Quantcast
U.S. & World

Judge grants injunction in Hobby Lobby case

Comments

Return To Article
  • WRK Riverton, UT
    July 23, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    Let me see if I get this right.

    Leftist definition of freedom to choose: You get to choose what you want to do and I pay for it.

    Conservitive definition of freedom to choose: I get to choose what I want to do, and I pay for it.

    Is that about right?

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    July 22, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    Hutterite says, "People need health care, not employers."

    People don't need employers? They don't need jobs?

    Untenable.
    Unsustainable.
    Unbelievable.

    And oh, so Obama-ish.

  • BruinUtah Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 22, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    @cjb

    Let me clarify things for you? Employers use to be able to determine what was covered and what was not, prior to ObamaCare. Talk about infringing on rights. That is where the line was drawn. Thank you!

    @Darrel

    A blood transfusion is a medical doctors choice for health. A contraceptive is the choice of in some, not all cases a life choice of promiscuity looking to be covered up. A blood transfusion would not be at the will of a personal choice that lead to a mistake, sex and trying to prevent the outcome of it is. Your argument is still on the other side of ethics, values and the law.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 21, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    re
    UtahBruin
    Saratoga Springs, UT

    Let me clarify things or you. The law is that businesses now provide contraceptives as a benefit to workers. Clear enough?

    Also, since this is the law, one set of workers shouldn't have to do without just because the employer says this is against their religion. As I said aid before, if an employer wishes not to use contraceptives for religious reasons, that is their business, don't have the right to take this benefit away from other people because this benefit is against their religion. They need to keep their religious restrictions to themselves.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    July 20, 2013 11:27 p.m.

    Thank God that a judge actually values religious freedom and the Constitution.

    Clearly many of those who post here do not.

    I think patients should make ALL the decisions regarding their care, not the insurance companies, not their employers, and most of all, not the government. This is why national health care is incompatible with the constitution. It would force JW's to pay for blood transfusions, Catholics to pay for abortions and contraception, Christian Scientists to pay for health care, when they don't believe in it and do not draw benefits from it.

    We have to choose between public paid health care as a basic right or freedom of religion as a basic right. These two are in direct conflict with each other, incompatible, unless we write a zillion exemptions. I side with the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, and believe that freedom of religion is the basic right that should be protected.

    Those who want whatever kind of health care are free to go buy it. It is widely available in great variety, like food choices in a grocery store. Go buy what works for your family and let others do the same.

  • MrTuscadero Houston, TX
    July 20, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    People should be outraged over the fact that Muslims are automatically exempted from Obamacare's provisions "for relgious reasons." Why aren't Christians? Obama has repeatedly denied that he is a Musolim, but it certainly doesn't look that way from here. Does the U.S. government officially recognize Islam, but not Christianity?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 19, 2013 9:09 p.m.

    @Utah Bruin
    "First, nobody cares about what if's? What if worms had machine guns?"

    ==============================

    I think these are very natural extensions of the logic being presented here.
    Suppose Hobby Lobby won, where does it end?

    Can the insurance provided by my Jehovah's Witness supervisor deny my child a blood transfusion?

    Does that cross a line? Where is that line? That is the whole point of this discussion.

    It isn't about lifestyles. Your insurance probably covers cancer treatments for smokers, a lifestyle choice.
    Your insurance probably covers insulin for diabetics, that situation depending on circumstance can be a lifestyle choice.

    The solution isn't simply "find another job".
    That may work well with 2% unemployment when businesses are competing for me, but with unemployment where it is today,
    people are willing to put up with whatever their boss wants simply so they can feed their families.

    I agree there should not be a bureaucrat between me and my doctor, nor should their be a pastor, unless it is my pastor and I decide to include him.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 19, 2013 6:13 p.m.

    Dear Darrel,
    The examples you cite are all in regards to health care that is, for lack of a better term, " do or die." If you need an emergency blood transfusion, that is a matter of life, not lifestyle choice. Please observe the difference. We must not confuse matters of life with matter of lifestyle choice

    ==================================

    Ok...my sister has been told if she gets pregnant she will more than likely die. She is married. Is your solution for her to not have sex? If it is, I invite you to play by the same rules, otherwise what she and her husband decide to do is between them, and her doctor, and if she wants her pastor; not yours, not mine.

    My other sister, who is single, needs birth control for other "female reasons"

    If Hobby Lobby wants to be in the public domain, it has to abide by certain rules. No one is forcing it to conduct business. But if it decides to, it must play by the rules.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 19, 2013 5:27 p.m.

    Good day all,
    My original post made a statement answering an earlier post that, as a leftist, I was to be irritated by having the real freedom to choose. As several pointed out, I don't actually enjoy that right, and neither does anyone else. As a hard working leftist, I don't have the cash to go after it in court, either. So, by the standard of my original post, I guess I'm not to be irritated. I have a feeling that, if I actually did enjoy the real freedom to choose, and acted accordingly, many conservatives would be irritated by my having the real freedom to choose. Those same conservatives would probably also want an area of parking by my casino where there are no parking lot lights, so they could come and go unnoticed, just like they do to my garage now. Anyway, we need a single payer health care system that takes the hobby lobby's of the nation out of the picture and serves the people. People need health care, not employers. Have a good weekend.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 19, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    Religious organizations are free to discriminate for whatever petty reason they like.
    Business organizations are NOT free to discriminate for whatever petty reason they like.
    Hobby Lobby is a Business, NOT a religious organization.

    This would be solved with a one payer option, but Obama had to cave to the republican plan, and now we have businesses expecting to be treated like religions.

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    Dear Darrel,
    The examples you cite are all in regards to health care that is, for lack of a better term, " do or die." If you need an emergency blood transfusion, that is a matter of life, not lifestyle choice. Please observe the difference. We must not confuse matters of life with matter of lifestyle choice.

  • BruinUtah Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 19, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    You folks that differ with Hobby Lobby and trying to control what they firmly believe in live in a land of what if's.

    You are trying to do to Hobby Lobby and disagree with them on the same principal that you are trying to do to them and make them do what you want. So that is the way America is huh? Take my ball and go home. If I can't make somebody do it my way, I will cry and call them wrong for doing what they firmly believe it. Remember people, this was a non issue until Obamacare came along.

  • BruinUtah Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:57 p.m.

    @moronixuur

    WHAT?

    It is their company, it is not the NSA, FBI, ATF or any other government organization or affiliate or government employer. Yes, there are laws that they have to play by. But it does not mean that you cannot challenge that law. If you win, good for you, then let the public decide what they want to do, if you lose, sorry for you, then you the company get to decide what you want to do. (See one of my previous post about the options) If, If, If, If, that is all I am hearing from you people who think HL is wrong for doing what they believe in, in a religious freedom country. Let's please live in the present and not the what if world. Let's use common sense, they are doing nothing wrong that nobody ever complained about before, prior to Obamacare. But now it is wrong because you live in a what if world that wants everyone else to pay for their mistakes when they should be accountable themselves. This argument is seriously getting old.

  • dhsalum Saint George, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic

    Excellent points?!?!? He tried to elicit an emotional response from people by bringing up silly 'what-ifs'.
    The Hobby Lobby is not imposing its beliefs on the employees. They can get insurance or employment elsewhere. There are plenty of people who get insurance from somewhere besides where they work. Or they can buy it separate without insurance. Obama is the one imposing his beliefs on others.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:48 p.m.

    @UtahBruin
    "And let employers, business owners, choose their coverage they want to offer."

    I don't want an employer to be interfering in my healthcare coverage especially when they have a profit motive to look out for (the gov't doesn't).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    You know... if we had universal single payer health insurance this wouldn't be an issue because then employers wouldn't be getting in the way...

  • dhsalum Saint George, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    @mornixuur

    There are plenty of places here in Utah that obviously don't want to hire mormons for whatever reason. So all the mormons work at other places. Simple.
    A business owner should be able to run their business how they want and if someone feels strongly enough, then they are allowed to voice their opinion about the business. And if that person is employed, they can leave! If I worked for someone who did not let me do what I wanted, I would search for another job and deal with it until then. But why should the government be able to step in and decide how the business spends its money?
    The business owner's freedom is being affected here, not the employee's freedom.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    mornixuur you make excellent points that will fall on deaf ears because they believe their religious majority will continue to set the rules. Eventually another religion will become a majority in America, when it tries to impose it's beliefs on it's civil employees as Hobby Lobby has just watch these same defending posters lose it.

    Like the freedom to build a mosque where one owns property, right?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    Hutterite: How about spending some time studying the constitution! Legislators make the laws, voted in by our democratically elected representative (We are a republic). The Supreme Court’s jobs is to compare laws to the Constitution, and to demolish laws that violate the Constitution. The rest is up to the citizens. Denying you the right to build a casino has no bearing on your 'rights'. I should say that I want to put all children under 12 in jail, but if the will of the people is to deny me that 'right', then it won't happen and my 'right' hasn't been violated. My 'right' was to see if I could do it, not state that it is my right without regard to other citizens rights. Let's get real here!

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 19, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    @Darrel

    First, nobody cares about what if's? What if worms had machine guns?

    You hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph. You said..."One of the biggest complaints people had with Obama care was they wanted the government to stay out of the doctor's office....I don't want my employers pastor in their with me either"

    Your right, get government out of Insurance, i.e. get rid of Obamacare and all the compliance and regulatory issues of Obamacare. And let employers, business owners, choose their coverage they want to offer. Don't you think it is funny that nobody ever complained about not being able to get their birth control covered, until Obama started sticking his hands in the insurance world. It has been this way forever until now. So you are right, get Obama out of it and we don't have a problem and nobody has anything to complain about, because employers and business owners have been providing their own insurance for years without regulation. Seriously people, it is not that hard. Commonsense here, please. Don't you see the left is pressing the issue, there was no complaining before.

  • mornixuur Layton, UT
    July 19, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    I would have to say that under the logic shown by most of you here, you seem to believe that a personal religious objection by the owner of a company ought to exempt them from any laws they find they dislike, even though the company itself is not owned or run by a religious organization per se.

    That's a very dangerous precedent you're headed towards.

    Under that thinking, if I'm a member of the Christian Identity religion (neo-nazis) i should be allowed to fire non-whites because my religion says they're contemptible.

    If I'm one of those bible-belt southern baptists who believe Mormons aren't Christians and are part of an evil cult, I should be able to fire them and not face discrimination charges.

    Your company is not you, you are not your company. It does not infringe on anyone's rights for a company to play by the same rules that other businesses do.

  • AlaskaCougar Wasilla, AK
    July 19, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    @ Hutterite

    This is in fact a discussion about abortion, because in the view of Hobby Lobby's owners, the morning after pill is in fact an abortion, not birth control. That is the heart of the issue.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    July 19, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    @ Hutterite
    For $1 or $2 in the bathroom of many gas stations you can buy birth control. I would say it's pretty widely available. Course I'm speaking from NE not UT. I imagine it's available at Walmart, Target, and other mainstream resale stores in packages that costs less than $10. I would say that forms of birth control are widely available.

  • politicalcents West Jordan, UT
    July 19, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    This whole concept is ridiculous. At no time or place has Hobby Lobby said that their employees cannot buy the MA pill or other contraceptives. Hobby Lobby has clearly stated that they have a moral issue with paying for it. They do not discriminate against employees who do, they just simply don't pay for it.

    Why is this an issue for the democratic party? I hear constant arguments from the Democratic Party that we should stay "out of people's bedrooms" (referring to Homosexuals, among other things). Why then, should we pay for what happens there?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 19, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    "Rather, let's force anyone in business to support something they morally object to because someone else can't pay $15 a month (50 cents per day) to support their own convictions."

    ======================

    The issue I have isn't with the money, it's the idea.

    What if you worked for a Jehovah's Witness employer, and your child needed an emergency blood transfusion? Should the insurance provided by your work be expected to cover that?

    Suppose your supervisor is a Christian Scientist who believed in only Faith based healing?
    Or a Scientologist who didn't believe in psychiatric care?

    One of the biggest complaints people had with Obama care was they wanted the Government to stay out of the doctor's office. Well, I am a religious man, but I don't want my employer's pastor in the doctor's office with me either.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 19, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    @Hutterite

    ...then how come this so called leftist can't build a casino here?

    Take your complaint to the courts about not being able to build a casino and maybe you will win, if not, then you will just have to go on living without your dream of a casino. This is what Hobby Lobby did, they took it to the courts and they will either win and move on, or they will lose and have to pay for it or close their doors if they choose. This is where the laws of our land and country come into play and our "Freedoms" we enjoy, religious or not to do what we want to do within the law. So your bully pulpit you speak of is your own made up bully format.

    And, birth control is widely available. Go to the doctor, get a prescription, and go pay for it and pick it up at the local pharmacy of your choice. It's pretty simple. But the left need to quit asking everyone else to pay for everything. If you want it and it is not covered you have to pay for it. Just like anything else. Commonsense.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 19, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    "Nothing irritates the leftists as much as real freedom to chose" ...then how come this so called leftist can't build a casino here? This is seen as a victory for religious freedom but it's a loss for everyone who loves freedom because religion, without the burden of proof, will seek to restrict it from the bully pulpit.
    We need to start having an adult discussion about making birth control as widely available as possible, otherwise all the protests about abortion are meaningless.

  • One of a Few Layton, UT
    July 19, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    This will be over tuned. The basic law has already passed constitutional muster. The rest is just conservatives doing what they bemoan - wasting taxpayer funding. Hobby Lobby is an employer and is required to offer insurance and that insurance is required to meet certain standards and if it doesn't HL will be taxed - that is what the conservative John Roberts ruled.

  • JP71 Ogden, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    This is a real victory for religious freedom. Hopefully this decision will spill over into other issues. If a person feels that they need to have birth control they have the right to work somewhere else.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    If I worked for a Jewish employer who all of a sudden decided it was a sin for me to spend money on Saturday, I would first of all recognize that he is paying me his money and thus has the right to require me to do what it takes while I have the right to refuse the offer and find another employer. Then I would consider the amount of hassle that not being able to spend money on Saturday would cause me vs the benefits of working for the employer. E.g. if he offered me twice the amount of compensation and provided other benefits, I might be OK with this little restriction. But I would want this to be a matter between me and the employer - we can figure it out, no need for the government to step in and tell the employer what he has to do.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    @ The Rock

    Very well and perfectly said. Makes 100% sense, I have no idea how it all gets lost in translation.

    @ BYU Track Star

    What does Viagra have to do with the Morning After pill. One of them might help a man who has some nerve damage, diabetes or other diseases, etc. It is not just old men who suffer from ED. The other is an inhibitor to accountability for your actions. If someone wants to be sexually active, be sexually active I don't care one way or the other. But take responsibility for your own actions and don't rely on someone else to cover the cost for your promiscuity. If someone is married and needs the MA Pill, they might then want to check with the counselor about some marriage issues. If things are good, be accountable for your actions. Not relevant track star, you can't run from everything and expect someone else to pay for it.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 19, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    @cjb

    I would like to help clarify some things for you.

    "A person certainly has the right to restrict themselves in accordance with their religion" Yes, and business owners are able to do what they wish. Like that sign you see in businesses. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. If you have a job, you are required to live with and follow the will of your employer. I know I don't get to dictate my benefits summaries.

    "They don't have any right to try to impose such restrictions on other people"
    Yes, this is not a restriction, this is a choice. Those living the lifestyle where they need the morning after pill is their choice. We are held accountable for our own actions, we don't need to hold someone else accountable (i.e. Hobby Lobby)

    "Will employees who happen to work for employers who are observant Jews be restricted from spending the money they earn on Saturday?"
    Nope, it is there money to do with what they want.

    "Or from buying alcohol if they work for a Muslim employer?"
    Nope, see above answer to previous question.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    July 19, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    What is good for by Goose is good for the Gander I suppose. But to be consistent I hope the Hobby Lobby also doesn't allow the Male Employees with ED to get access to Viagra or other Male enhancement type medications. That would, in some people's opinion, thwart older men's carnal desires and prevent the male user from sin. Just saying

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    July 19, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    When a conservative believes something is right they follow that principle and share it with others in the hopes that they will also see the light and follow suit. If they don't conservatives chalk that up to freedom of choice. (There are exceptions, we will prevent others from doing violence to others, including the unborn.)

    When a liberal believes something is right they immediately try to force everyone else to do it, but they may not even do it themselves. (Example: Liberals force tax payers to pay for government charity but they have a dismal record of giving to charity themselves.)

    Obama is pro choice when it comes to abortion.
    He is anti-choice when it comes to paying for abortions.
    He is anti-choice when it comes to buying health insurance.

    etc....

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    Isn't it about time we ALL admitted that Obamacare isn't going to work?

    Its' got more holes in it than swiss steak. After Obama spends billions on its' implementation and hires 16000 new IRS employees (government healthcare spies)and the law STILL doesn't work, we will be forced to write some new piece of legislation anyway.

    Why not just start now and avoid years of delaying the inevitable?

  • Open Mind Taylorsville, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    Hobby Lobby has every right in this case to not give birth control to employees. That is the great thing about America. Larry Miller was attacked because he restricted certain movies from showing in his theaters. That's his perogative because it's his business. Let freedom ring!

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    My employer-funded healhcare plan restricts me to generic (low-quality) prescriptions and mandates that I use a mail order service. How is restricting what forms of birth control are allowed any different?

    cjb - This case is about what the employer - and therefore the owners - have to pay for. It has nothing to do with how employees use their wages.

    JL - Democrats used to understand that principle 25 or 30 years ago (I know - I used to be one). In the mad rush for "tolerance", they forgot to be tolerant of those who disagree with them.....

  • Brotherly Kindness SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    Hopefully it will not be reversed. Hobby Lobby is not imposing anything. If their employees do not like it, they may certainly search for employment elsewhere. They chose to work there, the store management did not force them.

    What's next is if this *is* reversed? Will employees be able to force the owner of their business to keep the store open on Sunday because the employees want to work more hours and don't share the owner's religious views on the sacredness of the Sabbath?

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    July 19, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    re: cjb

    Or employees who work for a Kosher butcher being restricted to using Kosher methods....perish the thought.

    Rather, let's force anyone in business to support something they morally object to because someone else can't pay $15 a month (50 cents per day) to support their own convictions.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    cjb,
    how are the owners restricting their employees? How?? it just is NOT happening.

    How does my refusal to buy cigarettes for my co-worker remove his right to smoke? How? it just is NOT happening.

    Just because the employer is not being forced to buy something does not mean the employee is prevented from using it.

    it is a ridiculous argument to say the owners of hobby lobby are forcing their beliefs on ANYBODY. just the opposite is the case, BO is trying to impose HIS moral (amoral) standard on the owners of hobby lobby.

    Or are you one of the 1/3 of folks who thinks the 1st amendment goes too far?

  • JLFuller Boise, ID
    July 19, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    Nothing irritates the leftists as much as real freedom to chose. Choosing not do something is just as important as being allowed the freedom to do something. However Democrats don't seem to understand that principle. If it is their idea they call it a right. If it is a conservative's idea then it is a violation of something. Such seems to be the point in this Oklahoma case.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 19, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    Hopefully this decision will be reversed. A person certainly has the right to restrict themselves in accordance with their religion, they don't have any right to try to impose such restrictions on other people.

    What's next, will employees who happen to work for employers who are observant Jews be restricted from spending the money they earn on saturday, Or from buying alcohol if they work for a Moslem employer?