Constitutional Law 1

Week 2 Discussion: Constitutional Law

Devona Francis

American Public University

COURSE BUSN623: Legal & Ethical Issues in Management

Professor Naranjo

January 17, 2021

 Constitutional Law 2

What are the constitutional implications on business exemplified by this case? How was the

1st Amendment involved? How was the government violating Hobby Lobby's 1st

Amendment right, according to the U.S. Supreme Court?

The ramifications of this right, is to confound or blend the possibility of strict faith in

with that of the execution of an administration strategy, for example, that of the dissemination of

contraceptives is convoluted. The public authority has disregarded the sacred right of the

entrepreneur to the free exercise of his strict conviction, therefore putting an earlier restriction on the

free exercise thereof. It is perceived that the financial specialist or diversion entryway's free strict

exercise rights were subverted by the State in demanding that it should keep the law i.e., to

disseminate free contraceptives. The organization may presuppose major changes, provided that

most or all of the individuals on its worksheet, including company officials, are not allowed to use

contraceptives in their religious beliefs.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. settled one of the test brought up in light of the

prophylactic inclusion need of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Ascribing the convictions of

proprietors of firmly held organizations to such companies, the U.S. High Court found that firmly

held partnerships that hold strict issues with certain prophylactic administrations can't be needed to

give the inclusion of those administrations in representative wellbeing plans. The Court's choice

depended on the insurances offered under the bureaucratic Religious Freedom Restoration Act

(RFRA), a rule refuting the public authority from forcing a generous significance on an individual's

strict exercise except if it can show a convincing interest accomplished by the most un-prohibitive

methods (Brown, 2015).

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?  Did this make a difference in the
 Constitutional Law 3

court's consideration of Hobby Lobby's 1 st Amendment religious freedom argument? Would

the same argument work for a large publicly held corporation like IBM?  Should it? Why or

why not? What are the social and political interests in play that the Court endeavored to

balance in the legal setting?

A strong partnership is an organization whose shares may be held by few people. Unquestionably,

there is no doubt that the reason for this is that if Hobby Lobby is made up of people who have close

connections and practice similar strict beliefs, it can indeed convene privileges under the first

amendment. No, it can't matter to a huge business element, on the grounds that the enrollment

thereof is assorted distinctive in such countless elements as convictions.

Should a business be able to invoke the 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? (For this question you might want to also take a look at the Supreme

Court's opinion in the Citizens United case.)

I do believe that a company should have the option to convict its owners (mostly investors) for the

First Amendment rights. It is said that the different corporate figment is a legitimate idea only

conjured in instances of risk as a protection. The people around the company are conscious and have

strict religious beliefs.

References
 Constitutional Law 4

Brown, C. (2015, April 6). Free Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations: Implications of

'Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc'. Retrieved January 13, 2021, from

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/index.html

Discussion Response #1

Shanelle,

The First Amendment is in a sense the principal line of safeguard against the

maltreatment of force by government. What probably won't be clear, be that as it may, is how

precisely the alteration plays into business and the corporate world. The First Amendment to the Bill

of Rights, and it characterizes the privileges of the people to speak, to have a free press, and restricts

the public authority's capacity to confine the right to speak freely of discourse, opportunity of

religion, and the opportunity of articulation (Ulrich, 2018).

We should investigate IMS Health. The company was purchasing up information from

drug stores, for example, patients' names, the brand medications of procurement, the doses, and

whoever the responsible specialist was for the content. The organization is digging through the

records of pharmacies and has collected the personal data of countless American experts and many

individual patients, including names and other identifiable details. At that time, the organization

reorganized and provided the drug organization with the right to accept these documents, making it

easier for the organization to target doctors well in the way of approving expensive brand-name

drugs (Wu, 2013). This is a tort, experts and the state government can understand the work of IMS

Health. Where the organization saw a business opportunity, they saw a way of doing things that

ignored patient security and could expand medical care costs (Wu, 2013).

There were three states (New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont), who chose in 2006 and

2007 to forbid drug stores from selling solution records for business purposes, and by late 2010, 26
 Constitutional Law 5

different states were thinking about similar measures. IMS Health does not want to be seen as a

criminal who remedies keeping private information private. Consequently, the organization recorded

claims against the three states with the issue and focused on the business. IMS Health believes that

these three states are calling for their First Amendment rights. The organization certifies that the sale

of remedial records is a free speech. For most of the U.S. history, such a case would have been a

dead letter in court. In any case, as for the First Amendment, we live in intriguing occasions. In June

2011, the Supreme Court struck down the new information security laws, arguing that they blamed

IMS Health (Wu, 2013).

References

Ulrich, B. (2018, September 17). Business and the First Amendment. Retrieved January 14, 2021,

from https://federalnewsnetwork.com/whats-working-washington/2018/09/business-and-the-first-

amendment/

Wu, T. (2013, June 03). The Right to Evade Regulation. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from

https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-

regulation

Response

Sharon,

I truth be told have worked for a private business I've worked for a business who didn't have benefits

for their workers. They offered no advantages at all. They offered a medical savings plan which was

nothing. When I brought the card to the doctor they said that you will get a discount for self-paid

patients. This medical savings plan card is completely useless.

Also, remembers that workers don't have an established option to free speech at work, yet businesses

should know about government and state laws that do secure/ensure of laborers' free speech in
 Constitutional Law 6

particular facts or conditions. Truth be told employers have a legal option to take advantage of their

workers' email messages, telephones/instant messages, to give some examples. The First

Amendment secures/ensures of workers the security of free speech from interruption by the

government, and it doesn't matter to private businesses. When the almost opposite the difference

between government business and private management business, the chaos of this kind of change

rises. Government workers do have some First Amendment securities. Workers who often work in

private areas (confusing to most people) that the established First Amendment option to free speech

applies to government workers however not workers working for private organizations (Lisa Nagele-

Piazza, 2019).

References

Lisa Nagele-Piazza, J. (2019, October 29). What Employee Speech Is Protected in the Workplace?

Retrieved January 17, 2021, from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-

compliance/employment-law/pages/employee-free-speech-in-the-workplace.aspx

Week 2 Discussion Response

Michael,

This Burwell to Hobby Lobby store, Inc. case made me think about another questionable

circumstance that elaborate the San Antonio City Council, and they're cast a ballot square of Chick-

fil-A from opening a cafe at San Antonio International Airport, in light of it getting down on the

organization's "tradition of hostile to LGBT conduct (Volokh, 2019). " Basically, this cheap food

chain gave 1.8 million US dollars to those who suppress LGBTQ people every year in 2017

(Volokh, 2019).

The enormous discussion was finished if the genuine purpose behind San Antonio's City Councils

move was based (even to some degree) Chick-fil-A's discourse, and the discourse of the causes to
 Constitutional Law 7

which Chick-fil-A gives—at that point this abuses the First Amendment. The public authority for the

most part may not segregate dependent on a temporary worker's discourse, or its expressive

affiliation, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996); O'Hare Truck Serv. v. City of

Northlake (1996). Similar would be valid for victimization forthcoming temporary workers; the

Court has clarified that oppression planned representatives is dealt with equivalent to victimization

current workers, and Umbehr and Northlake were themselves dependent on the public authority

representative discourse cases (Volokh, 2019).

References

Volokh, E. (2019, March 26). San Antonio Likely Violating Chick-Fil-A's First Amendment Rights.

Retrieved January 17, 2021, from https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/26/san-antonio-violates-chick-

fil-as-first/