Comments about ‘Group protests Hobby Lobby decision on birth control’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, July 5 2014 5:30 p.m. MDT

Updated: Saturday, July 5 2014 6:21 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Enough is enough!
Saint George, UT

There are/were 16 different kinds of contraception discussed in the documents I have read about. Hobby Lobby has been willing all along (even before the law suit) to fund 12 kinds of them...just not the four kinds which Hobby Lobby considered inappropriate from their perspective. They HAVE NOT denied contraception to employees.

@Jan Jones...married couples who engage in recreational "activity" and don't want to become pregnant have a myriad of contraception available to them. They can plan ahead or pay for their own "morning after" pills. It's basic personal responsibility.

@Kerissa Anaya...my ovaries are my business"...I couldn't agree more. Businesses have no business being forced to pay for your "business."

There is no war on women...just war against individuals and companies willing to take a stand.

Red
San Antonia, TX

Hurray for Freedom!

Remember the Alamo!

U-tar
Woodland Hills, UT

These protesters need to put a cork in it, and they can pay for it themselves.

BoringGuy
Holladay, UT

According to the Supreme Court, the rights of a corporation trump the rights of individual citizens. Figures.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

Most of the women I know who are on birth control are married and monogamous. The idea that birth control is only for "recreational sex" is absurd and demeaning.

Imagine if Hobby Lobby declared that the life style choices that lead to high cholesterol are against their religious principles and refused to pay for cholesterol treatment? Would people be railing against the irresponsible "recreational eaters," calling them names and putting them down?

This decision has already expanded, from four items to all birth control coverage to groups demanding the right to discriminate against GLBT employees. One restaurant owner, in North Carolina, said the decision meant he could refuse service to people of color based on his belief on the Bible.

shottaker
MIDWAY, UT

Dear Protesters,

A privately held company owned by 5 individuals has the right to not pay for for your birth control when it violates their moral and/or religious convictions, just as you have the right to not work or shop there.

It really is that simple.

Sincerely,

Common Sense

Cole Thomas
Salt Lake City, UT

So since employers now get to pick and choose how we use our healthcare coverage, why not our paychecks as well?

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

It's nice to see people standing up for rights of individuals above institutionalised religion.

SAS
Sandy, UT

So does a business owned by Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to refuse to pay for employees' blood transfusions? Does a business owned by Christian Scientists have the right to pay only for Christian Science healing for employees?

Not Much of a Fan
OC, CA

The ignorance displayed on this topic is appalling!

Max
Upstate, NY

Entitlements! Entitlements! Entitlements! We have become a nation of entitlements.

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

Your company paid insurance is part of your compensation. And you probably pay a portion of your insurance anyway. Nobody gets insurance for free, unless you are the chief executive.

So, even though your insurance is part of your compensation, and even though you most likely pay a portion of it, your employer now has the right to say no to your personal choices.

Sounds like a totalitarian statist view to me. Where are all of you strict constructionist, conservatives out there? Aren't you afraid of what your employer will decide is best for you next? When will your employer tell you how to spend the other portions of your compensation? When will a Mormon owned company you work for tell you not to buy that wine you like on Saturday night with your wife. Not much difference. Or a Christian Scientist company deny transfusion benefits? Or a Southern Baptist company dock your pay for fishing on Sunday. Or...you ought to get the point.

Herbert Gravy
Salinas, CA

The "war" on babies continues unabated.

Bountiful Guy
Bountiful, UT

@Jeff Harris
"So according to the 5 conservative, male, justices on the US Supreme Court, corporations have religious freedom, but women don't."

Please explain how religious freedom is taken away if people pay for their own contraceptives. This should be good.

Holly Mullen
Salt Lake City, UT

Brava! I especially appreciate the under-30 age group (mostly, anyway!) exercising their rights to free assembly and free speech. Onward.

environmental idiot
Sanpete, UT

The more government intrudes in our personal lives the more common this type of problem becomes. Government needs to get back to what it is supposed to do, roads and military. And leave people to shape their own destiny.

from but not of
Lindon, UT

What utter non sense and political theatre.

There is no loss of benefit. Now, under the act, the insurance companies pay for the benefit that Hobby Lobby objected to being charged for as the employer.

Has anyone read the opinion?

carman
Wasatch Front, UT

To Jeff Harris: re: "So according to the 5 conservative, male, justices on the US Supreme Court, corporations have religious freedom, but women don't."

This is a really weak argument - and essentially a red herring. Women have religious and personal freedom, and can purchase contraceptives if they desire. But there is not a "constitutional right" to contraceptives, nor a right to force someone else, particularly a private employer, to provide it free of charge to its female employees. And forcing a private employer to provide contraceptives, particularly if the employer has a moral sense that it is not right, is a violation of that employers freedoms (personal and religious).

I have no problem with a business offering contraceptive coverage to their employees. In fact, it is a valuable benefit that most companies have offered for decades. And the marketplace may demand higher wages from firms who don't offer such benefits to offset this added cost to their employees. But it is not a "right", and should not be forced on employers. This is simply not the American way, and harms our system - and all of us - in the process.

dmcvey
Los Angeles, CA

Interesting. Why is it always about controlling women's healthcare. If a company was all up in their male employees healthcare I'm sure people wouldn't be so complacent about it.

jeclar2006
Oceanside, CA

Back in the olden days of the 60's some number of people tried to reduce their 'tax' bill by the percentage of the then military budget as a means of protest of the Vietnam War.

It didn't work... they were charged with tax evasion no matter their 'moral beliefs, some of which were based on their religion.

Ah, but now, we have 'religious freedom', perhaps we can revisit that sort of thing, and for those who do believe that the example of the Christ figure in found the New Testament, such people can claim a tax exemption based on such a religious understanding.

As it is there is plenty of 'craft stores' to compete with "Hobby Lobby". While specific protests may benefit publicity on Hobby Lobby's policies, I'd recommend 'protesting' with dollars and patronizing other craft stores.

to comment

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