upload9
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Manchester Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
212
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by DeaconUniverseKomodoDragon38
1. What are the basic facts of the case?
2. What issue did the Supreme Court have to decide? What did the Court say
about the issue?
3. If a corporation is a legal entity that only exists on paper, can it have Constitutional Rights?
4. Imagine a Corporation worth 200 or 300 million dollars, but is owned by only 15 family members. The company employs 15,000 people. Should the family, by some type of majority vote, be able to decide what the benefits they offer can be used for?
5. Should the company be able to tell you what you can do with your vacation time?
6. Should the company be able to tell you that you can't work there if you don't believe and behave like the family does?
7. What if the family did not believe in using blood transfusions as medical treatment because of their religious beliefs? Could they tell their insurance provider not to cover that? Is this issue any different than the
Hobby Lobby
case discussed above which involved contraception?
8. Is it a practical option for many people that if you don't like it, go work somewhere else?
Do not let this become a debate over "Obamacare". This is a broader, very serious discussion that is taking place in America over the rights of individuals, corporations, religious organizations, and others. How far can and should the federal government go into the lives of individuals and the interests of businesses? Is there a constitutional limit?
Similar issues are headed to the Supreme Court concerning the refusal of individuals to provide services based on religious beliefs to others that they consider objectionable, such as same sex marriages or transgender individuals
1.
The Supreme Court decided this case on June 30th, 2014. The plaintiff in this case is the Green family, and today, they own and operate over 1000 Hobby Lobby stores in the US. The Greens sued defendant Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Green family argued that the federally mandated employment group-health care plans violated their business’ adherence to the Christian faith due to the contraception coverage. The plaintiffs argued that their rights were illegally infringed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the government from burdening a person’s exercise
of religion, and the free exercise clause in the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from restricting the free exercise of
religion.
2.
The Supreme Court had to address whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows a corporation to deny health coverage for contraception to employees based on religious objections from the company’s owners. The court ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores' religious freedom had been violated, allowing them to deny coverage for contraception, such as birth control.
3.
Supreme Court decisions in recent years have shown that yes, corporations have constitutional rights. In
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations may “speak” with their money with their first amendment political rights to buy ads in all American elections.
4.
Family members, as owners of the company, have the legal authority to determine the benefits they offer and how those benefits are utilized. Employers can overturn federally required healthcare mandates in the face of religious objections, as demonstrated in this case. Do I think the law should be this way? I think it makes sense why the court ruled in favor of the Greens, but in my eyes, family planning is vital to health and a better society. It shouldn’t be a big expense in someone’s life, but it seems as though Hobby Lobby employees are being penalized for the religious beliefs held by their employer.
5.
Your employer should not be able to decide how you live your life. That includes what you do with your vacation time, and in my opinion, it should also include spending money on remaining unpregnant.
6.
A company should not be able to tell you whether you can work at their establishment based on your religious beliefs. Just because it is different from their own is not grounds to fire somebody; it would be infringing on employees individual liberties.
7.
It’s not clear, but my instinct is to say that the Supreme Court would
rule that no, you cannot deny employees insurance coverage for blood transfusions based on religious objections. While I believe contraception is a health care necessity, I understand that religious backgrounds make that controversial. Blood transfusion isn’t controversial, and therefore, I don’t see a scenario where the Supreme Court decides against it. However, the Hobby Lobby case is similar, and if the general rule is that federally required healthcare mandates can be overturned in the face of religious objection, then the Supreme Court could rule yes. The lack of limitations in this decision is a little scary to think about. Especially considering blood transfusion could become a bigger issue in later years.
8.
It’s harder said than done to get a job, as there are so many factors that go into that decision. Employees shouldn’t be forced out of a job due to differences in religious beliefs.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help