museum of the Bible (son), I would be shocked if there was any corporate veil left intact on the Hobby Lobby side. It is a private entity, so not sure the shareholders have much desire to complain about the running of the organization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scanda... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible
  - JAlexoid 7y ago
    Don't they have a status of "closely held"? As in - they definitely should be liable for criminal actions in the name of the company. Otherwise it's not "closely held"

simonklitj 7y ago

Which ones? Primarily Christian?

ctdonath 7y ago
Mostly Christian, yes. There are some Jewish relics, and a few other items. Much of the collection is very old/rare, seriously museum-level content & quantity. Content includes: Gutenberg Bible, first-printing King James Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, metal-imprinted Torah, famous misprints ("thou shalt commit adultery"), jewel-encrusted Bible given by Yassar Arafat, bible illustrated by Salvador Dali, and lots of ancillary relics I don't recall at the moment. If you get a chance to view the traveling museum, do so (regardless of your inclinations).
- simonklitj 7y ago
  Oh, wow! Thanks. Would seriously love to see that.

totalperspectiv 7y ago

Is his name L Bob Rife?

taneq 7y ago
I just wanna try using Reason.

commandar 7y ago

FWIW, and with minimal snark, they literally went all the way to SCOTUS to blur the line between the two.

rayiner 7y ago
That’s not quite the correct framing. The RFRA allows a “person” to sue the government where a law impinges on the person’s “exercise of religion.” Hobby Lobby involved two separate issues. One, does “person” for purposes of the RFRA include a corporation? The Court answered yes, that’s the usual meaning absent contrary intent. Two, is a privately held for profit corporation a “person” capable of "exercising religion?" DHHS conceded that non-profit corporations were capable of exercising religion. (The dissent did not dispute that either.) So the Court's decision was a straight-forward application of that concession, based on finding no reason why a for-profit corporation should be treated differently.[1] The underlying principle therefore wasn’t “blurry." Corporations have separate assets from their owners. But they are controlled and operated by people for various purposes. The government cannot use the fact that the inanimate entity lacks rights in order to indirectly impinge on the rights of the people who legally own and operate the corporation. That basic principle wasn't disputed by either DHHS or the dissent. The only issue was whether for-profit corporations should somehow be treated differently than non-profits. And that general principle is clearly correct. Thought experiment: can Donald Trump issue an executive order requiring Google to post in its front page a banner encouraging people to vote for him? If not, why not? Whose rights are violated? [1] I actually disagree with the DHHS's concession. Corporations can't "exercise religion." For this particular case the distinction ends up being academic, because that just means that the owners are the ones who should have brought the RFRA suit, not the corporation. The owners of Hobby Lobby definitely can exercise religion, and regulating a corporation they have the right to control can be an infringement of that right. As Kennedy noted in concurrence, the holding of the case is narrow.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  And how does the law go with regard to participation in criminal activity by a privately held corporation?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 7y ago

mey 7y ago

https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-artifacts-trnd/index.html https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-arti... The company itself was receiving artifacts in the past.

jandrese 7y ago
Was the founder just using the company as a front to collect dubiously legal artifacts perhaps? Basically as a way to insulate himself behind his company in case some irate government came looking for them.
- mey 7y ago
  Considering the relation between Hobby Lobby (father) and the Museum of the Bible (son), I would be shocked if there was any corporate veil left intact on the Hobby Lobby side. It is a private entity, so not sure the shareholders have much desire to complain about the running of the organization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scanda... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Bible
- JAlexoid 7y ago
  Don't they have a status of "closely held"? As in - they definitely should be liable for criminal actions in the name of the company. Otherwise it's not "closely held"