Comments about ‘In our opinion: Supreme Court upholds meaning and purpose to bipartisan law protecting free exercise of religion’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, June 30 2014 1:15 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

This presents an easy workaround to the Employer Mandate. If everyone just claims to be a Christian Scientist, you don't have to provide any coverage at all.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

This was great news!

Liberals have long been disingenuous(at best) in this and most discussions.

No one is saying women can't get birth control, as is the claim by the liberals. Their dishonesty makes the political process as it is currently.

We've just said if someone wants to have sexual relations and wants to not get pregnant - you can pay for your own birth control. Its not my responsibility to make sure you can do these things on my money.

Don't like it?

Tough, deal with it libs. The court has ruled!

VST
Bountiful, UT

If all you bleeding-heart supporters of Obamacare do not like this decision, then simply get the Congress to repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That Act is the keystone for this particular Supreme Court decision.

a bit of reality
Shawnee Mission, KS

Even if Hobby Lobby doesn't provide its employees with insurance, it is still "facilitating" them acquiring the forbidden healthcare procedures by providing them with a paycheck with which to purchase it. It's bizzare that they think funding this one way is immoral, yet funding it another way is fine.

Are corporations people, entitled to the rights and liberties to which human beings are endowed? "I'll believe corprations are people as soon as Texas executes one."

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

So --

This Supreme Court has ruled that:

Corporations are People
Corporations have Free Speech
Corporations can openly, and unlimted bribe Politicians,
and now,
Corporations have Religous Freedom.

I see a person without body parts or passions,
Who is everywhere, but nowhere,
an enitity that can not die, be sick, or be destroyed,
a person protected by "rights", yet can not be punished for it's "wrongs".

the "Beast" 666, from Revelations comes quickly to my mind...

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Chris B,

Change the medication and change the religion, and the decision is still the same. The SCOTUS has ruled that if your employer is (religion x) and you need (medication y) that your employer can refuse to cover it because of their religious beliefs.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

Their own ruling notes that it's not meant to be interpreted as carte blanche for everything (vaccines, blood transfusions, or even necessarily all birth control) which begs the question... how are we supposed to know where the line is for what constitutes free exercise of religion by a company?

What might help with that is they noted the exemption religious organizations use could just be used for a company. However, there's separate cases challenging that as well (remember the Little Sisters of the Poor suing because they claimed that having to go through the exemption process was a burden and that it merely shifts the payment from the business to the gov't so it doesn't stop birth control coverage).

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

"In our opinion: Supreme Court right to protect free exercise of religion"
______________________________

The Supreme Court would be right to Protect free exercise of religion. That's not what the Supreme Court did as this DN staffer hiding behind a cloak of anonymity very well knows.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
Chris B,

Change the medication and change the religion, and the decision is still the same. The SCOTUS has ruled that if your employer is (religion x) and you need (medication y) that your employer can refuse to cover it because of their religious beliefs.

3:02 p.m. June 30, 2014

=========

Great call.
Logic trumphs ignorance and parroting media sound bites everytime.

It's no different than asking if the LDS Church [which I am an active member],
which forbids the use of alcohol in the Word of Wisdom,
can ban any medication containing even a trace of CnH2n+1OH [alcohol].

Most of us all realize alcohol is in all sorts of things,
as is the primary bindering chemical in most modern medications,
Most Mormons are already breaking the Word of Wisdom if you follow the letter of the law.

BTW -- by the same token,
If a religion worships the God given use of His herbs of the earth for the express healing the sick and afflicted, This should also legalize the use of medical marijuana, no?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

So if company owner A believes in his heart of hearts that pregnancy is the result of original sin, he can deny maternity coverage to his employees. . . .
And company owner B, the Jehovah's Witness, can deny coverage for any procedure that involves blood transfusions . . .
And company owner C, the Jain, can deny coverage that involves use of antibiotics because living microbes are killed in the process . . .
And company owner D, the orthodox Jew, can deny coverage that pays for any treatments on the Sabbath . . .
And away we go . . .

FT
salt lake city, UT

It's a pretty narrow ruling by a split, activist court. It forbids a few contraceptives not widely used. Unfortunately, for the Republicans this will help the liberals continue to win the women vote as the GP exalts a minor victory in their "war on women".

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Religious freedom.

How many women voted for this decision?

Women should remember that when they enter the voting booth.

No one knows how you voted except you.

Women have the FREEDOM to vote for ANYONE they choose.

Men should remember that last sentence.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

The bottom line here is that some women who believe a medication is in their best interest, may be even based on the advice of their physicians, will be denied economical access (or denied access entirely) to that medication. Women - you're still property.

MDurfee
OREM, UT

Great decision by the Supreme Court! Just because one person has a right to contraception doesn't mean they have the right to make someone else pay for it against their religious conscience.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Here's quote from Justice Ginsburg's dissent:

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

Anyone care to comment? Care to comment, Deseret News?

David
Centerville, UT

LDS Liberal,

Are you seriously correlating business/corporations with the beast spoken of in the Book of Revelations in the New Testament?

A corporation is an organization with purpose. That purpose can be to provide a valuable service in exchange for an agreeable compensation (usually money). The corporation can be good or bad, depending upon the intent and ways of the people within the corporation, as well as the systems and policies set up by the people of the corporation.

Jacob teaches (in the Book of Mormon) to think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them, and ye will seek them for the intent to do good--to clothe the naked and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

A corporation can be good or bad, depending upon the people. So yes, a corporation can espouse principles of faith.

David
Centerville, UT

Liberals want it both ways. They don't want government to legislate what happens in the bedroom. For example, homosexual or adulterous behavior cannot be legislated. Liberals call for privacy. What happens in the bedroom is nobodies business. But then liberals want to require everyone to pay for what happens in the bedroom: condom distribution, abortion medications, etc.

I have been cautioning that the pendulum has gone too far to the left for several years and that it will begin to swing back to the middle. This will continue through the elections of 2014.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

One of the core values of the nation is that it owes no homage to your religion. That's why any decision regarding health care needs to be removed from all employers.

Bob K
Davis, CA

Leave it to a publication of the lds church to write this:

"In our opinion: Supreme Court right to protect free exercise of religion"

The problem is that the Hobby Lobby folks are exercising their religion on other people, which is a sin, in my view.
The lds did something similar in Prop 8.

Plainly, women who take entry-level jobs in stores usually do not get to pick and choose.

If Hobby Lobby could somehow only hire people with like religious beliefs legally, and there were jobs elsewhere for the other people, it might be different.

In the USA, people do not have to follow the religious beliefs of their boss.

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

The worst part of this decision is the continuing expansion of a corporation's personhood. First, the corporation had a right to free speech, and now a religion. What is next? The right to vote and bear arms?

The whole idea that a corporation had a right to do anything other than conduct business began after the Civil War, and has been expanded gradually through the years until the reign of King Roberts. Now, we see ever expanding interpretations of law (aka judicial activism) and novel ways of Constitutional interpretation (aka judicial activism) to pursue a set of goals by and for the US Chamber of Commerce. King Roberts is doing what he was hired to do, along with his cronies on the right.

Way to go Republicans and Corporatists. Your money got the best it could buy. What else do you have in store for us?

to comment

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