The Hobby Lobby Decision

This is family policy matters program is produced by the North Carolina family policy Council of profamily research and education organization dedicated to strengthening and preserving the family and here's John Rushton, president of the North Carolina family policy Council, thank you for joining us this week.

Profamily policy matters.

It is our pleasure to have a dork with us on the show. Kelly is litigation, staff counsel with alliance defending freedom in PDF Washington DC office on June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling for religious freedom. In a case challenging the abortion pill mandate, which is part of the federal affordable care act, or better known as Obama care. This case was actually a consolidation of two separate legal challenges to the abortion pill mandate one of those Conestoga would specialties the Burwell and the other Burwell the Hobby lobby stores. ADF represented the Hom family, which owns Conestoga would specialties. Kelly is with us to talk about the Supreme Court's decision what it means for these two family-run businesses and more broadly what it means for other entities that are owned and/or run by individuals who have deeply held religious beliefs and who operate their businesses based on those beliefs. Kelly, thanks so much for joining us thinking of having Maren.

Well, it's a pleasure and we appreciate you taking time out of your very busy schedule to join us on this episode of family policy matters Kelly before we talk about the Supreme Court's decision, give us a brief summary of this case and in particular the Hom family and while they challenge the Obama care abortion pill mandate that founder and owner and at Conestoga wide specialties on the dam at Mennonite Christian family in Pennsylvania and they desired to abandon our family business which is at. They manufacture custom wide kitchen cabinet parts to run my business in a manner that lacks a sincerely held religious beliefs and including the belief that God requires respect for human life and fell alliance defending freedom attorney delete we and allied attorneys. I got involved in an represent behind in their company and in the federal lawsuit that has made its way on the lamp until this terrific and quite challenging.

Like you said earlier, the Obama administration abortion pill mandate that forces individuals and employers and family businesses to provide abortion inducing drugs and sterilization in contraception and in violation of the Han families religious beliefs and if they did not comply with that mandate for this ruling, the burden upon them be what the burden would be a fine add to the sum of $36,000 over $3000 per year per employee and Conestoga employees over 600 employees year and felt me do the math assigned a crippling and would ultimately put them out of business or simply simply following their conscience and respecting all human life well and that this is such an important case. This case also involved the green family who are the owners of Hobby lobby stores tell us briefly about their concerns and how their case relates to that of the Hom family wafted to liquid appeals. The third circuit ruled against the Hans I case the cost of the case, they will against them to the one behind after the US Supreme Court to review that case and along the same time. Hobby lobby was going through the appellate courts and the Ticket had actually just ruling in favor of Hobby lobby and in that case involves that the green family Hobby lobby owned and operated by David and Barbara green and their three children. I may now have 600 stores this is that family that that starting in their garage building a business and now we have 600 stores all over the country employ over 30,000 employees and 1% also cited affiliated business. My gal I would operate Christian bookstores around the country and so this is the case that was doing with the kind of fella case before the US Supreme Court and our allies of at the Becket fund for religious liberty are representing the green family. Well, it's my understanding that over 60 friend of the court briefs in support would specialties and Hobby lobby stores in these cases, how widespread, from your perspective, what support for these family businesses leading up to the Supreme Court's decision is varying and credible evidence congealing in January that that these briefs were filed shortly before the oral argument in March and that the number of briefs filed in and support near outnumbered the other side brace three to one with an incredible outpouring of support for debility and family businesses that operate according to their sincerely held convictions June 30 Kelly spring court issued a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Hobby lobby and Conestoga would against the Obama care abortion pill mandate tell us about the ruling majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito tribe of the ruling said that the federal government cannot force the Hom family for the green family to include abortion held in their employee health insurance plans and Justice Alito who wrote the majority said that family businesses by persons run by human beings to have religious and moral convictions and today staff can and should be able to seek legal protection of the religious liberty under the registry and restoration act for the court rejected that Health and Human Services argument that all well owners of companies for threat. The protection when they decide to organize their businesses in the court said no. They said that the plain terms of the village MS track waste restoration act make it perfectly clear that Congress intended to protect the men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit businesses in a manner consistent with the religious beliefs kill you mention restoration or tell us about that long and what the Supreme Court regarding its application to these businesses and others like them a lot and acted by. By contrast, which had strong bipartisan support. I was signed into law by Pres. Bill Clinton. Back in 1993. The purpose of the law was to provide broad protections for religious liberty and to ensure that the government can never come in and substantially burning or punish a person for simply trying to to live according to their faith in the court said yesterday that the family businesses do not leave those freedoms at home, they don't relinquish them in any way when they decide to incorporate their families business to the court said that they can invoke the protections of of Russia and never have to make with the court called a cruel choice of the choice between following their convictions and maintaining their business as it applies to rules not only a business arena but it's great Supreme Court really stood in defense of our religious freedom Supreme Court ruling used attorney closely held corporations throughout the opinion. What does that mean and what you believe implications for this ruling for all other businesses. For example, larger for-profit companies publicly held or traded companies. Those types of entities are asked to sign a closely held company that is a corporation that has more than half of its stock directly or indirectly all and by five or fewer individuals in an instant and simpler template that basically means closely how companies are owned by relatively small number of investors typically their founding families in management and this is supposed to publicly held corporations which have multiple stockholders like Starbucks or Boeing or IBM. For example, and in their opinion that this is Alito dignity and noted that what the issue before the court today was with family businesses and the purpose of extending rights to family businesses is to protect the free exercise rights of people associated with the business of the shareholders and officers and employees in terms of that though publicly held corporations that the quite noted that that was was not an issue before them yesterday and so he declined to extend any direct judgment on that but I think the left open the question to argue that it will give me that people are human beings who are behind every every business and and they are entitled to practice and exercise their religion without fear of government punishment or government coercion will also 50 pending before the court right now involving nonprofit organizations, such as Dr. James Dobson's family talk and various other religious groups and organizations which are also challenging the Obama care abortion pill mandate. What does the Supreme Court ruling in Hobby lobby and Conestoga meeting for these nonprofit organizations are clicking it at directly address that the nonprofit either, but favorably site to its January order allowing the Little sisters of the poor. I not to complete not to comply with that portion.

Pill mandate and an end to other nonprofits should be given you some similar latitude and already just yesterday afternoon, the 11th circuit issued a ruling interpreting the Conestoga Hobby lobby case as requiring an injunction for nonprofit group in Alabama so I think that the arguments made a same logic that was applied by the court for family businesses absolutely can and should be be applied to the multiple nonprofit cases that are still currently pending on the country will kill you. Have a great job helping us understand how the details of this case and the Supreme Court's opinion. Now if you take a step back from this and look at the Supreme Court's decision in this case from a bigger picture perspective in your opinion, how significant is the Supreme Court's decision here in one of the bigger picture implications of for religious liberty religious freedom and citizens across the country who do have deeply held religious beliefs and seek to express those beliefs and practices beliefs in both the private realm of the public realm affirmed that that family-run businesses here specifically Conestoga in high lobby, more generally, the date, they stated that family members businesses don't have to surrender their religious freedom in order to stay in business and I think that this is incredibly important and potentially historic decision in terms of clarifying again and telling the overreaching opponent about ministration that they cannot come in colors individuals to violate their conscience face a substantial find and what you were seeing increasing threats to religious freedom into the freedom to to live your life according to tier conscience happening all across the country and so I think that the court's decision along narrow and in specific to to to distant specific question on mandate carries greater weight in the sense that religious is important and that no one including family businesses should have to to leave those freedoms at home one night when I go out to the marketplace.

Kelly unfortunately when it was about out of town for this week.

Are there any other perspectives of thoughts you have about this opinion that you want to share with our listeners what I think we just want to commend the court and and so thankful for this decision that clarified that not enough free in a diverse society. We respect the freedom to live out her convictions and enter the greens in the Hines that means not being forced to participate in distributing life terminating drugs and devices and not facing substantial science of this is a mature day of celebration for freedom for all Americans to learn more about this landmark religious liberty decision and also find out more about a lot freedom go to alliance defending freedom.OIG and Daniel find out more information on the Conestoga Hobby lobby decision as well as the many other cases where were currently representing many nonprofits.

A lot of universities who cannot comply with this mandate, and so is my number information on some of the other cases I were involved in defending Americans rights to speak freely according to their faith website for listeners its alliance defending freedom.org again alliance defending freedom.org Parkhill you will do such great work in radio. We appreciate very much the partnership that we have with you all and we call you Alton for your expertise on a variety of different matters in you and other attorneys. Radio for, always willing to help us out and were so grateful for that and we just like you so much for your time and for being with us again on family policy about think it well family policy matters is information and analysis, family policy Council discussion on policy issues affecting the family.

If you have questions or comments on 19708 visit our website