Burwell V. Hobby Lobby: A Case Study

In our history as a Nation, we have had some conflicts that have arisen when this occurs and it can be difficult to define what it means to have religious freedom. It should not come as a surprise to us that this may be a conflict in our future. Religion is an asset in our human lives that has directed us toward morality from the beginning of humanity as religions have grown in diversity. There is no category to which it belongs; therefore, it is difficult to face this problem head on when there may be some concrete obstacles that cannot be overlooked. As difficult as it may be to say this, there will not be a point in time when there are conflicts, big and small, that some rules where we cannot always accommodate everyone’s needs. Congress has passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to give individuals more liberty when exercising religion; therefore, not to quell your right to exercise religion and adhere to that “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” as stated in the First Amendment.
Hobby Lobby, 2014). There is a blurry, but definite line where our rights can be obscured by other Amendment's purposes to help us as well. With Hobby Lobby's founders, the Green family, beliefs in certain contraceptive methods that are “abortifacients”, like RU-486, and the priority of giving employees the right accommodations to their liking, there can be some disagreement. The Green family was faced with a complicated problem where they had to choose to either “violate the law or violate their faith”. As individuals, one should put themselves in other perspectives to understand how these disagreements cause conflict in keeping the free exercise of religion