Comments about ‘Fighting the good fight for religious right’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Aug. 18 2013 6:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

This isn't about religious freedom, it's about a business wanting the same rights as an individual, when it is not a person.

Why do they feel personally responsible for the sins of their wicked employees, but protect themselves against liability by separating their business from their personnel affairs?

A fight for theocratic rule is never the "right or good fight, see history again and again.

American Fork, UT

It's a fight. By no means arbitrarily a 'good' one, though.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

re: Mark B

Dubya & S Palin were the "best & brightest" the religious right were able to hoodwink some with.

So, what does that say about the kingmakers in the GOP & evangelical right?

Saint George, UT

Tyler: I can't help it if people want to allow the Supreme Court to make a mockery of the Constitution, or if people would rather scrap it for something they like better, such as socialism. Anyone who thinks that ACA is Constitutional doesn't understand the Constitution, regardless of whether it has 'passed the test'. It 'passed the test' according to those who like Socialism and progressives that want something more 'up to date', like Socialism. I don't believe in Socialism, nor do I believe that the Supreme Court is upholding the Constitution. I like Liberty and Freedom. Just the way I am. I con't understand why there are those who don't! You can't have it both ways.

Eagle Mountain, UT


I believe everyone, with little exception, loves liberty and freedom. Where we disagree on is how they are best protected, and how to fund that protection.

Some would equate liberty and freedom to be "I keep what's mine" others may interpret freedom in a more social aspect of "live and let live" as long as you're not hurting anyone else. P

People can and do disagree over interpretation of the Constitution. That's why we have a Supreme Court, who's decisions are not uncommonly 5-4. Even those at the Convention disagreed over its meaning years after ratification. Because some might disagree with you, does not mean they are wrong, or that you are. It simply means that two informed adults with their life experiences, views, and readings have reached different conclusions.

I love freedom and liberty, so much I am serving in the Armed Forces, but I align more with the liberal philosophy. Others I work with, align more with a conservative philosophy, and you know what? We get along just fine, because deep down we all want the same thing.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@bandersen – “Anyone who thinks that ACA is Constitutional doesn't understand the Constitution, regardless of whether it has 'passed the test'.”

Putting aside the question of whether or not the ACA counts as “socialism,” you’re missing the point.

[By the way, the central feature of the ACA - individual mandate - was designed by the Heritage Foundation; hardly a socialist think tank. Yes, the subsidies are some degree of socialism, but the rest of it? Hardly.]

Anyway, the point is it did pass the test. The only question now is what will you or any citizen do when they don’t like a law?

If you believe in the Constitution, then you’re path is clear – vote for people who believe as you do and if enough people feel the same way, you can change the law.

But if your views regarding right & wrong (and reasonable & moral people can disagree here) trump the law such that you’re willing to take the law into your own hands, then count me out.

As you said, you can’t have it both ways.

salt lake city, utah

Bandersen, a fetus before 26 weeks is just that a fetus, not an infant and the Supreme Court has never sanctioned the killing of infants (a child after birth). Heartbeats, brain activity, prior to 26 don't result in conscious life. That occurs sometime around the 26th week.

I know some passed on this but how in the world is the ACA socialism, when it simply has a mandate to buy private (capitalist) insurance? If that is socialism to you then I suppose compulsory education is, stop signs are etc.

Huntsville, UT

Since corporations are not people they obviously have no religious beliefs. The beliefs of the people who incorporate a business belong to the people and not the corporation, which has no legal right to a religious belief since it isn't a person.

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

Here are two questions for all of you. First, yes or no, If you, or your family, are the sole owner of a business, should the government be able to compel you to engage in business activities that violate your personal morals and ethics? Second, is it good government to force people to engage in activities that they find morally objectionable?

Notes to Tyler D.:
Rights predate the constitution. I refer you to the opening words to the Declaration of Independence. And in actuality , the constitution was not intended to define the rights of the people. Rather, the intent was to define what the government was permitted to do.

There has been no supreme court ruling on ACA violating people's first amendment rights. The constitutionality of the decision was based on 'innovative' legal reasoning that it was a tax even though the administration said that it was not.

On the subject of birth control. Pills are on the $4 formulary at WalMart, how is that a burden? And, abstinence is 100% effective in preventing both pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.

Tooele, UT

Re: "The premise here is that the employer has freedom to practice their religious beliefs AND to impose them on their employees."

The usual liberal sophistry.

As liberals know, that's not the premise, at all. If it's important to them, Hobby Lobby employees are free to buy, without penalty, their own abortion and contraception insurance, or to work somewhere else, for a more liberal, cowardly, or pliant employer.

Today's Hobby Lobby situation is actually much more closely akin to the situation that existed under Muslim rule in the Ottoman Empire -- Christians and Jews were "tolerated" in the Empire, so long as they practiced their religion quietly and covertly, didn't engage in the more lucrative professions, and were willing to split their hard-earned wages and resources with the Sultan and his bureaucrats.

That's a much more apt comparison, and, as in the Ottoman Empire, the Obama regime's object is to benefit the Sultan and liberal "believers," at the expense of conservative, religious "infidels," as well as to use financial coercion to induce "conversion."

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

Strange how birth control is such a "fight" yet when people are polled there arr very few people that actually think birth control is immoral.

Stanger still is that birth control was never a controversy before the ACA was passed by congress.

What faux fight will be chosen next?

Huntsville, UT

@J in AZ;

Is the business owner being forced to take birth control pills? Have a same-sex marriage? No to both questions.

Being asked to allow your employees to choose to use birth control is an entirely different issue. The employees DO pay premiums for their insurance plans and they SHOULD be able to opt for a plan that offers the benefits that THEY require. Businesses, and their owners should NOT be allowed to refuse to provide services based on the beliefs of the owners.

Providing an insurance plan that provides birth control for women is NOT a violation of the business owner's beliefs because the business owner is NOT being required to partake themselves. Selling cakes/flowers to GLBT couples for a wedding does NOT violate the business owner's beliefs; they're not being asked to have a same-sex marriage themselves. If they claim their beliefs are being violated, you have to look at the following: Do they sell or provide their services to adulterers? Murderers? Thieves? If they answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then they're lying to you when they claim selling to GLBT couples violates their beliefs.

Tooele, UT

Re: "Providing an insurance plan that provides birth control for women is NOT a violation of the business owner's beliefs . . . ."

So, if Obamacare required employers to offer insurance that covers sexual orientation conversion therapy, you'd be OK with that?

I thought not.

Funny how the left feels empowered and fully competent to decide for us what does and doesn't violate our religious beliefs, though they're quite likely to have none of their own.

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

To the Old Switcheroo:
Birth control was never a controversy before the implementation of ACA because it was not mandatory. It was an option that could be added to insurance plans.However, when the government mandates that coverage at the expense of the employer, this is when people who believe that birth control by medical intervention is a sin get concerned about their beliefs being marginalized.

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

re: Ranchhand
So your answer to my question is yes, the government can force a business owner to purchase services that violate his or her moral beliefs.

Now a question or two about your logic. If the employer does not purchase a birth control rider, now is that prohibiting employees from buying those pharmaceuticals? Before you launch into your answer take into account that birth control drugs can be purchased from a number of retailers for as little as $4 for a 30 day supply without an insurance plan.

The second question that I have about your logic is that you seem to be assuming that a person should only consider their direct actions in terms of right and wrong. Why do you discount the idea that many people have that if they participate in enabling another to do something that they believe is wrong, then they are morally culpable? As you answer this question remember that this is the exact argument behind dramshop laws that hold establishments responsible for letting drunk drivers on the road.


Great article!

Ogden, UT

Nobody is being denied the right to believe or worship the way they choose. Nobody is being forced to do things that go against what they believe (for example, nobody is being forced to use contraception or an abortion, or enter into a same-sex marriage, if they choose not to).

Religious liberty and religious freedom is not being attacked in the United States in any way. The only thing that is being contested is the "right" of religious organizations and their adherents to impose their religious views on society and demand that society live in accordance with those religious views (and deny people's civil rights if those rights operate opposite to the views of religious and their adherents).

Despite any religiosity that the Founding Fathers may or may have not had, the United States is a secular country with a secular Constitution. The word "God" does not appear in the Constitution and the word "religion" appears once, in the First Amendment which has the effect of separating church and state.

The argument that there is an attack on religious liberty is not well founded or made.

Kearns, UT

"So, if Obamacare required employers to offer insurance that covers sexual orientation conversion therapy, you'd be OK with that?"

If we are required to offer insurance that covers psychological and counselling services, and there were psychologists and counseling that offer sexual orientation conversion therapy, I wouldn't have a problem offering that to all of my employees. It's the employees choice whether or not to go to such a therapist, even though I disagree with that practice. You see, just because the insurance is being offered doesn't mean that the policy holder is going to be forced to accept and participate in it. That's where the true freedom stands--in the individual.

I also don't believe in abortion, but as our current laws are, I am not going to deny somebody else that (currently legal) choice.

Here, UT

@J in AZ;

The business owner chose to obey the law when they got a business license. The owner also has no obligation to purchase the particular plan (for him/herself) that offers the contraceptives, they don't have to use them themselves. Offering a plan for their employee in no way violates their own personal beliefs; rather it allows their employees to choose which plans they'll use themselves.

If an insurance plan provides purchase of male sexual enhancement pills, they should also provide for a provision that purchases contraceptives that are of benefit to women.

How much do you want to bet that the person who has the problem "enabling" someone else to do what the owner believes is wrong, is actually doing something themselves? I'll bet they watch TV, and enjoy the same shows most other people do. Shows that are filled with fornication, violence, etc. That is hypocrisy.


Sure, as long as they cover religious conversion therapy too.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

I guess the business owners of Hobby Lobby can have a religious viewpoint that they believe should be foisted on their employees. If that is the "religious rights" being promoted here, I want none of it. Perhaps this is another reason to argue against an "employer based" health insurance system in favor of one that grants every citizen the right to exercise his/her choices regarding their health concerns without the interference of your employer or the government.

I find one odd similarity with the Hobby Lobby example and "Communist" China. In the recent past in "Communist" China, employers were given a lot of power over their employees. Your health decisions were made by your "boss" and you even had to ask permission from your boss to get married or conceive a child. Your boss was usually an avid communist party member who was making these decisions in the interest of the "party." Is that what we are seeing here in America? Are the interests of the religious right via the GOP making similar decisions for American workers. It certainly seems like it. Religious liberty is a two way street. It is not reserved for only business owners.

to comment

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