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

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Dec. 31 2012 4:35 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
KC Mormon
Edgerton, KS

Here is the real problem in this Country the Right wants to live by the Constitution (the document that was written to govern how we ALL use our freedom) and some on the left as in the case of Louis Michael Seidman, a Constitutional Law Professor, want us to completely scrap the constitution. He put this idea out in an op-ed yesterday in the NY-Times. He is not the only one to suggest this however. In May Sanford Levinson, another leftist Law Professor, made the same suggestion in the same paper. What we need is to simply live by the constitution and add some term limits to ALL politicization.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Above the law?" Civil disobedience as a protest to unjust laws is the essence of morality. Laws are an expression of political philosophy and when they abridge constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, there is an ethical responsibility to disobey. Look to the Boston tea party, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King and many others if you have questions.

Far East USA, SC

"How can the government force one person to pay for another person's birth control?"


How can the government force one person to pay for another person's
- viagra
- child birth
- lung cancer treatment
- cirrhosis treatment
- blood transfusion

- How about if an employer decides that they will only cover 2 children per family. Can you imagine the Utah outcry on that one?

Basically, the question is this.

Do you want business owners or CEO's to be able to pick and choose what medical treatments or drugs that they will cover?

Be careful what you support. They next company may come after you.

Far East USA, SC

David writes
"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?"

Change contraceptives to children in the above sentence.

Think that would cause David to change his tune?

Clearfield, UT

This is a fascinating interplay between the rights of business versus the rights of the individual - similar to the Civil Rights of people who decide to work in various establishments. Similar to the gun rights issue of businesses having the right to prohibit guns on their property or the right of individuals to have them. Such balancing of these rights has been an almost intractable problem for decades. Making exceptions opens the doors to even greater chaos, disorder, and ethical inconsistency.

Salt Lake City, Utah

To those of you who support Hobby Lobby: Would you also support a business where the owner's religious beliefs held that insurance should only cover the expenses related to pregnancy, child birth, and family insurance of the first 3 children - the number required to "replenish the earth" - and any additional pregnancies, births, and children would not be covered by insurance and the employee would have to take responsibility for their actions and pay for it all themselves?

Would you support a business owner's religiously based decision to not insure the second spouse, any step-children, and all biological children from the second marriage of a divorced person?

Should a business owner be able to prohibit insurance payments for medical conditions caused by or related to the consumption or use of products or the participation in activities the business owner's religion considers a sin?

How much control does your boss get to have over your life by using insurance as a tool to promote his or her religious beliefs?


Kalindra, if I didn't want to adhere to those decisions, I wouldn't work there.

The only control your boss has over you is the amount that you give to him/her when you freely choose to work for that company. Otherwise, your boss has zero control over you.

We have a God-given, Constitutionally verified, and logically necessary right to do whatever we want with our own property (and that includes companies), as long as we do not violate the only rights that exist: the right to our lives, our liberty, and our property. (All other legitimate "rights" are merely elements inherent to those three.)

If I'm your employer, and I decide that what I will offer you in exchange for your time and labor will not include something (such as the abortion pills in the Hobby Lobby case), I am in NO way violating your right to your life, liberty, or property. You are always free to reject the conditions I set for the use of my property (my company) and seek employment elsewhere.

Don't try to enslave and rob me by dictating what I can do with my property. Take responsibility for yourself.

Mission Viejo, CA

KC Mormon, Please do some real research on the two drugs you mention. Neither cause abortions. They delay ovulation. That's the problem with Hobby Lobby, they're letting ideology get in the way of fact and it's going to cost them in the end.

Othello, WA

I have no problem with a business or individual offering or not offering any policy, or limitation on a policy. That is the essence of freedom, and I in return can excersize my freedom to participate or not with said employer or individual!
Great statement Crow, that is exactly what the last election was about, buying votes. Apparently AZ thinks it is holy and more moral to spend money we don't have (deficit spend and debt), verses being allowed to keep more of you own money. (like that really happens, given the size and scope of government, and all its different taxes and fees)!

DN Subscriber 2

The very first poster has it right (as does Sasha).

I bet I can find a lot of stuff I can use at Hobby Lobby, and I will shop there regularly to support people who (a) have moral and religious values; (b) are not embarrassed to speak of them and especially, (c) are willing to put their money where their mouth is when their Constitutionally protected freedom of religion is being crushed under the boot of oppressive government.

Note carefully that their objection is not to "birth control" to prevent conception, but specifically to the abortion inducing medications REQUIRED to be included Obamacare policies. They take "Thou shalt not kill" seriously, not only for school age and older.

And, a Chicken sandwich sure does sound tasty after shopping at Hobby Lobby!

Hyrum, Ut

Sasha nailed it!

Scranton, PA

I second Sasha's statement that medical benefits have traditionally not been required; rather they are a privilege granted to workers from their company as a part of their overall pay package. Sometimes, unions negotiate the terms of these benefits, at times to extremes. Nevertheless, there has not been - until now - a government mandate to provide any health care at all. "Obamacare," as it is now called, is using the offices of the federal government to not only force everyone onto some kind of healthcare, but also to regulate it. Perhaps it would have been better to follow Canada's model of universal health care for all, paid for by taxes. It may have ended up being considerably less expensive than Obamacare.

boise, id

It is amazing that people can be so myopic in their views. It is comendable to hold to our moral and religeous standards, but we don't have the right to impose our values on someone else that believes differently. As an Independant I am taught in my faith to obey the law of the land, and having free agency accept the consequences of my choices. I think that Hobby Lobby has the perfect right to take their pricipled stand and simply pay the fine which can then pay for the additionaal insurance coverage should one of their employees choose to have a different moral position. Just as if someone chooses not to pay for health insurance they can then pay a tax to help cover the additional burden they impose on the country's health system and those of us that do pay for insurance.

Kaysville, UT

I guess I'll have to boycott Hobby Lobby.... I can't support a corporation that continues the war on women.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The final word in this issue rests with the people. Business operations that are operated for profit require a business license that is issued by the government of the people. There are no Constitutional restrictions on the requirements for the business license. It can specify any conditions regarding the operation of the business to any extent desired by the people.

A business is like an employee of the society. And like other employee conditions of employee disagreement, the only recourse for the employee is to not be an employee.

Business involve itself in the employees health for reasons that benefit the business. The Government may not force employers to provide health insurance but if the business decides to do so they must follow the rules of doing so.

It is important to this nation that we do not allow religious groups or individuals to extend their rights of religious freedom into the business world. The is because business operations are in effect masters over their voluntary slaves, employees. If a church can use business to enforce it’s religious doctrine, through the economic power given to business, it takes away the religious freedom of the individual.

Kaysville, UT

I'll bet $10,000 that the CEO and the male employees have Viagra covered by Hobby Lobby insurance....

Centerville, UT

Joe Blow, you and I can both agree to insert "children" into the sentence you referenced and we both agree that parents should be responsible for the nurture, care, safety, etc of those children. I am a father and accept the responsibility to provide for my children. I have no conflicting opinion with you at all on that topic.

A business owner hires an employee to perform specific duties for the business. The employee accepts the job if the compensation is acceptable. The government regulates certain aspects of the business, including some of the compensation/benefits.

However, I do not believe that government has the right to dictate insurance benefits. That is between the employer and the employee to negotiate. If the employee doesn't like the benefits, s/he can look elsewhere for employment. Better yet, let them start their own business and provide whatever insurance benefit plan they desire.

Medical Lake, Washington

We start down that slippery slope when we try to claim that a person or persons no longer may decide their own beliefs because they own a business. To the best of my knowledge, they are not forcing employees to live by their standards, and neither should they be forced to pay for their employees off-the-clock time usage. I'm assuming that people don't get pregnant at work, why should work be forced to cover the expense of 'correcting' the 'problem'?

As stated by another participant here. If a business wishes to attract a certain category of employee by providing health care and other perks, then, so be it. But every time the government steps in to force businesses to raise their wages, increase their perks and so forth, some employees fair better and the others get laid off.

We see the true colors of government here. They preach job creation, while enforcing unconstitutional edicts and increased regulations which in fact kills jobs. That is what government is best at.

Far East USA, SC

"I am a father and accept the responsibility to provide for my children. I have no conflicting opinion with you at all on that topic."

Well David. Lets be sure that we are talking about the same thing.

Education costs in Ut are roughly $8000+ per year. Those without children are paying the same as those without children. Or those with 5 children pay the same as those with 1 child.

Your child tax credit is (i believe) $3800
Medical insurance typically maxes out at "family" which does not take into account whether the family has 4 or 8 people.

So, I am confident that you are a good dad and that you pay for your kids clothes, food and braces. But please understand that if you have children, you are getting plenty of subsidies from others (education being the biggest)

Salt Lake City, UT

See, here is the problem with conservatives, KC Mormon, "What we need is to simply live by the constitution and add some term limits to ALL politicization."

In other words, what we need to do is live by the Constitution, after we CHANGE the Constitution.

The problem with conservatives? They are clueless.

to comment

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