The rights of religious individuals and organizations are not just a matter of personal preference, but also of international jurisprudential value. The ethical implications of Supreme Court cases, such as that of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, have the potential to shift personal and governmental attitudes regarding religiosity as it relates to health care. In pursuit of upholding their constitutional right to the free expression of religion, religious entities have had to legally defend their refusal to comply with government mandates, such as "to provide employee insurance plans that cover contraceptive costs", which is of moral violation when viewed in the context of some religious texts. The willingness of a governmental body to bring these sorts of cases to the highest legal authority may be thought of as a form of intolerance, and perhaps, additionally, as a precursor to social and legal changes surrounding the "rights" of health care providers and recipients.
The rights of religious individuals and organizations are not just a matter of personal preference, but also of international jurisprudential value. The ethical implications of Supreme Court cases, such as that of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, have the potential to shift personal and governmental attitudes regarding religiosity as it relates to health care. In pursuit of upholding their constitutional right to the free expression of religion, religious entities have had to legally defend their refusal to comply with government mandates, such as "to provide employee insurance plans that cover contraceptive costs", which is of moral violation when viewed with a particular interpretation of some religious texts. The willingness of a governmental body to bring these sorts of cases to the highest legal authority may be thought of as a form of intolerance, and perhaps, additionally, as a precursor to social and legal changes surrounding the "rights" of health care providers and recipients.
R
in the context
with a particular interpretation