Hobby Lobby and First Amendment

On the Hobby Lobby case, the First Amendment was challenged about whether it protected the religious beliefs of an employer when it comes to the decision not to pay for insurance meant for contraceptives. The Snyder vs. Phelps case was also related to religious picketing where the issue of sidewalk picketing was under the scrutiny of whether it was outrageous. The WBC church had held a picketing in a funeral and was found guilty of saying outrageous comments in a funeral. However, the Supreme Court of United States in an 8-1 decision argued that the church was constitutionally protected to say whatever they wanted as far as they did not affect the ceremony. It was established that they had avoided the ceremony and had not been involved directly in stopping the ceremony (Zipursky, 473).

The Supreme Court of the United States favored Hobby Lobby in its ruling asserting that under the First Amendment, religious beliefs were protected and it was the right of the business owner to run his or her business under any religious beliefs. In the Snyder's case, it was asserted that the church had the right to have sidewalk picketing and say any outrageous things as far as they do not cause trouble in the said meetings (Lupu, 34). Looking at the First Amendment and its provisions, I agree with the decisions reached by the Supreme Justices. Limiting sidewalk picketing and ordering businesses to pay for contraceptives in insurances covers would violate the right of speech and religion of the people in the American society.

One of the cases that have been decided by The Supreme Court of the USA is Virginia vs. Black (2003). This was a case related to hate speech in the USA. The issue before the court was related to cross burning that had led to the three defendants in the case guilty of causing harm to others using the cross burning act. The court found that the Virginia Statute that that was against cross burning to be unconstitutional although it was argued that cross burning with the intention to intimidate others was a criminal offense. The court argued that states that are consistent with the First Amendment should protect the freedom of speech as stipulated under the First Amendment. The matter before the court was whether a state would ultimately criminalize the act of cross burning on the basis that it is racially targeted. The First Amendment does not limit hate speech if it is conducted in a way that it does not cause harm. The freedom of speech is provided for in the constitution (Hartley, 1).

President Trump will most likely choose a conservative for the position of the Supreme Court. As a result, the constitution will be interpreted based on the initial meaning that was intended by the initial team that created the constitution. In matters to do with The First Amendment, it is most likely that the conservative judge selected to fill the position will take a stand that protects all factors related to the First Amendment in the USA such as speech and religion without putting into consideration the changing dynamics of the world society. The judge will determine in many ways the decisions that are made by the Supreme Court in Future, which will mean a conservative approach to all matters related to the First Amendment.

Looking at the issues to do with the First Amendment, one question that arises is whether some changes should be made in regards to the provision of the First Amendment because of the increasing diversity of the society.

Works cited

Hartley, Roger C. "Cross Burning-Hate Speech as Free Speech: A Comment on Virginia v. Black." Cath. UL Rev. 54 (2004): 1.

Lupu, Ira C. "Hobby Lobby and the Dubious Enterprise of Religious Exemptions." (2014).

Zipursky, Benjamin C. "Snyder v. Phelps, outrageousness, and the open texture of tort law." DePaul L. Rev. 60 (2010): 473.