Conestoga Wood Specialties

Last updated
Conestoga Wood Specialties
Type Private
IndustryFurniture
Founded East Earl, Pennsylvania (1964 (1964))
FounderNorman and Samuel Hahn
Headquarters,
Key people
Anthony Hahn, CEO
Website www.conestogawood.com

Conestoga Wood Specialties is a manufacturer of wood doors and components for kitchen, bath and furniture, based in East Earl, Pennsylvania. They have five factories, located in Washington, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, employing about 1,200 people.

Contents

The company was founded in 1964 by brothers Norman and Samuel Hahn [1] and several others, working from a garage in East Earl, Pennsylvania. [2] The company is still owned by Norman Hahn and other members of the Hahn family, who are of Pennsylvania Dutch heritage and belong to the Mennonite community. [1] [3] Anthony Hahn (son of Norman Hahn) is currently the CEO. One of their plants is across the road from that original garage, at 245 Reading Road. [2] They later added plants in Beavertown, Pennsylvania; Darlington, Maryland (closed in late 2007); Mountain View, Arkansas (closed); Jacksonville, Arkansas (closed); Kenly, North Carolina; Kent, Washington and Tooele, Utah (closed). [2]

Although the company deals both with manufacturers ordering thousands of pieces at a time, and custom shops needing one-off orders, they deal only with the trade, declining retail orders.

They are one of the largest employers of all manufacturing companies in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. [4]

Opposition to the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act, enacted on March 23, 2010, includes a provision that mandates health insurance cover “additional preventive care and screenings” for women. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) issued a set of guidelines in the mandate, which concludes access to contraception is medically necessary to “ensure women’s health and well-being.” [5]

Norman Hahn, owner of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., objected to the new provisions set forth, and claimed it would be "sinful and immoral" to pay for or support certain forms of contraception, such as Plan B, as required by compliance with the Affordable Care Act. [6] Although Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. complied with the mandate to avoid fines of up to $95,000 per day, it filed suit for an exemption.

In July 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. did not qualify for an exemption from providing coverage based on religious beliefs. In September 2013, Conestoga Wood Specialties successfully appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which consolidated the case with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby . Two dozen amicus briefs were filed in support of the government, and five dozen in support of the companies. A friend-of-the-court brief filed in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell argued that corporations do not have religions, and for-profit corporations cannot claim exemptions from the law based on the religions of their stockholders. [7]

On June 30, 2014, Associate Justice Samuel Alito delivered the judgment of the court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, finding that closely held for-profit corporations have free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court responded by saying, "Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that 'the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests'. [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</span> 1993 United States Law

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4, is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected." The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hobby Lobby</span> American arts-and-crafts store chain based in Oklahoma

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., formerly Hobby Lobby Creative Centers, is an American retail company. It owns a chain of arts and crafts stores with a volume of over $5 billion in 2018. The chain has 1,001 stores in 48 U.S. states. The Green family founded Hobby Lobby to express their Christian beliefs and the chain incorporates American conservative values and Christian media.

The Little Sisters of the Poor is a Roman Catholic religious institute for women. It was founded by Jeanne Jugan. Having felt the need to care for the many impoverished elderly who lined the streets of French towns and cities, Jugan established the congregation to care for the elderly in 1839.

Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States and other countries which permit pharmacists, physicians, and/or other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. It can also involve parents withholding consenting for particular treatments for their children.

Becket, also known as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, is a non-profit public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C., that describes its mission as "defending the freedom of religion of people of all faiths". Becket promotes accommodationism and is active in the judicial system, the media, and in education.

Eden Foods, Inc., is an organic food company based in Clinton, Michigan. It is best known for its Edensoy line of organic soy milk, and its line of organic Japanese foods and condiments. The company claims to be the oldest independent organic food producer in the United States, and the largest supplier of organic dry grocery items.

Religion and business have throughout history interacted in ways that relate to and affected one another, as well as influenced sociocultural evolution, political geographies, and labour laws. As businesses expand globally they seek new markets which leads to expanding their corporation's norms and rules to encompass the new locations norms which most often involve religious rules and terms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birth control movement in the United States</span> Social reform campaign beginning in 1914

The birth control movement in the United States was a social reform campaign beginning in 1914 that aimed to increase the availability of contraception in the U.S. through education and legalization. The movement began in 1914 when a group of political radicals in New York City, led by Emma Goldman, Mary Dennett, and Margaret Sanger, became concerned about the hardships that childbirth and self-induced abortions brought to low-income women. Since contraception was considered to be obscene at the time, the activists targeted the Comstock laws, which prohibited distribution of any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail. Hoping to provoke a favorable legal decision, Sanger deliberately broke the law by distributing The Woman Rebel, a newsletter containing a discussion of contraception. In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, but the clinic was immediately shut down by police, and Sanger was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birth control in the United States</span> History of birth control in the United States

Birth control in the United States is available in many forms. Some of the forms available at drugstores and some retail stores are male condoms, female condoms, sponges, spermicides, and over-the-counter emergency contraception. Forms available at pharmacies with a doctor's prescription or at doctor's offices are oral contraceptive pills, patches, vaginal rings, diaphragms, shots/injections, cervical caps, implantable rods, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Sterilization procedures, including tubal ligations and vasectomies, are also performed.

A contraceptive mandate is a government regulation or law that requires health insurers, or employers that provide their employees with health insurance, to cover some contraceptive costs in their health insurance plans.

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case establishing precedent regarding the limits of free exercise of religious conscience by employers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts</span> 1993 state laws in the United States

State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are state laws based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law that was passed almost unanimously by the U.S. Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The laws mandate that religious liberty of individuals can only be limited by the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest". Originally, the federal law was intended to apply to federal, state, and local governments. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government but not states and other local municipalities within them. As a result, 21 states have passed their own RFRAs that apply to their individual state and local governments.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Paul Joseph Wieland is an American businessman and politician from the state of Missouri. A member of the Republican Party, Wieland represented the 22nd District in the Missouri State Senate starting on January 7, 2015. He left office on January 4, 2023 due to term limits.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EBSA Form 700</span> United States Department of Labor form

EBSA Form 700 is a form that the United States Government had required certain non-profit organizations to complete and submit, beginning January 1, 2014, in order to claim an exemption from the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act. After the U.S. Supreme court issued temporary injunctions, preventing any penalty against some non-profit institutions who objected to filing the form, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a new version of the form making it clear that organizations can, instead object by a letter.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving ongoing conflicts between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) over the ACA's contraceptive mandate. The ACA exempts nonprofit religious organizations from complying with the mandate, to which for-profit religious organizations objected.

A religious exemption is a legal privilege that exempts members of a certain religion from a law, regulation, or requirement. Religious exemptions are often justified as a protection of religious freedom, and proponents of religious exemptions argue that complying with a law against one's faith is a greater harm than complying against a law that one otherwise disagrees with due to a fear of divine judgment. Opponents of religious exemptions argue that they mandate unequal treatment and undermine the rule of law.

References

  1. 1 2 Conestoga Wood Specialities: about Archived 2006-08-14 at the Wayback Machine
  2. 1 2 3 Shopping News of Lancaster County Archived 2006-10-25 at the Wayback Machine
  3. Cassidy, Suzanne (March 21, 2014). "Praying for the Hahns: How Christians are uniting behind Conestoga Wood Specialties owners in Obamacare fight". Lancaster Online. Retrieved November 19, 2023.
  4. Economic Development Corporation: Top Employers Archived October 2, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  5. "Women's Preventive Services Guidelines". US Department of Health and Human Services. 11 May 2017.
  6. Nephin, Dan (July 26, 2013). "Conestoga Wood Specialties loses health care law challenge in federal court". Lancaster Online.
  7. Fein, Ronald A.; Bonifaz, John C.; Clements, Jeffrey D.; Clements, Ben T. "BRIEF FOR FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE, AUBURN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, AND HOLLENDER SUSTAINABLE BRANDS, LLC, AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS" (PDF). Free Speech For People. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 30, 2014. Retrieved August 13, 2014.
  8. (PDF) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)