In the Supreme Court Case, Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby (docket number 13-354), Mr. Clement (on behalf of Hobby Lobby Inc.) argued that Hobby Lobby should not have to provide contraceptives to their employees based on First Amendment rights. The owners of Hobby Lobby claim that providing access contraception goes against their religious beliefs, and thus don't have to provide it. Throughout the case, Mr. Clement brought up things like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Free Exercise Clause, in hopes that they would sufficiently back up his points. He also emphasized that Hobby Lobby was a privately owned business. Another very large part of the debate was about an analogy about Kosher butchers having legal problems do to their faith, alluding back to the creation of the RFRA. This analogy started out by helping Clement's case, but ended up being very drawn-out and over complicated to really help him in anyway.
The case was primarily based on whether or not Hobby Lobby had the constitutional right to deny it's employees the access to contraceptives that the Affordable Care Act mandates. Hobby Lobby and Mr. Clement, obviously, say that they do have the right to deny it based on First Amendment rights. Sebelius, and most of the Justices and Generals it seemed, seemed to disagree. General Verrilli at one point said that "It was imperative that the employee's interest be protected" and that "the fundamental point is that [they] would be extinguishing statutorily guaranteed health benefits of fundamental importance to [the] employees", which was something that the Court had never done before.
This is a very difficult ruling to have to make. On the one hand, freedom of religion is a very important to everyone, and people shouldn't have to endorse/encourage things that they don't believe in or think is wrong. However, I also disagree with not providing employees important health benefits of any kind. Because, as pointed out in the argument made by Sotomayor, this could be extended to denying other benefits such as blood transfusions, vaccines, and even pork products. There are countless benefits and other things that businesses could deny employees if they claimed that it was against their religion. Also, upon further reading, I discovered on quote that really struck me. It goes back to Clements Kosher Butcher analogy. It was Rabbi David Saperstein, who works for the Religious Action Center, who said that the "analogy with kosher butchers was flawed because businesses like those “go to the very core” of a community’s religious beliefs, while Hobby Lobby’s business was not an expression of its owners’ faiths". As pointed out earlier in the trial, Hobby Lobby doesn't really show any other expressions of faith, except for deny access to the contraception. In the end, I don't really know who to side with. Its a debate between freedom and equality in the end.
The case was primarily based on whether or not Hobby Lobby had the constitutional right to deny it's employees the access to contraceptives that the Affordable Care Act mandates. Hobby Lobby and Mr. Clement, obviously, say that they do have the right to deny it based on First Amendment rights. Sebelius, and most of the Justices and Generals it seemed, seemed to disagree. General Verrilli at one point said that "It was imperative that the employee's interest be protected" and that "the fundamental point is that [they] would be extinguishing statutorily guaranteed health benefits of fundamental importance to [the] employees", which was something that the Court had never done before.
This is a very difficult ruling to have to make. On the one hand, freedom of religion is a very important to everyone, and people shouldn't have to endorse/encourage things that they don't believe in or think is wrong. However, I also disagree with not providing employees important health benefits of any kind. Because, as pointed out in the argument made by Sotomayor, this could be extended to denying other benefits such as blood transfusions, vaccines, and even pork products. There are countless benefits and other things that businesses could deny employees if they claimed that it was against their religion. Also, upon further reading, I discovered on quote that really struck me. It goes back to Clements Kosher Butcher analogy. It was Rabbi David Saperstein, who works for the Religious Action Center, who said that the "analogy with kosher butchers was flawed because businesses like those “go to the very core” of a community’s religious beliefs, while Hobby Lobby’s business was not an expression of its owners’ faiths". As pointed out earlier in the trial, Hobby Lobby doesn't really show any other expressions of faith, except for deny access to the contraception. In the end, I don't really know who to side with. Its a debate between freedom and equality in the end.