Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Case Study

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

That stipulation opened the door for the recognition of corporations having personhood in matters of free speech (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978 and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010). These events made the recognition of corporate freedom of religion inevitable, and it became reality with the Burwell decision when the majority

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.

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.

Michael Dorf, a professor of law of Justia.com proposed excellent recommendations to resolve the problems of the religious freedom act. These solutions will work in other states, but

In Hobby Lobby the Court reiterated its interpretation that a corporation has rights similar to that of an individual (Citizens United v. FEC), since corporations are composed of individuals, and thus are due the rights granted in the RFRA. The Court in Hobby Lobby found that providing contraception, and access to reproductive healthcare, serves the compelling state interest of public health and welfare. In parallel, this Court found that ensuring that people have coverage by health care providers is a compelling state interest. Hobby Lobby correctly applied the test of strict scrutiny, and required that the mandate be the least restrictive means of advancing this compelling government interest. This is where the mandate failed as applied to Hobby Lobby. The Court found the mandate could not be applied to private corporations in order to require them to provide reproductive healthcare. In contrast, in the case at hand, the rule prohibiting multiple spouses as beneficiaries of a health insurance policy is the least restrictive way to advance a compelling government interest; that being the ability to provide the public with insurance in order to advance public health and welfare. Therefore, RFRA is not a basis upon which Mr. Bridges can claim his rights are violated if the insurance does not cover more than one wife. In conclusion, RFRA is not the basis for requiring health insurance to cover both Germanotta’s and Maraj 's claims.

Furthermore, Hobby Lobby believes that their religion as Christian should not be violated, because the new law passed explain that corporations with 30 or more employees should give them health care coverage. “Department of Health and Human Services regulations implementing the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that employers’ group health plans furnish preventive care and screenings for women without cost sharing requirement” (Justia 1). The Department of Health and Human Services believed that every corporation should be allowed to a better health plan. People imposed of Hobby Lobby refused to see that Hobby lobby had a valid reason why they should not be allowed to a health coverage that allowed them to get an abortion or prevent one, it case was later taken to the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the businesses, holding that RFRA applies to regulations that govern

The final case is the BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES case; this case can be

The RFRA tried to protect Native Americans by saying that the government may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless the government has a compelling interest and the means used are the least intrusive. This law intended to protect citizens from too much government interference in their religious practices. However, this law was challenged and brought to the Supreme Court. The

This article “Baked in the cake” is about a couple being discriminated because they’re a same - sex marriage. Phillips came across Charlie Craig and David Mullins in July 12, 2012 and declined to bake them a wedding cake because of his religious beliefs. Richard Wolf states that Philip states "I feel that the Bible is clear — what God defines marriage as," and, "For me to violate that would be

On Feb. 17, Ben Valencia and Luis Marmolejo went to Kern’s Bake Shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding. After the Christian owners turned down the order, the gay couple went to the press and accused the Delormes of discrimination, according to Breitbart.

“RFRA was intended to provide protection for free exercise rights... to federal laws that substantially burden religious exercise. RFRA was not intended to create blanket exemptions to laws that protect against discrimination,"

In 2012 a man named Jack Phillips refused to bake a cake for a gay couple because he is a Christian that believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Since he believes that baking the cake is the same as taking part in the wedding celebration, his religious beliefs compel him to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples (breitbart.com). In 2013, Robert Spencer, an administrative judge, ordered Phillips to bake the cake. Phillips refused (foxnews.com). He was extremely polite about his refusal, but still refused because of his faith. This is an example of civil disobedience. Sadly, religious freedom is a constitutional right that Phillips was denied. The ruling that he must serve a gay couple against his beliefs was going against the Constitution. The very first amendment to the Constitution is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (constituionus.com) According to

With the new Supreme Court ruling, many are worried about religious freedom. What if someone doesn't want to sell a same-sex couple a marriage cake? The argument is that if the baker is a Christian, then forcing them to sell marriage related items would hinder their religious freedom. Of course, this argument ignores, importantly, that many Christians have no problem with homosexuality.