Constitutional Law

 

The basis for this discussion is the U.S. Supreme Court case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
This case is about a business’ leadership making real business decisions about employer-provided employee health care benefits. This decision violated a government mandate that private for-profit businesses provide certain types of birth control benefits. The company, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., took a stand against the government’s position, based on the business ownership’s religious beliefs, raising a Constitutional question under the First Amendment.
In addition to the Hobby Lobby case itself, please consider, in particular, the Horwitz article listed in this week’s eReserve Required Readings, as well as other research on the subject, to inform your own thoughts on the following and discuss in a narrative post.
DISCUSSION PROMPT:
Please do not simply list “questions and answers.” Address the questions within an essay format.
Which part of the 1st Amendment was at issue in this case?
Discuss how the government violated Hobby Lobby’s 1st Amendment right, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hobby Lobby Stores. Inc. is a family owned business, described as “closely held.” What does this mean, i.e., what is a closely held corporation? How did the fact Hobby Lobby is closely held make a difference in the court’s consideration of Hobby Lobby’s 1st Amendment religious freedom argument? Would the same argument work for a large publicly held corporation like IBM? Should it? Why or why not?
Should a business operating as a nonreligious commercial entity be able to invoke this 1st Amendment protection at all on the basis of the business owner(s)’ personal beliefs as human beings? Why or why not? If the business is a separate person, as the Court has held in finding that the business has an independent Constitutional right, how can this “corporate person,” as an entity, manifest an independent religious belief? Isn’t it separate from its owners? (For this question you might want to also take a look at the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Citizens United case.)
Share any additional thoughts you have.
Please clearly and thoroughly discuss these points in a well organized post. Your text and other required readings and research should form a foundation for your discussion. At a minimum your thoughts should be informed by the court’s opinion in Hobby Lobby, the Horwitz article, and your textbook readings. You may have other ideas — research further to support them. We invite and expect respectful debate in the discussions.

Sample Solution

In the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the US Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violated privately held, for-profit corporations’ right to religious freedom. In 2012, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued the contraception mandate, which required that employer-provided health insurance plans offer their beneficiaries certain contraceptive methods free of charge. In a five to four decision, the US Supreme Court maintained that the mandate, in cases of privately held, for-profit organizations like Hobby Lobby Inc., violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Although the Court did not decide on the constitutionality of the mandate, their ruling enabled privately held, for-profit corporations that objected to the contraceptive mandate on religious grounds to be exempt from it.

regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pi

regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pi

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.