Landmark Supreme Court Decision: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Supreme Court Case: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Facts about the Case: 

1.     The Green Family is the owners and operates Hobby Lobby Inc. and is of a strong Christian Faith

2.     They have a desire to run the company under the Biblical precepts

3.     Because of their religion the Green Family feels it is immoral to pay for contraception 

4.      Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must provide certain types of preventative care, such as FDA-approved contraceptive methods. 

5.      There is exemptions available for religious non-profit institutions there is none for for-profit institutions 

6.      The Green Family sued Kathleen Sebelius who is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, challenging her on paying for health care plans.

7.     The Green Lawyers argue that the health care plan covering paying for contraception is a violation of the Freedom of Religion Clause (under the 1st amendment) and The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

The question that the case is based on:

Does the RFRA of 1993 allow for-profit organizations to deny employees health care coverage of contraceptives?

Are corporations humans or not? 

(John Oliver on Last Week Tonight takes a in depth look more at the court case)

Conclusion:

5 votes for Hobby Lobby, 4 votes againstHobby Lobby has right to denied employees health care coverage containing contraception

Analysis: 

This court case is all about if corporations are people. As you can tell by the decision the Supreme Court Justices are in favor of them being people. This ruling can set a precedent that may not be good at all. For-profit corporations may now start denying federal laws declaring that there is a religious reason behind it. If corporations are people this ruling isn't fair. Humans don't have a right to deny where some of their taxes go, so why should corporations be able too? The Supreme Court Justices may have made a wrong decisions in this case. 

sources: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_13_354 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.