Legislators behind religious freedom law support Hobby Lobby

Last updated on: February 22, 2013 at 7:03 am by CNA Daily News

Legislators behind religious freedom law support Hobby Lobby 2013-02-22T07:03:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., Feb 22, 2013 / 12:03 am (CNA).- Nearly a dozen U.S. lawmakers who supported a 1993 law protecting religious liberty have formally defended Hobby Lobby in its recent religious freedom lawsuit.

“Congress has commanded equal treatment of all under a religion-protective rule. Defendants may not pick and choose whose exercise of religion is protected and whose is not,” said the “friend-of-the-court” brief filed on behalf of nine U.S. Senators and two members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The brief was filed in support of Hobby Lobby, a privately-owned chain of craft stores founded in Oklahoma in 1972.

Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO, David Green, has said that he and his family are devoted Christians who seek to operate their stores “in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” The company makes significant charitable donations and closes all of its stores on Sundays for employees to worship and rest with their families.

However, the Green family is among scores of plaintiffs suing the government over religious freedom concerns dealing with a federal mandate that requires employers to offer insurance coverage of some drugs that can induce early abortions, including the “morning after pill.”

For following their religious convictions and refusing to provide the coverage, the Greens could face fines of over $1 million a day.

The case is currently being heard before a federal appeals court. However, the company was earlier denied a temporary injunction, so it could be subject to the huge daily fines for several months while the case is being decided.

The Feb. 19 brief was signed by Senators Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Daniel R. Coats (R-Ind.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Charles Grassley(R-Iowa), James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and by Congressmen Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Frank Wolf (R-Va.).

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is handling Hobby Lobby’s case, explained the significance of the Congressional support.

“While any brief by sitting members of Congress is significant, this one comes from members who originally supported the federal civil rights law – the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 – which is at the heart of the mandate challenges,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund.

“The brief leaves no doubt that Congress intended to protect the religious freedom of those like Hobby Lobby and its founder, David Green, against federal attempts to force them to insure abortion-inducing drugs.”

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a bipartisan law introduced by then-Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and enjoying wide support among a number of organizations ranging from the ACLU to the Southern Baptist convention.

According to the brief, the mandate “turns the law of religious freedom upside down,” because instead of requiring the government to protect religion, it “places a heavy burden on religion and protects Government by default.”

The document notes that Congress clearly wrote the Religious Freedom Restoration Act “to include corporations” such as Hobby Lobby and not merely individuals or religious organizations.

Additionally, 11 other friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed on behalf of Hobby Lobby.

The state of Oklahoma said that the operation “of the Green Family’s corporations in a manner consistent with the Green Family’s religious faith is no less worthy of respect and protection than is the religious faith practiced by church members through a church.”

“Being forced to pay for the termination of a human life is just as objectionable as being forced to participate in the termination of the human life,” added several health professional organizations.

The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City also filed a brief in the case, saying the idea “that a federal court may don ecclesiastical robes and purport to tell citizens that they do not correctly perceive the tenets of their faith is entirely foreign to American legal practice and experience.”

Previous Post

February 22, 2013

Spending cuts will harm poor, warns Catholic agency

Next Post

February 22, 2013 Poll finds strong approval for Pope Benedict, Catholic tradition

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the name of the field bought with Judas' betrayal money?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Potter's Field Field of Blood Golgotha Aceldama