What is the controversy with Hobby Lobby?

Arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby faced a backlash after it ran a full-page advertisement on July 4 in several newspapers across the U.S. that appeared to call for a Christian-run government.

The advert, which Hobby Lobby ran in newspapers on Independence Day, was titled "One Nation Under God," and included the Bible verse "Blessed is the Nation whose God is the lord," as the company also posted about its campaign on its social media pages.

Hobby Lobby quoted former presidents who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 in its campaign, including George Washington, but the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) reported that the company had altered the quotes without providing the full context.

Included in the advert, Hobby Lobby claimed to quote former President John Adams saying: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.

"Our Constitution was made only for religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Although Adams did say those words, FFRF reported that Hobby Lobby altered the placement of the quotes to make the sentences look as if they followed one another, taking away the context that the former president used "religious" and "moral" as synonyms in the full speech.

FFRF, a non-profit organization that advocates for atheists, agnostics, and non-theists, also reported that Hobby Lobby altered the placement of quotes for Washington and claimed that it took portions of speeches out of context for former presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

The company has been placing similar advertisements on U.S. holidays since Hobby Lobby founder David Greene felt "commissioned" by God to make them in 1995.

"Before long, Hobby Lobby was placing beautiful full-page ads celebrating the real meaning of Christmas, Easter, and Independence Day in newspapers across the country. The impact and relevancy of these messages is ongoing," the company wrote.

Hobby Lobby faced a backlash on social media after it tweeted about the advert on Sunday, and Twitter users shared the full-page ad in pictures taken of newspapers they were reading.

U.S. Army veteran David Weissman responded to the advert by saying "Shame on you @HobbyLobby," and added: "As an American Jew who served in the United States Army and took an oath to defend the Constitution; I find your statement of America should be lead by Christians to be asinine and unconstitutional."

As an American Jew who served in the United States Army and took an oath to defend the Constitution; I find your statement of America should be lead by Christians to be asinine and unconstitutional. Shame on you @HobbyLobby.

— David Weissman (@davidmweissman) July 4, 2021

Digimentors founder Sree Sreenivasan wrote: "The full-page ad by @HobbyLobby is an attack on freedom of religion & the rights of religious minorities," while author and pastor John Pavolvitz tweeted: "I've served as a pastor for over two decades.

"Organizations like@HobbyLobby are why so many people believe all Christians are hateful, intolerant bigots. The rest of us apologize for them."

I’ve served as a pastor for over two decades.

Organizations like @HobbyLobby are why so many people believe all Christians are hateful, intolerant bigots.

The rest of us apologize for them.

By Arielle P. Schwartz, Holley Law Fellow, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

An adverse ruling could result in businesses being allowed to discriminate on the basis of their personal religious beliefs in a variety of areas, including health insurance access to things like birth control, emergency contraception, family planning, vaccines, surgeries, blood transfusions, mental health care, HIV/AIDS treatment, coverage of spouses and children and a whole host of other things.

In hearing Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Court will decide whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) allows private for-profit corporations to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives, to which employees are otherwise entitled by the contraceptive-coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

How did corporations that sell arts and crafts supplies, books, doors, and cabinetry, make their way to the Supreme Court of the United States? Hobby Lobby challenged the essential health benefits mandate for employer-sponsored health insurance coverage found in the Affordable Care Act – the requirement that all businesses offer a basic health insurance package that includes the absolute minimum elements of a simple health plan (including contraceptive care) to the Supreme Court of the United States. Hobby Lobby feels (can a corporation feel?) that their religious beliefs would be violated by being required to provide basic health benefits to their employees.

The irony in all of this is that 28 states already required insurance companies who cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDA approved contraceptive drugs and devices. Before Obamacare brought attention to the fact that women should have access to basic health services, Hobby Lobby stores were already offering their employees coverage in those states before the mandate took effect.

So what exactly are both sides arguing? Hobby Lobby (the 2.28 billion dollar corporation) argues that for-profit corporations, not just individuals and religiously affiliated nonprofits, have religious beliefs that should be protected under RFRA.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and the federal government responded with the following arguments:

1. Hobby Lobby will fail to state a claim under RFRA because RFRA does not grant free-exercise rights to for-profit corporations (ie. corporations are not people or religious entities).
2. The owners of Hobby Lobby’s exercise of religion is not burdened by regulating their corporation and they are not entitled to relief that exempts them from federal law.
3. Their religious exercise is not substantially burdened within the meaning of RFRA.
4. Their claims would fail even if the contraceptive mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act were subject to RFRA’s compelling interest test.
5. The contraceptive mandate provision advances compelling government interests by:

• Protecting the rights of corporate employees in a comprehensive insurance system
• Ensuring public health
• Providing equal access for women to healthcare services

Essentially, what this boils down to is whether the Court will grant corporations the right to excuse themselves from any law because of a religious exemption claim and if so, what is the standard that will set the precedent?

The Task Force is participating in a massive rally outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 25, 2014 to ensure that our voice is heard in this significant decision and we are recruiting volunteers. If you (or someone that you know) are interested in being a marshal or in helping with set up and other early morning activities, please sign up. The role of volunteers at this rally is crucial. We expect to have an amazing line up of speakers at the People’s Mic event and scores of supporters at the Supreme Court.

The month of March should be a celebratory time—especially for women. March is women’s history month and March 2014 marks the third anniversary of the Affordable Care Act. To learn more about the upcoming cases and how they affect the LGBT community, stay tuned to the Task Force Blog and read the brief written by Lamda Legal.

Event Location
The Supreme Court
1 First St NE
Washington, DC 20543

ul>li data-cycle-prev=.prev data-cycle-next=.next>