Comments about ‘Supreme Court rules in favor of religious freedom in Hobby Lobby case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, June 30 2014 7:50 a.m. MDT

Updated: Wednesday, July 2 2014 3:36 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
WRK
Riverton, UT

Finally, common sence wins out.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

I must confess myself a bit surprised.

Both sides definitely had a case, but the Government failed to prove theirs.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

Apparently corporations are not only "people", but they're religious people. Does it follow that there is a plan of salvation for corporations so that the corporation can go to heaven, and, in the likely absence of such a plan, that corporations are going elsewhere in the afterlife?

How does this ruling apply to a corporation owned by a Jehovah's Witness or a Christian Science believer? Can they provide health insurance that, in the first case, doesn't cover blood transfusions or, in the second case, only covers "divine healing"? Health insurance is supposed to cover the medical needs of the employee; not just what the employer might approve of.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

That's too bad; but the Court has ruled.

OneWifeOnly
San Diego, CA

This ruling opens the door for corporations to discriminate based on religious beliefs on all sorts of things. Imagine being able to not hire or to fire someone because your religion is opposed to gay marriage. That is just the first that came to mind. I'm sure there are many other areas that DN readers will point out in these comments. I wish we could create a new type of corporation: Religious For Profit. That way those of us who would prefer to not support these types of entries could easily tell which corporations were overtly religious and which simply wanted to run a business in the marketplace. I'll be shopping elsewhere.

Robert Riversong
Warren, VT

Ironic that Jesus was pretty clear that money and morality don't mix, but these so-called Christian profit-makers want to force their religious beliefs onto their employees.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Chris B:
"Can't wait for the liberals to squirm and get made over this one."

Reading some of the recent comments supporting Hobby Lobby vs those who think that the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby have some hidden, devious agenda, I would conclude that the real liberals are the ones who support Hobby Lobby's freedom of conscience.

Liberals like you, Chris B.

Woohoo! I applaud this decision. Let freedom ring!

dmcvey
Los Angeles, CA

A terrible ruling. This isn't about religious freedom it's about forcing your religion on your employees.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

This is a good decision. Mandating all forms of health care and requiring employers to fund them is an overreach.

It is nice to see that religious freedom not completely dead, although there are certainly many federal court judges looking to kill it....

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@Darrel8:30 a.m. June 30, 2014

I must confess myself a bit surprised.

Both sides definitely had a case, but the Government failed to prove theirs.

-----------------\

Agreed. And, as a result, women will suffer. For the general welfare of the country, it's time for the feds to step up and mitigate this issue. Perhaps having the medical insurance companies, as they do for other basic preventative health care issues, provide coverage without charging a premium would be the best way. That would certainly be more economical for the insurance copanies -- they would pay a lot less for basic contraception than they would for pregnancy care, neonatal care for the fetus, and then medical care once a birth has occurred and there is a baby. Plus people like the Greens wouldn't have to fake "religious liberty" to force their beliefs on their employees. Problem solved.

Grandmato14
Taylorsville, UT

Glad to know that sometimes the little guys win!

Brave Sir Robin
San Diego, CA

@Robert Riversong

"...these so-called Christian profit-makers want to force their religious beliefs onto their employees..."

No different than the Atheist/Agnostic profit-makers wanting to force their religious "beliefs" onto their employees. It's all about your point of view, and whether you have the inner strength to see others' point of view as well. Pretty sure I can guess where you fit in.

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

per Eliyahu

This morning, CNN said that the Citizens United ruling may set a precedence for ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.

Other than the slippery slope that Citizens United & Kelo v New London rulings are, I did not have a dog in this fight and really don't care.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

I guess this means that religion isn't under attack?

cstott
Lehi, UT

Liberals will have to go find a new hobby!!

byronbca
Salt Lake City, UT

Why does my boss get to make important decisions regarding my love life? According to this ruling my boss gets to decide if my health care covers birth control.If I have a boss whose religion is against drinking coffee can that boss now deny me health care if I get an ulcer that is related to drinking coffee? Why does somebody else's religious beliefs get to dictate what is covered on my health care plan?

techpubs
Sioux City, IA

OneWifeOnly

San Diego, CA

This ruling opens the door for corporations to discriminate based on religious beliefs on all sorts of things. Imagine being able to not hire or to fire someone because your religion is opposed to gay marriage.

Can you please explain this reasoning? I don't see where the employer is being forced to pay for the marriage ceremony to base the refusal to hire or the reason to fire on.
The SC was fairly clear that there were plenty of other options for women to obtain Birth Control inexpensively without the employer having to pay for it.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

On the surface, this appears to be a victory for religious freedom. Unfortunately, it is another ruling towards the concept that "Corporations are people too".

"And on the eighth day, God created Corporations" is a punch line to a joke. It shouldn't be public policy.

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

Women won't suffer and employers won't be able to discriminate based upon religious grounds. Employees who want this type of contraception can just buy it themselves. What in the world did we do before King Obama and the ACA went into effect? My goodness, the sky isn't falling. No one is forcing these employees to work for this corporation and the banter about a plan of salvation for corporations is just silly.

What if the government decided everyone had to paint their building some shade of green? Would that be oppressive or illegal? (Remember that in the old Soviet Union there was very little color allowed in buildings.) This is a free country and you can work where you want and up until now buy the insurance you wanted. In fact, you could even choose your own doctor and then keep him. Does that sound at all familiar, liberals?

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

As Alito notes in his opinion, this case has nothing to do with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. It hinges entirely on two things:

1) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a Congressional piece of legislation which can be repealed or amended by any Congress.

2) The fact that HHS already worked out a "Plan B" (pun not exactly intended, but oh well) for religious non-profit corporations which could easily be extended to cover companies like Hobby Lobby. Under that plan, the government and insurance companies work something out directly that covers women for contraceptive coverage without the employer being involved.

While, as a liberal I'm concerned that the ruling unfairly disregards the secular and religious values of employees of such companies in favor of their employer's, as long as a compromise is available that provides the same benefit, and this narrowly-written decision doesn't open a pandora's box of religious exemptions for any other laws, I think we can live with it.

to comment

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