Comments about ‘Judge grants injunction in Hobby Lobby case’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, July 19 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cjb
Bountiful, UT

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?

JLFuller
Boise, ID

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.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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?

GiuseppeG
Murray, Utah

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.

Brotherly Kindness
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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?

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

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.....

Open Mind
Taylorsville, UT

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!

1conservative
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

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?

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

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....

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

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

VST
Bountiful, UT

I recently paid $200 for a new set of lenses for my glass frames because Medicare will not cover it, even though one’s vision will change over time, especially as you get older. Since Medicare does not cover it, neither will my supplemental insurance (medigap). I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt Obamacare would pay for those lenses either, (assuming I was younger and not on Medicare).

If that is the case, then why is this administration and all progressive thinkers’ way up in the air over this issue of a woman having to pay $9/month for a contraceptive if she happens to work for a religious institution or Hobby Lobby for that matter? If you think they should pay for contraceptives, then why should they also not cover lenses or $6,000 for a pair of hearing aids?

Here is my take on this nonsense: This administration and their puppet, Kathleen Sebelius, are way out of control over this business of healthcare reform. They have absolutely no business dictating to a religious institution or Hobby Lobby as to what kind of healthcare they should provide to their employees.

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

@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.

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

@ 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.

Sasha Pachev
Provo, UT

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.

JP71
Ogden, UT

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.

One of a Few
Layton, UT

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.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

"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.

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

@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.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

"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.

politicalcents
West Jordan, UT

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?

to comment

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