Hobby Lobby Case

As an avid observer of both law and philosophy, it is with utmost honesty that I try to look at the application of policy through both lenses of social consciousness and thorough use of logic. In my findings, it is almost certain that liberalism adheres to no such system that allows for nuance or exemption. In applying liberalities as it pertains to the law, it is assured that one finds oneself stuck in a paradox of one kind or another, whether or not such contradictions are scrutinized closely or from afar. To state the case that my claims are correct, I will use Hobby Lobby as an example to dissect the application of liberal ideology as it relates to the law. “The claims of Hobby Lobby and Mardel are similar to those raised in Thomas, Lee, and Abdulhaseeb, and the framework provided in those cases guides our analysis.” With that, we can now
16 out of the total 20 contraceptives were available on the plan in which Hobby Lobby offered and they maintained a religious enterprise throughout; the court finding that Hobby Lobby did indeed have a history of sincere religious beliefs that conflicted with the statutes of the mandate in question. Moreover, Hobby Lobby was found to be burdened financially in either course of action. The government argued that it was in the compelling interest of the governed to discount the burdens placed on the religious to accommodate a very miniscule minority which would be effected. To sum up the case briefly, the court decided that the burden created of violating religious freedom outweighed any economic burden that would arise out of Hobby Lobby being exempt from providing 4 contraceptives out of 20 total that the ACA mandated. Furthermore, the court decided that accommodations for the religious frequently operate by lifting burdens and placing them