Comments about ‘Religious freedom is working to find its fundamental argument’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 31 2013 4:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

No one is being denied the right to hold any opinion about contraception or abortion. The issue here is what kind of health insurance employers are required to provide. I can't even see where there's a 'religious freedom' component.

American Fork, UT

There is something unreasonable about a concern of 'contraceptive culture' and the imposition of religiosity based understanding of sexuality and marital relation. This is the era of STD's, aids, abortions, and unwanted pregnancy. It's not just a different ethic, it's immoral in my view to oppose contraception and protection availability yet decry abortions and unprotected sex. It is about removing the imposition of outcomes by imposing religion. Sex is natural and fun and people do it outside any context of marriage or religion. That's why we're here at all, I believe.
The term 'religious freedom' is an oxymoron that can never be rationalised with the exclusive and dictatorial nature of religion itself. The only way it can be free is to keep it to ones' self.

Parkesburg, PA

Faith, hope and charity is the best argument ever created.

Huntsville, UT

Eric, they're being denied their god given right to force their employees to adhere to the religious beliefs of the owners.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

First Amendment: 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.

Throughout my life the meaning given to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was that people were the main concern and importance. Now, seeing the Bill of Rights through the eyes of conservatives, I am sure that the Bill of Rights is not about people but about the controlling governments of their lives. Nothing in the First Amendment is about people as individuals. There is nothing there that says that individuals may have freedom of religion.


DN article: "On the other hand, our friends may argue that their clients have ‘moral objections’ to contraception and the supply of abortifacients to their employees."

Employers are not required to provide abortifacients. HHS is not mandating health plans cover abortifacients.

"The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives. Since Ella is new to the market, it has not been studied as extensively. But as of now, there is no scientific proof that Ella acts as an abortifacient, either."
(National Catholic Reporter)

Murray, UT

Shall we require Mormons and Muslims employers to provide alcohol to their employees too? Will Jews have to give ham to their employees? Atheist employers should have to attend the church weddings of their employees too. We all need to respect each other, right?

It is ludicrous to trample the employers rights. Let the grown-up employers and grown-up employees make their own agreement as to what the work will be and what the compensation will be. Those who oppose this must think very little of the intelligence of employees.


When you can cite a case where the employer has busted in on the employee at his/her private home, and taken away his/her birth control, you can make a claim like that. Until then, you're just spitting into the wind with a non-existent argument.

It isn't the employers that are seeking undo control over others. That would be the liberals. Employees beware. They want to control you too.

American Fork, UT

Badger brings up an important point. Why do employers get to have a say in this? Health care is for people, and it should be provided to, for and by people. All of the, as in a single payer health care system. That way, employers don't get to have a say. They can keep it to themselves, and we can have cheaper, more effective health care.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT


The laws of this nation do not require that employers give their employees any thing but what they agree upon. However, the laws of this nation do prohibit some types of discrimination and the quality of the add on compensation. Mostly the employer must meet the government's (the people) standards for quality and equality.

Business operations, excluding churches, are the prerogative of the people as specified and controlled by the government of the people.

Eagle Mountain, UT

"Shall we require Mormons and Muslims employers to provide alcohol to their employees too? Will Jews have to give ham to their employees? Atheist employers should have to attend the church weddings of their employees too...


Well, let's talk some serious issues now, and move beyond silly.

If my child were dying, and a blood transfusion could save their life, could my Jehovah's Witness employer provided insurance refuse to cover that?

Could a Christian Scientist employer refuse any and all medical insurance because they believe in faith based healing?

Could a Scientologist employer fire me for seeking psychiatric care?

Where do we draw the line? In none of the cases above would the employers right of religion be denied. They are still 100% free to practice according to their beliefs. However, they do not have the right to force that onto anyone else.

The argument should really be, why are employers required to provide health insurance? It has become ingrained into society that health insurance is tied to your employer, and as such it has almost become tradition.

If you're so concerned about a perceived infringement on religion, you should advocate single payer.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Please cite the "law against discrimination". Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was specifically written to insure that slaves would be free. THEY were to receive equal protection under the law. Those to whom the Constitution means nothing twist its words until those words are meaningless. They put every "gift" that they desire from others under the "general welfare" clause. They give all rights to government under the "foregoing powers" clause. It is clear that they have neither read nor do they understand those words, the sentence structure, or the legal meaning of the Constitution.

God, not government, gave us unalienable rights. God, not government gave us liberty. God, not government, gave us agency.

Government, not God, takes those rights away. Government believes in inself. It has no use for God, To government, God is an impediment. Government restricts our right to worship as we please, when we please and how we please. Government is forcing establishments of religion to change doctrine to fund the prevention of life.

To God, life is precious. To government, life is an option. Over 50,000,000 times, a life in the womb has been destroyed because of the "government option"

Moab, UT

Remember the good old days when we were free to purchase, or not, any health coverage we desired.

Brigham City, UT

Re: "To God, life is precious."

Genesis 7: "The flood engulfed the earth for forty days....And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all humankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died."

Genesis 19: "Then the Lord rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah....So he overthrew those cities and all that region, including all the inhabitants of the cities and the vegetation that grew from the ground."

Exodus 12: "...the Lord attacked all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the prison ... and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was no house in which there was not someone dead."

Joshua 6: "The wall [of Jericho] collapsed and the warriors charged straight ahead into the city and captured it. They annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle, sheep, and donkeys."

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

“I can't even see where there's a 'religious freedom' component.”
C’mon Eric, you’re smarter than that. Could it be willful blindness on your part?

No one is stopping the sexually active from using contraceptives. The owners of Hobby Lobby certainly are not doing that, regardless of the lies holder’s injustice department is arguing before the courts.

OK, Hobby Lobby is FORCING their beliefs on their employees. By that same argument, since I refuse to buy cigarettes for my co-worker, I am FORCING him not to smoke! Can’t you come with something better than holder’s lie?

Employers are required to provide plans that supply those items. The plans do not include those items for free.

Calling your opponent’s argument silly just because you disagree is – silly.

Hank Pym

re: RanchHand & BadgerBadger

It all boils down to tolerance, moderation, & common sense NOT a one size must fit all, my way or the highway mindset.

Kearns, UT

@Mike Richards

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Parkesburg, PA

Ernest T. Bass, don't you know first rule of public forums like this? He who invokes the name of Hitler loses. Enough said.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "RanchHand" they are not being forced into anything. They were not assigned jobs by a government official, nor were they sold into slavery. If a business owner set a rule that his employees could not swear, that is the owner's decision. If the employee doesn't like the rules that the employer sets, they are free to find another job.

If I work for a company owned by a person from India, and they supply the company picknic with food from India, am I being forced to follow the belief that Indian food is good?

To "Hutterite" the business owners are paying for the healthcare. Government telling a private business how to do business or telling them what they must purchase is called Fascism. Is Fascism a good or bad thing?

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The proper relationship of business to government is that of an employee who is working for the government. If the word to describe that relationship is Fascism then every employer is a Fascist.

To start a business operation a person has to have permission from the government. Failure to do this is a criminal act.

Permission to operate a business is given on the condition that the person will not only follow the rules and regulations for that business but also all of the rules and regulations of the government(s) of that local dealing with the citizens of that local.

The fact that that this paradigm is not always followed in good spirits does not change the fact the business is supposed to serve the needs of the people. Most failures in the relationship are due to financial corruption between the businessman and the government.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Ultra Bob

Why do you need permission from the government?

You don't.

Business licenses are for tax purposes only, including SSI and all other things government is forcing the business to pay into.

Now you want use that threat of denial to force your views on those business.

Business owners have rights too.

to comment

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