Comments about ‘Attorney: Hobby Lobby won't offer morning-after pill’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 28 2012 11:28 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Provo, UT

Claiming that religious people must be a religious organization to be able to live their lives according to their principles and beliefs is an outrageous example of how people can rationalize violating the rights of individuals. The Constitution does not protect the religious rights of religious organizations instead it protects the religious rights of individuals. The Constitution protects our natural rights and only protects the rights or organizations, groups or businesses insofar as its protecting the rights of the individuals that make up that group rather the group is a family organization, religious organization, non-profit organization, business organization or a club or other group. As someone who no longer buys into the religious nonsense I do believe in the Constitution and have enough decency to respect the rights of others. The same can't be said about these judges.

Durham, NC

I think that is fine... provided there is full disclosure at time of hiring to how there are exemptions to their healthcare policy. The "Pill" on the other hand is no longer just used for contraception, but also for regulating irregular cycles for many women, and should be part of a standard policy. Just my opinion..... but I do think people should have the right to opt out of plans that include abortion services - which the day after pill is a for of - al be it very loosely.


The Supreme Court has allowed private organizations and businesses to make political donations, produce advertisements, etc under the right to "free speech". Why don't these same organizations have freedom of religion as well? Hobby Lobby is only objecting ot one type of birth control, and a controverial one at that. How do private organizations have some rights and not others? It is becoming clearer and clearer in this "politically correct" world that rights are protected as long as a certain segment of society agrees with them.

Morgan Hill, CA

Liberals were all for civil disobedience and freedom of conscience during the 1960s when they were protesting against the Draft and the Vietnam War. Today, their commitment to those principles seems to have mysteriously disappeared.

Layton, UT

The Supreme Court has ruled that this mandate is constitutionally valid. If this ruling does not sit well with the owners of the corporations they can simply drop health care coverage, pay the fine, and move on. The Health Care System in this country is already slowly moving to a single-payer system.

Washington, UT

Welcome to life under a dictatorship--we have no freedom, and religious freedom is the least respected of the Bill of Rights freedoms. Obama has no respect for religious freedom, he is a Marxist, and Marxists despise religion and religious freedom. Let's all get real here, we may have to take up arms again to win back the freedoms our founders fought and died for and signed into the Constitution.

non believer

As a small business owner, I would never enforce my religious views on my employee's! Do the owners want all of their employee's to act and practice the same way they do?

Sugar City, ID

Where does it say in the constitution that the government should be involved in dictating to employers what kind of benefits they must provide for their employees? Shouldn't that be between the employer and the employee. It's an issue I've had with Obamacare ever since it came up and no one has ever been able to explain it to me.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

amazing what the Obama administration is getting away with. This country needs more children not fewer. There won't be anyone to pay for the debt.

Huntsville, UT

All this talk about "religious freedom" - until it is someone elses religious freedom that is involved.


to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments