RSS

Hobby Lobby: Defending Religous Beliefs of Corporations

steve-green-and-hobby-lobbys-biblical-mission

 

Self Made Man Gets to Defend His Beliefs in Jesus in Supreme Court

Untitled-1THE AMERICAN WAY:Steve Green, defends the right of his Corporation to Religious Freedom. 
CLICKME for full article

CLICKME for full article

As a child. Steve Green saw  he saw no point in college.   At age 7, he began assembling picture frames for “bubble gum money.” and progressed through hard work and determination  through cleaning toilets.  When he and his high school girlfriend, Jackie, totaled their cars playing chicken. “No one turned off,” he said, recalling how he aimed right at her and she just kept coming. A year later, she married him.  Now he is president of  his family’s $3.3 billion Hobby Lobby craft store business.

[Steve’s father  David, Green built his business squarely on biblical principles and attributes his success to his faith in God.  Now, that same American determination  has brought Steve’s  Christian faith and belief in religious liberty to the Supreme Court! The Court will hear Hobby Lobby argue that the Green’s religion prohibits them from obeying the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because it pays for the morning-after pill.steve-green-and-hobby-lobbys-biblical-mission

The company has other expressions of its determination.  Rather than paying taxes, Hobby Lobby commits half of its pretax earnings directly to a portfolio of evangelical ministries,  an estimated $500 million in 2012.[   This includes a $10.5 million gift to Jerry Falwell‘s Liberty University in 2004, and $70 million to bail out Oral Roberts University in 2007.   Recently Steve Green unveiled what he called “the oldest Jewish prayer book ever found”  that he will add it to the collection of religious artifacts that will form the core of the Bible museum he is building in Washington, D.C.

 


7 Comments Add Yours ↓

  1. 1

    Much of this article was lifted directly, without attribution and without permission, from my profile of Steve Green for Religion News Service. It was then stuffed with someone else’s opinion and reporting not by me.
    I request that all text from the first sentence through the first two paragraphs be removed from the site.

  2. theaveeditor #
    2

    Ms. Grossman, I freely acknowledge that your fine piece was one source, however the assertion you make that it “was lifted” is false. Many people have written about Hobby Lobby and nothing in American law prohibits the fair use of facts once they are published, I have , however, checked to see that there is attribution in the piece and added an attribution.

    FWIW. The RNS is one of my bookmarked sources and I do regularly read there for ideas. I was also surprised, after your comment, that I had not previously written about HobbyLobby. This case has a truly frightening impact on religious freedom. I assume oyu are aware that President Jefferosn opposed what we now call corporations and I am going to write something about WWJD in regard to this issue. If you like, I will send you a pre copy when that is done.

    Your comment also surprised me since I know that Willima Qucik, a troll on this site, has been inciting these sorts of comments I would like to know if he brought tyhis to your attention.

  3. Willima Qucik #
    3

    Someday you will realize that you should use a spell-checker:
    “oyu”
    “Jefferosn”
    “tyhis”

  4. theaveeditor #
    4

    True enough! I spell badly.However, there errors seem to be yours as they are not in the post.

  5. cp #
    5

    You also plagiarized Rod Anderson’s cartoon from here:
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/steve-green-and-hobby-lobbys-biblical-mission-98386/

  6. William Quick #
    6

    No, they are not in the post — they are in your comment. And you add another error — “there errors”

  7. theaveeditor #
    7

    Plagiarism is the false claim to have authored material taken from another. The cartoon is linked to the source. Moreover, use use of materials on the web is protected under the fair use doctrine. If you wish more extensive attribution, please let me know.



Your Comment