Comments about ‘A Hobson's choice: Religious freedom in the business world’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, March 9 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Mike R, J Thompson --

LDS Church Handbook:

21.4.4 Birth Control
It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

=========

You are welcome to speak for youselves,
but
You are not welcome to speak for the LDS Church or for the Lord.

BTW -- Contraceptive pills are used for a wide variety of Women's health issues, not stictly or only as birth control.

Mind your own business.

jsf
Centerville, UT

corporations changing their policies for environmental or health reasons are moral choices.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

jsf
Centerville, UT

How many Einstiens, Mozarts, Angelos, and other great minds have been snuffed out.

11:08 a.m. March 10, 2014

==========

Since 50% of all pregnacies spontaneously abort, I'd imagine that could be quite a few --
You might want to take that up with God.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

jsf: "The metaphor Lagomorph attempts to promote is not well articulated. The correct provision would be..."

I was improving an even more poorly articulated prior metaphor, but your addition is fair. I don't accept that contraception is equivalent to crime, however. The key question is how much causal connection there is between indirectly providing the means for an act and performing the act. Money is fungible. Hobby Lobby pays premiums into an insurance pool along with other companies. Can any single contraceptive purchase dollar be traced directly back to Hobby Lobby? Do any of the conservative groups crying religious liberty stand with liberal pacifist Quakers refusing to pay federal taxes because some of their tax dollars would be used to buy arms and conduct wars? I haven't heard of this yet. It's exactly the same principle.

jsf: " How many Einstiens, Mozarts, Angelos, and other great minds have been snuffed out."

This is a meaningless question. One could ask with equal validity and relevance how many Osama bin Ladens, Putins, or Idi Amins have been prevented. Neither one advances the case.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

@Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah
The real question is whether the government has been authorized by the people to require a business to participate in the elimination of human life by requiring it to fund contraceptives, abortifacients, or to indirectly provide funds to "services" that promote abortions.

=======

No,
The real question is whether some people are going to stop telling other people what they can or can't legally do.

And for the umpteenth time,
Contraceptives are NOT abortions,
and Gay people are not Men dressing in women's clothing.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

" With faces, little arms, and little legs. If they really are just a bunch of cells growing together, they're pretty human looking".

So? The cells on a scaffold beating like a heart looks like a heart, but it's just a bunch of cells that look like and act like a heart until it's implanted and works in concert with other cells/organs, then it's a heart.

The little arms and legs are not attached to any consciousness at twelve or 18 weeks. They're just arms and legs that may or may not become part of a human.

Pointing out the incorrectness of an idea is not belittling it.

Believe what you will but when you run a business and employ others you don't get to deny them their rights based on your beliefs. Your religious freedoms end where my life begins.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Here is the contradiction I find hard to resolve. I too am very much against abortion. I think the problem needs to be addressed way before abortion is on the table as an option. That said, trying to reconcile the opinions of some that rightfully say abortion is wrong because it is the taking of a potential life…. and yet the same crowd demands the US send troops into far away lands, to resolve issues that are tangentially our own, at what we have seen at the the cost of hundreds of thousands of non-combantent lives.

Why is abortion so abhorrent and yet leveling neighborhoods and towns - ok. I agree there are times armed conflict is necessary, but that it needs to be entered into as a means of last resort. Just like abortion, the option should be left on the table - but almost never used.

And yet a certain crowd only feels you have a foreign policy if you are threatening to embark into armed warfare. I don't understand the rationalization here. A life is a life… why is the life of an unborn more precious then the life of a Crimean child…

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

Most of our laws are made for moral reasons. The basis is our COMMON morals which change, many times for the better in terms of individual freedom.

This country's base moral system as described in the constitution, is INDIVIDUAL freedom. NOT employer or corporate freedom. That is why a corporation's freedoms or employer's freedoms should not trump an individual freedom.

When we have insurance legislation designed to give everyone minimum access to healthcare, the employer still has the individual freedom to not use birth control or blood transfusions even if it's required to be covered in the group healthcare plan. One person's religious decisions to not trump the rights of thousands.

The bottom line is this has nothing to do with religion anyway. The religious right was not opposed to birth control just a few years ago, before "obamacare."

jsf
Centerville, UT

"The religious right was not opposed to birth control just a few years ago, before obamacare." Because companies were not being forced to provide it prior to Obamacare.

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

There is a big difference in the examples given in this article. Disney stopped using ads for fast food, they didn't deny an employee from having the type of insurance they deserve! I will not be shopping at Hobby Lobby anymore. I can't stand these religious people who constantly judge others when their action are far from being Christ like! People who are puffed up and act as if they get to describe what morality is! I think that they have plenty of freedom, as long as they obey the law. Isn't it sad that the religious people are the ones who want to treat others like garbage and then say it is the religious right to do so!
No, people shouldn't have the freedom to do bad things and then use their freedom of religion as an excuse. How many people have been put to death because of religion? Just how far do people want to take this freedom of religion? Surely there has to be some kind of limit or we would have people killing each other again. Who would be the first to burn, gay people?

fairmindedone
Bountiful, UT

The issue in this case is NOT contraception. The Greens are not opposed to mechanical prevention of CONCEPTION. They are opposed to ABORTIFACIENTS after conception which the government deems can and should be allowed no matter your religious convictions.

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

@jsf - Prior to the Affordable Care Act, 28 states had a contraceptive mandate. We didn't hear religious conservatives complaining about it then, why do we hear them complaining about it now? It can't be a states' rights issue - if the mandate is a violation of religious freedom then it doesn't matter if it's the federal government or a state government instituting it.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@fairmindedone 1:03 p.m. March 11, 2014

The issue in this case is NOT contraception. The Greens are not opposed to mechanical prevention of CONCEPTION. They are opposed to ABORTIFACIENTS after conception which the government deems can and should be allowed no matter your religious convictions.

----------------

Your assertion is not correct. None of the drugs covered by the Affordable Care Act terminate pregnancies. They are contraceptives, not "abortifacients". The only thing they do is keep pregnancies from starting. That is basic preventative health care, nothing more nothing less.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@glendenbg
The fun one is Arkansas where Mike Huckabee signed that mandate into law.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

This is a curiosity question for Furry1993 and anyone else who argues that you are somehow a victim if other people don't buy things for you. You already have easy access to contraception, so why do you completely manipulate the conversation to imply that you are oppressed merely because others do not feel obligated to subsidize something that is already inexpensive and widely available to you and which you can easily obtain yourself. Am I a victim if you don't buy me free stuff that violates your conscious?

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Open Minded Mormon
"No, The real question is whether some people are going to stop telling other people what they can or can't legally do."

You mean like you telling the Catholic Church they must subsidize things that violate their faith, even though you are free to get what you want cheap and easily by yourself? A truly open minded person would recognize when they are the perpetrator,not the victim. Check the mirror.

Furry1993
Many of the pills are chemically the same as traditional abortofacients and can be used as both contraceptive or abortofacients, depending on time and dosage.
Regardless, marketing does not negate the fact that either use violates the faith of some people - and you are forcing them to pay for something that you can easily get without their money being involved. You are NOT the victim here; you are the perpetrator.

to comment

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