Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
Unless you have been in a coma the last few weeks, you have probably heard of or read about the Hobby Lobby case recently argued in front of the United States Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby is challenging a section of the Affordable Care Act that requires companies to provide medical insurance for their employees or pay a fine. The mandate also requires the insurance to include coverage for contraception services. Services that its owners claim violates their religious beliefs.
“…. the battle for its Christian identity was revived this week when lawyers for the company argued before the Supreme Court that the company should not have to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. The issue, says Hobby Lobby co-founder Barbara Green, isn’t that the company wants to meddle with women’s rights to take contraceptive drugs. “We’re not trying to control that,” she said. “We’re just trying to control our participation in it.” ‘ Reader Supported News
Mrs. Green claims they are not trying to control their female employees use of contraceptives, but the network of causes that they are involved with seem to indicate that the Greens want to mix their religious views into everyone else’s business.
When you dig a little deeper, the facts indicate that the donations made by the Green family and their related businesses and executives, display an attempt to force their religious beliefs on others.
“But a document published here for the first time reveals Hobby Lobby appears to be going much further than protecting freedom, providing funding for a group that backs a political network of activist groups deeply engaged in pushing a Christian agenda into American law. The document shows entities related to the company to be two of the largest donors to the organization funding a right-wing Christian agenda, investing tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars into a vast network of organizations working in concert to advance an agenda that would allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians and deny their employees contraceptives under a maximalist interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.
That network of activist groups has succeeded in passing legislation in Arizona requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion, banning taxpayer-funded insurance paying for government employees’ abortions, defining marriage as a union between a man and woman, and funding abstinence education. And there’s evidence that its efforts go well beyond the borders of the Copper State.” Reader Supported News
The above efforts by Hobby Lobby and its owners seems to conflict with Mrs. Greens claim that they are not trying to meddle with women’s right to use contraceptives. Just how deeply is Hobby Lobby involved in these organizations funding and assisting with these efforts to restrict other citizens of their freedoms?
“Hobby Lobby-related entities are some of the biggest sources of funding to the National Christian Charitable Foundation, which backed groups that collaborated in promoting the anti-gay legislation in Arizona – recently vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer – that critics say would have legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians by businesses.
The path of SB 1062 to the Arizona statehouse was built by two groups, the Center for Arizona Policy and the Alliance Defending Freedom. Center for Arizona Policy employees regularly spoke in favor of the legislation, appearing as the grass-roots face of a bill that the center’s president, Cathi Herrod, characterized as “[making] certain that governmental laws cannot force people to violate their faith unless it has a compelling governmental interest–a balancing of interests that has been in federal law since 1993,” according to a statement on the group’s website. (One hundred and twenty-three Center for Arizona Policy-supported measures have been signed into law; its legislative agenda ranges from requiring intrusive ultrasounds for women seeking abortions to HB 2281, a bill that, if passed by the Arizona Senate, would exempt religious institutions from paying property taxes on leased or rented property.)
For its part, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a national Christian organization based in Arizona, works toward the “spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family,” according to the group’s website. Both groups are heavily funded by the National Christian Charitable Foundation, “the largest Christian grant-making foundation in the world,” as described on the group’s website. And who is the largest funder of National Christian Charitable? That would be a Hobby Lobby executive.” Reader Supported News
It would appear to this reader that Hobby Lobby does quite a bit more than just look after protecting what it considers its own religious rights. Their donations and efforts are geared toward making their religious beliefs the law of the land. They seem to think the Free Exercise Clause allows them to dictate how other people have to exercise their lives. Just how much money has Hobby Lobby and its executives donated to the cause of transforming the legal system?
“In 2011, the National Christian Charitable Foundation contributed $9,606,281.88 of the Alliance Defending Freedom’s $36,379,373 grant revenue. That same year, the NCF contributed $236,250 of the Center for Arizona Policy’s $1,662,355 in grant revenue.
Overall, from 2002 to 2011 the NCF contributed $1,481,343 to the Center for Arizona Policy and $31,024,584.30 to the Alliance Defending Freedom.
Typically the trail would stop there. The National Christian Charitable Foundation appears to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, single contributor to the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Center for Arizona Policy, but because the foundation is a massive-donor advised fund, its donors are shielded from public scrutiny.
However, a 2009 NCF tax filing, reported here for the first time, offers insights into the deep pockets backing National Christian Charitable Foundation.
The form, viewable here, shows a total of nearly $65 million in contributions coming from a combination of Jon Cargill, who is the CFO of Hobby Lobby, and “Craft Etc.,” an apparent misspelling of Crafts Etc., a Hobby Lobby affiliate company. The document shows that Hobby Lobby‑related contributions were the single largest source of tax-deductible donations to National Christian Charitable’s approximately $383.785 million in 2009 grant revenue.
According to addresses on the filing, both the contributions from Crafts Etc. and Jon Cargill came from a massive warehouse and office facility housing Hobby Lobby’s headquarters in Oklahoma City.” Reader Supported News
Notwithstanding Mrs. Greens earlier claims, Hobby Lobby seems to be deeply involved in the business of pushing their religious beliefs upon their employees and upon citizens in many states where laws have been introduced or passed at the behest of the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Center for Arizona Policy and the National Christian Charitable Foundation. I wonder how Hobby Lobby would react if another business sued for the ability to subtract a percentage of its taxes on the grounds that their religion does not allow their tax money to be spent on any military expenses?
Is Hobby Lobby fibbing when they claim that they are merely trying to protect their own religious beliefs when they are sending millions of dollars to causes intent on making their religious beliefs the law of the land? Hobby Lobby buys millions of products from China and other countries that have a variety of policies and laws that a good Christian would not agree with or which might violate their religious beliefs. Shouldn’t Hobby Lobby boycott those countries products that are produced under slave like conditions, or in countries that have forced abortion laws?
What do you think?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Did I miss it or has someone offered that non-Christian moral code which we should base our laws on (explaining why it’s superior to the Christian moral code we have previously based our laws on, while not being a Theocracy because State power corrupts the message of the Church)
DavidM,
Interesting info above Canada and their lack of a private healthcare system (and how this is changing). Exactly right, about investment strategies and how investors keep everyone in the dark about where the money is going!
I thought Chuck’s comment was to Paul. Paul are you Dagda? Paul are you Nick? Now will I have to call you PDick? 😀
annie – that’s dagda to you. 🙂
Elaine – and you would know that because????
annie – time is always an issue on tv. yesterday one of the stars of Rizzoli and Isles was arrested here. Because of time issues, for some damn reason they thought the earthquake in Chile deserved more time, they only spent 30 seconds on it.
Excuses…excuses! You either hold true to your religious beliefs…or you don’t.
It’s that simple.
One would think that Hobby Lobby having a SC case, would’ve crossed all their T’s and dotted all their I’s.
Why did Fox air the edited version all day long?
Annie wrote: “Why did Fox air the edited version all day long?”
Because it is shorter. Duh.
I don’t buy the B.S. that it was edited to create a false concept of what happened. There is no doubt of the political leanings of the prosecutor when you see people criminally tearing down somebody else’s tent, swinging fists at another person, and then deciding unilaterally that there is no case.
He claimed that the video indicates someone shoved the guy to the ground. I did not see that in the unedited video, and neither did the prosecutor. He invented that fact to justify not charging the man.
Elaine,
I’ve been complaining about the duplicity of the so called duopoly….. I guess in one fell swoop…. Hobby lobby has done them both….. People rarely look beneath the surface or in these matters behind the curtains….
davidm,
I didn’t write that. It was an excerpt from an article. If Hobby Lobby truly has religious convictions regarding the use of contraceptives/abortifacients, It should not invest in companies that manufacture them.
Elaine – if you read the article carefully, even they, many paragraphs down, admitted most companies don’t watch who/what their mutual funds are invested in.
I think the accusation of someone being a troll is distracting and way overused. It adds nothing to the conversation and is usually a false accusation.
Steve Crowder sounds like the second-coming of Breitbart operative James O’Keeffe.
*****
The Union Protester Who Punched Fox News Comedian Steven Crowder Was Acting in Self-Defense, Will Not Be Prosecuted
By Taylor Berman
3/20/13
http://gawker.com/5991450/the-union-protester-who-punched-fox-news-comedian-steven-crowder-was-acting-in-self-defense-will-not-be-prosecuted/all
Excerpt:
Remember when conservative comedian and Fox News contributor Steven Crowder was punched in the face by a union activist outside a Michigan protest? Crowder made a big deal about it, even going so far as to challenge the protester to a “legal, sanctioned mixed martial arts bout.” Then came the unsurprising revelation that the video was misleadingly edited to make Crowder look like an innocent, if obnoxious, victim.
That heavily edited video, which Fox News themselves released, is the reason why, on Monday, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III announced he will not press charges against the protester, who Dunnings said was trying to defend himself.
“It’s pretty clear the person that they wanted to charge was acting in self-defense,” Dunnings said of the union member who apparently slugged Crowder.
…
Dunnings questioned why Crowder didn’t initially provide that original footage to Dunnings’ office.
“I’m not holding that against him, but why would they provide the edited video? The longer video clearly shows the guy got pushed down and came up swinging,” Dunnings said.
Dunnings’s decision was based on the state police’s investigation, which reviewed both the edited and unedited versions of the video.
Crowder didn’t respond to requests for comment from the Lansing State Journal or The Detroit News.
Elaine M shared: ““I’m not holding that against him, but why would they provide the edited video? The longer video clearly shows the guy got pushed down and came up swinging,” Dunnings said.”
What a waste of time following this story. Turns out that Fox News aired the unedited tape on Hannity’s show. Why no mention of this but all the accusation of Fox News showing an “edited” tape, something all news programs do.
In the longer video, nobody is shown pushing the guy down. Looks to me like the union protesters were tearing down the tent of the conservatives and this guy tripped and came up swinging. I’ve seen that happen many times. Sometimes they even stage it that way. They want to punch, so they fall to the ground and then come up swinging so it looks like somebody else started the fight.
Here’s a link to the unedited version and proper credit given to Hannity’s show on Fox News for airing the unedited version:
http://youtu.be/tIF70HsfpAg
Canada may have issues with wait times and they are seeking to improve their system, but not by emulating the US so much as other countries like Australia, Switzerland and Sweden. No one wants our system of 100% of health care being handled by a middleman, private health insurance. I like the combination approach.
Frankly I have no idea where all my mutual funds are invested. Hell, for all I know I am invested in blood diamonds. I just look at the statement every quarter.
RTC – accepted
Paul Schulte:
I owe you an apology.
On another thread I made a remark that was uncivil.
There was a Guest Blogger by the name of Mike Spindell, who no longer participates in this forum. He wrote an brilliant article at another site concerning trolls and the internet which should be required reading for everyone who participates in forums like this. I, myself, intend to make an effort to reread it twice a year.
My incivility was borderline, at best and, while technically, I didn’t call you any term which need not be repeated, it was the type of fiddley-faddley, mealy-mouthed technicality that DavidM is so often guilty of.
Bad behavior can often act like a contagion and there’s already a big, fat, smelly troll here; I don’t want to be “dat guy”.
So to you, and all the other participants here, I apologize.
RTC wrote: “I didn’t call you any term which need not be repeated, it was the type of fiddley-faddley, mealy-mouthed technicality that DavidM is so often guilty of.”
I have no idea why you bring up my name here, or what you mean by this comment. I wish you would explain. If something is wrong with the way I put forward arguments, I would like to hear it said in plain language so I can improve the way I communicate. My desire is to be direct and logical and always to avoid personal attacks.
*after the ACA and assuredly before it*
I have to agree with David on this issue. Mutual funds can involve hundreds if not in some cases thousands of companies that are often conglomerates that are holding companies for subsidiaries that produce differing products or services. And, these companies change their marketing or strategies. In fact, mutual fund managers can selloff or buy a particular stock in that it changes daily.
Many mutual funds also have mutual funds within them.
There have been mutual funds that have special purposes, often political in nature. These funds have in the past, and as a whole, underperformed other mutual funds.
So you have to ask what is a fiduciary responsibility of a company investment manager. It is to offer the best choices for the employees to grow their retirement.
David, to suggest Canadians can’t prefer public healthcare because they haven’t had it in their country is as specious as Nick saying it. They read, they watch television, they are generally intelligent people, they know they don’t want to go to our system before the ACA and assuredly before it. I have many relatives in Canada and a few in Germany, they don’t understand why we can’t get our health care system right.
Annie wrote: “they don’t understand why we can’t get our health care system right…”
I don’t see any problem with our healthcare system before the ACA, but then I don’t participate in it. Usually I just help bring others to get care and have never had the kind of experience that the video Paul shared about Canada. If you really believe that is a better system, I simply find that position incredible. Our county government clinic options here in Florida prior to ACA were much more efficient than this. The private companies help those who can afford it, and the government option here help those who can’t. I always thought it worked very well.
I’m not looking forward to getting fined for not participating in a health care system that I consider inherently evil. I’m still trying to decide whether to pay the fine for convenience sake or refuse to pay it and start the legal fight about it being an illegal tax upon me.
annie – I do know from yearly experience that some Canadians spend their falls making doctors appointments with doctors in my area and then come down here during the winter and take up the time of our doctors. According to some staffing manual we are short handed to begin with and they just make it worse. My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that their Canadian insurance works here as well, kind of like mine works out of state.