Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Exercise 1.3

    Uploaded by

    SharonTruong
    14 views3 pages
    John kubler: Hobby Lobby's owners had objectionable religious beliefs about contraception. He says RFRA allows contraception coverage for employees of nonprofit religious organizations. RFRA helps the government's interest and doesn't hurt plaintiffs' religious beliefs, he writes.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    John kubler: Hobby Lobby's owners had objectionable religious beliefs about contraception. He says RFRA allows contraception coverage for employees of nonprofit religious organizations. RFRA helps the government's interest and doesn't hurt plaintiffs' religious beliefs, he writes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    14 views3 pages

    Exercise 1.3

    Uploaded by

    SharonTruong
    John kubler: Hobby Lobby's owners had objectionable religious beliefs about contraception. He says RFRA allows contraception coverage for employees of nonprofit religious organizations. RFRA helps the government's interest and doesn't hurt plaintiffs' religious beliefs, he writes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    Truong3

    SharonTruong
    JohnKubler
    English115A
    11September2014
    SupremeCourtHobbyLobbyDissentingSummary
    Intodayssociety,findingtheproperrealmforfreeexerciseischallengingbecauseofthe
    eraofpervasivegovernmentalregulation.IntheSupremeCourtHobbyLobbycase,
    healthinsurancecoverageforcontraceptionthatviolatedthereligiousbeliefsormoral
    convictionsofthecompaniesownerswillnotbeprovidedbecauseoftheReligiousFreedom
    RestorationActof1993(RFRA).Butinthesecases,areadytoworkwithframeworktoprovide
    coverageispresent.TheGovernmenthasallowedcontraceptioncoveragetobeprovidedto
    employeesofnonprofitreligiousorganizations,asanaccommodationtothereligiousobjections.
    Thissettlementrequiredinsurancecompaniestoprovidepreventiveservicesforfemale
    employeeswhoneedcontraceptioncoverage.Indoingso,ithelpstheGovernmentsinterestand
    doesnthurttheplaintiffsreligiousbeliefs.ThisjustshowshowtheUnitedStatesissofreethat
    thegovernmentmaynotrestrictanycitizenfromexercisingtheirownreligion.Nomatterwhat,
    religiousexerciseshouldnotrestrictemployeesinprotectingtheirowninterests.Therefore
    RFRArequirestheGovernmenttousethisexistinglessrestrictiveaccommodation.
    JusticeGinsburgdissentedthewidedecisionoftheCourtholdingcommercial
    enterprises,suchascorporations,partnerships,andsoleproprietorships,canchoosenotto
    participateinanylaw(savingonlytaxlaws)thatseemsconflictingbecauseoftheirsincerely


    Truong3

    heldreligiousbeliefs.Shedissentedbecause,Theabilityofwomentoparticipateequallyinthe
    economicandsociallife
    oftheNationhasbeenfacilitatedbytheirabilitytocontroltheirreproductivelives(Planned
    ParenthoodofSoutheasternPa.v.Casey).Thereforetherestrictionsofcontraceptioncoverage
    heldbycompanyownerswithobjectionablereligiousbeliefsviolateswomensrightsand
    womenshealthtoo.Anincreasedselectionofpreventiveserviceswouldyieldimportantpublic
    healthgainsbecausethatwouldreduceunintendedpregnancies.Anincreasedselectionshould
    includeall20FDAapprovedcontraceptivemethods,notjust16.Thesemandatedcontraceptive
    coverageassistsinthehealthofwomenandthepublichealth.
    Thehealthcaredecisionsofchoosingcontraceptivemethodsshouldbebetweenwomen
    andtheirhealthcareproviders,NOTtheGovernmentortheiremployers.Ifthehealthcare
    decisionswereuptotheemployersthenthatwouldveputpersonalopinionoverthepracticeof
    medicine.Whichismoreimportant?Contraceptivecoveragehelpswomen,trainsontheir
    wellbeing,andthepublichealth.Thechoicesofcontraceptivemethodsgivewomentherightto
    controltheirreproductivelives.TheCourthasclarifiedaccommodationstoreligiousbeliefs
    mustnotsignificantlyimpingeontheinterestsofthirdpartiesbecauseincompatiblereligious
    beliefscannotprohibitonefromconductingavalidlaw.Iftheexemptionwasgiven,then
    HobbyLobbyandConestogawouldveimpingedontheinterestsofemployees,specificallythe
    womenwhodonthavethesamereligiousviewsastheemployersviews.
    ReligiousexerciseisjustapersonalopinionbecauseaccordingtoJusticeStevens,
    Corporationshavenoconsciences,nobeliefs,nofeelings,nothoughts,nodesires.Inthe
    professionalsettingofaworkplace,businessownersmustputtheirreligiousdifferencesaside


    Truong3

    andthinkaboutthegreatergoodofthesociety.Itisobligatorythatanindividualescapepersonal
    responsibilitytotakepartinabusiness.

    You might also like