In all free societies, all freedoms and rights are absolute unless limited by an act of law. Governments, individuals, and private entities must, therefore, all adhere to this fundamental rule. This is premised on the fact that freedom cannot be relative, either it exists or it does not. America is also rightfully known as the free world. This notion is premised on the fact that the law provides the precincts within which all Americans can operate freely. Among the fundamental freedoms that were even incorporated in the declaration of independence is the freedom of worship and conscience. The acts and omissions of Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College in attempting to impose their faith on people is wrong and hypocritical as it amounts to an abuse of the same freedom that allows them to hold such religious thoughts.
Even as individuals enjoy this freedom, they need to understand that the right to do so is based on the law. Many countries in the world limit this freedom, some at the pain of death. The freedom should therefore be tempered with none discrimination. It should also not be applied upon people who do not freely adhere to it. Hobby Lobby is a multibillion Arts and crafts stores with over 281 spread across 24 states. As a store in a culturally related industry, Hobby Lobby draws its income from people from all walks of life (Gordon & Stolzenberg, 2012).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The store does not discriminate between customers based of religious belief, dogma or cultural practices. It accepts all money, as long as it is legal tender, without enquiring on the faith of the payee. Further, Hobby Lobby does not discriminate when seeking for labor. As it would be pretty difficult to employ individuals with similar religious belief, Hobby Lobby hires employees from all walks of life despite their religious belief.
In an unfortunate twist however, when it comes to spending on an issue as critical as health, suddenly Hobby Lobby decides to apply religious beliefs even though it has no significant effect on its expenditure. Based on Christian dogma, Hobby Lobby declined to pay for reproductive health facilities as per the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive rules (Gordon & Stolzenberg, 2012). However, Hobby Lobby will be comfortable to sell goods and services to a gynecologist who conducts these services. Perhaps they would not even mind selling a priceless piece of art to a local Planned Parenthood centre, but they would not pay for reproductive health care for their employees, even though they contribute towards the health care fund (Gordon & Stolzenberg, 2012). This, by all means is unethical.
On the other hand, Wheaton College is a protestant liberal Arts College based in Wheaton, a suburb found 40Km from the city of Chicago in Illinois. It has an academic reputation, which places it among the top institutions in the nation. Further, it has a reputation for non-discrimination against minorities. Religious affiliation is not considered when a student enrolls in the institution (Oleske & Sepper, 2016). However, the institution also got embroiled in a controversy similar to the Hobby Lobby by doing away reproductive health in their contributory student health programs (Oleske & Sepper, 2016).
Albeit Wheaton College is not for profit organization, it does charge tuition and other fees from its students for the expensive courses they offer. Over and above that, the healthcare system they offer is contributory. The students make contributions with the college being a facilitator. It is on their grounds as facilitators that the college attempted to curtail reproductive health services from the program. The school proceeded to decline the program for the students who insisted of reproductive health service, a move that made the school remove them from their program ( Pashman, 2015 ). As was clearly an act of discrimination, an injunction was issued by Seventh Circuit vide the case of Wheaton College v. Burwell (Oleske & Sepper, 2016). Instead of adhering to the court order, the college reacted by scrapping the entire program.
As indicated above, in many countries of the world it would be unimaginable for any individual or entity to have a religious or doctrinal view that does not tally with that of the state. In the US government, the law allows every person the right to choose a religious path and practice it. This freedom creates a great power among the populace; the power to decide. However, it does not give any entity or individual the power to decide for or on behalf of others. However, in the instant scenario, Hobby Lobby is clearly instilling its religious ideals upon its employees in the same way that Wheaton College is, upon its student body. An organization cannot abuse an available freedom to curtail the available freedom of individuals related to it.
Further and in an extreme hypocritical move, the two organizations do not discriminate against the money, talent or hardwork of individuals who do not share their ideals. Both organizations have art related activities. Art is predominantly about expression thus by their very nature, the Wheaton and Hobby Lobby both operate in divergent cultural view. It is, therefore, unconscionable to imagine such organization arguing conscience to scuttle independence of thought. In any event, art is by its very nature as expression of this independence.
It should also be noted that there would be no outer manifestations of reproductive service health if the same was allowed in the aforesaid institutions. The issue under contention is not a form of dressing or a lobby activity that would have affected the institutions’ image in any way. Indeed, the matter would not even have been noticeable, had the institutions moved to make a statement about it. The only viable explanation is that some individuals in the two organizations are abusing their power as stakeholders to propagate personal religious views. This is irrepressible abuse of power, hence unethical.
References
Gordon, S. B. & Stolzenberg, N. (2012). Hobby lobby, Wheaton college, and a new religious order . Retrieved from <http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/07/14/hobby-lobby-wheaton-college-and-a-new-religious-order/>
Oleske, J. M. & Sepper, E. (2016). Wheaton college v. Burwell. Retrieved from <http://harvardlawreview.org/2016/01/wheaton-college-v-burwell/>
Pashman, B. M. (2015). Wheaton College ends coverage amid fight against birth control mandate. Chicago Tribune . Retrieved from <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-wheaton-college-ends-student-insurance-met-20150728-story.html/>
