site a half hour here my colleagues and i have agreed that we will remain uncharacteristically silent for the first five minutes of the site's presentation so we welcome you mr proctor managers the board of directors of conestoga wood specialties with out the horn family there would be no const of with specialties there would not be one hundred fifty people employed by their company as a result of their deep daily involvement with they have been tasked with and have just as every other business in america has decided the liberated researched and considered every aspect of the writing of that business and that includes their health insurance policy this is not something new to the horn family they have always chosen their health insurance policy based on their deeply held strongly believed religious beliefs the government has contested the fact that the han's have those deeply held religious beliefs the government in fact has conceded that they are beliefs held by the hawn family during the entire operation of this business the han's have demonstrated their religious beliefs through four key statements one is a statement of core values one is a vision and mission statement the third is a business practices statement and the fourth is a human sanctity of life statement all of which are published and posted throughout their offices their factories where they do business and are made clearly and plainly visible to their employees their customers the vendors that supply them with goods and they want to come in contact  to say that the horns have to leave their religious beliefs at home when they go to work or that they must only exercise them in church would be a mistake the first amendment does not put any  prohibition on the hans belief in that regard the haunts are free to exercise their religion through their business and their business no matter what their corporate form is expresses the way they do business in the way they believe the h h s mandate places a substantial burden on the hans and a substantial burden is when as the court well knows and the time a person is required to change their police to change their behaviors as a result of that burden or that pressure in this particular instance the han's are suffering irreparable harm to their religious conscience twenty four hours a day seven days a week because they are currently providing health insurance under the mandate for their employees the burden that's substantial burden which is change forcing them to change their behaviors force him to change their substantial police is the imposition of a one hundred dollars per day fine per person per employee plus the threats of other sanctions and a lawsuit in this instance that would be ninety five thousand dollars per day in fines if that's not a substantial burden i don't know what is there are very few businesses in this country that could withstand that type of a fine it's not a tax it's a fine so they must change their beliefs they must provide the mandated coverage contraception abortifacient contraception sterilization and counseling at no cost their employees as a result of the substantial  the supreme court has ruled that a burden no matter how slight as in the year a case is enough to burden someone's conscience and require that they be given relief the supreme court is go to the main point that seems to be what the government presses the hardest on which is this isn't about the haun's this is about conestoga the company it's a for profit corporation and therefore they they just don't the company the corporation has no free exercise rights what's good for that issue which seems to be kind of the heart of the government's argument and i believe that's the heart of our argument as well you know  corporations somehow the government would like to see that they be put in a separate category from the rest of our the rest of us corporations are protected by free speech and the first amendment they're protected in the fourth fifth sixth seventh and fourteenth amendment just like the rest of us corporations are particularly soley on closely held corporations such as this only exist because of the haunts this is not a situation such as m or ford motor company where there are tens of thousands of stockholders are you suggesting that there's a there should be a different rule of law as respecting whether a corporate entity could exercise religious first amendment rights based on whether it's closely held or publicly held no your honor i believe that any corporation if that is their purpose if they wish to exercise religion through that corporate he should be able to do so but in this specific case it's even more closely attenuated which is a word that the government life views because of the proximity the haunts to this corporation as i said earlier without the haun's there would be no conestoga they are the heart and soul of this corporation and like any business whether p i b m or conestoga would every day decisions are made by individuals and those individuals don't leave their religious conscience at home if they choose to exercise it in the workplace they should be entitled to do so what the government is that paints the queen and their brief that  that regulates one relationship and the implication i guess of that is there are recognized circumstances where we're private company has is given some accommodation but you don't even a qualify for those statutorily recognized exemptions with your response that you are referee was intended to cover all the federal statute reffer is designed to continue and expand the religious freedoms of the people exercise it and whether it's title seven or what have you you have to look at each case on its face this is not a title s that there is a providential dady and that the providential dady will in intercede to cure and illness if that is the d d s well so that providing insurance that would allow provide insurance for its hundreds of employees who may not share those beliefs you know i believe again that each case has to be looked at on its individual merits and in a situation like that where and  generically your honor has given a a case of an illness it's one thing and today a medical technologist come so far there's so many things that medical science can do and there are some things of course that they can't you know there are there are religious beliefs out there that the sanctity of the body shall not be invaded and so that surgical intervention and should not be allowed and yet you would be required to provide health care insurance that would allow for surgical intervention for your employees our clients my client is not arguing that issue and the choice if they were denied insurance where do you draw the line i mean isn't that would you say though that in that case if that is the beliefs of the owners of the business that they would be exempt from the mandate of providing that kind of health care insurance your own or the supreme court and thomas said that it's not their business to decide where that line is and if a client came in petition and file the complaint that that there was that the belief that you with hell it would not be for the court to decide where that line is the court must only look at the application  if you're a if you rely upon it in part how do you say that citizens united is relevant at all to our adjudication of this matter since united said the corporations can exercise political speech and honor and i agree with you fully the point here was because political speech and free exercise in establishment were three different concepts i believe the founders put in that united recognizes political speech then we just by implication you have to recognize religious speech and religious association which is when he says you have to the same judge go said and i can't call it precisely but something to be a fact of you know it's not the it's not the company that goes to church so not a company that was ships it's not become pany that that does these things these are the beliefs of these good people who own the company and the burden here is falling on the company not on the individuals and to your point that they're one in the same he he says in  you can't have it both ways you can enjoy the shield of a corporate separateness and then when it suits you say but i'm one in the same i'm not the same when it comes to liability i am the same when it comes to religious rights i want certain speak to that wow what was where's the flaw in that reasoning you are the technicalities of a business and ity whether it be a corporation or an l l c or  sole proprietorship are not what's in question here that what's in question here is their exercise their protections under the constitution which includes the first member the fourth the fifth sixth the seventh the fourteenth all provide protection to a corporation as well as to an individual but there are there are protections in the constitution that the supreme court has said don't apply in corporations the privilege against self incrimina business law is what is controlling here that bedrock is no is no greater is no stronger than the bedrock of our constitution and we have a situation here in reference to the government did not congress  numerated by congress a person is also can be a corporation or business as same thing in fifteen ph there in fact twenty specific acts of a corporation are listed but there's no negative prevent corporations whether they're i b m whether soli own as the horn families they would have said so well they were there generically speaking most people do not consider a corporation a person they don't refer to a corporation as a person generically and under the they the dictionary definition so to speak that we have if a complex indicates to the contrary it's not it's not included within refer that somewhat of a stretch to state that that given the context of what we're dealing with here where especially when congress wanted to make a decision they gave exemptions to religious non profits and when they want to make an exception under title seven and the a t a i other federal laws they've made definite exceptions there's there's nothing here that did the same for not for profit for property corporations which are not single out or eliminate a group because of their religious beliefs and if you have set forth a set of guidelines a set of criteria for how you're going to for any particular ordinance of laws that actually fit your setting for you have you can exclude a corporation whether it's for proffer a nonprofit because their religious beliefs the for profit nonprofit thing i think is a smokescreen because many many  hundred one c three or what have you type of corporations missions what have you that we have in this country do tremendous dollar amounts and they use that money to further their public good well let's  assume that the corporate veil issue is not as significant as the government makes it out to be for purposes of discussion and we were just talking about the hans there is a another position that the government advocates and which is that this record except that which is that this is just too tenuous a connection you provide insurance for people but there's a whole series of intermediate steps would have to happen before anybody would actually do something that the hans might find offensive that's the hobby lobby line of reasoning as to this to atten assertion what's your response your number one the government and respectfully of judge goldberg have not listed what all these steps are between the hans and the insurance policy the han's individual a person in the in board means decided on this on whatever insurance that they get for their employees that's number one number two in going through this exercise and addressing this problem of attenuation have we looked that has the government shown us not only what the steps are that it's any way to do it but is this the least restrictive means of achieving their goal and they haven't offered anything in that regard either so you've got a double issue here with that particular argument and by the first issue substantial burden a substantial burden on the suppliers i think judge jordan's question is when to yeah they're there before you get the leas restrictive means you have to talk about whether there's a substantial burden i understand there are going to be and and they'll have an advocate up here in a moment maybe they'll correct me but i understand there are certain to be in part there's no substantial burden because you're just might something you're not getting that you're not buying an abortifacient you're not given anything like that yourself if and and you and you won't even know what if your client if your employee does so what's the problem why are you complain that know because my clients have done their work they know that that insurance policy that they're purchasing provides those objectionable services to their employees and just knowing that just knowing that that corrected when the garbage their position is the hans are not doing anything the corporation is buying the policy and therefore no one else has it looking at it except a corporation even though it's a give it the cooperation exercise fruit board of directors were elected by shareholders but the policy is per its purchase and in the name of the corporation you're honor you're absolutely correct it's in the name of the corporation per the question is how did it get there by the decision by the hard work by the dedication of the one family to providing health insurance that there are places that they can stay competitive marketplace without that they lose an advantage there so they have researched their previous insurance policies did not have these features in it it's only under the aegis h s mandate that this is come to fruition that they have to pay for something that burns their conscience you say honestly who was currently subject to that are they are they're subjected to your own writing and so they've been suffering since january first of two thousand and thirteen under this extension burden of knowing that they are facilitating their participating go and the government's position on i guess both issues is similar that the corporation is for purposes of reference is buying the policy not the individual and their position on the first the court found that the corporation could exercise religion that was that was one of the basic premises that's why we included an argument and here as as i said earlier that osha there was no e p a there they incorporated for the sole purpose of some tax and and liability issues and yet effective operation is still liable criminally uncivilly to whomever well you raise an interesting point indicated that the providential handle protect our workers because we're good right as people so we don't need a guard on a saw i mean are they free to say our religious beliefs are what they are and those that because you said earlier when such an ascii was pressing you on this point you'd have to do it on a case by case basis if i understood you correctly is that a practical thing the first to throw into the into the courts where does that start to put us the rectory into the question of what is a legitimate religious belief and what's not so legitimate how do we deal with an honor i've considered that the burden on the courts with every corporation coming in or running to the court every time they they feel their religiously burden would be a big issue however i think we have to first decide may a corporation exercise religious freedom and i think the answer to that is yes i sam out of time let me ask  is we are to be concerned with a precedent here of what ok stands for how would we handle a situation where you have a corporation which has let's say one hundred or  guy have several files in fortune five hundred companies who claim they have a religious exemption where you have multiple relations involved in ownership or or differe under the first amendment or a river when we have a corporations which are most of which are not wholly own as your corporation is your are the answer that question is that it's not for the court to decide the theology that is what the person believes in or what the corporation believes in is not is not your bird the burden is on the court to determine can those individuals exercise  slippery slope here you have absolutely and you can't have it you know every case is a precedent and if we say that your company has a religious right in this case what do we do with a fortune five hundred your honor if a majority of stockholders believe that there's if they have a religious component to their business and they wish to exercise it through that corporation i believe that the court needs to protect that religion it's just like if you look the exercise of religion in those instances i don't expect that the court is going to be flooded with every corporation in america coming in and asking every time some of us the pope a ladder of oh sure of the title seven issue and having to argue the stacked over and over it please the court at least a client for the federal government and you can have five minutes uninterrupted if you want it if you don't want it and i'll wait my uninterrupted time i'll try to get out a very brief beginning but feel free to interrupt of course i'd like to go back to the question that your honor asked earlier in the beginning which is so where did this for profit nonprofit distinction come from and why should refer be understood to carry forward and the distinction is based in two different types of a stablish nicholas concerns and it's derived from the supreme court's decision in amos and amos was interpreting the title seven religious exemption but as we've explained in our briefs congress was acting against the background of a lot of law with respect to the title seven exemption and the n r a and the other areas of law and there there were two different concerns of the court recalls in a mass the question presented was it violate the establishment clause impermissibly advance religion for congress to exempt not only the religious activities of a religious organization a church but also the secular activities it was a building engineer in the gymnasium this was step directory of a just a court decision the district court said yes it struck down this title seven religious employer exemption and it said that if you start exempting the secular activities of a religious organization then that would permit churches and other religious organizations to extend their influence by ensuring the commercial profit making world this is the language from amos the supreme court's decision in the district court and the supreme court said and you know there's a line between accommodating and impermissibly fostering religion and the supreme court said they are not to worry we are only talking about the nonprofit activities of the church it is the concern of the government here that if they were to recognize for hopes like the and the business that they closely hold that paying for a board of facia and is a terrible thing that it would result in the establishment of religion well  is congress did not authorize for profit corporations to demand religious based exemptions from employment laws and you know whatever the particulars i think it's clear from my end its argument that this would not be cabins to a particular healthcare service or even healthcare in general it could extend to salaries osha payroll taxes when you say congress didn't do that i mean we have we have cases very specific cases including very recent ones where the supreme court has seemed to take a different tack in them is calling for they've said there are exemptions from title seven for religious beliefs and employers don't have to meet them if they if they're fall within certain specific categories and i understand you want to draw the distinction between for profit nonprofit before before we get there i want to make sure because this is not the first trip to the dance for me at least with this case  i want to make sure that my understanding when this was before the court before was accurate and as is still the case so if it is the case of beer with me for a minute is it accurate that the government and the government doesn't confirm that the regulations that issue are anything less than anathema to the haunts because of those religious beliefs right now don't question if the court is just restating the first point yes of course we have argued that not accurate statement first let me clarify they to the extent there is tax liability it's a corporation it's not individually and but really the reason we're not making an argument about tax liability at all is because there is a legally enforceable requirement that the plan provide contraceptive coverage so even if there were no tax liability this is a real requirement that the secretary of labor could enforce that we assume they would obey if they did not  so is the answer to my question yes that if they don't they the company doesn't do what they're instructed they're subject to ninety five thousand dollars the fines i haven't on the math but it's the got a real and immediate you either you're either by in this stuff or or somebody is coming to your door and it could be ninety five thousand dollars a day which i think you could see even take them out of business so it's a real immediate issue but again there and they are required to do it and this is for the benefit of the nine hundred fifty full time employees they are required to provide the coverage of mammograms and color rectal screening  fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is not an abortifacient abortifacient would be a drug like are you forty six that has an effect only after the woman is pregnant so if the court wants a neutral description we're talking about let's just say ela for purposes of discussion ok if if we're agreed on all the background there that this is real and immediate it's not theoretical then my then like my question to you is when you say this is this comes down to the distinction between profit and nonprofit corporations first is explain  supreme court's statement and bill oddie and i i think i'm recall scraggly that it's the wrong question to ask who's asserting it the question is focusing on the nature of the right that principle not apply here it applies very differently when you're talking about seeking a religious exemption from a generally applicable law that raises a whole host of establishment cla questions that have informed the interpretation of a lot of statute so you are concerned that there will be an establishment of religion if you accommodate this bully well we are concerned as the supreme court was recognizing that a special religious accommodation for a for profit even if it's a religious organization if the church opens factories and starts making wood cabinets and uses the money to then support the church that was the concern that animated the district court in amos that's why it's it held the title seven violate the exemption violated the establishment clause and that's why the supreme court said no and the concurrence of emphasize no we're only talking about nonprofit activity  as if they had chosen to organize themselves and it wasn't available to them in one thousand nine hundred eighty five but there's been a multiplication of of new kinds of business and the few suppose they had established themselves as a  yes and there are limited liability companies and some of these cases and if they were a partnership would you be saying the same thing if there were a true partnership we would still be saying that they're not entitled to religious exemption but the principles of corporate law that are we  are some courts like the ninth circuit in spencer that things even going to nonprofit activities is too generous and what they would draw the line between say the salvation army and maybe a catholic hospital that looks like a regular hospital and say we want to see that you're not charging beyond nominal amounts for the goods and services you're providing so that we're really we're not in profit making worlds even under the guise of a nonprofit walking a fine line here we want to you know congress wants to accommodate religion without impermissibly advancing at but also doesn't want to entangle courts in kind of trolling through the beliefs of an institution to see which activities are religious or not religious so that's why that was the second reason the supreme court said ok we're not going to we've got it was you know the l d s church we're not going to ask when they run a gymnasium or a soup kitchen or humanitarian aid is that a religious activity or not your you seem to support of there for a moment of the of the night circuits position that the profit non profit line isn't really that meaningful because you can have a hospital that looks for all the world like the hospital across town except the cure is a five month received as if there's no difference at all and does two notions of religious liberty really come down to that well certainly when you're talking about the to which congress has allowed legal entities to get exemptions that come at the expense of the employees because any think the exemption in all of these contacts if you give it to the employer it means the employee is not getting the health coverage or social security assertion here the han's aren't saying don't let don't make these services available they're saying don't make me pay for all that's pretty dramatic difference isn't it from a  isn't that a big difference from when you said i mean if nobody pays social security taxes then you don't have a social security system if the hans don't pay for their employees ella but doesn't mean well it's not available doesn't know but again the question is can the a woman who works one of the nine hundred fifty women who work for the company when she goes and her doctor says i'm prescribe ing an i u d and this will cost between five hundred nine hundred the supreme court said this in hosanna tabor but also understand in the free speech context you're just talking about whether the government and suppressed speech are precludes speech here in refresh what we're talking about is can an organization a corporation come in and get an exemption from generally a political law and it's clear that a you know a prisoner can say i want an exemption from your meal policy i need a hollow diet it's a big difference though to go from there and say analysis of the religion clauses that the religion clauses give special solicitude to religious organisations and the focus of the supreme court cases in the free speech area has been on the expression itself exactly but i mean here  the nature of the claim is we want an exemption and if a corporation gets an exemption from the employment regulations that means the employee doesn't get the benefit so even just perhaps i should move to the point  with that when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimpose statutory schemes which are binding on others and that activity and they granting an exemption from bear it with social security taxes through an employer are operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employee that was in the specific right of talking about a substantial burden in leave they seem to concede this is a substantial burden and they said but there is a compelling state interest that that was the expression of the km in the context of talking about a compelling state interest right you your position is there's no burden here right correct because here what you're talking about is a regulation a for profit corporation and the benefits of revives to employees and we don't believe that congress by using the term person swept in all for profit corporations right it was primarily focusing on natural parts and i mean that's  it are those of the free exercise claims of rights and it can include churches but that doesn't mean it brings and and we also was in the context of saying we're all in this together everybody's got to do it but one of the complaints is being made here is the administration hasn't set this regulation up that way but there are tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands maybe more folks who are exempt from this and they just don't happen to fall into the exemption you guys set up well so it's really not neutral across the board generally applicable that's seems to be a matter of some distress on the on the part not just  was saying is i need to provide for my own need these are my amish employees and don't you don't have to worry about social security taxes unemployment you know and pension benefits because if they're in need i will take care of them and this was completely credible substantiated by practice and in fact congress had exempted self employed amish but notwithstanding the strength of that claim the supreme court said no your employees decide for themselves whether they want to get their social security benefits and you cannot essential impose your religious beliefs on your employees so here of course if the women do not get the health coverage they just don't get health coverage it's not but if they don't get the health coverage that doesn't mean they don't get the health care  e right to free exercise be a personal right you get out of a lot of the when you agree that a religious or a corporation that right religious well again i mean the way it's been that congress and i should make clear that when congress in the senate report that a company rep rect congress actually explicitly said nothing in this actual be construed as affecting the religious accommodation under title seven of the civil rights act of one hundred sixty four if that congress did not give every type of corporation the role of the right to demand religious exemptions certain churches nonprofit activities performed by religious organizations yes they can seek religious exemptions and that's when you would difference as to whether or not there's a religious right or the person that well let's go back to the fact that the supreme court in fact no court has ever given a religious exemption to a for profit corporation and whether you think that's inherent in the nature of free exercise or just that congress had applied this when it used the language of refrain it was not making a dramatic change and for the first time allowing for profit corporations to don't have to worry about this issue of religious organizations moving into the for profit computer commercial profit making worlds and thereby generating revenues that could be used to finance religious active wells would we be imposing a particular form of of a collective religious a violation of the first event of that we say that that non profit church groups exercise religion but a for profit etc those do not violate the free exercise clause there's no question that congress can give exemptions even just for churches that it doesn't extend to secular entities so for profit entit given and say wait a second we do not like what you did supreme were we are we are we can't do it for everybody i mean to try to do it for everybody we got there they read the revisited it and they came back and said we're going to priests with rules for the federal government they didn't make any exceptions they were they didn't try to to the title seven they said this is across the board is that it is a mistaken understanding of referring to some extent your honour's of course correct that they reinstated certain yet are both cases involving individual claims having nothing to do with corporations or for profit corporations exactly when they enacted refresh the court was about claims of individuals they talk about prisoners not being allowed to observe their religions or being denied certain foods there is talk about jews being forced to undergo autopsies in the senate report this was there's nothing remotely that would suggest that congress was doing what amos cautioned against which was saying for profit corporations can now based on any objection articulated by a controlling shareholder or i guess an officer or director can demand exemptions from federal law that really would have been extraordinary and would have come at the expense of the employees what is your best argument for saying that river does not include companies such as  before churches often incorporate so you can have these nonprofit religious institutions and it's unsurprising that congress use the term persons but that it's would be the other end of the spectrum to say every corporation can demand religious exemptions from federal law on the basis of reprimand that's the argument here is if the controlling shareholder are perhaps a minority shareholder the corporate office are their personal religious beliefs have to be i to a for profit corporation such that it can subject to strict scrutiny any objection that's inconsistent with what could be quite diverse religiously so out on the periphery claim your position is so to speak it cuts off  past that they don't come within the statute and all so you don't really get into the question of whether the burden whether it's such a tool or anything of that is your position is there not included within reference no further argument necessary correct we brief the other issues but our principle argument our first argument is that the corporation does not state a claim under referee cannot for profit corporation the only problem with that argument is that if they could religious corporations a corporation is a corporation that dozens of different type of corporations why did they also include or make you would try to read the tea leaves of congress lie that way but by the act but why did they also by saying corporations exclude for profit corporations well again going back to what congress was really focused on in riff raff overturning snap this was about whether individuals could get exemptions from like ratios none of those dealt with corporations no i mean it's again churches we know from say church of ballou that they can assert free exercise claims but we have never had a case in which a for profit corporation has been given a free exercise right and i just want to end by emphasizing that we don't see the limits to this position so like i think the plaintiffs counsel has said any you can't look past any sincerely held religious objection that's raised by a corporate office or perhaps controlling shareholder perhaps minority shareholder i don't i don't know where it ends but in this cosmic cosmopolitan community that would have extraordinary ramifications for the employees and congress did not authorize that type of claim a lot of corporations make donations for profit corporation make donations all sorts of causes the colluding religion law allowed to make a religious or a donation to a religious organization or for some religious course like eventually catholic charities why is it that corporation also is it doesn't have religious rights well there are lots of things corporations can do it as there are owners there are controlling their officers direct them and they can make donations they can and you know buy newspapers they do all sorts of things it doesn't follow that they can demand religious exemptions from federal laws they certainly couldn't say i can't pay full salary to my employees who don't tie because i'm facilitating this  is inconsistent with my personal religious credo they could not do that but but a corporation have heard talked doesn't a corporation they have assuming it's closely held and it doesn't have other produce ery duties of course they can give money to religious charities or other charities but they can't make their employees do it they can't withhold part of an employee's salary they can't say this salary is facilitating the conduct of my employees with which i disagree and therefore i should get an exemption of the words is now was pushed a little bit i really want to hear how the it where where's the end point if we accept your position where said stop if you if if recognizing that for the  highest importance what prevents us from the next person down the road saying i feel really strongly about not paying my employees who don't agree with me about sexual orientation or women in the workforce or whatever where's event you're going back to the pressure issue being the horns are not trying to force their beliefs on their employees rather the government is forcing the  to comply with what they're believe how is how is that different it in the context of let's say the hansei own members of my feet can work for my for profit company and that would violate title sad why how is that different because you now forcing them to accommodate to change their belief by saying you are discriminating against the jewish applicant because you cannot discriminate on the basis in our the  services where they define what corporation what the find a religious corporation that would be eligible for the exemption that would allow somebody to be exempt they said they had to have a religious  and free and first amendment rights then that's where the test is so are you conceding that there is no limit because that's the point the government is making the you heard me go right through the litan they don't they don't dispute that this is a terrible thing for the heinz personally that's not on the table they're prepared to concede that's a bad thing for them personally but in order for us to lay down the law that you want us to lay down doesn't there have to be some and point or else we may be a great way to asses address the point from leigh you're in the commercial space just the way the supreme court talked about only so you got except the individuals the one out in the workplace and just work for themselves but when they brought in employees and because of the generally applicable benefit of social security tax to everyone this country because of that benefit they felt that that was a compelling governmental interest that overrode mr least a billet to not pay those taxes and that's a perfect haste but the same time they recognized that if you want to do that for himself and not have employees then he was entirely do so and i'm i'm i know today that there are much people that do not place us very taxes on that basis when they have employees they kept the fact those other employees of benefits and that's a taxation thing of general public ability cross the board and that's i think where the distinction is i don't see a rush to flood the courts with oh i don't like this ladder because it was made in ohio when it should have been made pennsylvania and it withstand that kind of pressure and the pressure on the hans and it's knowing every minute that they're sitting here today every minute knowing that they're facilitating and that they are enabling this practice to go on and  if their employees when they're off work want to go out and do whatever they want to do on their time and their money that's their business haunts have no issue that well we can't take the government's position and burden the haun's with