Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court will take up new health law dispute’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 26 2013 3:46 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Tyler D,
No employer is paying for anything – right. Just like your argument that CO2 is toxic.

Pagan,
You are arguing against the administration. What changed your mind? The administration is forcing their amorality on others. That definitely is NOT freedom.

Sentinel,
The OWNERS of those companies do. Those companies do not exist in a vacuum.

Granny,
You have no rights, didn’t you know that?

Dan76,
Do you truly believe granny is not now paying property taxes to support someone else’s kids' school?

Tater,
why do liberals ignore “the free exercise thereof” part of the 1st amendment?

Ranch,
The employer pays – take your argument up with Tyler.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Waiting to see a corporation get baptized.

Waiting to see a corporation be given Last Rights by a priest.

Waiting to see a corporation register to vote.

Waiting to see a corporation be executed for a capital crime.

Waiting to see a corporation listed as the mother/father of a child.

Corporations are not people - they are collections of assets operating under the protection of law. Can a corporation have a religion? Only if my computer can, also.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Most religions have their own set of unique restrictions that their want their adherents to follow. For the most part, this is the thorn that comes with the rose of encouragement to be better people and hope for a happy next life.

Its hard enough to live by all the restrictions that one's own religion imposes, lets hope the Supreme Court doesn't allow employers to attempt to impose their religious restrictions on their employees.

If this happens, better hope your company isn't purchased by Christian Scientists which don't believe in going to doctors .. AT ALL.. .

Ranch
Here, UT

@lost in DC;

Does your employer pay your premiums? I know that my premiums, deducted from each paycheck, amount to hundreds of dollars every month.

People who pay their premiums should be able to decide on whether or not they want a plan that provides for THEIR needs, NOT the "religious views" of their employer.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@lost in DC – “No employer is paying for anything – right.”

Look up the word ‘compensation.’ The only thing your employer is paying for is your time… after that, however you choose to spend your earned compensation is up to you (including on premiums to pay for the large group policy your employer offers – again, as compensation).

The employer only pays (for himself) if he is a policy participant. But to say that he can then dictate policy coverage for everyone is no different than saying so can every other premium payer… in which case we would have no large group market due to anarchy.

@lost in DC – “why do liberals ignore “the free exercise thereof” part of the 1st amendment?”

Perhaps for the same reason conservatives ignore the “congress shall make no law respecting” part. Also, as the SC has always affirmed (e.g., Scalia in Employment Division v Smith), free exercise does not mean religious people can ignore civil law (i.e., be laws unto themselves).

But nice to hear from you again… I’ve missed your ad hominems and factually challenged statements masquerading as arguments.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

Ranch & Tyler D:

I work in human resources. Most companies pay a large part of the premium (up to 85%). Employees pay the other part. In my case, I will pay about $220 per month next year and my employer will pay about $1,150 in premium for me and my family.

Also, most plans are "self-insured". This means that the employer, not the insurance company, pays the claims (until they hit a pre-set amount). For example, I go to the pharmacy and pay $35 for a prescription. The total cost of that medication under the insurance plan is $100. Guess who covers the other $65? My employer, not the insurance company.

Most employers pay huge amounts in medical benefits. As a business owner (public or private), I would want a say in where all of that money is going....

ConservativeCommonTater
West Valley City, UT

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

If you guys want birth control pills, pay for them yourselves! Stop trying to force other people to be responsible for your body and what you choose to put into it or do with it!

Thank you for your position, now I'm sure that it also means that those of us that can't get pregnant shouldn't have to pay for those that do. Glad to see you are with us.

ConservativeCommonTater
West Valley City, UT

lost in DC

"Tater,
why do liberals ignore “the free exercise thereof” part of the 1st amendment?"

No one is preventing anyone from exercising their religious beliefs. Forcing others to share those beliefs is the issue at hand.

intervention
slc, UT

@lost in DC
probably because until recently those of faith have not tried to extend their right to free exercise thereof so far beyond ecclesiastical duties and practices into every realm of their secular lives. The courts have long held that when churches are acting outside their ecclesiastical duties and engaging is secular commerce they are not immune form secular laws.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Liberals need to take their Hobby Lobby business over to the Quilted Bear. That will show em.

intervention
slc, UT

from secular laws.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

If the Supreme Court believes that corporations are people, It seems likely that the court will rule that corporations can impose their religious belief upon their employees. The sad part about that is that it adds to the chains that bind employees to their master employers in the slavery of employment.

People of the American religion of secularism will see this as a step toward a religious government. And if you think wars between economic forces are bad just wait until the afterlife is added to the booty.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

RedWings

You state, "the courts have already said that "corporations are people" in the political sphere. What makes the religious sphere different?" That is actually not true, the SCOTUS did not say that. I assume you are referring to Citizens United which held that corporations could make political expenditures under the free speech right granted in the 1st Amendment. As noted above by others, one example to rebut your assertion is that corporations cannot vote so they are not people in the political sphere; neither could a corporation run or hold political office. The same is true in the religious sphere.

You also say, "[a] business owner has the right to operate his or her business" which is only partly accurate. The correct phrase is: a business owner has the right to operate his or her business in compliance with the law. The law trumps a business owner's "right" to operate his/her business as he/she pleases - which is why Hobby Lobby et al are breaking the law.

lost in DC

If you want to claim that a corporation is an extension of the owner, prove it via statute or case law. Your entire argument depends on it.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Some people base their objection to contraception on the notion that life begin at conception, other people have different starting points. Some people believe that individuals existed in heaven long before life. If life is eternal does it have a starting point?

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@RedWings – “I would want a say in where all of that money is going....”

OK…

But if we say an employer should have full control of the insurance policy (a point I’m only conceding for the sake of argument), wouldn’t that open up a totally unmanageable can of worms?

I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where employers or not completely up front about what their insurance doesn’t cover leaving the employee in the lurch if/when they need those services (a blood transfusion for a Christian Scientist company employee).

Or even if they are up front, the employee taking the job (and risk) because, maybe they’re the only good employer in town, only later when the need arises to be left on their own.

If the SC rules this way (highly doubtful I believe given past precedents) perhaps the best solution would be to allow those employers to completely opt out of providing insurance and paying a wage that would allow their employees to purchase their own (more expensive without the large group discount) policy.

Either way, we need to decouple medical insurance from jobs.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Bottom line is this– the majority of items sold at Hobby Lobby come from China, so they already condone abortion.
They are willing to look the other way in order to increase their bottom line, this is about control of their employees plain and simple.

GiuseppeG
Murray, Utah

re: Blue

That was a pretty good post. I liked it even though I suspect we disagree on the issue. Regarding - "Waiting to see a corporation listed as the mother/father of a child."

Do some research on where the mother/father of a child falls on the legal priority over said child. I believe you will be surprised how far down the list they are. Perhaps the day of seeing a corporation (legal firm?) listed as the mother/father....or at least legal guardian...of a child isn't all that distant.

Shaun
Sandy, UT

A lot of hot issues that people care for or don't care for can be disguised under freedom of religion.

I have always wondered who's right trumps who's. A religious person could easily claim they do not want to serve black people because it is against their religious beliefs but a black person could claim their civil rights and the 14th amendment was violated. Who wins?

GiuseppeG
Murray, Utah

re: Tyler D:
"Either way, we need to decouple medical insurance from jobs."

Tyler, Hobby Lobby and any other employer already has that ability....reduce hours below the bar of being required to provide insurance. Hire 80 part-timers to replace 40 full timers. Problem solved from a company perspective. But is that what we really want?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Bottom line is this– the majority of items sold at Hobby Lobby come from China, so they already accept abortion in order to save a few dollars. They are willing to look the other way in order to increase their bottom line, this is about control of their employees plain and simple.

to comment

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