From what I understoodfrom Shea’s article is that his concerns are that the decision that might bedecided on Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores might have the same outcome as pastreligious cases like Wisconsinv. Yoder. Another concern that I thought Shea brought up was that of exemptingpeople who are religious from doing things that everyone has to do In thecountry. In other words as said in Christopher Shea’s article “If one religiousgroup got that privilege, then all should”. Basically decisions that have to dowith religion and those that are not religious have to be treated the same, andShea’s concern is that the Hobby lobby case might have the same outcome as pastcases that dealt with religion.
I think that Shea’s concerns are somewhatrealistic considering that the courts do not always make the same decisions oncases that have to do with the same subject in this case that being religion. 2. After readingHamilton’s article the day after the Hobby Lobby decision and seeing where she standson the outcome of the case I think I found some passages from JusticeGinsburg’s dissenting opinion where she states ” the exemption sought by HobbyLobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do nothold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACAwould otherwise secure” (page 8 of Ginsburg’s dissent). This passage fromJustice Ginsburg’s dissent supports what Marci Hamilton thinks of the ruling, ifsomeone (employee) dose not share the same beliefs as the person they areworking for they shouldn’t be excluded from the rights they have as employeesfor that company simply because they have different religious beliefs. Shea, Christopher. “Beyond Belief The Debateover Religious Tolerance.
” 9 June 2014. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human services v. HobbyLobby stories. SupremeCourt of United States.
25 March. 30, June 2014. Print Hamiltion , Marci. “NY Times: A Minefield ofExtreme Religious Liberty.”