Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

===Religious exemption from laws that apply to the general public===
Although the court stated clearly that the decision is limited to the contraceptive mandate (Syllabus p.&nbsp;4-5), the ruling is seen to have consequences extending far beyond contraception. [[Walter Dellinger]], former acting solicitor general said, "for the first time, commercial enterprises could successfully claim religious exemptions from laws that govern everyone else." Fifteen states had filed a brief arguing that businesses would be able to deny coverage for transfusions, stem cell treatments, and psychiatric care.<ref name=Reach>{{cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|title=Ruling Could Have Reach Beyond Issue of Contraception|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/contraception-ruling-could-have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html|access-date=March 27, 2014|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 24, 2014|archive-date=March 29, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140329123556/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/contraception-ruling-could-have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html?_r=0|url-status=live}}</ref> In line with the dissenting opinion, ''[[The American Prospect]]'' asked, "[W]ill the taxpayers have to send a check to employees if employers feel that [[minimum wage]] laws violate their religious beliefs?"<ref>{{cite news|last1=Lemieux|first1=Scott|title=5 Men on Supreme Court Impose Substantial Burden on Women in Illogical Decision|url=http://prospect.org/article/5-men-supreme-court-impose-substantial-burden-women-illogical-decision|access-date=Jul 3, 2014|work=The American Prospect|date=Jun 30, 2014|archive-date=July 7, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140707024039/http://prospect.org/article/5-men-supreme-court-impose-substantial-burden-women-illogical-decision|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Jonathan Rauch]], a senior fellow at the [[Brookings Institution]], said that objections to paying health benefits for same-sex spouses will get traction.<ref name=Cohen/> The [[National Gay and Lesbian Task Force]] (NGLT) and the [[National Center for Lesbian Rights]] withdrew their support for the [[Employment Non-Discrimination Act]] (ENDA) passed by the Senate, saying that its religious exemptions would allow companies to fire or refuse to hire LGBT workers in light of the ''Hobby Lobby'' ruling. NGLT executive director [[Rea Carey]] said, "We do not take this move lightly. We've been pushing for this bill for 20 years."<ref>{{cite news|last1=O'Keefe|first1=Ed|title=Gay rights group withdrawing support of ENDA after Hobby Lobby decision|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/08/gay-rights-group-withdrawing-support-of-enda-after-hobby-lobby-decision/|access-date=Jul 8, 2014|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=Jul 8, 2014|archive-date=July 8, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140708184210/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/08/gay-rights-group-withdrawing-support-of-enda-after-hobby-lobby-decision/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Such concerns are focused on the court's application of the federal RFRA law and were driven by national controversy over a [[State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts|state RFRA]] amendment bill in Arizona. Douglas Laycock, law professor at the University of Virginia, said, "The whole secular left has decided" that RFRA laws "are very dangerous because they care so much more about the contraception cases and gay rights." He said RFRA laws are mischaracterized because they do not dictate outcomes favoring religious objectors, they only require courts to use the highest standard of scrutiny on any law challenged.<ref name=Reach/> Mark Kernes, Senior Editor and Chief Legal Analyst for [[AVN magazine]] stated in an [[op-ed]] piece, "If the Hobby Lobby decision supports the 'right' of companies not to make available birth control that will prevent women from 'catching' a pregnancy, what's to keep those same religious companies from arguing that providing access to [[pre-exposure prophylaxis|PrEP]] drugs like [[Truvada]], which help prevent gays (and, admittedly, everyone) from catching [[HIV]] shouldn't similarly be excluded from their health plans?"<ref name=2014AVNTruvada>{{cite web|last1=Kernes|first1=Mark|title=Will the Hobby Lobby Decision Impact the Availability of Truvada?|url=http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Will-the-Hobby-Lobby-Decision-Impact-the-Availability-of-Truvada-565669.html|website=AVN.com|publisher=Adult Video News|access-date=3 July 2014|archive-date=8 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140708204149/http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Will-the-Hobby-Lobby-Decision-Impact-the-Availability-of-Truvada-565669.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2021, Senator Cory Booker introduced a bill called the Do No Harm Act to reverse Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-09-15 |title=Booker reintroduces bill reversing Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision |url=https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/booker-reintroduces-bill-reversing-supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-decision/ |access-date=2022-04-26 |website=New Jersey Globe |language=en-US |archive-date=2021-09-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916113432/https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/booker-reintroduces-bill-reversing-supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-decision/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

As of April 2022, there is an expectation that "Hobby Lobby 2.0" is forthcoming should President Biden pass changes to Obamacare regarding extensions for protections for trans people and the interpretation of discrimination on the basis of sex.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-21 |title='Hobby Lobby 2.0': Two Biden rules on trans care raise religious liberty fears |url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/hobby-lobby-2-0-two-biden-rules-on-trans-care-raise-religious-liberty-fears |access-date=2022-04-26 |website=Restoring America |language=en |archive-date=2022-04-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220426030827/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/hobby-lobby-2-0-two-biden-rules-on-trans-care-raise-religious-liberty-fears |url-status=live }}</ref>