Comments about ‘Letter: Employers' beliefs in comparison to employees' beliefs’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Feb. 24 2013 12:10 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

That is in an interesting example. I wonder if anyone can cite any religions that have that as their doctrine?

So should we get rid of the Bill of Rights because someone can think of a hypothetical example where it is inconvenient? A couple of solutios to this dilemma is not to have the government not get involved in running people's lives. A second possible solution is to allow for conscientious objectors. They did when there was a draft. Certain religions, such as the Quakers, believed that killing, even in wartime was immoral. Draft boards would evaluate requests for applicants seeking to get a conscientous objector status. We could do the same.

It beats revoking the Bill of Rights.

Hayden, ID

Personal sacred beliefs no longer apply. Obama won the election and government now controls your ability to live according to the dictates of your conscience.


If I have religious beliefs that limit families to two children, can I, as an employer, refuse to provide insurance for more than those two children (including anything associated with the conception or pregnancy of any children beyond the first two)?

American Fork, UT

Nicely put, David. We should not be bound by the religious belief of our employer, or one another for that matter.

Moab, UT

Employees are not bound.

Huntsville, UT

The only person's religious beliefs that matter to a conservative are his own.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

A recent study found that women who were given access to contraceptives at no cost had abortion rates that were reduced by two-thirds compared to the general population. Abortion rates have already fallen by 30% over the last thirty years. A further two-thirds reduction would give us an abortion rate 76% lower than it was in 1980.

Those who are concerned about abortion should welcome this development.

Eugene, OR

Great letter. Why do so many people who go on about getting the government out of people's lives have no problem with using their religion to dictate how others live?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Contraception is a matter of life and death for the unborn. The government is not forcing anyone to take contraceptives - yet -, but they are forcing every company to pay for contraceptives. They're forcing companies to provide funding to prevent contraception and to pay for the destruction of the unborn if an employee decides that having a baby after having had sex was not the "ideal situation".

Why would anyone equate respecting life with mental illness? Is that the newest tactic being tweeted from the Oval Office?

Tyler D
Meridian, ID


And this is why if religious organizations (or individual believers) want to engage in business or any other civic enterprise, the need to obey the laws of the land just like everyone else.

As none other than Antonin Scalia said in deciding a similar SC case:

"To permit this (religious belief trumping law) would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the laws of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself".


Good points.

What if the employers are Christian Scientists who believe that the treatment for medical ailments is prayer--not medicine?

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Tekakaromatagi, one of my relatives belongs to a Christian sect that believes that physical ills are the result of violations of basic biblical principles. I don't know how they feel about health insurance or medical care, but they definitely believe that you can cure yourself by aligning your behavior with God's teachings. Plus I know that many Jehovah's Witnesses will die before they will let someone give them a blood transfusions.

I think that mixing employer's religious beliefs with health insurance renders reasonable healthcare reform unworkable!

one old man
Ogden, UT

MM, you've come up with some awfully outlandish comments, but this one takes the cake. Thank you for letting us "liberals" (and even moderate conservatives) understand what we're up against.


@ Mike Richards: Contraception, including the morning after pill and the 5 day after pill prevent pregnancies from occurring by preventing ovulation. Once fertilization has occurred, these pills are ineffective.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah


Obama wants companies to do more than stop conception. His plan is not just to prevent conception from occurring but to destroy the unborn whenever the "mother" desires, even at the point of birth with late-term abortions. Is he going to pay for those services? Of course not. He wants the "rich guy" to pay for it. In this case, that "rich guy" is anyone who employees anyone else.

Can't you see his plan? Isn't it clear?

We are here on earth to learn how to control our appetites and our passions. One of those appetites is sex. Are we so unable to control thoughts and desires that we let our hormones dictate our actions? Does anyone "need" a pill to prevent pregnancy, or do they want the pill so that they don't have to learn self-control?

Children are NOT a curse. They are a blessing. Destroying them after conception is unthinkable. Preventing them from coming is almost as unthinkable.

Some think that life is just "party play time". Our creator had the idea that we needed mortal life to learn to grow up and to be responsible and to control our bodies.

Copy Cat
Murray, UT


"What if the employers are Christian Scientists who believe that the treatment for medical ailments is prayer--not medicine?"


"Employees are not bound."

Employees are free to choose who they work for.

The real question is:

When did we decide that enslaving employers was the right and constitutional thing to do? The are being forced to work for the insurance companies, for health care providers, and especially the drug and medical equipment providers, and their well paid lobbyists, in many cases against their will. Doesn't that violate the 13th amendment?

And when did the right to choose to consume something absolve a person from the need to pay for what they consume? If you force someone else to pay for what you consume, you are enslaving the person who pays.

I don't know why liberals don't get this concept. Earning and buying your own stuff is freedom. Being forced to work for someone else's stuff is slavery. Getting the stuff earned by someone else's forced labor makes you a slaveholder.

Oh, wait.

Maybe slavery is what liberals really want.

Salt Lake City, UT

Maud you are wasting your breath on MR. He posts the same tired arguments no matter what the discussion. He blames Obama for abortion when the President was 11 years old when the Supreme Court declared abortion legal under certain circumstances in the USA.

Health Insurance furnished by your employer was a product of wage and price controls during WWII. It has long ago outlived its usefulness as this discussion shows in spades. Employers want out so get rid of it and this conversation goes away with health insurance as we know it since individual healthcare would be too expensive for all but the top ten percent or so to afford. Then lets renew the conversation about healthcare.

Salt Lake City, UT

Tekakaromatagi says "A solution to this dilemma is not to have the government not get involved in running people's lives".

Actually, the far simpler solution is to eliminate employer-provided health care plans. If employers aren't providing that insurance, then companies are not involved in running people's lives.

Employer-provided health insurance began as a way for a company to have a competitive edge in hiring workers. What was once a good thing is now turning to evil. Let's elimitate it.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

I can always tell when someone has written a great letter. The repubs come out of the woodwork and put forth lazy arguments like, "Maybe slavery is what liberals really want." and "Obama won the election and government now controls your ability to live according to the dictates of your conscience."

Thanks for the laughs!

I cannot think of a better case for a single payer system than the complaints repubs have made against our current system. Why not go to a single payer system and let religious employers be free from health care? Why should religions decide which treatments or services they will provide? Get them out of the health care business altogether!

With a single payer system members of any religious denomination can make the personal choices and not have their employers make it for them.

After Adam and Eve were created the Lord gave them instructions and choice. He did not take away choice, as repubs desire.

"Employees are free to choose who they work for."

Where? In your GOP fantasy? Certainly not in the real world. Less choice and complete economic stagnation. The results of your failed economic policies feeding the rich while punishing the others.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Mike Richards and Copy Cat (Mountanman too)

Thank you for demonstrating why it is increasingly difficult to take the Right seriously in any rational discussion.

The constant parroting of right wing media exaggeration has reached such hyperbolic levels that it makes the boy who cried wolf look like a stoic.

to comment

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