Burwell V. Hobby Lobby: Case Study

In “Working it Out” by Diana Eck, she writes about religious oppression in the workplace. The examples she gives on the many ways people have been fired, or the ways in which people's faiths have been compromised, reiterates that the amendment that states freedom of religion in the United States, is

Should Corporations be Considered People? The recent uproar over whether corporations are people comes from the Citizens United decision. Although we often hear about how this case allows an influx of corporate funds, it is safe to assume that very few people have actually read the opinion. And though the direct and indirect impact on the lives and liberties of the people will forever be affected by allowing corporate influence on their own governing, most go about their daily consumption with barely a thought to the immense impact this has on the land of the free.

In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed suit against the U.S. government to exempt itself from the contraceptive mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Hobby Lobby’s owners are evangelical Christians who believe that the contraceptive mandate violates their religious beliefs; specifically, that life begins at conception when successful fertilization occurs within a prospective mother. Providing contraceptive measures, in Hobby Lobby’s view, would facilitate the abortion of a pregnancy, which most evangelicals equate to murder. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, along with all other closely held for-profit

Galloway (2013), Galloway argued that the town of Greece violated the establishment clause. The establishment clause within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the national government is unable to establish an official religion. In this court case, it was ruled that the prayers at the town hall did not violate the establishment clause. The basis for this ruling had to do with tradition. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2013), the Green family had to provide health care to their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ruling for this case was that the religious beliefs of the Green family are a factor that can let them deny health care to employees that have different religious beliefs. With a five to four ruling, the Hobby Lobby Stores won the case. These two cases show how Freedom of Religion can be used

The forty other companies range from scrap metal companies to firms. The forty other owners argue that their company shares the same interest as the owners religious beliefs. The right of religious freedom is a right that is protected by the First Amendment and a federal law that was made in 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration. Before Hobby Lobby’s case was seen by the supreme court there were two other cases that made it through the courts all leading to the ruling that companies that make a profit do not have religious rights.

Although, a large portion of the public feels that some forms of birth control are not safe. Without a prescription from the doctor, many may use the drug incorrectly or unsafely. Especially hormonal birth control, such as the birth control pill, “carries some heightened risks, which is why women who have a history of heart attack, stroke, blood clots and uncontrolled high blood pressure should not use it. Likewise, women who smoke and are over 35 are also at a heightened risk of a medical condition” (Almendrala). Women may not be aware of the health risks of the medicine like doctors and pharmacists do, and using this medicine unaware of those risks may cause medical problems. Additionally, giving the access to this medicine does not guarantee

Religious rights of the individual have always been an issue because of the very diverse world we live in. This causes issues for the courts who then have to make a decision in regards to something very personal to people. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores the issue lies in the religious rights of a private corporation not wanting to provide certain forms of birth control because it violates their personal beliefs as devout Christians. The Supreme Court should not have ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby because this sets the precedent of allowing certain individuals to be exempt from laws and regulations imposed on other corporations. But not every justice agrees, Ginsburg

In January 2012, President Barack Obama issued an order for a new addition to the affordable healthcare bill. This addition, dealing specifically with contraceptives, requires that all employers, including many religious groups, pay for contraceptive coverage for female employees (Burk 1). According to the Department of Health and Human Services, this includes FDA approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient counseling for all women with reproductive capacity (HRSA 2). While this bill my seem typical on its face, it has many religious and legal groups up in arms. President Obama's position on the First Amendment regarding religion is in direct violation of the Constitution, it is anti-business, and it is abhorrent to many of even the most liberal commentators.

FACTS: Hobby Lobby, a national arts and craft chain with more than 500 stores and 13,000 employees is owned and operated by the Green family. Under the Oklahoma law, Hobby Lobby is organized as a for profit corporation. The structure of the business is based off t of the principles of the Christian faith. One of the briefs of the Christian faith is that the use of contraception is immoral.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was set in place for the sake of protecting people’s freedoms. Some claim that the Greens ignored the freedoms of their employees by not providing contraceptives. However, just because Hobby Lobby and Mardels employees cannot have their contraceptives paid for does not mean they cannot access those resources. Contraceptives are freely accessible. The only thing prohibited by this ruling is that the corporations will not pay for their employees to access it.

“In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a five-Justice majority held that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires of federal laws that burden religious exercise (Gedicks 1).” Burwell means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In this case of Hobby Lobby versus Burwell, it is accused that the government has violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Hobby Lobby refused to provide insurance that covers birth control because it violates their religious beliefs. It is said that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, INC)” unless the government

In the landmark decision of Burwell, Secretary of Human Health Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the United States Supreme Court allowed closely held for-profit corporations to exercise religious freedoms that could deny its female employees health coverage of contraceptives. The contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will now excuse religious for-profit companies from providing contraceptives which may prevent implantation. Previously, this exemption was only provided to non-profit religious organizations such as churches. The decision was not unanimous with the Supreme Court Justices split at 5-4 and was highly contested. The majority supports that the contraceptive mandate of the ACA violates for-profit companies’

The Fifth Amendment, "no person shall be...deprived of...property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”, also applies to corporations. Without this amendment applying to corporations, commercial property could be taken away arbitrarily, without just compensation at any time for any reason. In a country that is built upon a rich history of business ownership and commerce, it is important to note the fact that America would not be where it is today without its corporations being given significant legal rights.

The HHS made the argument that there is no substantial on the Greens because the decision to use these contraceptives is made by the employees of Hobby Lobby stores, not the owners themselves. Because of this, the owners are not violating their ow religious beliefs. The United States Court has, in the past, defined the specific mandates of a religion in several cases. For example, in Bryant v. Gomez, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that a United States prison system had not violated the right of exercise of religion of an inmate. This inmate, Bryant, desired to practice his religion in a Pentecostal ceremony. However, the court denied him this right on the grounds that Bryant had no proof that he would not meet a religious mandate by not attending this ceremony. However, another case determined the exact opposite. In Mack v. O'Leary the United States Court of Appeals decided that the government essentially has no right to determine the mandates of a religion. The RLUIPA supports this argument fully in its definition of religious exercise as "any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious beliefs" (Shorba). Therefore, if the Green family feels as though the process of following the contraceptive mandate in the ACA violates its religious beliefs, the mandate simply

For years now, business owners and political organizations have abused their power and position to corrupt the democratic process by using the American people for their own political and economic agenda. Millionaire business owners have been exploiting their position to make more money while also taking away their workers’ right to vote. This kind of exploitation exists across the country; in California, the Southern Pacific Railroad company has used their power to overprice their services and in New York, an large ice company has doubled the price of ice for their consumers. The situation becomes even more fraudulent when one discovers that many companies, including these two, have been paying government representatives to avoid legal trouble and forcing their workers to vote to keep these corrupt officials in office (“Progressive Era…”; “The Case for Tammany…”).