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.”
David: Your comment at 1:34pm was very well said. The post was certainly worth looking for in the filter and it’s understandable why you’d be anxious to have it retrieved.
The point you make is one well worth considering, but as Mike A. in his post, Religious Accommodation and the Establishment Clause, there are other considerations besides a whether a corporation may force its employees to conform to certain religious doctrines. Besides economic and labor issues, there is a question of equitable treatment for women in our society in allowing them to make decisions fairly about issues that affect the very core of human existence.
The issue of Hobby Lobby’s hypocrisy is significant. The company is claiming strong moral objections to contraception and abortion, yet it profits from its investments in these products and services. What is interesting is how some, like Karen S., downplay this hypocrisy with nonsensical platitudes about glass houses and allusions to small town scandals.
Hobby Lobby is using its considerable resources in an effort to remake society. That effort includes the subjugation of women by making it more expensive and more difficult to make determinations regarding their bodies, including their rights to have a sex life. You make an impassioned plea in stating your case in the comment above, however, elsewhere you have been very clear in condemnation of what you regard as promiscuous behavior among women. I think that’s the real basis for Hobby Lobby’s stand against birth control. That, and the money.
Paul: I believe society does have a genuine interest in a woman’s right to have access to birth control. It’s been pointed out that many European counties have lower rates of birth defects and infant mortality than we do. One reason for this is that pregnant European women experience lower levels of stress, due in large part to the European social safety net, which includes in some cases paid maternity leave. Under stress, the human body produces chemicals that have been shown to have disastrous effects on fetal development. Pregnant American women among the working poor class are going to experience high levels of stress. This is one of the reasons for higher rates of birth defects among this group. Very often, the costs for treating these children fall on the rest of society and lead to higher health care costs when care providers shift these unrecoverable costs onto paying consumers.
RTC – I am not sure what your experience with pregnant women is, but my experience is that they all experience high levels of stress which they then share with those around them. Sharing is caring.
I follow Science Daily so I get the latest studies on birth defects, stress is way down the list of causes of birth defects. High on the list is older parents. In fact, the ideal age for a healthy birth is about 16, assuming the father is roughly the same age. If you are college educated, the odds of a birth defect go up. Smoke, the odds go up. Drink, the odds go up. Etc., etc., etc. However, if the costs shift to paying consumers, shouldn’t that make you happy? The parent(s) are good little Democrats on the welfare system voting the party line.
RTC wrote: “That effort includes the subjugation of women by making it more expensive and more difficult to make determinations regarding their bodies, including their rights to have a sex life.”
Sorry, but you are totally losing me here. Nobody has a right to force society to pay for them to have a sex life. Nobody.
RTC wrote: “I believe society does have a genuine interest in a woman’s right to have access to birth control. It’s been pointed out that many European counties have lower rates of birth defects and infant mortality than we do.”
What about the finding that women taking the pill have a higher incidence of breast cancer? Kind of cherry picking studies, aren’t we? The truth is we don’t know everything, so let people choose for themselves rather than force them to cause harm to others.
Karen S.,
Check out the latest example of the right to discriminate law that was vetoed in Arizona and backed by the Greens, that was just signed in Mississippi.
Who am I, why am I here? Did I miss syntax in my education? I majored in Jibberish and an working on a Phd Efg.
The brief outlined the separation of corporations from their owners as separate entities. Sometimes that works in the owners’/share holders’ favor, and sometimes it doesn’t, as in this case.
The Legislature in AZ tried to address this when it passed legislation that would specifically allow someone to run his or her business with the same religious protections that the owner has. So your company couldn’t be forced to do something that violated your religion, as long as he or she could prove that it was a valid religious belief. That was supposed to prevent people from making up The Religion That Believes Taxes are a Sin. But I don’t know how individuals prove their religious belief is valid, let alone on a corporate scale. The law was vetoed because it was feared that it would lead to discrimination against gays and lesbians, even though it is my understanding that sexual orientation is not a protected status yet. Currently, a restaurant can in theory deny service to a gay couple, but I don’t know how often that happens. It definitely was a hot topic, and a lot of people worried about its consequences if it passed.
Karen S wrote: “So your company couldn’t be forced to do something that violated your religion, as long as he or she could prove that it was a valid religious belief. That was supposed to prevent people from making up The Religion That Believes Taxes are a Sin. But I don’t know how individuals prove their religious belief is valid…”
To prove to government my religious belief, I would show that I belong to a church or corporation that embraces that religious belief. But of course now they are saying that corporations supposedly don’t have any religious beliefs, so now how am I going to prove that my religious belief is genuine? I wish they would make up their minds whether individuals have religious beliefs or that someone has to be a member of a church (e.g., corporation) in order to have any valid religious belief.
Notre Dame Asks 7th Cir to reconsider
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/notredame-petition.pdf
Serenity….. Now…..do the Civility Rules still apply….. Except to certain someone’s…..
Strange bedfellows indeed. A left wing ideologue using a right wing screed machine to make a point. You can’t make this stuff up!!
I quit worrying after SCOTUS decided Obamacare was a tax which the Congress and administration clearly said time and again that it wasn’t. After that it was all downhill. I don’t have a horse in the race for Hobby Lobby and I really don’t think anyone else here does either.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/01/why-conservatives-should-be-worried-about-hobby-lobby-winning/2/
Why conservatives should be worried about Hobby Lobby winning.
http://law.wm.edu/news/stories/2014/documents-2014/HobbyLobbyBrief.pdf
Amicus brief in support in of the Petitioners (HHS) signed by 44 law school professors. Interesting reading.
MikeA, You were a wise man coming out of law school. That’s rare.
Again, Can Elaine say her Teacher’s Retirement Fund doesn’t have mutual funds w/ Halliburton, BP, Big Pharma, etc.? This is a SILLY gotcha game. You do realize that mutual funds buy and sell stocks DAILY do you not? It is a distraction, a shiny object, small potatoes. But, “whatever gets you through the night, it’s all right, all right.” Here’s one thing we do know for sure, this side freak show will have ZERO effect on SCOTUS decision.
I’ve enjoyed your contributions, too, Annie. I know my own politics and decisions evolved over the course of the past 20 years as I learned more about different viewpoints. I dread the stagnation of confining my conversation only with like-minded people – too easy to get close minded or miss where I might go wrong.
Plus, an advantage to the Age of the Internet is that wrongdoing by politicians is easily uncovered. Just look at what happened in Bell, CA.
Hi Rafflaw:
I’ve been meaning to ask you about that. Was Hobby Lobby involved in the AZ law that was vetoed that would have allowed businesses to refuse service if it violated their beliefs. If someone thought marriage should be between a woman and a man, they could refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds. I believe the law was vetoed because there was too much room for things like restaurants refusing service to gays.
Right now, we can refuse to bake a cake for a Republican or Democratic convention based on our beliefs, but not for a gay wedding, because that can be a slippery slope. Personally, I wouldn’t want to eat a cake that someone was forced to make for me against her will, or have my wedding photos depend on someone who didn’t want to take the pictures. But obviously we don’t want a return to discrimination by businesses.
Now, I get “report cards” on politicians and ballot initiatives rating them on things like environmental impact, fiscal conservatism, balanced budget, etc. Religious people, like the rest of us, would donate to people or causes that reflect their own values. All of us are in essence trying to make our values “the law of the land” at the ballot box. And that’s fine. But trying to implement a theocracy of any religion is not. As long as they don’t go past that boundary, they are free to support any cause they like that reflects their values, regardless of whether it reflects ours.
Obama himself originally said that he thought marriage should be between one man and one woman, but then his opinion changed.
I have no background in the law. What do you think about this claim that businesses in the US currently have the right to discriminate against gays, but no business has successfully used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to do so? I believe the RFRA was first enacted because a Native American lost a suit to be allowed to use peyote in a religious ceremony, which violated federal drug laws.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm
Ah yes, I did actually forget about that. 😯
annie and Karen,
Don’t forget that their direct contributions to promote their religious beliefs becoming the law of land while claiming that they have no intention of preventing their employees from getting their own contraception, is also part of why they should be scrutinized.
I also want to thank everyone for commenting and speaking your mind on this very important issue.
I’m glad you’ve commented here Karen. You’ve made this thread very interesting and informative. The Press still gets to engage in free speech, thank goodness. Sometimes they reveal things about people and entities we wish they wouldn’t have.
Karen, why do you keep asserting that their right to their opinion is being taken away? It’s not.
Hobby Lobby’s 401K investments have repeatedly been listed as reasons why their objection has been deemed insincere and not about religion at all.
And yes, here on this post we do all have the right to voice different opinions.
Again Karen, this is a HUGE public case with serious implications and ramifications for millions of people. It’s not uncalled for to draw public attention to this.
“Shouldn’t Hobby Lobby boycott those countries products that are produced under slave like conditions, or in countries that have forced abortion laws?”
Well, aren’t almost all of us opposed to slave labor and forced abortion? And yet, do we not purchase items that are made in China? When we decide on home solar panels, isn’t price a decision point? And yet American made solar panels are priced out of the market by Chinese imports. We all live in glass houses as far as the hypocrisy of our beliefs compared with our decisions. But we all still have the right to our opinions, and the hope that we can do better.