Comments about ‘Hobby Lobby to defy Obamacare contraception mandate, face millions in fines’

I'm ready to go shopping at Hobby Lobby and 'Eat more chiken'!

I guess our great nation is going to have to be brought to its knees by this administration but I'm not giving up on it... just the idiots in Washington.

Getting a gun, learning how to hunt and buying more food storage are on my list this New Year as well as losing a few pounds and getting out of debt.

I'm always a little nervous when any organization decides it is above the law.

This could get very interesting.

They are taking a principled stand which, given the continuing degeneration of our society, it particularly courageous.

I ardently hope they succeed and wish them the best of luck.

Henry,

I'm more worried about people like you who can have their vote bought by a government promising everything for free.

Henry, you are talking about the government trying to be above the law right??? By imposing a required health care plan that defies religious beliefs or requires citizens to do something it does not require the rest of the government to follow or obey? Right?

Anyone who decides that they will obey God rather than a corrupt government trying to impose unbiblical regulations upon them is not "above the law;" rather, they are obeying a Higher Law. More power to them. It was moments of civil disobedience like this which have been catalysts for all the great forward-moving actions in this nation, including the civil rights movement. Indeed, this nation would never had come into existence if not for just such acts against an unrighteous government.

@ Henry Drummond,
I'm sure they don't think they are above the law, they are just making a moral stand against totalitarianism and I applaud them in their efforts. This country is no longer free when people can't make a stand such as this.

So, what other laws should businesses be allowed to ignore based on the religious leanings of the owner?

Hobby Lobby protests government law which requires that employers and corporations provide contraceptive coverage within insurance policies provided to employees. These insurance policies are also required by law. Hobby Lobby executives object to this law on the grounds that the law violates their exercise of their religion.

Contraceptives are used by couples to avoid unwanted pregnancies and some forms of contraceptives also safeguard against STDs. It could be argued that contraceptives benefit society at large, thus the law is just and Hobby Lobby executives may not be free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

But if contraceptives provide a benefit to society at large why can't couples be responsible for their own decisions, and pay for those decisions themselves? Why must an executive be forced, against his conscience, to provide contraceptives for someone that chooses a sexual relationship that is a choice between consenting adults but the relationship does not involve the executive at all?

If an employee chooses to drink alcohol, must an executive be required to provide taxi fare to minimize the risk of DUI harm? It is the employees choice exercised here. Why must the burden be upon the executive, against his conscience?

DanO, Hobby Lobby is simply challenging the law in court, which is their right. Our national history is filled with such instances of conflict between parties and the government, and in many instances the government loses.

You frame the conflict as Hobby Lobby ignoring law. They are not ignoring law. They are challenging what they, and I, consider to be an unconstitutional law. They are stating that they will not pay a fine when the conflict is yet to be resolved in court. The issue has not been resolved until the Supreme Court rules upon the law, or until the challenging party (in this case, Hobby Lobby) quits their challenge.

Liberals are offended when the law fails their efforts to force their agenda.

David, fine. Let everyone be responsible then. Why have insurance cover the costs of pregnancy and child birth? It's certainly more expensive than contraceptives. Challenging the law is a foolish move. They're not a religion. They're a business, and as such they're operate under certain regulations.

Two courts have already ruled against Hobby Lobby. Both Judge Joe Heaton, a Bush appointee and the 10th Circuit Appeals court. Not exactly liberal judges in any case. They are gambling at this point, which last I checked was also considered morally wrong.
As far as as drinking analogy, it's flawed since health insurance generally covers liver disease as a result of drinking.

Birth control pills can also be used to avoid illness. Seven years ago I ended up in the emergency room for what turned out to be a ruptured ovarian cyst. I then needed surgery, which is when the doctors diagnosed me with endometriosis. I was put on birth control pills because they prevent the advancement of endometriosis/cysts.
My point is that not every woman who takes birth control medicationis doing it for "recreational reasons".

I think the major objection of the Hobby Lobby owners is aimed at the contraceptives that induce abortion, destroy a fertilized egg. They are against participating in any form of abortion.

@The Crow
Says someone who voted for a guy who offered you a 20% tax cut. Yeah you totally weren't looking for freebies.

(And yes, a tax cut is a freebie when we have a deficit since it's being paid for with larger deficits for future generations. If we had a budget surplus it'd be fine, but we don't).

What has happened to freedom in this country? How can the government force one person to pay for another person's birth control? A dictatorship is being born in America and it is the aristocracy of the White House! Time for another tea party!

Rynn
Hobby Lobby has said they have NO problem with standard BIRTH CONTROL what they are refusing to provide are the MORNING AFTER and WEEK AFTER pills. These have just one purpose to abort an egg that has been fertilized. That is what is against their religion and that is what they are being FORCED to pay for against their will.

Employers should not be required to provide any health coverage. If they do not cover pregnancy and child birth, that is their choice. If they do not cover liver disease, that is their choice. They should not be told who they can or cannot hire. If somebody chooses to start a business he must not be forced to act as a government welfare agent. He can provide benefits for his employees to attract skilled workers, but should not be forced to do so. This should be beyond obvious. Unfortunately we have grown to be so dependent that we are not able to see that anymore.

Sasha is exactly correct.