Case Study: Burwell Vs. Hobby Lobby Stores

The court’s decision compelling Phillips to create a cake for a same-sex couple infringes on his right to practice his religion how he sees fit. To Phillips, the cake is symbolic because it represents a sacred covenant made between man and women, as it traditionally has for years prior to establishment of same-sex marriage. However, there is a fine line between practicing your chosen religion and acting against opposing and popular beliefs. Phillips is not saying he is opposed to the rights given to the LGBT community but is simply making a point that many comparable companies have made: This case is not disagreeing with the rights given to the LGBT community, but rather suggesting that we offer the same protections to those with opposing, religious beliefs. In an interview with CNN, Phillips said:
"I feel I'm being compelled to create artwork for an event -- an …show more content…
Hobby Lobby Stores, begs the question: Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees’ health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company’s owners? The Green Family owns and operates Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and has structured their businesses around the principles of the Christian faith. They have explicitly expressed their desire to run the company according to Biblical precepts, alluding to the negative connotation regarding contraceptives (Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.). Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employment-based group health care plans must be provided, including certain contraceptive methods. While there are exemptions given to religious employers and nonprofit religious institutions, there are no exemptions available for for-profits institutions like Hobby Lobby. In 2012, the Greens sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the contraception requirement (Dhooge,