Vasile 1

Andrew Vasile
Professor Kubler
English 115
25 September 2014
A Religious Government
Throughout history we see how different countries have dealt with conflicts between
religion and politics. Some have embraced one religion for the nation and used its teachings to
base their governmental system on, while others have tried to keep the decision making of the
country separate from religious influences. In America today, there have been many
controversial cases, most famously the Hobby Lobby case, brought up to the Supreme Court
regarding individuals who feel that the law has been infringing on their First Amendment right to
freedom of religion. In the Hobby Lobby case, very broadly, the executives refuse to pay for
female contraceptives because it goes against their religion. The courts have to find a balance
between religious freedom rights and the role the government plays in it. Jordan Lorence, a First
Amendment attorney states that, Our Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment to protect
peoples freedom of expression and freedom of conscience from these emotional spasms of
government coercion (Lorence 1). Although many corporations or businesses are taking a
religious stand in the marketplace the Supreme Court needs to define substantial burden and the
least restrictive means as the determining factors, otherwise, consumers with different beliefs or
values are in danger of being discriminated against.
In class we are reading the book The Complete Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi and it has
many examples of how government and religion clash together. In the beginning of the story the
people of Iran are ruled by the shahs regime until the people revolt and attempt to create a new
way of governing themselves. Then the fundamentalist Islamic regime sees an opportunity to

Vasile 2
gain power and rule with strict religious laws. Marjis uncle Anoosh in the story was a prisoner
of the revolution and once the revolution was over he was released and he voices his opinion of
the uprising Islamic regime. He explains that, In a country where half the population is illiterate
you cannot unite the people around Marx. The only thing that can really unite them is
nationalism or a religious ethic (Satrapi 62). Here the author gives religion the credit of bringing
people together when there is no other hope for unity, but in the next scene she shuts down the
idea of religion ruling the country by describing her uncle Anoosh proclaiming, But the
religious leaders dont know how to govern. They will return to their mosques. The proletariat
shall rule (Satrapi 62)! When people start taking a more fundamentalist view of religion and
applying it to their lives, then the lives they live becomes very restricted. When a population is as
diverse as ours in America, the United States government has to make sure that the law protects
and promotes liberty for everyone, equally. Putting one above the other is unconstitutional and,
therefore, not acceptable for businesses to choose whom they wish to serve based on their
religious beliefs.
One of the first corporations to bring their case to the Supreme Court claiming that the
government was violating their First Amendment rights was the Hobby Lobby Corporation.
After Obama passed the Affordable Health Care Act this required businesses to provide health
insurance to their employees for free which wasnt the problem for Hobby Lobby, they felt that
providing four of the twenty contraceptives in the mandate was against their religion. If they did
not pay for and provide these four contraceptives, then the company would have to pay an annual
fine of $475 million. Hobby Lobby sued saying they do not want to pay for these four
contraceptives for all of their female employees. The fact that they do not want to provide it to
all their female employees is the most important part, and the part that makes this case different
from State of Washington v. Arlenes Flowers and the Elane Photography v. Willock cases. As

Vasile 3
long as they show that they, as executives of a corporation treat their employees all fairly then
the Supreme Court is more likely to side with them. In deciding this case the Supreme Court
justices had to determine two things, whether or not this was a compelling interest for the
government to get involved in, and if Hobby Lobby is using the least restrictive means. The
Supreme Court justices believe that, the compelling interest test is a workable test for
striking balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests (Lobby
48). Hobby Lobby won their case due to the fact that there was a substantial burden for providing
the contraceptives, and it was not found to be discrimination since the lawsuit was completely
based on their religious belief that they were killing a life with those four contraceptives.
Now that a big corporation like Hobby Lobby has won their case other, smaller
businesses, are stepping out into the light trying to defend their religious freedom as a business
and claiming that providing their service to homosexual couples is infringing on their First
Amendment rights. When an individual starts a business or corporation they must understand
that they will be dealing with a lot of diverse people who will not share the same beliefs as them.
Does this mean they should refuse service to them just because they are practicing their First
Amendment rights to freely express what they believe? The photography company in the Elane
Photography case argued that she did not want to photograph a lesbian wedding because it was
against her religion. In an article by The National Review Online who states that, The New
Mexico Supreme Court rejected this argument and basically concluded that business owners and
professionals surrender their First Amendment rights when they enter the marketplace (Lorence
1). Now I am not stating that these business proprietors are not allowed to practice their religion,
but on the other hand, they should understand that they are not exempt from anti-discrimination
laws because of what they claim to believe. In the Elane Photography case the courts found that
she was discriminating against homosexual couples, because there was no substantial burden on

Vasile 4
her providing the photographs, she did not have to accept the ceremony herself because she was
only hired to take pictures, and because she did not want to provide her service based on the
couples sexual orientation.
When religion influences government and the institutions that the government provides it
can create a major conflict in how some of those institutions are run. In The Complete Persepolis
Marji recalls watching the Ministry of Education speak on television about the education system
in her country. He makes the claim that their schools books are too degenerate and explains,
Thats why were closing all the universities for a while. Better to have no students at all than to
educate future imperialists (Satrapi 73). Politics and religion do not work well together because
in a religion it is very specific who is accepted and what their followers should believe is right
and wrong, but in a secular political government the people can decide what they would like to
be the law for the good of the general public, or the majority. It is more accepting to everyone if
a government did not have religion involved.
Some might argue that these businesses should be able to express what they religiously
believe according to the First Amendment, however, that creates a loop-hole for companies to
not follow a wide range of rules and regulations. According to the Supreme Court, Under the
Dictionary Act, the wor[d] person . . . include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms,
partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals. Although companies
are considered people according to the Supreme Court that does not allow them the right to
discriminate against one group of people based on their religion. They have to be able to provide
the same service to anyone, gay or straight, black or white, male or female. In the Arlenes
Flower Shop case Baronnelle Stutzman is being sued for denying a long-time customer flowers
for his wedding with his partner. She argues that in America she has the right to her freedom of
religion but when she doesnt provide flowers to a customer who has bought flowers from her for

Vasile 5
years, because now the ceremony is a gay wedding, she is not protecting her First Amendment
rights anymore but discriminating and infringing upon the rights of others.
The importance of having businesses and religion separate is simple, it is based on my
own personal belief that citizens in the United States should be able to walk into a company or
business and be able to purchase or acquire anything that anyone else can purchase. My family
has a restaurant business of their own and when I brought up the cases of these businesses taking
a religious stance they were confused. They did not understand why they would take such a
personal stance that hurts their company and drives customers away. Keeping professional and
personal matters separate is one of the most important things when running a business said my
father. The outcome of businesses enforcing their religion in the marketplace effects not only
those who are disfavored by certain religions, but every person who would like to walk into a
business without being discriminated against or feel that they need to take a political or religious
stance. I completely encourage the belief of these CEOs religions at home or on their own
personal time, but when they try to mix business and religion there always seems to be some
conflict that arises from it which, I feel, can be easily avoided if everything was kept secular.

Vasile 6
Works Cited
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores , INC." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d.
Web. 18 Sept. 2014.
Lorence, Jordan. "Supreme Court Turns Down Elane Photography Case." National Review
Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2014.
Pat. Elane Photography v. Willock The Supreme Court Case Decision (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
Satrapi, Marjane, and Marjane Satrapi. The Complete Persepolis. New York: Pantheon, 2007.
Print.