Religious freedom is a very important cornerstone of the United States; it was a moral that our country was founded on. But how far does this right go, and are businesses able to be religious and act on their religious belief? This was the main argument in the supreme court case of Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. This case rocked the supreme court and our nation as many were very opinionated one way or the other. The complete dynamics of healthcare and religion in business was changed and defined by this case. When Obama passed the American Affordable Care Act businesses had to help pay for their employees’ healthcare, part of this healthcare included contraceptives. Hobby Lobby did not agree with four out of the twenty contraceptives offered. They …show more content…
They have always run their business with their religious beliefs in mind, which until this case has worked in their favor. They are always closed on Sundays and also close earlier than most retailors, at eight at night, in order to allow their employees more time with their family. Care for their employees has always come first, in fact they paid their employees almost twice that of minimum wage before it was increased. Hobby Lobby has also offered a very comprehensive health care plan before the American Affordable Care Act was put in place. They have come under fire before for these religious beliefs as some argued that they offered plenty of Christian related décor but nothing for other religions. It has been well known since the beginning of Hobby Lobby’s business that they ran their operation with their religion as a …show more content…
Before the American Affordable Care Act Hobby Lobby actually already covered these contraceptives with their amazing health insurance that wasn’t required by the government. The Green family claims that they were unaware of the coverage of these contraceptives. Not only that but through investments with their 401k plans Hobby Lobby has invested in the very companies which produce these contraceptives that they are so very much against. The strongest defense Hobby Lobby had was The Religious Freedom Act on 1993 in which they argued that the government may not pose a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion. They argued that funding something that went against their values with the risk of facing fines was indeed a substantial burden. So far this act was only inclusive of individuals, not corporations. It was previously ruled by the Supreme Court in 2010 that corporate personhood existed and corporations are protected under the first amendment. The question was then raised; if corporations can be people, can they be religious