Published: Sunday, March 23 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
That's because, in hobby lobby, all you can see is a christian victim.
Let's fix that. No employer should even be offered the opportunity to
interfere with the health care choices of their employees. That's why we
need a single payer health care system. These are choices for individuals, not
some religious holier than thou boss. Let's move forward, and relieve
employers of this gripe entirely.
re: HutteriteInteresting. We all hear about the employer being a
martyr. Yet, you wonder how many employees are being repressed?
What happens when religious freedoms come in direct conflict with individual
freedoms? Who wins? As an employer, do my religious convictions control the
benefits my employees receive, or do I allow them their own religious freedoms
to choose what they do in their own lives?I believe everyone should
be free to live according to their religious convictions, but this threat to
religious freedom has been manufactured to create a fear of change. Let's
move on and learn to get along with people who don't believe the same as we
Hobby Lobby should be able to make the choice it wants. Its employees are not
forced to work for them. If it could not get employees willing to work under its
benefits package then where would they be. It is time we stop asking government
to impose rules on businesses and return to common sense. When government
decides where people work and for whom, then they have the right and duty to
impose rules on the employer dictating benefits. God is central to many
people's beliefs and that means that there are employers who will not
believe in contraceptives. If you feel that that is against your beliefs then
choose a different employer. For the Supreme Court to allow this to be imposed
on Hobby Lobby is a step closer to making the USA (or any other country) into a
So a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness should be able to offer a heath
care policy to its employees that refuses to pay for blood transfusions--because
it finds these objectionable? Remember that the Catholic church does not
recognize as valid any marriage involving at least one Catholic person, unless
the officiant was a Catholic priest. So a Catholic-owned company should be able
to refuse coverage to the civilly married Mormon spouse of a Catholic employee,
because their religion says that the couple isn't "really" married?
And a Christian Science business owner should be able to offer health care that
only pays for Christian Science healers?
Perhaps we should ask the Hobby Lobby employees what they need?They
are the one's using the Healthcare, They are the one's paying
the majority of the Costs, They are the one's who should be heard.IMHO -- This is just another example of Corporations controlling the
Government, calling the shots of America's Citizens.IMHO II --
It used to be UNIONS negotiated the needs of Employees to the Corporations.Since the GOP destroyed the Unions, People are turning more and more to the
Government for Justice.So, the GOP is creating it's very own
I'm starting to get the sneaking suspicion that the conservative movement
in the US isn't actually interested in personal freedom but rather invokes
the term to attract low-information voters to their cause. This case is riddled
with contradictions including the non-sensical argument that an organization
possesses the inalienable right to determine what is and isn't in the best
interest of its' employees. If I snort ground-up xanax to dispel thetons
from my body and can convince my insurance company to pay for the pills, then
that's my prerogative and none of my employer's business.
Employer supplied health care is an invention of the last 50 years. People have
forgotten that there was a time when we each took responsibility for our own
health care, when we were free to make whatever health care choices we
wanted.Well, guess what? I stand today to proclaim to each American
that we still are! We are still free to purchase whatever health care products
and services we desire! Even if they are not covered by our employer provided
health care plan. Shocking, I know.Hobby Lobby's choice to not
provide certain services and products under the health care plan they provide in
no way impacts their employees ability to purchase those products and services.
In no way at all. Period. End of discussion. La fin.
It is apparent that the DesNews does not want to understand how to explain the
"paradox" they mention in this article. Rather, they prefer to side
with "Christians" as opposed to deal with truth. Does the DesNews not
recognize the harm they do to our Church's reputation when they ignore
reality in order to side with preconceived biases? Conservatives
like simplicity so let's be painfully simple: Hobby Lobby is not a person
and was not baptized into any Christian faith. It matters not whether their
owners (ie not Hobby Lobby itself) are Christian. As individuals, they are free
to continue to practice their religion as they see fit. What they cannot do,
however, is utilize the channels of power inherent within the company they own
(to repeat, Hobby Lobby is an entity, not a human being) in order to force other
people to live by the owners' religious precepts - this is particularly
true when said action would clearly violate duly executed law, such as the ACA.
The reason some Christians believe they are under attack is because
they refuse to see the world as it is, opting instead to see the world as they
wish it to be.
So, not only are corporations considered people, my friend, but they are people
with religious beliefs who will not hesitate to exercise leverage on their
employees, whatever beliefs THEY may hold. Unless a certain level of religious
devotion is a requirement of employment, the bosses should leave their personal
@Hutterite,the most shocking thing about your comment is that there
are people who agree with you.Clearly, neither you are any of those
liking your comment have ever lived in a country which actually implemented a
single payer system.I lived in England for 2 years (that's code
talk for "I served a mission in...") and while there I found out what a
government run health care system looked like. I have been opposed to the idea
ever since. Its ugly (no really it is actually ugly, and dirty, and
overcrowded). It was so bad in fact, that the church paid for a private health
plan for each of the missionaries serving there so we wouldn't have to use
the public option if we had problems.
@ David: Contrary to Conservative talking points, individuals do not really
have a lot of choice in employment - if the choice is work for Hobby Lobby and
feed my family or continue looking for a job while my family goes hungry, people
are going to choose to work at Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby receives tax
benefits related to offering insurance to their employees. They are also able to
attract a higher quality of employee by making insurance part of the pay package
for employees. Employees work for their insurance - just as
employers cannot tell employees how to use the money they earn, employers should
not control how employees use their insurance. As long as employers
receive a benefit from the government for providing insurance, the government
should be allowed to require certain elements to that insurance coverage.
Its funny that so many posters here post opinion based misinformation about an
article criticizing the opinion based misinformation that is our there. It is
also alarming how many posters here thing that a company should be forced to
provide certain things for their employees. They forget that it is not a
companies duty to provide healthcare - it is a benefit. It is something that
companies do to encourage people to work there. All that is (or should be)
required is that the company provides remuneration for the service provided by
the employee. This is between the employee and the company. People should find
a place that they fit - not force others to meet their singular demands. One
way is reasonable, the other is selfishness. Just like I would be a bad fit at
a tattoo shop the tattoo shop employee would probably be a bad fit working at a
clinic that specializes in tattoo removal. Go where you fit.
Don't force others to accede to your choices.
While Hobby Lobby used to be one of my favor places to shop, now they are off
the list completely. I refuse to shop there any long. Reason: Price gouging
their customers, jamey, me. I wrote to them and they neglected to reply with
explanation or to fix the wrong. Proves to me that Christianity is just a name
and too difficult to put into practice by businesses.
To David Mohr:By your logic, someone whose religion teaches that
believes that blacks and whites should not mix should be able to deny employment
to anyone with more melanin than they are comfortable with. Or refuse
employment to a Mormon because their religion teaches that Mormons are evil. It
doesn't matter how specious the reasoning is. Because, after all, nobody
is forcing the black / Mormon / whoever to work there, right?
This is an excellent article and the responses are simply better. I don't
know if this will be printed, because the Des News doesn't seem to like it
when it's pointed out that the readers and posters make a better case than
the editorial author, but that's certainly what I see here. Good argument,
Des News, but you lose this one. Better argument, readers! And I do think this
whole thing will be no argument at all when we move to single payer.
If Hobby Lobby is so against "paying" for birth control and abortion,
then WHY do they buy their products from birth control mandated China, the
capitol of the legal abortion world? Put your real business decisions where you
SAY your heart is, Hobby Lobby!
Contrary to the editorial claim, the administration is not "hostile to
religion." The bill was passed by the congress, and the Department of
Justice typically defends government action of all sorts. Citizens
benefit from the DoJ. Here, we may learn how the Court the law as well as the
U.S. Constitution. That's good for everyone.
People make some interesting comments arguing companies shouldn't have the
right to deny certain coverages if it's against the owner's religion.
No one is forced to work for any certain coverage.They can find a place with
coverage they like. An employer shouldn't have to pay for a coverage that
is against their belief system.
@Really?? has the best sentiment. Political folks are trying to hijack the
legal system for headlines.1) The law is applied neutrally, and
doesn't have the intent or effect of hurting particular religious groups.
2) Giving exemptions would require the government to delve into religious
issues -- e.g., "are these 'it's against my religion' claims
valid?" -- which the First Amendment forbids.Today's
NYTimes editorial on this issue is a more well-reasoned editorial than this one,
in my opinion.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments