Should the 1st amendment grant Hobby Lobby a religious exemption in its lawsuit at SCOTUS?
Hobby Lobby lawsuit is an exceptional case because it has corporatized the religious liberty. The 1st amendment should not grant Hobby Lobby a religious exemption in its lawsuit at SCOUTS. This is because of the fact that such liberty extends to the privileges, for-profit businesses and the rights, which have been associated since long with the religious non-profits and churches. But, as a matter of fact this change is the consequence of the deeper and persistent upsetting of the religious liberty law in America. The granting of the religious exemption means that the congressional intent is ignored, and the court has shed the skin of the 1st amendment in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA. It is also an indication of the fact that the court has itself loosened the doctrine of first amendment, and has started re-making of the free exercise law.
Furthermore, the decision of awarding religious exemption is, however, an exercise in the drastic incrementalism. Additionally, the majority decision have not hit the benefit associated with the birth control, and not even the decision rule that the organizations have the 1st amendment religious rights, which is independent of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, instead it has pave the way for the courts doing so in the future. The legal literature of the personhood of an organization exists in order to provide the safety and protection to the individuals, but the protections should not be utilize in order to burden the employees’ rights to the advantage of the owners of the corporate.
Moreover, when the rights no matter they are statutory or the constitutional, are extended to the organizations or corporations, their objective is to safeguard the rights of individuals. Considering an example that in the Fourth Amendment is extended to the corporation for protecting the interests and privacy of the employees, as well as others that are linked with the organization. Protecting the organizations and their property from the seizure of the seizure of the government without any just and equal compensation, however, provide protection to all the stakeholders of the corporation that contribute to its well being. However, providing protection to the free exercise authority and rights of the corporations such as Hobby Lobby, just protect the religious freedom of those people who control and own such companies.
Furthermore, by demanding such religious liberty Hobby Lobby is just attempting to hide behind the protections awarded by constitution in order to deprive the employees of their rights. With the provision of the religious freedom Hobby Lobby become independent to ignore the interests of its employees to remain protected from the religious discrimination, which is promoted by the employer. The owners of Hobby Lobby have a religious belief that the life starts at the conception. Further, their religious beliefs permit for providing the insurance coverage to the employees, only that insurance coverage that correspond and conform to their religious beliefs. But, as a matter of fact there was no legal compulsion to provide the insurance before the advent of the Affordable Care Act or ACA. This measure is just taken for the ease of business, for business motives, and also because the religious beliefs of the owners help in governing their relations with the employees.
The Affordable Care Act, however, does not require that the employers provide health insurance coverage to the employees, but the fact is that it is the requirement of the law that the employers that are providing any health care benefit such as health insurance for the employees should offer such coverage to both the men and women without any discrimination (Jost). The parties involves in the lawsuit of Hobby Lobby at SCOTUS are well aware of the fact that the some forms of IUDs i.e., intrauterine devices function as the abortifacients. So, the contraceptives that were employed to women by the company should not be denied, and Hobby Lobby should not be granted any religious exemption, because it is posing threat to the health of women. There is no need for the companies to introduce such programs when the government’s existing policies are providing planned programs for women considering their health benefits.
Moreover, the provision of religious exemption to Hobby Lobby signifies a fact that other companies will also seek the religious waivers for several forms of the health care, such as the blood transfusion etc (Bruenig). this is also an indication of the fact that by availing such exemptions the corporations get the right to impose unnecessary religious beliefs on the employees. This is also challenging to the federal laws that are designed for the protection of the civil rights of the individuals.
Considering some historical facts in this regard, The Supreme Court has adopted a descriptive interpretation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause in 1960s and 1970s. In some of cases the court has declared in 1962 and in 1972 that the government is not authorized to impose the significant burden on the religion unless it comprise of a convincing interest and no modified forms of the regulations that can be used to promote the interests. But, then the Supreme Court has rebutted the balancing test in order to assess the Free Exercise claims. Further, the Court declared that the laws that are applicable in general can burden the religious practices incidentally, without breaching the First Amendment, so there is no need for the government to provide any extraordinary jurisdiction in case of such laws. Then in 1993, Congress has unanimously passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act RFRA in order to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court, whose purpose is the restoration of the compelling expressed interests (Babie, and Rochow).
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was, however, designed for reinstating the legal principles that were prevailing before the decisions of courts that were made against the religion (Campbell, and Stack). So, the provision of religious exemption to Hobby Lobby is the interpretation of law, it is a complete segregation from the First Amendment. This is, however, not the restoration of the principles, and is not bringing the balancing test back from the decisions that were made in 1960s as well as in 1970s. So, RFRA is merely a revolution that is meant for protecting the religious liberty. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby should not be provided with the religious exemption under first amendment as this is violation of the legal principles associated with RFRA, and it is the violation of the law that Congress in fact destined to restore.
In a nutshell, the Hobby Lobby case can be regarded as an illustration of the religious folks that are becoming more aggressive about the religious liberties, usually in the ways different from the past. Moreover, it is making the employers free to take unnecessary advantage of such exemption and freedom, and as a result they are imposing their religious beliefs on the employees, such employers are creating difficulties for females, and imposition of certain policies is dangerous for their health. The owners of Hobby Lobby are considering their own self interests and motives by such exemptions, ignoring the rights of employees. This can be proved with the fact that they are well aware of the fact that certain policies are not suitable for the employees, but considering that they are beneficial for them, they are implementing the policies.
Further, they are depriving the employees of from their rights, and hiding themselves behind the constitution protection. Hobby Lobby has considered an easy way of defining the complicity i.e., provision of the insurance that comprise of certain forms of the contraceptives. These are threatening the conscience of the individuals, and compelling them towards contraception. In order to prevent such actions the White House should work in collaboration with the Congress on the response of a legislative in order to determine the types of organizations covered, insurance policies that can be involves, and the number of the concerned employees. The women should be given freedom for making her personal health care decisions. So, the first amendment should not grant Hobby Lobby a religious exemption in its lawsuit at SCOTUS, because it violating Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the law, it is paving the way for other organizations to seek waivers in terms of religion for the religious reforms.
References
Bruenig, Matt. "Hobby Lobby will not lead us down a slippery slope of religious exemptions." The Week 1 July 2014: n. pag. Web.
http://theweek.com/article/index/264055/hobby-lobby-will-not-lead-us-down-a-slippery-slope-of-religious-exemptions
Stoltzfus Jost, Timothy. " Loopholes in the Affordable Care Act: Regulatory Gaps and Border Crossing Techniques and How to Address Them”. Saint Louis University Journal Of Health Law & Policy 5: 27-82. Print
Campbell, Colton C.. Congress confronts the court: the struggle for legitimacy and authority in lawmaking. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. Print.
Babie, Paul , and Neville Rochow. Freedom of religion under bills of rights. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press in association with the University of Adelaide's Research Unit for the Study of Society, Law and Religion, 2012. Print.
