Hobby Lobby, an art and craft company had a case that involved Mardel as well as educational supply. The case was consolidated by Conestoga’s case, a furniture company. The lawsuit was filed against enforcement of the contraception rule based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as well as the free exercise clause of the first amendment so as to protect the religious liberty of the Hahns and the Greens. The federal government became a party of this case after the Supreme Court advised the company to sue the federal government.
The statutory law passed by Congress and was at issue in this case is the religious freedom restoration act. It required strict scrutiny for neutral laws of general applicability even if it is a religious belief.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Constitutional law principles at issue were contraception ruled based on the religious freedom restoration act which was amended by the religious land use and institutionalized persons act and the free exercise clause of the first amendment. The supreme court accepted and also consolidated the case together with Conestoga(Archer, 2019).
The contraceptives allowed by the federal government for the employer to provide in the health insurance plan include all forms of birth control. The companies’ policy did not forbid employees from using most of the contraceptives except emergency contraceptives like levonorgestrel, ulipristal acetate, copper IUDs and hormonal IUDs as they claim these pills end human life which is against their beliefs.
The Supreme Court holding was in this case. If a business owner studied scientific journals and came to the belief that a baby’s life begins at conception, or shortly thereafter, and later objected to the provision of the four contraceptives in this case, they would have a constitutional argument to make so as to protect their conscience if they were an atheist and do not recognize any form of religion.
Reference
Archer, M. (2019). The Hobby Lobby Case and Arguments around an Equal Rights Amendment. Maine Policy Review, 28(2), 60-61.
