Introduction
Hobby Lobby is a company attempting to withhold control of its organization, with the use a religious diversity in the workplace. In this case against the Supreme Court, they are trying to keep their morality with regards to the abortion privileges of people within the workplace. More specifically, they are withholding from giving full support to the health insurance covered individuals in the case for birth control. Hobby Lobby uses its religious freedom as an organization to be able to take a stand in this regard, and to show their morals towards the support of birth control and the opposition of certain abortion methods. This is an interesting case because it involves the government trying to maintain control over an organization …show more content…
Hobby Lobby’s stance is to allow the organization’s beliefs and religious freedom decide on what operations to take on an individual’s health concerns regarding birth control. They are in support of birth control to a degree, but not to the extent where there is tantamount to abortion (Berfield, 2014, para. 2-3). What this means is being in support of the actions for abortion to which Hobby Lobby is not because of the organization’s religious standpoint. My viewpoint is in support of Hobby Lobby’s in that I support against most of the abortion laws to which the government supports an individual in the removal of a life. Only in rare cases would I see that abortion would be a good idea. An example would be if a young woman were to be raped or something of that nature happen, to which was out of her control. In this case, I would be in support of an abortion because it is putting that young woman in a difficult position. Other than these rare cases, would I feel differently than Hobby Lobby’s stance on the health insurance concerns for their individual workers. For this decree, I am in support of Hobby …show more content…
With a country that has a foundational Christian background, one would think that organizations have more religious flexibility with how it operates as a company. In this case, the government is trying to gain more control in how Hobby Lobby carries out its religious freedom by placing a stipulation on the health insurance coverage and restricting the religious flexibility of the organization in the confutation of abortion (Berfield, 2014, para. 22 25). By accepting the stipulation, Hobby Lobby takes a risk of losing the respect of its few supporters in regards to the religious freedom and flexibility that organizations have within their own company’s control. By ultimately fighting the government’s stipulation, Hobby Lobby is taking a stand towards its religious beliefs and in support of the freedom of religion that it has as an organization, that will lead to perhaps more flexibility for other companies who want to change some of their policies (Berfield, 2014, para. 2). This would in due course give organizations more elasticity towards more diversity within the workplace, especially in the case for religion and beliefs that would not allow the government to reach a hand in and control these rudiments. With this in mind, I am in full support of Hobby Lobby’s religious stance and given the amount of scrutiny the company has been given, I am impressed with
Hobby Lobby is a company attempting to withhold control of its organization, with the use a religious diversity in the workplace. In this case against the Supreme Court, they are trying to keep their morality with regards to the abortion privileges of people within the workplace. More specifically, they are withholding from giving full support to the health insurance covered individuals in the case for birth control. Hobby Lobby uses its religious freedom as an organization to be able to take a stand in this regard, and to show their morals towards the support of birth control and the opposition of certain abortion methods. This is an interesting case because it involves the government trying to maintain control over an organization …show more content…
Hobby Lobby’s stance is to allow the organization’s beliefs and religious freedom decide on what operations to take on an individual’s health concerns regarding birth control. They are in support of birth control to a degree, but not to the extent where there is tantamount to abortion (Berfield, 2014, para. 2-3). What this means is being in support of the actions for abortion to which Hobby Lobby is not because of the organization’s religious standpoint. My viewpoint is in support of Hobby Lobby’s in that I support against most of the abortion laws to which the government supports an individual in the removal of a life. Only in rare cases would I see that abortion would be a good idea. An example would be if a young woman were to be raped or something of that nature happen, to which was out of her control. In this case, I would be in support of an abortion because it is putting that young woman in a difficult position. Other than these rare cases, would I feel differently than Hobby Lobby’s stance on the health insurance concerns for their individual workers. For this decree, I am in support of Hobby …show more content…
With a country that has a foundational Christian background, one would think that organizations have more religious flexibility with how it operates as a company. In this case, the government is trying to gain more control in how Hobby Lobby carries out its religious freedom by placing a stipulation on the health insurance coverage and restricting the religious flexibility of the organization in the confutation of abortion (Berfield, 2014, para. 22 25). By accepting the stipulation, Hobby Lobby takes a risk of losing the respect of its few supporters in regards to the religious freedom and flexibility that organizations have within their own company’s control. By ultimately fighting the government’s stipulation, Hobby Lobby is taking a stand towards its religious beliefs and in support of the freedom of religion that it has as an organization, that will lead to perhaps more flexibility for other companies who want to change some of their policies (Berfield, 2014, para. 2). This would in due course give organizations more elasticity towards more diversity within the workplace, especially in the case for religion and beliefs that would not allow the government to reach a hand in and control these rudiments. With this in mind, I am in full support of Hobby Lobby’s religious stance and given the amount of scrutiny the company has been given, I am impressed with