When does the human's life begin? The arguments of when life begins, vary from one individual to another while others argue that life begins three weeks after the conception date, others think that immediately the fertilization process takes place, life has already begun. The human life is an important aspect when it comes to the aspect of their health, their religious beliefs as well as the subject of contraceptives (Wood, 2011). The Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby cases that took place in March 2014 at the Supreme Court in the United States was a landmark case with the Religious Freedoms, Healthcare and Contraceptives the three significant factors involved. In this paper, we are going to take a closer look at three business plan and decide a suitable legal action with regards to the Hobby Lobby situation to justify why it's essential as well as keeping an eye to any litigation that may arise in future.
Business Plan 1
The business plan clearly states that it's not ready to offer any contraceptives to its employee since a family runs the corporation. Legally all the employees have a right to health cover as per the provisions in the constitution. But again some of the health aspects are both personal and religiously sensitive; hence some companies may feel obliged to let their employees make individual decisions in their best interest. This business plan states clearly that their potential employees get informed before working with them that they won't be specific contraceptive covers in their health plans.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to this plan, their beliefs consider funding the contraceptive requirement a misguided action failing to provide sufficient evidence between the firms that were in it for proceeds from those that were not revenue corporations (Strong, 2015). The obligation due to the contraceptives was a bit restrictive to the anterior without a definite cause for such directions as compared to the second.
In as much as there are religious beliefs and observance, they should not at any time also allowed to infringe the rights of any third party. Initially, there was the need to protect the individuals as well as any organization that was religious from any intrusion from the government while practicing their faith hence the primary purpose of coming up with the Religious Freedom Restoration. In relation with the Hobby Lobby case, the fact that the family is imposing its religious beliefs to all the employees without considering the fact that some employees might have a different opinion on the same is not right. These family-run corporations should formulate various policies that will ensure that all the employees that come into the organization do not feel left out because of the religious beliefs.
Business Plan 2
In the second business plan, the employee will get notified at the end of the application paper on the various cultural values of the company. The information that is provided is on the plan of the organization in covering the health of their employees. That business plan is right in that before any individual commits to the organization, he or she has an idea of what their health coverage looks like. This business plan though does not give the potential employees any different option apart from the once stated on the application disclaimer; hence in a way does not consider the religious beliefs of those individuals.
Business Plan 3
In the third business plan, the laws and national policy recommendations should be on par with the religious beliefs and practices for-profit companies. The religious freedom and interest of any individual are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Supreme Court of the United States, 2014). Therefore when restricting a person's free exercise of religion, the government must show compelling state interest on the same. The legal case on this issue is twofold when an individual as understood what RFRA is and its purpose. The intentions of RFRA on the for-profit organization should hence be made clear if its primary purpose is protection
The for-profit organization should stand firm for in their religious beliefs according to the landmark ruling that was made in the United States Supreme Court (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). Primarily the for-profit companies are not necessary revenue corporations; hence they need to observe the various religious beliefs. This business plan makes sure that the two parties that are, the employers and the employees know the various guidelines stated by the government so as to know how far they can cross the line. By doing so, both the potential employers and the employees will never find themselves at any crossroads when they get to a working relationship in the future and also the guidelines help them deal with any arising issue.
In conclusion, the future employer-employee relationships as well as the women's health and choice in the precedent case of the Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. The furthest the religious beliefs and rights can go to the violations of civil rights ranges with the significant legal implications of the court decisions. In order to protect the religious organizations and individuals and not the for-profit corporations, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should get interpreted clearly on its original intentions.
References
Mayer, Don, Daniel M. Warner, George J. Siedel, and Jethro K. Lieberman. (2015) Business Law and Legal Environment. , scholar.flatworldknowledge.com/books/6433/mayer_1.0-00ack-chac/read.
Strong, S. I. (2015). Religious Rights in Historical, Theoretical, and International Context: Hobby Lobby as a Jurisprudential Anomaly? Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 48(3), 813–889.
Supreme Court of the United States. (2014). Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Us, 573(13), 1–95.
Wood, J. D. (2011). The religious freedom restoration act. Journal of Church and State, 33(4), 673–679. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/33.4.673
