Hobby Lobby

Customers enter a Hobby Lobby store May 22 in Denver. The Supreme Court agreed to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama’s health care law, whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.

Ed Andrieski | AP

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama’s health care law: Whether businesses may use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.

The justices said they will take up an issue that has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.

The Obama administration promotes the law’s provision of a range of preventive care, free of charge, as a key benefit of the health care overhaul.

Contraception is included in the package of cost-free benefits, which opponents said is an attack on the religious freedom of employers.

One case: Hobby Lobby

The court will consider two cases. One involves Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain with 13,000 full-time employees. Hobby Lobby won in the lower courts.

Hobby Lobby calls itself a “biblically founded business” and is closed Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states. The Green family, Hobby Lobby’s owners, also owns the Mardel Christian bookstore chain.

Other case: Conestoga Wood

The other case is an appeal from Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania company that employs 950 people in making wood cabinets. Lower courts rejected the company’s claims.

Conestoga Wood is owned by a Mennonite family who “object as a matter of conscience to facilitating contraception that may prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the womb.”

The court said the cases will be combined for arguments, probably in late March. A decision should come by late June.

The cases center on the provision of the law that requires most employers that offer health insurance to their workers to provide the range of preventive health benefits. In both instances, the Christian families who own the companies said that insuring some forms of contraception violates their religious beliefs.

The key issue is whether profit-making corporations may assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose.

Nearly four years ago, the justices expanded the concept of corporate “personhood,” saying in the Citizens United case that corporations have the right to participate in the political process the same way individuals do. Some lower court judges applied the same logic in the context of religious beliefs.

The issue is largely confined to religious institutions and family-controlled businesses with a small number of shareholders. A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large American employers already offered coverage before the health care law required it.

(3) comments


The Hobby Lobby company was originated by the Hobby Lobby family with their own money .No way was I involved or the U.S. government as far as finances. They DID BUILD IT. They did do it on their own.

Therefore, I or the U.S. government should have no say,the HOBBY LOBBY families religious beliefs, the Hobby Lobby family (The Green family) and their wishing not to participate in the birth control of their workers.
The family are not wanting to harm anyone but to try and save.

Nor especially do I or the U.S. government need to stick our nose's into any other family owned business in America concerning this matter.


Did they ship the imported merchandise they sell on ships they built and own and on roads they built and own?

Do they ensure their store isn't robbed by a police force they formed, maintain and pay for fully driving police cars they built own?

Did they pay for the education of their employees in order to hire them later in life without any aid from the gubment?

Building it on your own has nothing to do with borrowing money from the gubment.

It refers to the big lie that wealthy people tell claiming the did it all by themselves in order to deny the need and thus the responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure of this nation that made it possible for them to start a business and succeed.

Oh and lest I forget the #1 most important thing to any business is a safe LEGAL environment, and there is no LEGAL without gubment.

Without government to ensure the laws of this nation are respected as the framework upon which we base our interaction there is nothing any business can claim as their own, because ownership is defined by the law.

Proud Mother of an Army Avi8er

More and more, AMERICANS are loosing their rights.

One Day Less...2014/2016...VOTE.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.