Comments about ‘Hobby Lobby appeals contraception mandate ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 20 2012 6:15 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Abe Sarvis
Cedar City, UT

Once you accept corporation status, you become a semi-governmental agency. If Hobby Lobby were a sole proprietorship, they would have a case - but when you become a corporation, you accept certain governmental regulation in exchange for significant legal protection from individual responsibility. Bottom line is, you can't have ti both ways. Once you sell your soul to the government, you don't get to whine about your owner.

Somewhere in Time, UT

Freedom of religion is everyone's right until it comes up against the goals of the Obama administration and the liberal agenda. I'm so afraid for my country.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

When will Americans say NO to the encroachment of organized religion up our freedom, rights and privileges. Will it be before or after the war of religions and their haste to bring about the end of our world.

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can the phase “an establishment of religion” be extended to a business owned by a church or even a religious individual who has an intense belief in God? Can an individual’s intense belief be his religion even if he doesn’t believe in God? Does a person have the right to believe and exercise his belief as he pleases even to the refusal to abide by the civil laws and rules of our society?

Could an atheist ban his employees and customers from wearing or displaying any sort of other religious clothing, jewelry or activity, or race, or anything else. Because his personal belief says he should.

Belching Cow
Sandy, UT

@Henry Drummond
"Why should a company be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees?"

To begin with Hobby Lobby is not imposing their religious beliefs on anyone, no one is forcing their employees to work there and no on is stopping his employees for paying for their own contraception. There is a rather elegant solution. Don't work for them. Yvon Chouinard the founder of Patagonia put it well. Patagonia gives money to Planned Parenthood. Some of his employees where not comfortable with that because of their religious beliefs. Yvon basically stated that if they have any heartburn over it then they shouldn't be working for him. I agree. If you don't like the way your employer does things then don't work for him. They have a right to do with their business as they think is correct and moral. If you don't like it tough, start your own business or work elsewhere. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Mesa, AZ


"I can't blame the secessionists. It's 1776 all over again."

Not only 1776 but also 1861

Millcreek, UT

@Counter Intelligence
Either you and I have a different definition of what an abortofacient is or you don't understand the law. Because the law only mandates coverage for drugs that prevent a pregnancy, like IUD's, pill birth control, plan B, hormone injections etc. Some people call plan B an abortofacient, but that shows a lack of understanding of that drug. The plan B pill is nothing more than a large dose of standard pill birth control. If the egg has already been fertilized it does nothing to the pregnancy.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

Chik-Fil-A----off my list.
Hobby Lobby, see ya.

Sasha Pachev
Provo, UT

An employer should not be required to provide health insurance at all. If he provides any, it should be up to him to decide what he covers and what he does not. He also should not be told who he should or should not hire or how much to pay. This is the spirit of free market. It is his business. If he makes a bad decision, let the free market punish him. If you think he is making a bad decision, start a competing business and prove it. If we want America to be great we need to stop having a dependent mentality where we constantly expect somebody else to solve our problems.

Steve C. Warren

To PP: In response to my comment that biblical passages give divine approval to the termination of unborn human life, you wrote: "Not in the bible the rest of us read."

I read the King James version.

The God of the King James Bible very clearly allows--even commands--the termination of unborn life. In Numbers 5:11-31 we read that God authorizes the use of "bitter water" to abort a fetus. At other times, prophets order the putting to death of adulteress women, some of whom would have been pregnant. Prophets also order the slaying of pregnant women in Ssmaria and elsewhere.

The LDS Church has a responsible position on abortion, allowing it in four different circumstances, and on contraception, leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves.

Sugar City, ID

OHBU: Endorsing is not the same thing as participating in writing the law. And those organizations didn't do that because no one had read the law until after it was passed and signed by the President. Which is another example of Obama's willingness to deceive. He said that all bills would be put online 48 hours before he signed them. I'm still very glad that I don't have it on my conscience that I voted for him. I wonder if the Benghazi mess bothers his conscience? OHBU: Doesn't the Benghazi fiasco give you second thoughts about Obama?

Belching Cow
Sandy, UT

@Mint Julip
"Women have the right to good and proper health care with decisions made between them and their medical providers."

No one has said otherwise. Hobby Lobby is providing it's employees with good and proper health care.

Belching Cow
Sandy, UT

@Mike in Sandy
Ahhh come on Mike the fine folks at Hobby Lobby are going to miss you.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

Mint Julip,

I don't speak for Belching Cow, (which is a hilarious name I love) but I think religious freedom, which is not inflicted on others, is what the constitution protects.

If the employer doesn't believe in medical care, he/she shouldn't have to provide it. The employer would have to disclose to potential employees, and then potential employees are free to choose to work for them or not. This in no way inflicts religion on anyone.

People who don't like that their employees don't get insurance, don't have to shop there.
Again, no one is forced to participate in any religion. Everyone gets to choose, religious and non-religious alike.

I oppose restricting religious freedom, except in extreme circumstances where people are harmed in the practice of religion, as in human sacrifice, virgin sacrifice, eliminating the infidels, etc. You get the idea. I would also oppose kidnapping people to make them go to church.

Religious of freedom for all! (including those who want no religion)

Provo, UT

@JSB -- The Benghazi fiasco bothers me as much as did the slaughter of over 200 Marines by terrorists in Lebanon when Reagan was president and the murder of thousands by terrorists when Bush was president. Did those killings also bother you or are you only bothered when a Democrat (aka to you: Marxist, Socialist Kenyan) is President. Didn't see any Republicans calling for a Watergate style investigation or screaming to high heaven when those atrocities occurred. And you also did not see any Democrats doing it either. Democrats have the common sense to know that attacks on our country are a time to pull together, not a time to score one for the partisan team.

Leesburg, VA

As a business owner very concerned with my bottom line, I would be willing to believe in all the non-sense written in these comments if I could save a dime.

What a bunch of non-sensical positions.

All of you who criticize President Obama so harshly, what about Congress that doesn't stop him "taking over the country?. What about the Supreme Court? the GOP controls both of them.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Sasha Pachev.

Business is owned by the society of people wherein the business is operated.

A private person may own all the buildings, processes and inventories of a business operation but he does not own business. He can only operate his business operation with the permission of the people who have the right, authority, and the means to regulate the business operation.

The people give their permission by a document called a business license. The business license is given in return for a commitment to operate the business operation according to the wishes of the society. Those wishes are codified as laws and regulations and apply to all businesses operations equally. The laws specify to the businessman the what, how and when of the business operation, right down to the hours, pay and working conditions of employees. The people’s agent in this is their government.

However, businessmen using their financial power to influence government can and do thwart the wishes of the people and use the power of government to favor some business operations over others. It is for the people to fix this if they can.

Columbus, OH

Actually JSB, Obama did meet with representatives from those organizations when the law was being drafted, and when they read it, they endorsed it. Even if they hadn't participated, upon reading it they still found it beneficial. It's a pretty impressive list within the healthcare industry.

As to Benghazi, I'm not sure where you think Obama has something weighing on his conscience. In the immediate aftermath, the nature of the attack was mischaracterized, though with the heavy disclaimer that the investigation was ongoing. As further evidence came to light, the official statements reflected that. You are making the mistake of thinking that evidence of emails with the correct story means the administration knew what happened. In the immediate aftermath, a lot of contrary information pours in, and it is then the task of those who receive it to judge what seems most probable. Do you remember 9/12 when it still was widely speculated that Palestinians were responsible? Congress reduced embassy security budget by $300,000,000, than proceeds to blast the administration when someone dies? That's like blaming an underfunded police force for not stopping every single murder.

Far East USA, SC

"If he provides any, it should be up to him to decide what he covers and what he does not. "

Hmm. Can you imagine the outcry if a business owner decided the insurance he provided would only cover the first 2 children?

Or if they only wanted to cover the birth of males?

Or if they refused to cover STD related issues.

How about if only providing health coverage for white people.

My, we could go on and on.

Murray, Utah

re: Mint Julip

Explain again why Hobby Lobby has to pay for those choices when those choice violate the owners' personal morality. Seems to me you have it flipped. "I want to do (insert whatever moral choice you want here), therefore you MUST pay for it even though you view that choice as morally wrong." Who is interjecting whoms morality on the other in this case?

Read an article that you can get a month's supply of birth control pills at Target for $9. Seems an awful small price to trample the freedom of others who don't agree with your particular brand of morality.

And...the discussion is on contraception, not lifesaving measures. That's a totally different point and off-topic for this discussion.

Midwest Mom
Soldiers Grove, WI

The owners of Hobby Lobby are attempting to control the lives of their employees and force their beliefs on others -- something most of the conservatives here would decry, if it were a Muslim or an atheist cast in the role of employer.

It's all spin anyway. Hobby Lobby would not be forced to pay for abortions. Hobby Lobby would pay for an insurance benefit, period. What the employee does with that benefit is their business and their right to private, personal religious conviction.

Are the owners of Hobby Lobby equally concerned about men who may use contraception in order to have extra-marital affairs, without pregnancy complications? Are the owners of Hobby Lobby worried about employee benefits paying for drug treatment or STDs?

If this were about religious freedom, then why should an employer's right to their particular faith brand trump the employee, who has earned that benefit and who then owns the right to use it?

I am sickened by those who wave the flag and parade their faith in public in order to gain privilege and oppress their fellow men, women and children.

to comment

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