Comments about ‘Hobby Lobby sets a precedent for religious liberty’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 2 2014 11:25 a.m. MDT

Updated: Thursday, July 3 2014 12:56 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

This was a great ruling

It's hard to even have rational conversations with liberals who insist on being disingenuous at best.

No one is saying a woman shouldn't have access to birth control. Such is the lie we hear from the left.

If you want to engage in sexual activity and you want to not get pregnant, that is your decision. I won't pay so you can do those things.

You can pay for it.

liberty or ...?
Ogden, UT

It's pathetic that the very thing our original settlers fled to this wilderness country to obtain had to be re-validated by a 5-4 court ruling which should have been 9-0 vote with the same outcome. The idea that a person has the right to concience is core to the american ideal of freedom and our own government set up to protect that right now seeks to enforce its own definitions of morality on people you might as well have a state sponsered religion then. There is no difference wether it has a reiligous label or a secular one. For years we have honored the beliefs of widely different opinions from Jehovah's witnesess stance on blood transfusions to Quakers and Ahmish pacifism to not be forced to military service. If you work for an organization that has specific stated beliefs you accept that going in. If you don't you are not compelled to affiliate with them. I wonder how all atheists would feel if they were compelled through law and taxes to directly support churches as charity organizations by legal definition you might then understand how they feel about issues like abortion then. tolerance is a 2 way street.

FT
salt lake city, UT

No reason why a business, non profit or religous organization should have to provide birth control. Why do we let them have tax exempt status as well? Let's be honest most of the religous organizations are run as a business, to generate wealth, acrue power and influence goverment. Why do I have to pay for their services? If they want to use our roads, be defended by our military, etc they can pay their own way as well. They need to stop infringing on my rights and expect me to pay for their well being.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

It sets a precedent. A regressive one, as individuals lose a bit of religious freedom in order that it be given to a corporation. One which, if we had the proper national single payer system we should have, no corporation or employer should even have.
Religious freedom was pushed back in this ruling. As for the issue at hand, birth control, I should imagine that it is an incredibly minute component of any health insurance plan, in terms of cost. An unwanted pregnancy, on the other hand, can present a burden on not just an insurer but society. Prevention is not only a far more sound idea, but more cost effective. It should not be denied to anyone based on mythology.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

"Hobby Lobby sets a precedent for religious liberty"

WRONG

Hobby Lobby sets a precedent for religious oppression.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court destroyed the Separation of Church and State, a long-standing principle designed by the Founders to help guarantee our freedoms.

Once again, our Right/Wrong-leaning Supreme Court trampled on the Constitution and made a horrible decision that resulted in a reduction of our freedoms.

Face it folks, the implementation of "Conservative" ideology does no good for this nation or its citizens.

Cletus from Coalville
Coalville, UT

As articulated by Julian Sanchez from the CATO Institute, liberals are essentially claiming that believers with religious objections are underserving of respect when they are forced to act against their convictions, regardless of whether this makes any real difference to the outcome.

"The ruling seems to provoke anger, not because it will result in women having to pay more for birth control (as it won't), but at least in part because it fails to send the appropriate cultural signal. Or, at any rate, because it allows religious employers to continue sending the wrong cultural signal—disapproval of certain forms of contraception—when sending that signal does not impede the achievement of the government's ends in any way."

Liberals believe they have a "right" to employer compensated contraception, even though they are free to access it by other means (that doesn't matter to a liberal) and this entitlement should trump the religious views of the employer.

Furthermore, liberals have invented an evil boogeyman called a corporation, labeled it as an inanimate object with no connection to people, and then ironically claim a hypocritical right to a corporation payback.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

GaryO
thanks for your daily dose of humor.

business owners can, as a result of this ruling, NOT have the government dictate that they choose between feeding their families and abiding by their convictions. a FABULOUS re-affirmation of religious liberty and reinforcement of the separation of church and state

Once in a while, the SCOTUS actually gets it right and protects freedom.

Face it folks, the implementaiton of "liberal" ideology does no good for this nation or its citizens.

BTW, did you see the Quinnipiac University survey published today that shows your hero BO as the worst president since WWII? Worse even than carter or bush?

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

liberty or ...?: "For years we have honored the beliefs of widely different opinions from Jehovah's witnesess stance on blood transfusions to Quakers and Ahmish pacifism to not be forced to military service."

Quakers and the Amish are provided a conscience exemption from DIRECT action (i.e. military service) in opposition to their beliefs. The law does not allow them a waiver from INDIRECT action. They are still compelled by law to pay taxes for weapons and war against their moral principles. No one compelled Hobby Lobby, the Green family, or their employees to buy or use contraceptives. They were only required to pay premiums into an insurance pool, some of which MIGHT be used for contraceptives. If Quakers can be compelled to pay indirectly for wars, Hobby Lobby can pay indirectly for contraceptives.

The tortured hairsplitting in the Hobby Lobby decision specifically limited the ruling to contraception and explicitly excluded blood transfusions from conscience protection. In doing this the majority established a state religion. It said, in effect, that if you are Catholic or evangelical Protestant, the court will honor your religious beliefs. But if you are Jehovah's Witness, your deeply held religious beliefs carry no weight.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Cletus from Coalville – “religious objections are underserving of respect when they are forced to act against their convictions…”

Except this case had nothing to do with the owners of Hobby Lobby being forced to pay for anything (and the plaintiffs in the case tell us that paying for birth control was their motivation for filing, because they told the SC they have no problem facilitating the insurance policy that covers these products as long as they don’t have to share in the cost).

Health insurance is a payroll expense deducted from revenue before profit (the part that accrues to the owners), therefore if anyone was paying for health insurance for the employees it was the customers of Hobby Lobby.

This case was motivated by one thing only – a right wing attack on a liberal president’s main policy achievement. It had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.

All the rest is rhetorical smoke & mirrors… but it sure made for good theater.

@Lagomorph

Best summary I’ve seen yet!

Red
San Antonia, TX

Thank goodness we have companies willing to stand up to the Government bullies who are taking our freedoms away.

Freedom to Choose baby!

Celebrate the 4th of July. Let's get rid of the terrorists that are in our own country.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey Cletus –

“As articulated by Julian Sanchez from the CATO Institute . . . “

The Cato institute?

The Cato institute is just one more phony think tank funded by the Koch brothers. And Julian Sanchez is just another Koch brother’s employee repeating Koch-Brothers’-approved rhetoric for the consumption of “Conservatives.”

The ruling provokes concern from Americans who believe the principle of the Separation of Church and State should not have been tampered with, and the Constitution should not have been trampled by Right Wingers bent on taking away American freedoms.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey Red -

" . . . the Government bullies who are taking our freedoms away . . . "

And that's exactly what happened.

Right Wing oppressors in black robes took our freedoms away.

That's what we get for electing Republican Presidents.

Anti-government "Conservatives" are right about the dangers of government.

Ironically though, those dangers are only present when "Conservatives" get their way in government.

Cletus from Coalville
Coalville, UT

@Lagomorph

The Court in no such way "established a state religion" and such a declaration is nothing more than hyperbole.

Furthermore, your Amish and Jehovah witness example demonstrates unfamiliarity with the Court's decision.

The Court held that the government cannot burden a person's exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that the application of such a burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

Requiring a citizen to participate in the defense of our nation clearly demonstrates the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest--protection of both the pacifist and the non-pacifist citizen despite the religious belief of the pacifist.

Pray tell--how does compelling an employer to pay for employee contraception despite their religious beliefs and under threat of government penalty demonstrate a furtherance of a "compelling" governmental interest?

@Tyler D

The employer still provides the insurance and employee contributions come nowhere near covering the cost incurred by the employer. Furthermore, customers don’t "pay" for employee insurance; they pay for a product that "cost" the employer to provide.

Hey GaryO

Typical liberal--throw in an ad hominem attack at the messenger (CATO) rather than address the message.

TRUTH
Salt Lake City, UT

Hey GaryO....have you seen the latest gallup and pew polls showing the POTUS as the worst since WWII and Reagan as the best? ......

Didn't think so....

The fourth of July belongs to the GOP and those who fought and died for our freedom......not the Bill Ayers/Obama types who saddle us with tyranny and escaping to Canada and cut off their trigger fingers to avoid serving in the armed services!

OneWifeOnly
San Diego, CA

In my opinion, this was not a ruling about birth control. It was a ruling about whether or not the owners of corporations can impose their religious belief upon their employees. There are many subject matters where religious belief and secular law collide as evidenced daily on the pages of this newspaper. It is my belief that SCOTUS has opened the door for corporations to claim religious objection to other secular laws they disagree with. Furthermore, while this particular ruling affected only 4 particular types of birth control the next case up will be brought by a Catholic organization and will be about all types of birth control. What might be next?

OneWifeOnly
San Diego, CA

@TRUTH
“The fourth of July belongs to the GOP…”
Can I watch the fireworks and share a BBQ with my neighbors or do I need to change my voter registration first?

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

@Cletus:
The government has a clear and compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens. Enabling women to control their fertility is one way to accomplish this.

Pacifists are compelled to pay for weapons and wars "despite their religious beliefs and under threat of government penalty," too, and the linkage of causality is much more direct and certain for them than what Hobby Lobby is facing with insurance policies. A sizable portion of a citizen's taxes will most definitely pay directly for arms and wars. Hobby Lobby might never pay for a contraceptive if its employees choose not to use them or not to pay for them with insurance.

When it comes to conscience and sin, how far does the chain of culpability extend? As I noted, insurance premiums are pooled. Money is fungible. It would be difficult or impossible to trace a dollar spent on a contraceptive back to the books of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby can opt out of insurance based on a very tenuous indirect connection to contraception, then equity demands that pacifists be able to opt out of their much more substantial indirect connection to war through taxation.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

@TRUTH

Thanks for your daily dose of humor.

RickH
Blaine, WA

I heard a rumour that the Church is going to add a new Official Declaration next conference entitled "Free agency and how to get the SCOTUS to enforce it."

Bob K
Davis, CA

TRUTH
Salt Lake City, UT
Hey GaryO....have you seen the latest gallup and pew polls showing the POTUS as the worst since WWII and Reagan as the best? ......
Didn't think so....
The fourth of July belongs to the GOP and those who fought and died for our freedom......not the Bill Ayers/Obama types who saddle us with tyranny and escaping to Canada and cut off their trigger fingers to avoid serving in the armed services!

A-- It was a right winger poll, not a Gallup
B-- Bush did a "phone in" enlistment, and Romney suffered by having French people laugh in his face, rather than either one going to Vietnam, when Obama was in grade school

The worst President? The one who cost us our economy, gained us the hatred of the Muslim world, and started a war so his rich oil friends should get richer? Or maybe Nixon?

to comment

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