When the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of Hobby Lobby, which sought to deny its employees access to the health care benefits that cover birth control, the question of whether the federal government has a right to require religiously affiliated employers to cover birthcontrol was one that had been in the spotlight for some time.
The ruling on the Hobby Lobby case will set a new precedent in the way that courts interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This week the Supreme court is expected to decide whether the First Amendment applies to religious organizations that provide religious services and facilities to their employees.
While the Supreme will have a limited amount of time to rule on the case, there is a clear precedent for the court to apply Title VII in other contexts.
First Amendment Rights to religious accommodation First Amendment protections exist under both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.
The Free Exercise clause of the First, Amendment to the Constitution provides that no one shall “be deprived of the benefits of the free exercise of religion” because of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
The Establishment Clause of the same Constitution, however, is much broader, providing that “[t]he State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The Hobby Lobby decision raises questions about the applicability of these protections in other cases.
In Hobby Lobby the plaintiffs asserted that because their employees have access to birth control as a part of their religious practice, they have a First Amendment right to the benefits that they have received as a result of their employer’s policy.
However, the plaintiffs were also in a unique position to assert this claim, as they were providing health care coverage for the workers themselves.
The Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby also considered whether Hobby Lobby had a First or Establishment Clause right to exclude health insurance plans that cover contraception.
While there is no doubt that a large majority of employers do offer health insurance to their workers, there are still instances where religious accommodation could be required for some groups.
This issue is especially pertinent in the context of abortion coverage, as religious employers could face an uphill battle in complying with their religious obligations to cover abortion.
The Hobby Lobby decision could also have implications for other types of employers.
In the past, courts have generally limited the types of accommodations that can be made to religious employers.
For example, the Supreme has ruled that a religiously affiliated school may not refuse to participate in a class or activity because the school has a religious affiliation, or that an organization may not require its employees to pay for an abortion.
But in the Hobby Lobb case, the court did not address whether a religiously-affiliated employer could require a religious employee to pay the costs associated with obtaining contraceptive coverage.
The court held that a religious employer cannot exclude contraception coverage from its employees because of their “beliefs about the nature, purpose, and efficacy of the [birth control] product.”
If the Hobby Bunnies can now force an employer to provide contraception coverage, they can do so at their convenience.
If Hobby Lobby cannot do so, and the Hobby Lovers can force an employee to choose between taking advantage of birth control or their religious beliefs, this will give birth control advocates another avenue to challenge the religious exemption in their cases.
Religious exemption for the workplace Religious accommodation at the workplace is one of the most significant protections that religious employers can have in the workplace.
Employers are obligated to provide equal access to employees regardless of their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or pregnancy status.
Under Title VII, religious employers are also required to provide the same benefits to employees as other employers, but employers cannot deny them health coverage because of religious affiliation.
This means that religious accommodations are not limited to a workplace setting.
In other contexts, however.
like public schools, religious accommodations can also be found in other places.
In 2009 the Supreme passed the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in housing and other public accommodations.
Religious accommodation, in the form of health insurance, is another avenue that employers can take to comply with the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
As Hobby Lobby demonstrates, it is possible for employers to have religious accommodation for employees, including religious accommodation, at the employer level.
However they can also have religious accommodations at the home, which can include accommodation that would not be possible without a religious accommodation.
This article originally appeared on The Next Word and has been republished here with permission.