People on the Internet seem to have a lot of thoughts and questions about Hobby Lobby. Here are some answers.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom.
The court ruled Monday in a case asking whether family-owned businesses that offer employees health insurance must include contraception in their plans if they object to some forms of it.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law that requires closely held private companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control.
A deeply divided Supreme Court decided Monday in ruling that certain for-profit companies cannot be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees.
Sen. Ted Cruz sounded a call to defend religious liberty, telling an audience of prominent evangelicals that these principles are under attack by the Obama administration.
THROUGHOUT history, people have fought the good fight to preserve those things of value and fundamental importance that define the essence of being human.
Hobby Lobby has consistently emphasized that its case is one of simple statutory interpretation.
Thank goodness there are women on the Supreme Court: That was a common sentiment I heard on cable news Wednesday in the wake of oral arguments at the Supreme Court challenging the Obama administration’s abortion-pill, contraception, and sterilization mandate on the Hobby Lobby arts-and-crafts chain and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Mennonite cabinetmaker in Pennsylvania.
Under both the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, it’s difficult to see how you can force a company – which is, in the end, an extension of the people who run it – to provide services and products that violate sincere, profoundly-held beliefs. This is particularly so when the aggrieved employees have the freedom to either choose an employer who is willing to subsidize their birth control or, even better, pay for it themselves.