A Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO

hm1996

hm1996

Moderator
Staff member
Quote:By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.



When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.



We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.



But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.



Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.



So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.



My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make. The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic Church.



Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, pass this on to all your contacts.

Sincerely,

David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Regards,
hm
 
Snopes says its true. But.

In November 2012, a federal judge denied Hobby Lobby's challenge to the contraceptive portion of the government's health mandate:
A federal judge has denied a legal challenge to President Barack Obama's signature health reforms, ruling that the owners of a $3 billion arts and crafts chain must provide emergency contraceptives in their group health care plan.

The owners of Hobby Lobby asked to be exempted from providing the "morning after" and "week after" pills on religious grounds, arguing this would violate their Christian belief that abortion is wrong.

Judge Joe Heaton of the U.S. District for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the request for a preliminary injunction.

Heaton ruled that while individual members of the family that owns and operates Hobby Lobby have religious rights, the companies the family owns are secular, for-profit enterprises that do not possess the same rights.

Hobby Lobby faces a January 1 [2013] deadline to comply with the mandate to provide all FDA-approved contraceptives. Failure to do so would entail a penalty of up to $1.3 million per day.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp#HxGGvg05v7ZMCqoZ.99
 
Amazing how the left used to talk about civil liberties, and now want to force their own control over everyone.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: IversAmazing how the left used to talk about civil liberties, and now want to force their own control over everyone.

Wrong

If a corporation provides a standard healthcare benefits package to its employees, many of whom may not be religiously inclined, it is not the business of the owners of that business to say one way or another what is between a healthcare provider and one of their employees using this healthcare provider.

If a Mormon business owner with 1000 employees tries to say that they will fire any employee caught drinking, how far do you think that will fly? It won't, because that is an example of an employer interfering with that which is none of the employer's business. They simply cannot exert their religious beliefs on people working for them like that. Alcohol is legal, that's what makes a line that the employer cannot cross. Abortion is legal, it doesn't matter what you believe, it is legal, and as such it is not am employer's place to dictate to employees what they choose to do in terms of a legal option.

A clear case of religious beliefs crossing into other people's lives, not government crossing into "people's" lives. It's thousands of employees rights that were being looked after, not a few religiously inclined "jobs creators". Look at who the constitution protects, is it the elite or the people? Because you have a successful business that hires thousands of people is it your right to step on their rights with your religious beliefs? Not in this country.

This is exerting compliance to a few people who want to interfere with other's lives as to their beliefs, not "everyone's" lives as you spoke.
 
Woodguru,
I am a small business owner and have owned and operated businesses with up to 60 employees. I am a firm believer that a business must comply with safety regulations and state and federal regulations. However when the government starts mandating what is in a benefit package they are going way to far. It is exactly that, a benefit, a perk. Government needs to get out of the way. If the owners of Hobby lobby want to base their business on Christian principles that should be their right. If an employee doesn't like what is offered as far as wages and benefits they have the right not to participate and can choose an employer who fits there needs and beliefs. Nobody is forcing those employees to work there. Due to intrusive government regulations I no longer run several of the businesses that were quite profitable years ago. I always felt good employees should receive good compensation and always paid quite a bit more than what my competitors did. If a employee stayed with me for three years I offered insurance and a retirement package. All those jobs are now gone. With increased government regulation, taxation and mostly hassles it just got to the point it was not worth my time to continue in business. If the government had not kept increasing my costs those people would still have good paying jobs. Over the last 10 years I have looked at opening new businesses but the numbers all come out the same. There is money enough to pay my employees and the government but nothing in it for me but lost time and stress. I currently employ myself and one part time employee and until things change I will no longer put myself out there to create jobs. The juice just ain't worth the squeeze.

Just one past job creator's thoughts for what it's worth.

drscott
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: woodguruOriginally Posted By: IversAmazing how the left used to talk about civil liberties, and now want to force their own control over everyone.

Wrong

If a corporation provides a standard healthcare benefits package to its employees, many of whom may not be religiously inclined, it is not the business of the owners of that business to say one way or another what is between a healthcare provider and one of their employees using this healthcare provider.

If a Mormon business owner with 1000 employees tries to say that they will fire any employee caught drinking, how far do you think that will fly? It won't, because that is an example of an employer interfering with that which is none of the employer's business. They simply cannot exert their religious beliefs on people working for them like that. Alcohol is legal, that's what makes a line that the employer cannot cross. Abortion is legal, it doesn't matter what you believe, it is legal, and as such it is not am employer's place to dictate to employees what they choose to do in terms of a legal option.

A clear case of religious beliefs crossing into other people's lives, not government crossing into "people's" lives. It's thousands of employees rights that were being looked after, not a few religiously inclined "jobs creators". Look at who the constitution protects, is it the elite or the people? Because you have a successful business that hires thousands of people is it your right to step on their rights with your religious beliefs? Not in this country.

This is exerting compliance to a few people who want to interfere with other's lives as to their beliefs, not "everyone's" lives as you spoke.


No it isn't wrong @sshole, if it were Muslims would not be exempt from Obamacare, because buying insurance is against their religious beliefs. This legislation is one huge piece of BS, shoved down the throats of America by a bunch of liberal morons who think they are above the law, and they're not.
 
Originally Posted By: woodguru
Wrong

If a corporation provides a standard healthcare benefits package to its employees, many of whom may not be religiously inclined, it is not the business of the owners of that business to say one way or another what is between a healthcare provider and one of their employees using this healthcare provider.

If a Mormon business owner with 1000 employees tries to say that they will fire any employee caught drinking, how far do you think that will fly? It won't, because that is an example of an employer interfering with that which is none of the employer's business. They simply cannot exert their religious beliefs on people working for them like that. Alcohol is legal, that's what makes a line that the employer cannot cross. Abortion is legal, it doesn't matter what you believe, it is legal, and as such it is not am employer's place to dictate to employees what they choose to do in terms of a legal option.

A clear case of religious beliefs crossing into other people's lives, not government crossing into "people's" lives. It's thousands of employees rights that were being looked after, not a few religiously inclined "jobs creators". Look at who the constitution protects, is it the elite or the people? Because you have a successful business that hires thousands of people is it your right to step on their rights with your religious beliefs? Not in this country.

This is exerting compliance to a few people who want to interfere with other's lives as to their beliefs, not "everyone's" lives as you spoke.

I think you totally missed the point. As the employer, Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide that service as part of their benefits. If the employee wants to get an abortion on their own dime, then they are welcome to do that. Hobby Lobby shouldn't be required to provide/pay for a benefit that goes against what they believe. It did not say that as an employee of Hobby Lobby you can not have an abortion.

 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: woodguruOriginally Posted By: IversAmazing how the left used to talk about civil liberties, and now want to force their own control over everyone.

Wrong

If a corporation provides a standard healthcare benefits package to its employees, many of whom may not be religiously inclined, it is not the business of the owners of that business to say one way or another what is between a healthcare provider and one of their employees using this healthcare provider.

If a Mormon business owner with 1000 employees tries to say that they will fire any employee caught drinking, how far do you think that will fly? It won't, because that is an example of an employer interfering with that which is none of the employer's business. They simply cannot exert their religious beliefs on people working for them like that. Alcohol is legal, that's what makes a line that the employer cannot cross. Abortion is legal, it doesn't matter what you believe, it is legal, and as such it is not am employer's place to dictate to employees what they choose to do in terms of a legal option.

A clear case of religious beliefs crossing into other people's lives, not government crossing into "people's" lives. It's thousands of employees rights that were being looked after, not a few religiously inclined "jobs creators". Look at who the constitution protects, is it the elite or the people? Because you have a successful business that hires thousands of people is it your right to step on their rights with your religious beliefs? Not in this country.

This is exerting compliance to a few people who want to interfere with other's lives as to their beliefs, not "everyone's" lives as you spoke.

That's pretty convoluted thinking in defense of obamacare and totally misses the point of Hobby lobby's objection.
 
Convoluted is about the nicest thing you can say about it.
Conflating similar, but not identical, circumstances and drawing all sorts emotionally driven parallels is a common fallacy/ploy used by the left to sway folks that are prone to being taken in by it.

First, I'll address the evil, hypothetical Mormon boss. He would absolutely be wrong if, absent a contractual agreement, he terminated someone's employment for engaging in behavior that he disapproved of but was otherwise legal and moral. The terms of employment that apply to lots of peoples' jobs include provisions disallowing conduct that could embarass the employer or its clients.
Woodguru's straw man engaged in a practice that may or may not be illegal. If he hired his hypothetical employee on the stipulation that his employees may not drink (I've applied for more than one job that had exactly that stance with regard to smoking), he would be completely within his rights to fire that guy.
The owner of Hobby Lobby has made no attempt to control his employees' behavior. He just refuses to fund an activity he abhors. His employees know those items are not covered by that policy when they enter into their business relationship with their boss. They are not prohibited from obtaining abortifacient drugs or procedures, nor will they lose their jobs for availing themselves of the same.

The issue is force or coercion. Who's forcing whom and with what consequences? The true evil/oppressive behavior is in the government forcing a private person to do something they've got no business messing with in the first place.
An actual parallel between the Hobby Lobby CEO and the Mormon straw man would be to discuss whether it's right or wrong for the govt. to force the Mormon boss to buy the beer for his employees. Drinking is legal right? Who is he to interfere in their relationship with their Kwi-Kee Mart clerk? Sounds dumb right? It is. It just takes framing it in the right terms to expose the lunacy of the policy; thanks WG!
It also, unlike woodwhatever's example, is actually an apples to apples comparison.
The obvious solution to both issues, the real and the hypothetical, is maximum freedom and minumum coercion.

Woody's constitutional argument stinks of the growing class warfare and general us vs. them mentality prevalent today.
To Woodguru: The constitution sees no classes or lines of distinction between "The people." There are no references to an "elite" as opposed to "the people," just the people, everbody; rich, poor, everybody.
It is a blessedly short document that lists the very few things the government is supposed to do and the many things it cannot do. It rightly applies only to the federal government. Each state has its own constitution or charter, as well; why if the federal one lays out the rules for everyone? Oh yeah, because the U.S.A. is a representative republic and the U.S. Constitution is a mandate and rulebook for the federal govt. only.
The federal government is out of control and has been for many years. When the government is allowed to act outside the boundaries set by the Constitution for benevolent purposes, the same mechanism allows for malevolent actions. All things are relative and government benevolence to one absolutely requires government theft from another. The left today dearly loves the new sense of class warfare and impending social justice. The majority just might get it. They must know that they advocate for a departure from what America actually is.
We are on the same primrose path that has led so many other social democracies to ruin. No wealth redistribution/soft socialism scheme or any overt version of socialism/communism/fascism has ever worked out in the long term. It stifles liberty and always devolves, to one degree or another, into totalitarianism; ideas so good, they have to be mandatory.
If you are not for reversing that course and returning to a limited government constrained by a originalist view of the constitution, you are not a reasonable centrist or an independent who thinks "forward" might be the way out, you are advocating for the destruction of the United States as constituted by the Founders.
 
Its like I told a client who came in after the election knowing that I am a conservative and came in to rub the election in my face. I responded to her by saying that I feel many americans are on the path to get the country they deserve. She was tickled by this comment till I told her what [beeep] me off is I will get the country they deserve also. Then I informed her that likely next year I won't be excepting her government insurance next year (Medicare) as I feel there are deep cuts coming to providers in a system that I already make virtually no money on' and she would have to start paying for my services out of her pocket. She didn't seem to be as thrilled with the new reality after that.

drscott
 
Reality will never bite them....these people have to be told what to do and what to say they have no origional thoughts of their own they don't think for themselves....trapperdoc
 
Originally Posted By: jspencerOriginally Posted By: woodguru
Wrong

If a corporation provides a standard healthcare benefits package to its employees, many of whom may not be religiously inclined, it is not the business of the owners of that business to say one way or another what is between a healthcare provider and one of their employees using this healthcare provider.

If a Mormon business owner with 1000 employees tries to say that they will fire any employee caught drinking, how far do you think that will fly? It won't, because that is an example of an employer interfering with that which is none of the employer's business. They simply cannot exert their religious beliefs on people working for them like that. Alcohol is legal, that's what makes a line that the employer cannot cross. Abortion is legal, it doesn't matter what you believe, it is legal, and as such it is not am employer's place to dictate to employees what they choose to do in terms of a legal option.

A clear case of religious beliefs crossing into other people's lives, not government crossing into "people's" lives. It's thousands of employees rights that were being looked after, not a few religiously inclined "jobs creators". Look at who the constitution protects, is it the elite or the people? Because you have a successful business that hires thousands of people is it your right to step on their rights with your religious beliefs? Not in this country.

This is exerting compliance to a few people who want to interfere with other's lives as to their beliefs, not "everyone's" lives as you spoke.

I think you totally missed the point. As the employer, Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide that service as part of their benefits. If the employee wants to get an abortion on their own dime, then they are welcome to do that. Hobby Lobby shouldn't be required to provide/pay for a benefit that goes against what they believe. It did not say that as an employee of Hobby Lobby you can not have an abortion.



That is exactly right.
 
Yeah, I'd like to be there when all them gals that think they are going to get a free boob job out of Obamacare figure out that not only is not going to be free, they aren't going to be allowed to have one, even if they pay for it.
 
Obamacare.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: Hidenseekpro The issue is force or coercion. Who's forcing whom and with what consequences? The true evil/oppressive behavior is in the government forcing a private person to do something they've got no business messing with in the first place.


Spot on Hide! As usual Woody was about 15 clicks left of the point.



Regards,
hm
 
Back
Top