The Most Egregious Examples of Hobby Lobby’s Religious Hypocrisy

Yesterday, we learned that Hobby Lobby, which is challenging the federal government over Obamacare’s mandatory contraception coverage, offers its employees a 401(k) retirement plan that happens to invest $73 million in pharmaceutical companies that develop and produce various forms of contraception.

Whoops.

According to Mother Jones, the companies include Bayer, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and the contraceptives include pills, emergency contraception, IUDs and, yes, abortion drugs.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

That’s not all. You’ve probably also heard that Hobby Lobby’s merchandise is almost entirely manufactured in China, an authoritarian nation that offers universal, state-financed abortions, which not only help to control China’s population but are also available for a variety of other reasons. Surely Hobby Lobby is aware of what the Chinese government is up to, given the corporation’s very outspoken opposition to abortion and contraception.

On the lighter side of Hobby Lobby’s obvious hypocrisy, meanwhile, I scanned through the official Hobby Lobby website and online store and discovered several other glaring trespasses against the Lord.

Clicking over to the “Our Company” page, we find the following mission statement from founder and CEO David Green: “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.” Well, based on the 401(k) news and the China news, that’s not entirely accurate. What else?

Leviticus 19:27 – “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.”

Smack in the middle of the front page, we see a photo of three Hobby Lobby employees. The white guy on the right not only sports a haircut that’s very short on the sides, but the edges of his beard are clipped off.

hobby_lobby_workers

Another translation of this verse forbids us to “round off the side-growth” of our hair. Uh-oh. David Green’s hair is super-roundy.

david_green

Judgment: Abomination!… READ MORE

This entry was posted in Abortion, Healthcare, Religion, The Daily Banter and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Angie Watkins

    Excellent, Bob!

  • GrafZeppelin127

    The Hobby Lobby case makes me angrier by the day. Not just because of the hypocrisy described here vis-a-vis their sincerely-held medieval superstitions. Not just because their entire case is absurd. Not just because the statute under which they’re claiming that their sincerely-held medieval superstitions should place them above the law, ought to be struck down as unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause. Not just because there’s a troll over at Daily Kos named “coffeetalk” who won’t allow anyone to discuss the case or the issues in any way outside the parameters of what’s being argued before the SCOTUS, and demands that everyone acknowledge and agree with everything to which the government “stipulated” in its briefs and oral arguments (e.g., that the Greens’ medieval superstitions are indeed “sincerely held”).

    [You'll note that I no longer use the phrase "religious beliefs," which I have replaced for all purposes with "medieval superstitions." I will continue to use the latter phrase until someone credibly and convincingly explains the difference between the former and the latter.]

    The problem with sincerely-held medieval superstitions is that they are selective and can be selectively applied. That’s the cool thing about medieval superstitions, and other kinds of arbitrary made-up nonsense: it can be whatever you want it to be. In a way what Hobby Lobby is doing is not really hypocritical; it’s consistent with the very nature of medieval superstitious arbitrary made-up nonsense.

    If I’m starting to sound like Bill Maher on this topic, it’s not without reason. I don’t think medieval-superstitious people are doing themselves (or their medieval-superstition cults) any favors with this persecution act. I, for one, am tired of being told that they are better than me because they believe, or believe in, medieval superstitious arbitrary made-up nonsense and I don’t.

    This “coffeetalk” troll over at DK keeps insisting that “the Administration” “admits” that the Green’s medieval superstitions are “sincerely held,” and “admits” that the contraception standards impose a “substantial burden” on those medieval superstitions and the “free exercise” of those medieval superstitions, because they’ve already granted exemptions to churches and medieval-superstitious nonprofits. Put simply, I don’t give a shit.. That doesn’t make Hobby Lobby’s position any less ridiculous or any less wrong. “The Administration” shouldn’t have done that. I don’t think that medieval superstitions should exempt anyone from anything. I think we have to get away from this idea that harboring medieval superstitions makes you special, let alone exempts you from the law.

    This case pisses me off. Seriously.

    • http://www.livingenergy.abmp.com/ KanaW

      If I could ‘like’ this comment a thousand times, I would.

      • Toolymegapoopoo

        Second that!

    • http://www.dlancystreet.com reginahny

      Is there a comment of the month? And to make the sincerely held medieval superstitions even more egregious the actual science behind the difference between contraceptives and abortifacients has been ignored. Contraceptives which prevent the fertilization of ova are NOT abortifacients. Not that there’s anything wrong with if they are! Arrrrgggggghhhh. I’m with you, the fact that this is even being argued in the Supreme Court makes me stabby.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Not just because there’s a troll over at Daily Kos named “coffeetalk” who won’t allow anyone to discuss the case or the issues in any way outside the parameters of what’s being argued before the SCOTUS

      When someone insists a conversation be confined to very specific points, it’s because they KNOW they’re wrong. They KNOW they would lose if they have to move outside a very narrow area.