In those cases, when it is evident that recently created governmental regulations violate the rights of people or organizations, it is possible to file a lawsuit and challenge the new mandate. This is what the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. did in 2012 when it turned out that “their corporation’s right to exercise their religious beliefs” had been violated (Gerais, 2018, para. 7). The purpose of this essay is to discuss and analyze the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case.
It is rather interesting that, in the discussed case, the Court took the corporation’s side. According to Vile (2017), the “Court exempted corporations from providing coverage for contraceptives,” stating that the Department of Health and Human Services violated the First Amendment and The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (para. 2). These two laws protect people’s right to follow any religion and prevent government from “substantially burdening an individual’s religious exercise” (Vile, 2017, para. 6). A significant detail that acted in favor of the corporation is that Hobby Lobby Stores are a closely held corporation, which refers to an organization owned by a group of family members (Wex Definitions Team, 2021). This factor allowed the Court to rule that “corporations were persons under the law” and were also protected by the RFRA (Vile, 2017, para. 10). This argument would and should not work for a large publicly held corporation because it has more stakeholders who may hold varied religious views.
This case was rather challenging for the Court since it had to endeavor different social and political interests. On the one hand, it had to protect the right of people to hold on to their religious beliefs. On the other hand, it was essential to support the government’s willingness to make the genders’ rights equal and promote the rights of women (Horwitz, 2014). Overall, it is possible to say that closely held businesses should be protected by the First Amendment, particularly the right to adhere to the principles of their religion. The reason is that such corporations are owned by a small group of people, impacting all decisions, and if their right is violated, they may lose their motivation to lead their business. The independent religious belief of these ‘corporate people’ should be manifested only when violated and in a way that does not harm other individuals.
References
Gerais, R. (2018). Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Web.
Horwitz, P. (2014). The Hobby Lobby moment. Harvard Law Review, 128(1), 1-33.
Vile, J. R. (2017). Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014). The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Web.
Wex Definitions Team. (2021). Closely held corporation. Cornell Law School. Web.