Hobby Hobby Store Case Summary

First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion, and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.

The contraceptive coverage in the new Health Care law makes preventative care more accessible and affordable to millions of Americans. This is particularly important for women who are more likely to avoid the cost of contraceptives because of cost. To help address these barriers in terms of cost and ensure that all women have access to preventative Health Care Act, all new private insurance plan that covers a wide range of preventative services such as breast x-rays, pap smears smoking prevention and contraception without co-payments or requirements for sharing other costs. The current problem is that the Affordable Care Act is imposing on the 500 store chains of Hobby Lobby’s religious rights by forcing the company to provide full coverage of contraceptives of the 13,000 workers as part of its health care plans. David Green and family, whom founded Hobby Lobby, believe that the healthcare act is violating their held religious convictions.

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

Hobby Lobby was owned by the Green family, who were profound Christians and they believe that life starts with contraception. According to the Green’s birth control violates their religious beliefs. The Green’s would often buy newspaper ads saying that Jesus is our lord and savior. They believe that their ideals should be

There were 12 lawsuits from Catholic organizations against the department of health and human services in 2012 and there were all about amendments present in the current healthcare laws given by Obamacare. “The 5-4 decision allowed closely-held companies to opt out of offering contraceptives on the basis of religious beliefs. The case hinged on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by Congress in 1993” (Obamacare Lawsuits). The National Federation of Independent Business V. Sebelius, and Halbig V. Sebelius were held in position to advanced premium tax credits and the individual health insurance mandate. The official supreme court ruling was that ”the court upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress' Article I power to lay and collect taxes” (Obamacare Lawsuits). The court upheld its legitimacy because of the power given by the constitution under the commerce clause.

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

Precedent says that religious values “must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sough after exemption would do to women seeking contraception”. She says that since “ for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial and the government has show a sufficiently compelling interest” and continues on to state that the contraception mandate does not violate the Religious freedoms and restoration act (RFRA). Justice Ginsburg believes that this is giving privilege that could potentially be abused because they are now exempt from things every other corporation who are not religiously affiliated has to provide. Couldn’t one company simply make their claims seem legit and sincere and be exempt from the same thing Hobby Lobby was exempt from? What is stopping other corporations even larger than from preventing their employees from attaining appropriate birth control? These actions unfortunately would cause an even larger amount of people to not be able to have contraception because of their employers. If employees have

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 Green family, the owner of a large national chain of arts and crafts stores, sparked a national debate. The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case ignited nationwide controversy, the focus of which was the contradiction of whether or not private corporations should be forced to provide contraceptives for their employees. The Green family believe that some contraceptives that were mandated by the Affordable Care Act to be abortion inducers. Abortion goes against their religion. And so, they filed a lawsuit in 2012 fighting against these mandates. They used the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration

The first thing is that if the Republicans have not been trying to overturn Obama Care at every single injunction that they possibly could. This in my opinion shows the direct correlation between the ways that politics injects its way into business and vice versa. While I am not arguing that the United States of America is in a post capitalistic system and that we are now into fascism at least not in this essay. Hobby Lobby decision not to support Obama Care gave the Republicans the loophole that they need in order to take down Obama Care. After the Burnell v. Hobby Lobby the Religious Freedom Restoration Act started to pop up everywhere. The problem that I see with this business issue is not that Hobby Lobby has decided not to give their workers birth control but instead it is that 1. How politics has infiltrated everything but 2. How people continue to use their religion to oppress others. 3. How we continue to redefine what the first amendment actually means. The books lays out a clear code of ethics and rules that all businesses should and must follow and it is in my opinion that Hobby Lobby and all of the other businesses who use their religion to oppress others should have to reapply to me called a real legit

“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

The main issue presented by the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. would essentially be First Amendment rights, which is religious freedom. Along with the freedom of religion, there is also women’s access to contraception from their employer. Another issue one could argue for is whether or not corporations are considered people or not.

Throughout the United States, Hobby Lobby employs 13,000 people in over 500 stores. (Hobby Lobby v. Burwell). Furthermore, all of the employees come from diverse religious backgrounds. Therefore, one cannot assume that they all agree and have the same values as the company. Although the Greens run Hobby Lobby on Christian values, the arts and crafts supply chain is not a religious institution, and employees do not need to conform to their employers beliefs.

In this case, it was a misunderstanding that had caused the ownership of the painting to be unclear. The Salvation Army thrift store possessed a void title, the original owner was entitled to the painting. The painting was not meant to be a gift, neither was a voluntarily donated, making it Abel’s property. Intention is an important concept in this case, where the intention of an object being a gift needs to be evident.