Under the new law, all businesses... ... middle of paper ... ... Works Cited: “Flaws in the Affordable Care Act.” The Washington Post. 10 Feb. 2014. 2 March 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/diagnosing-the-affordable-care-acts-flaws/2014/02/10/cf7f26ea-91c9-11e3-b3f7-f5107432ca45_story.html Kessler, Glenn. "Is Obamacare a Job Killer?" The Washington Post.
Thus came religious freedom. The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," meaning that an American citizen would be able to practice his or her religion without any intervention or persecution from the government, be it Islam, Judaism, Mormonism or Catholicism. Yet, with religious freedom, comes an important question concerning its existence. Is religious equality just as important as all the other freedoms... such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom to assemble, and others as well? The answer here is yes.
In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby the question the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is tasked with answering is whether a mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which provides that government shall not substantially burden a persons exercise of religion absent a compelling interest. The Petitioners, Sebelius et al., defended their position stating that 1) Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company and could not be considered a “person exercising religion”, 2) Free Exercise rights therefore did not extend to Hobby Lobby and 3) the ACA mandate passed strict scrutiny citing public health as a compelling interest. The Respondents, Hobby Lobby et al., responded stating that 1) corporate and individual respondents were “persons exercising religion”, 2) Free Exercise rights extended to for-profit corporations and their owners and 3) the ACA mandate violates their rights under RFRA because it substantially burdens their exercise of religion and fails strict scrutiny. The Petitioners argued that RFRA did not apply to Hobby Lobby as a forprofit company because under RFRA they were not “persons exercising religion”. The Petitioners stated that for-profit corporations use labor to make a profit, not to spread a religious mission as reinforced in Gilardi v. USDHHS (733 F.3d 1208 Emily LaVine MPH 635 3/4/14 (D.C. Cir.