Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby: Christian company makes video explaining what’s at stake

While waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its challenge of the government contraceptives mandate, the family behind the Hobby Lobby Stores has made a video to explain its position.

Forty-four years after family patriarch David Green started the company by selling picture frames made in his garage, Hobby Lobby now employees more than 22,000 workers in 500 stores in 41 states, according to the video.

The company was built on biblical principles and Christian family values, Hobby Lobby employee Mandi Broadfoot says in the video. When the Health and Human Services Department mandated that employee health plans include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, the Greens felt compelled to defend their religious liberties.

In a statement on HobbyLobbyCase.com, David Green said:

My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case. This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only:  the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.

The Greens have agreed to provide 16 of the 20 Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives required under the  mandate and “do so at no additional cost to employees under their self-insured health plan,” according to the website.

The Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments in the case at 10 a.m. on March 25, to “address the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of individuals to operate a family business without violating their faith,” according to The Becket Fund.

Watch the video here:

H/T: Young Conservatives

‘Best Super Bowl ad of all time’ celebrates 30-year anniversary

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek has been a political consultant handling public affairs, political campaigns and PAC management for nearly 20 years.
Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Comments

290 thoughts on “Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby: Christian company makes video explaining what’s at stake

  1. 19451951 says:

    Whatever happened to separation of Church and State, not in the US Constitution, but first clearly spelled out by Jesus …give into Caesar’s his due and to God what is His … meaning that if he laws of the State contradict God’s word, all true Christian must disobey them at whatever consequence, best spelled out by Martin Luther in defying the RC ….I can do no other so help me God! Jefferson wanted a wall of separation between Church and State, not a one way street to bully God and His followers.

    1. ron thomasson says:

      The “Wall of Separation” was to ensure that we did not have a “Church-State” such as the “Church of England” which virtually ran and dictated everything.

  2. Today22011 says:

    @Ronald Roth, et al. — gets paid for total responses. Deny him income by replying to his posts. Post your response separately instead of hitting reply.

    1. obadiahlynch says:

      Wonder who pays him? Sounds like a sweet gig.

      1. Maureen says:

        I don’t mind someone disagreeing and having a different point of view but he is an A$$ about it.

      2. Maureen says:

        I don’t know. I seem to get a lot of responses, but I have not seen a check yet.

    2. Maureen says:

      I agree, he is the most hateful person on here I have ever seen.

    3. Maureen says:

      I believe Ole Man is the same.

    4. Nimadan says:

      Do shills get paid for TDs too?

  3. rhonan says:

    A person’s rights do not include the right to force their religious beliefs on others. When you hire another’s labor for wages, that does not give you the right to force them to live by your religious principles. By the logic being used here, a person who belongs to one of the white supremacist sects should have his religious beliefs respected, and he should not be forced to provide maternity care to female employees in a mixed-race relationship. If Hobby Lobby does not like the laws they are required to follow as a commercial enterprise, they are free to sell the business, or just close up.

    1. Maureen says:

      How are they forcing them to do anything? They are not slaves, they can find employment elsewhere if they choose. By choosing to work for them they are agreeing to work by their terms. They should be happy to have a job, there are plenty out there who don’t.
      I have worked plenty of places that their insurance didn’t provide something I needed but that was just the way it was. When you apply you should look at the benefits package, if you really can’t accept it then go elsewhere. That is freedom of choice. When you have a business you can’t provide everything to everyone. What you are providing for certain is a check .so that their employees can provide for themselves. Why should a company have to pay for the consequences of their employees actions. Following that reasoning, your employer should come and pay your fine to get you out of jail because you choose to drive drunk, simply because you work for him. He is not your mama.

      1. rhonan says:

        How is the government forcing Hobby Lobby to do anything? They could close their doors, or sell out to someone who will treat their employees better. They’re the ones who applied for a business license. You agree to follow labor law when you get a business license. This is just another case of Christian demanding special rights. The Constitution gives you a right to BELIEVE what you want. It does not give you a privilege to force others to comply with your beliefs, especially as part of their job.

        1. Maureen says:

          This statement does not compel me to change my statement. Hobby Lobby is not asking their employees to change to their faith, but the government is trying to force Hobby Lobby to do something they believe is wrong. Sure they could close their doors, put a lot of people out of work. That is what you want? Where would those people be then? In the welfare line. Hobby Lobby is at least trying to compromise. Like I said, if you don’t want to earn your paycheck there, go somewhere else.

          1. Brandon Johns says:

            Rhonan already admitted to being a communist on another page. She is crazy and should not be taken seriously.

          2. Maureen says:

            Thank you

    2. ron thomasson says:

      So…According to you, I should be able to enter a Halal (Muslim) eatery and order a ham sandwich. If they do not deliver, then they are discriminating against those that like pork. Or are they allowed to follow their religious beliefs and not serve pork products?

      1. rhonan says:

        No, your analogy here makes no sense. Applying your logic to Hobby Lobby would be like a Jewish customer claiming discrimination because Hobby Lobby sells Christmas merchandise, but not Hanukkah stuff. Hobby Lobby is not being taken to court for refusing to sell a product they claim contradicts their religious beliefs. Federal law sets certain minimum standards for a health insurance policy. Hobby Lobby feels that because of their size, it is more efficient to be their own insurance company. Because doing so puts them in the position of being the actual one to pay the benefits, they have created a conflict between their beliefs and the law.

        A better analogy would be if Hobby Lobby were being taken to court because they objected to the Family and Medical Leave Act requiring them to give the same maternity leave to a single mother who chose to have a child as they would a married employee.

    3. Brandon Johns says:

      And you want all religious freedom outlawed. Who are you to talk?

  4. Huffsucks FacebookDick says:

    No problems with their ethical stance, however that choice comes at a price, which should be bore by those enforcing their beliefs on others.
    When you refuse all birth control to your employees you should then be 100% financially responsible for any child born to your employee’s.
    Ignorance should be held responsible for its cost to mankind.

    1. General Mayham says:

      If you would read you would find that they are providing 16 out of 20 approved of methods, so they are not leaving their employeess hanging in the wind. So why should they have to violate their beliefs on the laws passed in Washington?? Are we not guarenteed freedom of religion in the constitution??

    2. Maureen says:

      They aren’t “refusing” them anything. They just do not want to be the ones providing what they think is wrong. They can always go somewhere else and get it. Why is it wrong to have morals and a conscience?
      Plus unless you are one of the sex partners you are not responsible for what happens because of that joining. It is stupid to even say something like that. And talk about forcing beliefs on others, what exactly do you think ObamaCare is trying to do? They are trying to force people to pay or participate in something they do not want or believe in.

  5. RadarRecon says:

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not pro-abortion, and I’m in favor of a business being able to follow its religious convictions in this matter. But does life begin at conception? Why? Isn’t a sperm alive? Isn’t an egg alive? If you don’t consider a sperm to be a life, how can it reproduce?
    How far will this go? If a woman is murdered, will an autopsy be required to see how many eggs she has remaining so that the murderer can be charged with multiple additional counts of murder? When a fetus is also killed in its mother’s murder, considering that scientists say that a female baby is born with a full supply of eggs, will the eggs of the fetus also be counted? Before you rail against me, just consider these points. Again, how far will this be carried by those who believe that their way is right?

    Conservatives don’t like the fact that liberals are in favor of unfettered abortion, yet want murderers to stay alive at taxpayers’ expense with three square meals a day and cable or satellite TV for the rest of their lives. Maybe life should be considered as beginning when a heartbeat is discernible. Maybe the fetus should be considered viable (able to live on its own) when it’s developed enough. But to say that “life begins at the union of sperm and egg” is, to me, unrealistic and dogmatic.

    1. Maureen says:

      Are you being stupid on purpose?

      1. seazen says:

        Kettle calling the pot black. He has offered some serious, challenging, and intelligent questions. They are worth considering and responding to if there are clear and reasoned opinions regarding them. Suggesting that he is stupid reflects an unwillingness to think.

        1. Maureen says:

          No, calling him stupid means I think he is stupid, nothing more than that. You of course have the right to disagree all you want.

          1. seazen says:

            And you think he is stupid because?

          2. Maureen says:

            You are right name calling gets us no where. He was not mean spirited. I failed at who I believe I am. I will work on it.
            Also, thank you for calling me on it.

    2. Maureen says:

      I believe it is the liberals who do not believe in capital punishment.

      1. RadarRecon says:

        Try reading it again, leaving out the phrase “Conservatives don’t like the fact that,”

        Other than that, thank you for your cogent analysis. Would you care to elucidate further?

        1. Maureen says:

          You are the one reading it wrong, not I.

        2. ron thomasson says:

          Your sentence structure is incorrect for the meaning you wish to convey.

    3. Maureen says:

      Maybe sperm is alive, but not life sustaining it needs to join with the egg to create and live. Do you consider an unfertilized chicken egg life? An egg does not grow on it own, it needs the sperm component to set the reaction to grow, multiply. Is a pond a pond when there is no water in it? No, it is just a hole until it rains. Is the rain alive? Maybe, but it gives that hole life, making it a pond. Maybe an egg is dormant but not really alive. When that chain reaction starts, that is life. That chain reaction starts the second that sperm gets inside that egg. They call any cell found on other planets life. Why doesn’t that apply here on earth?

    4. ron thomasson says:

      Conservatives want murderers to stay alive at taxpayers expense??? When did the ACLU become a Conservative entity???

  6. DocHollywood_2 says:

    Now that is an effective and well constructed video, no shouting, name calling, drama or hysterics, just a well constructed statement of principles and beliefs. Hard to argue with.

    Well done Hobby Lobby!

  7. Eric Scheidler says:

    Nice video, but “fertilized egg” is not a thing. Once fertilized, the ovum (egg) is no longer an ovum at all, but a complete, coherent, self-directing one-celled organism. A more accurate term would be “conceptus.”

  8. Brandon Johns says:

    Pay for your own birth control. Why should we the taxpayers pay for your sleeping around?

Comments are closed.

Related Posts