One month ago today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. The highly publicized case awakened activists of all sorts, but what does the court’s decision really mean?

In accordance with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the Supreme Court ruling allowed Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, as “closely held, for-profit companies with sincere religious convictions,” exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, which requires insurers to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives for employees.

The Green family, who own and operate the Hobby Lobby chain, believe that the ACA’s contraceptive mandate violates the religious freedoms of employers by forcing the coverage of what they call “post-conception abortifacients.” They will continue to cover sixteen FDA-approved contraceptives and refuse only the few forms that are capable of destroying a fertilized egg: Plan B One-Step (the morning after pill), Ella (also an emergency contraceptive) and both copper and hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs.)

According to the Internal Revenue Service, a closely held corporation is one with more than 50 percent of its outstanding stock owned by five or fewer individuals.

Esther Roberts Bell, attorney and CEO of Global Intellectual Property Asset Management, clarifies the distinction.

“These are privately owned family companies,” Roberts Bell said. “They are not publicly traded, and that is a critical fact that determined this case’s outcome.”

A high percentage of American businesses fit this criteria, but to qualify for an exemption, all shareholders must be known to hold the same beliefs, which is much more unusual.

Although the Hobby Lobby ruling has been the subject of many headlines, Phil Newman, public relations specialist and founder of NewManifest Communications, said he believes that very few Knoxvillians will be affected by this decision.

“I think some business owners will see the heat that Hobby Lobby has taken for its policies and perhaps, out of fear, change their own policies to avoid courting controversy,” he said.

While the Cathy family, who owns and operates Chick-fil-A, might take advantage of the recent decision, it is quite unlikely that Knoxville’s small businesses will risk their livelihood by pursuing the issue.

According to Lori Windham, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and counsel for Hobby Lobby, the Green family said the Supreme Court decision was a landmark decision for religious freedom that it protects people of all faiths. ( LINK: http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/ )

The true debate, however, was something altogether different.

For the Court, whether or not the contraceptives in question were actually “abortifacients” was inconsequential. As Roberts Bell explained, what mattered was that the Definitions Act in U.S. code 1127 attached personhood to these privately owned, family corporations.

Once Hobby Lobby, as a legal person, expressed a belief, it became unlawful to try to suppress it.

“The Religious Freedoms and Restorations Act (RFRA) (sic) states that you have to read religious liberties as broadly as possible in every instance,” Roberts Bell said. “SCOTUS said that Hobby Lobby meets the criteria, so they are protected under RFRA, which states that the government cannot substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion.”