Please read this post and give me your suggestions and opinions on the topic/content of this post.
The lawyers for Hobby Lobby based their arguments on the premise that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 extends to for-profit companies and enables them to deny their employees health coverage of contraception if this is in opposition to the religious beliefs of the owners. The basic argument was that owners of corporations had a right to exercise their religious freedom and not be penalized for doing so. Therefore, the bulk of the argument was predicated upon the RFRA as the lawyer and the Supreme Court judges continuously cited this law as the basis of the potential decision that would be made, and the gist of the case rested upon how it would be interpreted. This interpretation was divided by the political ideologies within the Court wherein the eventual decision was decided in accordance to these political leanings.
Nevertheless, the arguments made by the lawyer were very credible in reference to elucidating upon the original intent of RFRA, which he continuously asserted was to provide people and corporations with protections regarding their religious freedoms. The Court's most vociferous justices' were Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. These two Justices were ...
Burwell versus Hobby Lobby Stores is examined.