Comments about ‘U.S. legislators come to Hobby Lobby's defense in contraception lawsuit’

1993, argued the law was intended to prevent the government or the court from carving out a class of believers whose religious liberty wouldn't be protected.

There should be a class of believers whose religious liberty we should be protected from, and it should contain all believers. Otherwise, what's to protect us from sharia law? Religious liberty of the group can't be allowed to supersede the freedom of the individual. The freedom of any one person is equitably, inextricably tied to that of any other person in our society, or we're living a lie. In other words, people must be expected to choose for themselves, and they must not expect to be able to choose for others.

ChuckGG,
Nothing is free – SOMEONE has to pay the premium. But then, with 2000+ pages we need to read so we’ll know what’s in it, it can be easy to get confused by the mess BO and the dems foisted on us.

Scoundrel,
What ban on marriage equality? The same rules apply to everyone, so everyone’s equal.

Old man,
Spewing unsubstantiated DNC and MSNBC hate speech again, I see.

EDM,
More hate speech from the left.

Turtles run,
BO is ALREADY allowing exemptions, so the anointed one himself has started us on your slippery slope.

No, Lost, I got that when I accidentally tuned Rush in on my car radio.

Current law prohibits the federal government from laws or mandates that restrict a citizen's religious beliefs unless there is a compelling government interest. Even then it must be done in the least restrictive manner. The mandate to provide birth control was not passed by congress as part of the health care initiative. It is a mandate by our president. It requires people to provide services that they consider to be murder (a well-known, long-standing, established religious belief shared by millions in this country) in order to provide to healthy, responsible adults a way to have more sex while avoiding the responsibility of raising children (Other medical uses of hormone treatment are not even being questioned). They are mandated to do so at no cost, while patients with debilitating pain, terminal illnesses and chronic physical and emotional disorders must pay part of the cost. There are many who have different religious beliefs than these. That does not excuse people, in the name of equality, to force a person to commit what they belief to be grave offenses to God. Not even a president should have the right to define our most sincere religious beliefs.

The first false premise is that corporations are entitled to the same Constitutional rights as "we the people" are. Corporations don’t die, go to jail, give birth or any number of other characteristics deining human life. Because they are not people, corporations should not be entitled to inherent rights under the Constitution. Instead they should be granted privileges to operate, which can be rescinded should the corporation engage in criminal behavior or wrongdoing.

The second false premise is that a business can be a religion. If profit-making is at the core of the organization, it is a business--not a religion. A person can be both religious and in business, but it is the person who has inherent rights, not the business. Businesses selling religious stuff have no more rights than a business selling any other kind of goods or service.

Hypocrisy level: High. If Viagra is covered, contraceptives should be covered, especially if one is opposed to abortion.

No surprise a white man has brought this suit. Poor guy feels oppressed by his government. We who are regularly oppressed by our government and our religion--women, people of color, youth, LGBTs, etc.--welcome you to our ranks.

Many use no contraception. Some because they remain sexually inactive in an act of service and obedience to their God. Some because they believe in sexual responsibility. Others because they believe it is a joy to raise children. It is a personal choice.

Employers have never had an obligation to financially participate in the sex lives of their employees. The law requiring them to do so belies our culture's perverse over-emphasis on sexuality and the abuse of government to intrude into the personal lives of citizens, their sex lives and their health care. These should remain the private choice and responsibility of individual citizens as they have always been in the USA.

Obama was wrong. Who better to indicate the intentions of the Religious Freedom law than the framers of it? Their voice is unmistakable on this matter. Obama's overreach will be denined.

Interesting point about the blood transfusions. However, I think this all points to a more important question. Should the US government be able to dictate how a company is run and what benefits are offered. I understand the government's responsibility to ensure safe working environments and fair labor standards, but when did health insurance become an employer's responsibility. People have a right to choose where they work. Hobby Lobby offers great pay and benefits on top of that. Perhaps they should not offer health insurance and instead give an allowance that employees may choose to use to buy health insurance. Then, it wouldn't violate the Green's beliefs and the onus would be on the employee....oh wait, the government mandates employers over a certain size offer insurance and places requirements on what that insurance must cover under ACA. ACA is a gross overreach of the fed, however good it's intentions were.