They also argued that companies have different responsibilities and rights than people for which they cannot argue based on the owner’s beliefs. Lastly they argue that “a ruling in favor of the objecting parties in these cases will lead to a flood of religious objections regarding a wide variety of medical procedures and drugs, such as vaccinations and blood transfusions” …show more content…
Hobby Lobby Stores”). On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled a 5 – 4 in favor of David and Barbara Green and their family business. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court stated: “The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate . . . against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs. . . . Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.” (“The Hobby Lobby Case”). The Supreme Court rule that under the Affordable Care Act requiring family-own businesses to pay for insurance coverage for contraception violates a federal law which protects the religious freedom of a family business. This rule mean that the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, do not have to disturb their faith or pay fines by providing contraceptives that prevent them from freely exercising their Christian faith. However, Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent opinion arguing that for-profit corporations were not consider religious entities. She also argue that the decision on