Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

===Imposition of religious beliefs onto others===
Ian Millhiser from [[Vox (website)|Vox.com]] argued that as a general rule in religious liberty cases prior to the Hobby Lobby decision religion can't be used to diminish the rights of others. He pointed to the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case ''[[United States v. Lee (1982)]]'' (1982) in which the Court declared "when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."<ref name="20191226Vox.comMillhiser" /> According to Millhiser the Hobby Lobby decision marks the first time "rights of religious believers could trump the rights of others."<ref name="20191226Vox.comMillhiser">{{cite news |last1=Millhiser |first1=Ian |title=9 Supreme Court cases that shaped the 2010s |url=https://www.vox.com/2019/12/26/21024188/nine-supreme-court-citizens-united-obamacare-muslim-ban-religion |access-date=December 1, 2020 |publisher=[[Vox (website)|Vox.com]] |date=December 26, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124073316/https://www.vox.com/2019/12/26/21024188/nine-supreme-court-citizens-united-obamacare-muslim-ban-religion |archive-date=November 24, 2020}}</ref> Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the [[National Women's Law Center]], argued in the same direction Millhiser by saying that the Supreme Court has never ruled that companies have religious beliefs and that "it has never held that religious exercise provides a license to harm others, or violate the rights of third parties."

Louise Melling, ACLU deputy legal director, said religious freedom "gives us all the right to hold our beliefs, but it doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on others, to discriminate against others."<ref name="LATimes" /> The editorial board of ''[[The New York Times]]'' wrote that the decision "swept aside accepted principles of corporate law and religious liberty to grant owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees."<ref>{{cite news|author1=The Editorial Board|title=Limiting Rights: Imposing Religion on Workers|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/the-supreme-court-imposing-religion-on-workers.html|access-date=Jul 2, 2014|work=The New York Times|date=Jun 30, 2014|archive-date=July 1, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140701182034/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/the-supreme-court-imposing-religion-on-workers.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A [[Fox News]] columnist wrote, "..., with all of the debate about the religious beliefs of the Hobby Lobby owners, what about the religious beliefs of their employees? They are just as important, and should not be trampled upon."<ref>{{cite news|last1=A. Reyes|first1=Raúl|title=Opinion: In Hobby Lobby Decision, What About The Beliefs Of The Employees?|url=http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2014/07/02/opinion-in-hobby-lobby-decision-what-about-religious-beliefs-employees/|access-date=Jul 2, 2014|work=Fox News Latino|date=Jul 2, 2014|archive-date=July 11, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140711070049/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2014/07/02/opinion-in-hobby-lobby-decision-what-about-religious-beliefs-employees/|url-status=live}}</ref> The director of the [[United Church of Christ]]'s Washington, D.C. office, said that the ruling "may embolden private employers to claim religious objections to particular health care services, in effect forcing their own religious views upon their employees."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Ehley|first1=Brianna|title=SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Ruling Chips Away At Obamacare|url=http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/30/SCOTUS-Hobby-Lobby-Ruling-Chips-Away-Obamacare|access-date=Jun 30, 2014|work=The Fiscal Times|date=Jun 30, 2014|archive-date=July 15, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140715045527/http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/30/SCOTUS-Hobby-Lobby-Ruling-Chips-Away-Obamacare|url-status=live}}</ref> Former Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] said, "It's the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means that the ... corporation's employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Reston|first1=Maeve|title=Hillary Rodham Clinton calls Hobby Lobby ruling a 'slippery slope'|url=http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80680462/|access-date=Jul 2, 2014|work=Los Angeles Times|date=Jun 30, 2014|archive-date=October 6, 2012|archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20121006015957/http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80680462/|url-status=live}}</ref> The [[Center for American Progress]] said that the ruling "moves in the direction this court has been moving already, which is talking about [[corporate personhood]]—really treating corporations like people, saying that the corporation has a religion itself and that should be imposed on its employees."<ref name="Cohen">{{cite news|last1=Cohen|first1=Tom|title=Hobby Lobby ruling much more than abortion|url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/politics/scotus-hobby-lobby-impacts/|access-date=Jul 3, 2014|work=CNN|date=Jul 2, 2014|archive-date=July 6, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140706205021/http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/politics/scotus-hobby-lobby-impacts|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Interfaith Alliance]] leader Rev. [[Welton Gaddy]] said, "The First Amendment is at its best when it is used to protect the rights of minorities from the whims of the powerful. Today's decision, which gives the powerful the right to force their religious beliefs on those around them, is a far cry from the best traditions of religious freedom."<ref name="Boorstein" />

Scholars on the other side (including some on the left){{citation needed|date=July 2017}} disagree, arguing that companies owned and run by liberals will likewise benefit from the freedom to operate according to their conscience or values—which has not been viewed as "imposing" views, because people routinely choose whom to associate with based on philosophical compatibility.<ref>{{cite news|title=A liberal's second thoughts about Hobby Lobby|first=Dale|last=Carpenter|date=July 12, 2014|website=Washingtonpost.com|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/12/a-liberals-second-thoughts-about-hobby-lobby/|access-date=August 25, 2017|archive-date=June 27, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170627041923/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/12/a-liberals-second-thoughts-about-hobby-lobby/|url-status=live}}</ref> Additionally, some argue that "religious freedom is worth more than $35," in reference to the $35 that is saved by coverage of the contraceptives and that the Affordable Care Act would not have passed if it were designed to mandate this coverage.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McCaughey |first=Betsy |date=2015-03-05 |title=Hobby Lobby case: Religious freedom's worth more than $35 |url=https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hobby-lobby-case-religious-freedoms-worth-more-than-35 |access-date=2023-11-07 |website=Fox News |language=en-US}}</ref>