Quantcast
Opinion

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

Comments

Return To Article
  • RBB Sandy, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    What is truly frightening is how many people in this country have no problem forcing a business owner to violate the business owner's beliefs to get something they want. It is not as if the business owner is locking the doors to Planned Parenthood or every other drug store in town that will sell you a month's worth of contraception for $10-$20. This is the problem with having any employer mandate in the first place. If you want something - act like an adult and pay for it yourself.

    While those on the left are apoplectic about this decision, what happens when an employee from Africa wants to do female circumcision on his daughter. Do you want to be paying for that?

    Freedom of religion is a farce if the government can simply step in and require you to do something that you believe is morally wrong. Perhaps we should eliminate conscientious objector status if there is ever another draft. Who cares if you are a Quaker or Amish - you really do not have the right to practice your religion. Welcome to Socialism.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 7, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi 9:40 a.m. July 2, 2014

    The corporation called "New York Times" prints a newspaper. They have freedom of speech.

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

    You are referencing the right amendment to the US Constitution (First Amendment) but the wrong provision in it. The First Amendment says (with emphasis added0:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM or speech, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The New York Times is a press organization. Its rights come from the First amendment freedom of the press clause, not the freedom of speech clause.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    July 2, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    Sorry the SCOTUS got it wrong in this case. The next thing Hobby Lobby will insist on is that they be allowed to refuse services to gay people because homosexuality is against their religious beliefs. If you think that sounds far-fetched then think again . . .

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 2, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    The corporation called "New York Times" prints a newspaper. They have freedom of speech.

    At one time, if one professed to be liberal, it was only natural that one assumed that corporations would be socially responsible -- they would try to do what was moral, not just what was legal.

    In the 1990's some clever Enron lawyers, traders, etc found out ways to mess with the California energy market to jack up the price of electricity and make a huge profit. What they did was legal. But not moral.

    In the 1970's the Robbins corporation developed an IUD device which had a design flaw which would cause 'toxic shock syndrome'. The FDA banned their product. So they sold it to the third world. It was legal. But not moral.

    Suddenly, we have a ruling that protects the Christian owners of a company from violating their religious beliefs and all of the 'liberals' are up in arms. They seem to have made a massive, coordinated swing to the far right, like a flock of lemmings.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    July 1, 2014 8:55 p.m.

    The Hobby Lobby opinion makes for absurd theology.

    Citizens United held that the government could not infringe upon the free speech rights of corporations because a corporation is an association of individual real people, and the 1st Amend rights of those people flow up through and are protected when expressed in the corporate form.

    SCOTUS did NOT apply Citizens United's constitutional analysis to find that the Green's individual rights to practice their religion, as owners, flowed up through Hobby Lobby corporation to imbue that entity with their religious faith and accompanying rights.

    Where is the fun in that, when SCOTUS can conjure vast numbers of soul-less immortal parishioners to fill America's churches?

    First, SCOTUS isolated the word "person" from the RFRA phrase "a person's free exercise of religion" and applied the Dictionary Act to apply a default definition of "person" that includes corporations. Ok, fine.

    Then, without making any causal link to the owners' constitutional rights, SCOTUS merely asserts the fantastical theological position that non-human, fictional entities can and do practice religion! Who knew?

    Zany hijinks follow!

    Sinful to merge two Mormon LLCs? Last rites prior to dissolving a Catholic corporation?

    Have fun kids!

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 1, 2014 6:09 p.m.

    What turns nornmally decent people into people who resort to personal attacks rather than admitting that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled and upheld a bilateral act submitted by the very liberal Ted Kennedy and the moderate Orrin Hatch? The court did not rule on whether the government can overrule religion, instead, it ruled that closely held corrporations have the right to reflect the religious attitudes of those who own that corporation. There are even those who reject the legal principle that a corporation is considered to be a person UNDER THE LAW. Those are facts that even a third grader can research, but grown people stomp their feet and tell us that they and they alone have the right to tell the Court how to rule. What arrogance!

    We live in a country that is governed by a Constitution that specifically tell us that the President cannot legislate. That Constitution also specifically tell us that Congress cannot prohibit our right to live our religion without interference.

    No Republican caused this ruling. It was guaranteed by the Constitution. What do liberals have against the Constitution?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 1, 2014 5:56 p.m.

    5-4 split.

    5 male vs. 3 female and 1 other male justice.

    The Conservatives can dance and cheer they've won another battle,
    but
    time will prove they have will loose yet another war.

    This will push even more women away from the GOP.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2014 5:41 p.m.

    Don't complain when there is a time when the court is in favor of another's religious freedom, such as Muslim's beliefs! I wonder if that would be a different story? What do you think? There are so many hypocrites! That is our problem! There are so many people who worry only about what they believe and with their mouths they may say religious freedom, but they don't really believe it belongs to everyone, do they? They wonder why religion is declining in the United States? Maybe these religions need to stop pointing their fingers at all the wicked people they see out there and look in the mirror! God is not hate, but all we hear from Christian religions is fear, condemnation, and judgment, while they pat themselves on the back because they feel that somehow, they are more righteous! There are some sins that really have no names, but I think they can do more damage than anyone imagines. As a gay person, I have come to know what it feels like to be put down by the very people that should care about me! It does damage! Real damage! It isn't right!

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 1, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    Here's what's wrong with conservatives today.
    "Isn't it ridiculous to read comments where liberals are telling us that the court cannot override the will of the people while at the same time they tell us that Judge Shelby can single-handedly overrule 66% of the voters of Utah?"

    Go back and read the comments previous to this comment and nowhere does anyone mention the court overriding the will of the people. Mr. Richards just makes this up (that's the kind way of putting it).

    Secondly, nowhere have I read a lib calling this an overreach by activist judges, the common mantra of the right.

    So the right just makes stuff up (there is a definition for this), then when something doesn't go their way it's activist judges. When the judges make up a ruling out of thin air it's in the spirit of the constitution.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 1, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic,

    "....Hobby Lobby invests in the same pharm. company that makes the birth control they object to allowing their employees to purchase...."
    ______________________________

    I read about that in Forbes. It’s amazing how having mutual funds in your portfolio can put matters in a whole other light. Why, even a family-owned company based on Bible principles is able to look on the bright side of contraception.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 1, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    Oh yeah Hobby Lobby invests in the same pharm. company that makes the birth control they object to allowing their employees to purchase. Seems odd that their morals align with profit, more that actual human morals.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 1, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    The Church of the Almighty Dollar, formed by corporations in the early part of 21st century, set about to write a set of religious tenets that give advantage to Corporations over their employees.

    The great problem of having corporate citizens is that they aren't like the rest of us.
    As Baron Thurlow in England is supposed to have said, "They have no soul to save, and they have no body to incarcerate."

    Corporations were given the rights of immortal persons. But then special kinds of persons, persons who had no moral conscience. These are a special kind of persons, which are designed by law, to be concerned only for their stockholders. And not, say, what are sometimes called their stakeholders, like the community or the work force or whatever.

    Bad Decision

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 1, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    Hey two bits -

    "No... they have ruled that the government can not force a business owner to do something that VIOLATES his religious beliefs."

    " . . . the government can not force a business owner to do something that VIOLATES his religious beliefs??!!

    Really?!

    So if a businessman's religion mandates human sacrifice, it's OK for him to just kill somebody?

    And the govenment cannot force him to NOT make a human sacrifice?

    Huh . . . I had no idea.

    Things are worse than I thought.

    But I imagine a lot of folks in Utah will be relieved . . . No more enforced monogamy . . . Polygamy is OK now.

    . . . and of course marrying one's 10-year-old sister is cool now too . . . Right?

    . . .You know, if it's consistent with one's religious beliefs.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 1, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    Reading the liberals rant about this decisions makes we want to take them back a few months to the ruling on Obamacare. When that ruling was issued, liberals told conservatives to sit down and shut up becuase Obamacare was the law of the land.

    Now, there is a ruling against one of their pet projects. I don't see any of them doing what they told conservatives to do. Which way is it liberals, if the SCOTUS rules on something is it ok to rally against it or not?

    To the liberals out there. This isn't a case of making corporations equal to people. This is a matter of allowing people to run their own businesses. This ruling only applies to companies that are privately held. That means that companies like Google cannot make the same decision that Hobby Lobby did.

    This is a victory for individuals that own businesses.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 1, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    Craig Clark,
    Evidently the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you on "employer’s obligations to his employees under the law". Although I think you have mis-framed their decision. But no amount of explaining it is going to work evidently, so I give up.

    ================

    @Esquire,
    Re: "If you want to work for my company, you have to follow my religious views"....

    Nice attempt to put words nobody said into somebody else's mouth. We know that's not what they are saying.

    You can still be any religion you want, you can use any birth control you want.
    The employer isn't preventing it... he's just not paying for it.

    The decision was... that the government can't force you to make decisions that are contrary to your religious beliefs (like pay for abortions, etc).

    ===========

    @GaryO

    Re: "the court has decreed that religious beliefs can control the law"...

    No... they have ruled that the government can not force a business owner to do something that VIOLATES his religious beliefs.

    The Company didn't change the law. The Supreme Court did. They decided the law overstepped in this area (and violated a Constitutional Right).

    Last post I think...

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 1, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    Another swing and a miss for Barack and the progressives. Home run for freedom of religion and the Constitution!!

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 1, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    Hey 2 bits -

    "How is this combining church and State?"

    Well, the court has decreed that religious beliefs can control the law.

    Obviously, the church and the state are no long separate.

    This nation is much closer now to the Taliban ideal of religion and government merged as one entity.

    Way to go . . . "Conservatives."

    And no, I don't think our freedoms should be deliberately and continually whittled away by Right Wing oppressors.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 1, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    @ 2 bits, so where do you draw the line on religious freedom? "If you want to work for my company, you have to follow my religious views."

    You say: "...the separation of Corporation and State is just as important as the separation of CHURCH and State." Does this mean you support oppression as long as it is not the government? Does this mean that the employee must surrender his/her religious freedom when accepting a job offer?

    You say: The corporation owner "doesn't lose his individual RIGHTS because he formed a corporation." What about the individual rights of the employee? And doesn't the government have an interest and duty to ensure that the individual rights of all are protected?

    And I still come back to my original question: Will supporters of the decision cry foul if the decision is used as the basis for action that goes contrary to your views? It cuts both ways.

    The decision actually erodes our freedoms as individuals.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 1, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    "....just because you own a business... does not mean you jettison your First Amendment Rights. You can still live your religion... even IF you own a company!...."
    ______________________________

    That’s not what’s at issue. What’s at issue is an employer’s obligations to his employees under the law. That’s the line over which an employer’s religious views cannot encroach on the rights of his employees. That’s where the employer’s religious views are a bogus issue in the argument.

  • Daniel L. Murray, UT
    July 1, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    I still don't understand why no one is lobbying congress to change the tax deduction law to allow individuals to purchase their own insurance and receive a tax deduction instead of employers. This is down right silly and has lead us down this idiotic path. Owners of business have a right to conduct their business how they like, so why have we pitted owners and employees against each other this way? As we have found out types of insurance coverage carry with them values, and with national values growing wider, it makes no sense to constantly bring this problem to the workplace.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 1, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    Esquire,

    "Despite not being human beings, corporations, as far as the law is concerned, are legal persons, and have many of the same rights and responsibilities as natural people do. " - Wikipedia

    The LAW sees a corporation as a person.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 1, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    @ordinary folks:
    "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."

    Actually I think it started before the Civil War when they began to enact laws that said corporations could not employ children in coal mines. The law was requiring corporations to follow certain standards of moral behavior.

    It really expanded however during the Progressive Era when they had the Pure Food and Drug Act that prevented corporations from throwing rat tails and what not in sausage machines and which said that corporations had to respect worker safety, i.e. corporations have to obey societal moral standards.

    So, you think that requiring/allowing corporations to follow morals is backwards? Wow, I think that the polarity of American politics has flip-flopped. The 'conservatives' in this page are now bleeding heart liberals and the 'liberals' have moved to the right of big time Republican political donors, Karl Rove, Koch Brothers, etc.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 1, 2014 10:14 a.m.

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

    Maybe we should pay some attention to this -- liberals are, after all, much more familiar with this beast than real people.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 1, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    @Esquire,
    You are right... a Corporation is not a person. But just because you own a business... does not mean you jettison your First Amendment Rights. You can still live your religion... even IF you own a company! AND... you still have the right to control what that corporation does (not the Government).

    If we allow the Government to tell you how to run your company... then there is no separation of Corporation and State. And the separation of Corporation and State is just as important as the separation of CHURCH and State.

    In America... we do not let the Government run our Churches. And we do not let the Government run our Corporations.

    ===========

    It blurs things when you combine the company and the owner. So try to avoid that.

    The owner is an individual. The Corporation isn't.

    The owner/individual directs the company. So his decisions need to clear with his conscience (religious/moral/legal/etc)... Government can't force him to make decisions that he finds immoral/illegal... it just makes sense if you think of him as an individual.

    He doesn't lose his individual RIGHTS because he formed a corporation.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 1, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards, the Court has NOT always provided that a corporation is a "person" in the same way as an individual. The concept of a corporation as a "person" is a legal fiction and was never meant to give the same individual rights as we enjoy under the Bill of Rights. To do so is a perversion of the Constitution. While I agree that the religious test issue was written as you stated (but you misrepresented what I said), the decision does create a religious test in other ways. You distort the argument in your last sentence, again supporting my view that you use the Constitution to advance your own views as convenient. So, as long as we are asking questions, please address the question of "what is the difference to the typical person out there if their religious rights are infringed upon by the government or by a company?" Are you saying that a private organization should be able to oppress, as long as it isn't the government? And what about the idea that this decision might be used against you on another issue? Does that bother you at all?

  • L White Springville, UT
    July 1, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    Isn't it silly when some people are blaming God and his religion for all of their woes. He gave them life and then they use that life to attack him. That's gratitude for you.

    Should the government require us to pay tithing so that the poor are cared for? It would be in the public good. It is exactly what those who demand that others pay for their contraceptives would want. They want others to be forced to pay their personal welfare bills.

    Nobody is being denied any kind of contraceptives. The only thing that is being denied is that the government cannot make ME pay for YOUR contraceptives. That seems fair - unless you agree to pay my tithing for me.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 1, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    @esquire,

    The Court has always ruled that a corporation is a person. As a person, it has the same rights as all other "persons", including you and me. This is not the first time that the Court has explained the obvious and this is not the first time that some people have told us that the Court is wrong.

    You seem to think that others who have money are automatically oppressors. Are you stating that if you have "money" enough to hire a neighbor to mow your lawn, that you're oppressing that neighbor?

    You wrote that this ruling was a "religious test". Have you read the Constitution recently? Article VI states: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    Has "Hobby Lobby" been elected to office? Does it hold an office of public Trust? It seems to me that you're stating that only those who have your religious views can hold office? Isn't that a "religious test" administered by you?

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 1, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    @GaryO

    Re "Supreme Court demolishes Separation of Church and State".

    That's one view of it. A very, very NARROW view of it. But another view none the less.

    I don't see how birth control, or the government not forcing someone to violate their own conscience... is "demolishing the separation of church and State".

    How is this combining church and State?

    =============

    The Government is about more than Birth Control. And liberty is about more than religion. Liberty needs to respect both rights. The right to get birth control (IF you want it), AND the right to live according to your religious beliefs.

    The court acknowledging that is NOT combining Church and State. It is just respecting liberty (of ALL individuals).

    ========

    There is no RIGHT to Contraception in the Constitution.

    There is no RIGHT to force somebody ELSE to PAY for your Contraception, in the Constitution.

    I think the Supreme Court was just acknowledging that.

    It does in now way combine Church... and State.

    =========

    Remember... you still have the RIGHT to any birth control you want. You just don't have the RIGHT to force someone else to violate their religious vows.

    A good decision

  • Bendana 99352, WA
    July 1, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    This whole argument boils down to the fact that the Supreme Court just handed more rights to corporations and made sure that workers have less. Right, left, conservative or liberal, that situation never ends well. Do any of you actually believe that companies will not be using this to gain every advantage they can over their workers? Doubt it? See Citizens United, that was supposed to be a 'narrow ruling' as well. Or you can keep crowing until they come after a right that means something to you, and they will.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 1, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    "....The decision is substantial in its own right, and delivers a rebuke to the Obama administration’s conduct respecting people of faith. And it accentuates this country’s long-standing commitment to religious liberty...."
    ______________________________

    I’m willing to bet that if the Federal government steps in and funds it, the argument will change from freedom of religion to one of asking why taxpayers should have to foot the bill. Can’t the Deseret News and other right wing advocates find a more honest way to rage against the Affordable Care Act?

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    The contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act will likely have the effect of reducing the U.S. abortion rate over the long term, but the Hobby Lobby ruling likely will result in an increase in the abortion rate among Hobby Lobby employees and among employees of for-profit companies that drop contraception coverage.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    I guess that to liberals, a failure to pay for something for someone else is equivalent to denying them access.

    If I refuse to buy you a beer because I don't like alcohol, then I am doing the same thing as trying to pass prohibition, right? My failure to provide you something for free is the same as telling you that you can't have it.

    Honest political debate is one thing, blatent lies about what this ruling says is another. The phony "war on women" is just leftist propaganda.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards, what is the difference to the typical person out there if their religious rights are infringed upon by the government or by a company? The court decision effectively authorizes religious discrimination by those with power, authority and money. Oppression is still oppression, regardless of whether it is government or a company. And the hypocrisy of which you speak cuts the other way, too. You complain that a court overturned a vote of the people, and yet you support the same on the issue here. Consistency and freedom is not the message you send. Instead, it is a message of imposing specific views and using the Constitution and scriptures when convenient to back up those views.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 1, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    "Supreme Court upholds meaning and purpose to bipartisan law protecting free exercise of religion"

    That's not really the best summation.

    Here's a better one:

    Supreme Court demolishes Separation of Church and State.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    Don't freak out... they're not forcing their religion on you, and you can still get any birth control you want.

    Employees may pay for some types of birth control (types that cause an early term abortion). But company will still pay for the kind that prevent conception. And that's the best type (for your body).

    #1. People who say "they're preventing people from getting birth control"... not true. They are just not paying for it. Employees can still go out an BUY any type of birth control they want. It's very inexpensive, and elective.

    #2. If people must have someone else pay... some entrepreneur will step in and offer BC Insurance (to pay for Birth Control). Pay small monthly premium and they will buy it for you. Heck... maybe the government will even provide it! (IF they are that concerned)

    ===

    So bottom line... no rights have been removed. Rights have been restored (or preserved). The right to live according to the dictates of your conscience. Everybody can still get their BC. You just can't force people to violate their conscience.

    SC decided forcing people to violate their conscience is not the Government's job.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    Wait...I thought courts couldn't override the will of the majority.

    Or is that argument selective?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 1, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    Isn't it ridiculous to read comments where liberals are telling us that the court cannot override the will of the people while at the same time they tell us that Judge Shelby can single-handedly overrule 66% of the voters of Utah? They claim that the 14th Amendment, which was written to protect newly freed slaves can be twisted to protect their personal feelings about same-sex sex, but that the 1st Amendment, which specifically and clearly prohibits Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion is not binding.

    The only complaint that we should have with the ruling is that all nine justices did not protect our freedoms to live our religion without government interference.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 1, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    This decision takes away religious freedom. It establishes a religious test. It gives the power to some to impose their religious views on others (subordinates). It opens the door for all sorts of issues to be governed by the religious views of a few. If anything violates the original intent of the Founding Fathers, it is this decision. For those of you who love this decision, including this newspaper, be forewarned. There could be ramifications that cut against you on some issue in the future. Will you then complain, or will you gladly submit because of your prior support for this decision? This decision is another step towards giving the oligarchs more power and taking liberties away from the people. It may serve the interests of institutions who seek to protect their own interests, but it does not serve the rest of us. This newspaper has utter forgotten the roots of Mormons and the principles that enabled the Church to survive in perilous times. I guess now that the Church is powerful, the tables have turned.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    July 1, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    I do not know how it has come that one may be exempt from law merely based on one's arbitrary beliefs. That cannot be constitutional. Suppose I am an atheist employer who does not want to pay for an employee's birth control. Am I out of luck? Is that fair? What happens if I lie about my religious beliefs? To whom must I prove my religious beliefs?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 1, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    Two dangers here libs.

    Both are slippery slope arguments which I normally would poo poo, except the slide is being built and assembled in plain site this time.

    One, this SCOTUS has clearly changed their motto from "In God we trust", to "In capital we trust".

    Secondly this decision is a wink and a nod to the evil of birth control that is considered abortive. With personhood laws waiting in the wings.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 1, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    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?

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 1, 2014 1:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 1, 2014 12:33 a.m.

    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.

  • David Centerville, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:18 p.m.

    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.

  • David Centerville, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:13 p.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:33 p.m.

    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?

  • MDurfee OREM, UT
    June 30, 2014 7:54 p.m.

    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
    June 30, 2014 7:12 p.m.

    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.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 30, 2014 5:53 p.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 30, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    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".

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 30, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    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 . . .

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 30, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    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?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 30, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    "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.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    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).

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 30, 2014 3:02 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 30, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    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...

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    June 30, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    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."

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    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!

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 30, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    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.