Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. Case Study

A recent Supreme Court case, Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. (2014), had a controversial ruling, 5-4 decision, between justices on corporation rights and the rights of the people. It was a case relating to religious freedoms, the religious beliefs of the owners, and conflict with government regulations, causing a lot of talk from the public as well. The Hobby Lobby plaintiff, consisting of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties and, another Green Family business, Mardel Christian and Educational Supply, claimed that government regulations under the Affordable Care Act burdened their religious beliefs (“Burwell v. Hobby,” 2017). The plaintiff’s argument against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was specific to one section

In the majority opinion, Justice Alito found that these corporations of the Hobby Lobby plaintiffs could assert religious rights. He wrote that because they were privately owned by family members, it was like a small group of people who joined together to pursue a common goal, despite being sizeable businesses. Meaning in this Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and First Amendment, Free Exercise case, it was decided that the entity, individuals or corporation, is acting or not acting upon sincere religious beliefs and that the regulations of the ACA significantly burdened that entity’s religious beliefs (Greendorfer,

I believe that because the decision of the court was based on whether the religious beliefs of the entity were sincerely held and showed significant burden to those beliefs is where issues will arise (Greendorfer, 2014). As Justice Ginsberg feared in her dissent, the rights of individuals could be infringed when another claims a burden on their held belief. The Hobby Lobby plaintiffs may hold the beliefs that the four types of contraceptive may have burden but that doesn’t necessarily apply to all the individual employees of the sizable business. While it was determined the entity of the plaintiffs are joined together in pursuing a common goal, this goal may have very little to do with religion and more to do with employment. As it isn’t, and can’t be, a requirement that all Hobby Lobby employees share the same religious beliefs as the owners. Additionally, it is possible that a case to be heard by the Supreme Court in this session may be linked back to this case. I believe it is very possible for Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, to reference Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc in the discussion and deciding of the case; the refusal of a baker to create a wedding cake for a gay couple based on conflict with the baker’s, sincerely held, religious