http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/30/us/annotated-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-contraception-decision.html?_r=0

Milton Friedman wrote the piece The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits to stress the importance of business taking a profit-maximizing approach and maintaining a firm policy of self-interest, as opposed to making decisions for social or political reasons. The Hobby Lobby case in the United States is an example of how a closely-held private business can choose not to follow the teachings of Friedman or competing theories such as those of R. Edward Freeman, and draw the ire of the public to the detriment of the business.

The decision by Hobby Lobby to not provide morning-after contraceptive is not necessarily economically sound. The cost borne by the firm to train new employees as mothers go on maternity leave, as well as the legal battle that ensued as a result, have costed significantly more than any contraceptive policy under the ACA. In essence, Hobby Lobby took a stand according to its owner’s personal code of ethics, and as a result harmed their company.

By choosing to follow their personal code of ethics, rather than react to the social pressures placed on them by the majority, who favour a more liberal approach to the use of contraceptives, Hobby Lobby has became infamous, but scarred. Evidently, ethical considerations in this case will play a huge role in the future performance of the company, and also pitted the employees of the company against its owners.