The basis for this discussion is the U.S. Supreme Court case ofBurwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

This case is about a business' leadership making real business decisions about employer-provided employee health care benefits. This decision violated a government mandate that private for-profit businesses provide certain types of birth control benefits. The company, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., took a stand against the government's position, based on the business ownership's religious beliefs, raising a Constitutional question under the First Amendment.

The report discusses the U.S Supreme Court Case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The case exemplifies the constitutional implications of violating the government mandate to allow birth control benefits that intern violates the religious beliefs that acknowledges the beginning of life after conception (Ganske, 2015).

The first amendment involved affirmation that non-profit organizations cannot engage in spiritual exercises under RFRA and that the mandate does not impose any requirement of the corporation's capacity. Exempting profit organizations by reducing restrictions on contraceptives violates the religious beliefs of the non-profit organization, such as Hobby Lobby's first amendment. Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation. According to IRS, a closely held corporation is one by which five or fewer shareholders directly or indirectly own more than half of the corporation's stock. However, the Supreme Court did not consider it during the amendment of religious freedom argument.

Regarding the U.S Supreme Court ruling, it is likely it does not apply to public corporations such as IBM because the argument applies to profit-making organizations. Supreme Court attempts to balance social and political conflicts in two different forms. First, measuring the competing interest against another to determine their weight. Secondly, the court attempts to strike a balance between the public corporations and profit-making businesses.

Businesses should invoke the first amendment as it creates conflicting interests among firms, thus unfair competition. Martorana (2015) Observes that closely held corporations are corporate persons, and therefore manifest an independent religious belief. Because these corporations are separate entities with independent constitutional rights, it is unjust to allow trading in contraceptive drugs among public corporations while limiting private entities.

The existing religious beliefs should be independently manifested. The 5-4 U.S Supreme Court decisions strike down the BRCA restrictions on independent corporate expenditure violates the first amendment. In this context, the U.S Supreme Court decisions favor its citizens.

Please explain the following statement:

"Regarding the U.S Supreme Court ruling, it is likely it does not apply to public corporations such as IBM because the argument applies to profit-making organizations. Supreme Court attempts to balance social and political conflicts in two different forms. First, measuring the competing interest against another to determine their weight. Secondly, the court attempts to strike a balance between the public corporations and profit-making businesses."