Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was a case between Sylvia Burwell, the secretary of Health and Human Services, and Hobby Lobby’s owners and founders. This case dealt with the issue of should Hobby Lobby be able to deny employees contraceptives on the health care provided for the workers by the business. This case was a case between workers’ healthcare and religious rights. This case gains attention and the Supreme Courts elect to hear it. They come to the decision that Hobby Lobby should be left their religious freedoms. “They do not have to violate their faith or pay severe fines (The Decision 1).” In both sides many people come together to participate including people with and opinion on abortion, strong religious beliefs, workers’ rights and ect.
…show more content…
This is a form of participation because like voting, writing a senator or representative, or boycotts it’s getting involved to evoke change. Many people getting involved. This was brought to attention mainly by unhappy female employees who were not being offered contraceptives. Hobby lobby felt that denying the contrastive was morally correct due to religious ideas of the founders. This shows participation in the government like the others because it is a group of people wanting change and going through the system to attempt getting it. The main two groups involved in this case are the women who believe contraceptives should be given under the affordable care act. The other side consisted of people with strong religious belief that believe ones the egg is fertilized it is alive. The religious group felt protected under the religious freedom restoration act. This act gives them a right to express their religious belief. Both groups that were involved were expected to be involved. This case does not fall into larger participation at the time other than the idea that it is possible for organizations to have religious ideas that can be …show more content…
The main one being view is the freedom of religion. Hobby Lobbies founders believe that it is their rights to deny workers insurance to get contraceptives for they believe it goes against their religious morals and if they went against them they would be denying the first amendment. The Burwell’s side pertains more towards the workers and what they should be provided by the company and whether birth control should be provided. Both are arguments in which it is testing what should a person should be given. One is relating to religion and the other is questioning if this is not right to deny (mainly) women this right to control their own body. The main conflict is the women want birth control and Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to give it to them because it is against their religious morals. This case advances civil liberties for it defines more about amendment. It shows the religion in relation to the workplace is still important even through the government believes firmly in separating the two. The issues if for both sides tough on rights therefore the court had to pick which is the most important in this situation. This case fits in to the history of cases for it touches on when and where you should separate religion for the organizations to not hurt the majority of the
This is a form of participation because like voting, writing a senator or representative, or boycotts it’s getting involved to evoke change. Many people getting involved. This was brought to attention mainly by unhappy female employees who were not being offered contraceptives. Hobby lobby felt that denying the contrastive was morally correct due to religious ideas of the founders. This shows participation in the government like the others because it is a group of people wanting change and going through the system to attempt getting it. The main two groups involved in this case are the women who believe contraceptives should be given under the affordable care act. The other side consisted of people with strong religious belief that believe ones the egg is fertilized it is alive. The religious group felt protected under the religious freedom restoration act. This act gives them a right to express their religious belief. Both groups that were involved were expected to be involved. This case does not fall into larger participation at the time other than the idea that it is possible for organizations to have religious ideas that can be …show more content…
The main one being view is the freedom of religion. Hobby Lobbies founders believe that it is their rights to deny workers insurance to get contraceptives for they believe it goes against their religious morals and if they went against them they would be denying the first amendment. The Burwell’s side pertains more towards the workers and what they should be provided by the company and whether birth control should be provided. Both are arguments in which it is testing what should a person should be given. One is relating to religion and the other is questioning if this is not right to deny (mainly) women this right to control their own body. The main conflict is the women want birth control and Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to give it to them because it is against their religious morals. This case advances civil liberties for it defines more about amendment. It shows the religion in relation to the workplace is still important even through the government believes firmly in separating the two. The issues if for both sides tough on rights therefore the court had to pick which is the most important in this situation. This case fits in to the history of cases for it touches on when and where you should separate religion for the organizations to not hurt the majority of the