Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

GetReligion

Home
Religion News
How NOT to cover the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case

How NOT to cover the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case

Last updated on: August 29, 2014 at 1:31 pm by Bobby Ross Jr.

How NOT to cover the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case 2014-08-29T13:31:26-04:00 Bobby Ross Jr.

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.

Hey @GetReligion, read the fear-filled, one-sided piece in @Forbes re: what will happen if @HobbyLobbyStore prevails: http://t.co/O47OaXrg6m

— Matt Branaugh (@MattBranaugh) June 25, 2014

@MattBranaugh Are you suggesting there is more than one side to this story? 🙂

— GetReligion (@GetReligion) June 25, 2014

@GetReligion Surprising, I know. According to this piece, everyone already agrees the government is right and Hobby Lobby is wrong.

— Matt Branaugh (@MattBranaugh) June 25, 2014

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s highly anticipated ruling in the Hobby Lobby case expected as soon as today, Forbes offers a perfect example of how not to cover the decision.

And yes, I realize it’s more than the Hobby Lobby case (thank you, tmatt).

For anyone not familiar with the background or what’s at stake, ReligionLink provided this informative primer back in March that’s still relevant.

As Religion News Service puts it:

Technically, it’s Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a showdown over the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate. The core legal question is whether a private company can have religious rights.

But to the general public, this is seen as a showdown between employers — the evangelical Green family behind Hobby Lobby and the Mennonite Hahn family that owns the Conestoga cabinet company — and the employees’ personal reproductive choices under their insurance.

But back to Forbes.

Here’s the headline atop that organization’s one-sided account:

What To Expect If Hobby Lobby Wins Religious Freedom Case

Who does Forbes quote? Three sources — all critics of Hobby Lobby’s position. Apparently, all the “experts” are concerned:

But there’s far more at stake than the rights of women workers to contraception access, according to experts who’ve studied this case and its precedents.

“If the Supreme Court gives corporations rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it could be a sea change,” said Marci Hamilton, constitutional law expert and author of newly released book God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty.

“Hobby Lobby is discriminating against employees who don’t share their faith. This is another step towards filling the workplace with coreligionists.”

Greg Scott is vice president of media communications for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Conestoga Wood Specialties. His response to the Forbes story, shared with GetReligion:

When all of the sources represent the furthest extreme on one side of an issue, you’re not likely to get anything but the hysteria represented by that piece. The sources are uniformly hostile to the constitutionally protected free exercise of faith and completely distort what constitutes unlawful discrimination. The case has nothing to do with whether anyone has “access” to potentially abortion-inducing drugs and contraception.

Planned Parenthood, a chief opponent of the Hahn and Green families’ religious freedom, itself claims that 99 percent of women have used these products. So access to these drugs is self-evidently not a problem. The problem is the mandate, which forces these family businesses to subsidize objectionable drugs and treatments under the threat of massive fines enforced by the IRS. The only “access” at stake in this case is the families’ access to their religious freedom to opt out of participating in someone else’s decision to purchase embryo-destroying drugs.

There you have it: another side of the story. Too bad Forbes didn’t choose to pursue it.

If the ruling happens this morning, follow the comments section on this post for updates. And by all means, share any links to particularly excellent or egregious news coverage.

Update:

#Scotus done releasing opinions for the day. Hobby Lobby decision will be Monday.

— Jaweed Kaleem (@jaweedkaleem) June 26, 2014

Conestoga Wood Specialties

Sebilius vs. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties

U.S. Supreme Court

Previous Post

June 25, 2014

At play in China: repression of Muslims or Islamic terrorism?

Next Post

June 26, 2014 Pod people: Sometimes editors really need to do the math

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 5Q+1 Academia Anglicanism Announcements Atheists & Agnostics Baptists Books Business & Economy Catholicism Creeping Fundamentalism Education Ethics Evangelicals Film First Person gays Godbeat Got news? Humor Interviews Islam Journalism Judaism Lutherans Mainline Marriage & family Middle East Mormons Music Nones Orthodoxy Pagans Pentecostalism People Podcasts Politics Pop Culture Race Radio & TV Religion religious liberty Same-sex marriage Science Sex Social Issues Sports Uncategorized Vatican Web/Tech What is this? World World Religions Worship

Select a Month 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 May 2010 July 2009 February 2009 October 2008 July 2008 January 2007 August 2006 July 2006 October 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the meaning of "Jerusalem"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Mountain of God Foundation of Peace City of Truth Place of Kings