JUNE 23 — Ever heard of Hobby Lobby?
No, it’s not a rock band, local or foreign.
It is a United States (US) family-owned company, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. (Hobby Lobby).
Today it has more than 1000 stores with over 46,000 employees operating in 48 states.
On September 12, 2012, Barbara and David Green, along with their children Mart Green, Steven Green, and Darsee Lett, filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on behalf of Hobby Lobby.
According to David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, all of the stores that he had founded, including the first store which opened in 1972, incorporated his Christian beliefs into their everyday functions.
In 2012, David and his son Steven, who was the president then, maintained ownership of all of Hobby Lobby stores.
Now, a little background on the case.
On March 23, 2010, then US President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law. The ACA was a legislative overhaul of the US healthcare system that sought to minimise the number of uninsured US citizens.
Many of the ACA’s reforms were directed towards healthcare insurers and mandated which services they were required to cover.
The ACA included a provision requiring employer-sponsored health insurance plans to cover certain preventative health services at no cost to the individual.
In the provision, the ACA granted the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Washington DC authority to determine which preventive services health insurance plans must cover.
On February 15, 2012, the HHS, the US Department of Labor, and the US Department of Treasury finalised regulations that detailed which preventative health services insurers had to cover, which included all contraceptive methods approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Accordingly, all employer-sponsored health care plans had to cover 14 methods of contraception, free of cost to all female enrollees. However, the HHS regulations included exceptions for certain corporations such as non-profit religious organisations.
The Greens filed their suit against the director of HHS, and challenged the contraceptive mandate of the ACA.
They argued that the contraceptive mandate of the ACA violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
According to the Greens, the contraceptive mandate interfered with their and Hobby Lobby’s rights to exercise their religious beliefs by forcing their employer-provided health plans to cover four FDA-approved contraceptive methods that they considered as inducing abortions.
The Greens further argued that under their and Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs, life begins when an egg is fertilised and that emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices both have the potential to prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus.
The Greens objected to methods inducing abortions by terminating fertilised eggs. They claimed that being mandated to cover those contraceptive methods violated their and Hobby Lobby’s rights to exercise their religious freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and protected by the RFRA.
In response to the arguments, the HHS contested Hobby Lobby’s ability to make claims under the RFRA. The HHS argued that the RFRA, as drafted by US Congress, protected only an individual’s right to freedom of religion, not for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. — Pexels pic
In response to the arguments, the HHS contested Hobby Lobby’s ability to make claims under the RFRA. The HHS argued that the RFRA, as drafted by US Congress, protected only an individual’s right to freedom of religion, not for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby.
According to the HHS, Hobby Lobby was a corporation or company composed of individuals with many different beliefs.
The HHS further argued that Hobby Lobby could not claim that the contraceptive mandate burdened the corporation’s religious beliefs, as they were a non-religious corporation composed of individuals capable of exercising their personal religious beliefs.
To cut the story short, the case went to the US Supreme Court which granted the federal government’s request for review.
The case was consolidated with a similar case from Pennsylvania which challenged the contraceptive mandate of the ACA on similar grounds.
On March 25, 2014, the US Supreme Court began to hear arguments for the case. Three months later in June, the US Supreme Court decided by a slim majority (5:4) in favour of Hobby Lobby.
The majority held that the contraceptive mandate of the ACA placed a burden on the exercise of religion of Hobby Lobby, a corporation but nonetheless a person with the ability to practise religion.
The majority ruled that for-profit corporations are “persons” by reference to the Dictionary Act 1871 which defines “person” to include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.
The majority rejected the federal government’s argument that for-profit corporations, which existed primarily to make money, could not exercise religion.
Accordingly, Hobby Lobby had the ability to practise — profess if you like — religion. [See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014)]
The majority decision has been much welcomed and well received as protecting religious freedom in the US, including that of corporations — otherwise called artificial persons.
So yes, artificial persons can profess a faith.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
