Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this clickbait?
Because Hobby Lobby didn't do what the headline says? "An investigation found that Bible fragments in a museum started BY THE OWNERS of the arts-and-crafts chain had been illegally taken from the university."
Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
11–20 of 106 posts
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this clickbait?
Because Hobby Lobby didn't do what the headline says? "An investigation found that Bible fragments in a museum started BY THE OWNERS of the arts-and-crafts chain had been illegally taken from the university."
According to them, and the case they got to the Supreme Court, the difference between the owners and the org itself is nearly non-existent.
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#13Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#14The founder of Hobby Lobby has an amazing collection of historic religious texts (I've seen them). The retail chain does not.
FWIW, and with minimal snark, they literally went all the way to SCOTUS to blur the line between the two.
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.
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this clickbait?
Because Hobby Lobby didn't do what the headline says? "An investigation found that Bible fragments in a museum started BY THE OWNERS of the arts-and-crafts chain had been illegally taken from the university."
> The Egypt Exploration Society began an investigation in June after a director of the Bible museum released a redacted copy of a 2013 contract between the professor, Dr. Dirk Obbink, and Hobby Lobby stores for the sale of six items, including four thought to be from the Oxyrhynchus collection.
The contract is with the company. The company gave it to the museum.
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this clickbait?
Because Hobby Lobby didn't do what the headline says? "An investigation found that Bible fragments in a museum started BY THE OWNERS of the arts-and-crafts chain had been illegally taken from the university."
> Because Hobby Lobby didn't do what the headline says?
If Hobby Lobby (the company) can't fund birth control because it offends THE OWNERS, then I'm not sure that THE OWNERS really consider the distinction between the two as strong as you do.
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#17This clickbait headline should be a bannable offense on HN
Who or what would you ban? The New York Times? The submitter who used the NYT title verbatim, according to HN guidelines?
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, and with minimal snark, they literally went all the way to SCOTUS to blur the line between the two.
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…
And how does the law go with regard to participation in criminal activity by a privately held corporation?
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#19The founder of Hobby Lobby has an amazing collection of historic religious texts (I've seen them). The retail chain does not.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/07/05/us/hobby-lobby-ancient-arti... The company itself was receiving artifacts in the past.
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.
Re: Oxford Professor Is Accused of Selling Ancient Texts
#20This clickbait headline should be a bannable offense on HN
Who or what would you ban? The New York Times? The submitter who used the NYT title verbatim, according to HN guidelines?
The guidelines specifically call out linkbait titles: "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" so in the parent comments argument that the title is clickbait it certainly isn't "according to HN guidelines".
I'd be interested in what the ratio of users that only know portions of the guidelines that are often repeated in comments vs those that have actually read through the guidelines.