The Supreme Court of the United States recently decided a case (in June, 2014) involving a for-profit corporation, Hobby Lobby (a nationwide chain of craft stores), whose owner and CEO objected, on religious grounds, to funding certain types of contraception under the Affordable Care Act. More recently, several state legislatures attempted to pass legislation which allowed for-profit business entities to exercise "religious beliefs," in order to be exempt from following laws each business owner doesn't like, based on their individual religions; these bills were motivated, in part, by a refusal of some business owners to serve customers requiring services (photography, floral services, bakeries) for same-sex weddings.

Do you agree with a former presidential candidate that "corporations are people, too," and thus able to claim "freedom of religion" under the First Amendment? After all, the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United recently asserted that corporations have a First Amendment "freedom of speech," giving for-profit corporations unlimited opportunities to finance political action committees (PAC's). Or do you think that for-profit business entities should not have the capacity to exercise religious beliefs if they operate in the public marketplace and serve the general public? What are the consequences---pro and con?

Your mission (should you decide to accept it) is to read the attached article (published before the Supreme Court's decision last June), and then to research several other articles on this case, and on the recent controversies surrounding the "religious freedom" bills passed in Indiana and Arkansas. At that point, you will be ready to debate this highly controversial topic.

Remember, you will not receive credit for just "footnoting" articles on the subject; you must incorporate what you researched into the body of your post, either by direct quotes or referencing an outside author's opinion.