Reference no: EM133153657
The basis for this discussion is the U.S. Supreme Court case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
This case is about a business' leadership making real business decisions about employer-provided employee health care benefits. This decision violated a government mandate that private for-profit businesses provide certain types of birth control benefits. The company, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., took a stand against the government's position, based on the business ownership's religious beliefs, raising a Constitutional question under the First Amendment.
In addition to the Hobby Lobby case itself, please consider, in particular, the Horwitz article listed in your Required Readings, as well as other research on the subject, to inform your own thoughts on the following points. and discuss in a narrative post.
1. 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?
2. 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 court's consideration of Hobby Lobby's 1st 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?
3. 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.)