Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Hobby Lobby’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 6 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

I agree with the writer. Here's something I have wondered about. Do the Deseret News and like minded media support Hobby Lobby because they think providing the contraceptives in question violates Hobby Lobby's owners' religious freedom, or simply because Hobby Lobby claims such does?

I don't see how any rational person could believe Hobby Lobby's owners were having their religious liberty circumscribed. Apparently it is enough for them to CLAIM that was happening. So if I say some law or regulation violates my religious freedom, then it is necessarily so. This is a slippery slope for sure.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

If I understand Hobby Lobby correctly, the Supreme Court made the correct decision. They claim they would have been forced to provide a form of birth control that kills a fertilized egg or a ' days old' human being. In their mind this was murder. Its close enough that they should not be forced on this issue.

That said, companies should not be allowed to deny benefits to employees because it violates the owners religion. Employers should not be allowed to push their religion on their employees. It would be wrong for employers who are Jehovas Witness to deny insurance to employees thsp pays for blood transfusions for example.

higv
Dietrich, ID

Religions do have the right and religious people the right to speak out on issues of moral concern. That right is not limited to atheist's or those that religions are on a different version of morality than traditional Judeo Christian values our nation was founded on.

joe5
South Jordan, UT

What a twisted argument. The letter writer doesn't provide any evidence that a limit on employee benefit restricts another person's freedoms any more than requiring a person to work on his/her Sabbath imposes on another person's freedoms. He makes no argument, other than his own opinion, about how it is intolerant of others. There is nothing in this law that prevents an employee from getting an abortion, just that it does not have to be funded by someone who is opposed to abortion for religious reasons. In fact, it is no different than conscientious objector laws of the past and present.

In fact, the intolerance is on the part of the letter writer. Abortion is supposed to be rare, even according to liberals, so few people are affected. The ruling does not affect availability of abortion so it's not much of an inconvenience. The ruling does not allow employees to be terminated for having an abortion so there is no discrimination.

But this letter writer wants to impose HIS opinion on employers. He should keep his opinions out of the workplace instead of worrying about the deeply-held beliefs of others.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

Religious freedom? It was Lucifer that wanted to force us to follow the rules. I can't buy this religious freedom bunk because a) Hobby Lobby changed their positions after the ACA became law and b) they are invested in the very companies that manufacture these products in question and c) getting a tax break is not tantamount to being "forced" to do anything but put money on the bottom line. This letter is nothing if not hyperbole.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"We are not allowed to impose our beliefs on others, " Here's where conservatives disagree with you Christopher.

Conservatives believe that religious freedom includes the right to not be associated with, come in contact with, or in any way feel they have been forced to lend support for acts they consider immoral. Now the court has said that right is certain even if their belief is not true.

This wasn't much of a problem in 1790. Now it's a huge issue because of the expansion of both religious influence and government influence. Still until now the public space (including employment) was pretty free from forced religious influence. The Roberts court however is determined to specifically re-define the public space of commerce as deserving the rights afforded humans (pretty good trick if you ask me). I suppose because it's consists of humans.

What's sad is at the same time they are purposefully restricting the rights of actual humans.

Watch out because this is an ideology so until there is a SCOTUS that is more friendly to actual humans it will continue.

Sal
Provo, UT

The Hobby Lobby ruling does not harm women. The government can provide any woman with contraception if it thinks it is that important. No employee will be denied this intervention.

However, the writer is correct in worrying about what other benefits might be denied employees based on religious beliefs. He didn't mention any specifically.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Look what Obama has done! He has turned us against each other where some people claim that a businessman must pay for contraceptives that destroy life! If anyone believes that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, that person would have to also agree that an unborn baby deserves at least as much protection as the hardened criminal who has been sentenced to death. The criminal has been found guilty by a jury, has been sentenced to die, and has had opportunity to appeal his case. On the other hand, some people DEMAND that someone else pay for the pills that destroy life inside the womb.

Make no mistake about it, when the government forces one person to pay for the pills that destroy another, that government is despotic.

Nothing in the Constitution requires a business to pay for abortifacients. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Agreed!
Great letter Christopher Morris.

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

It has never been the resposibility of business to bankroll employees who treat sex as a recreational activity to be engaged in at any time with any person. No truly reasonable person would claim that it is.

Business pays for standard health care because healthy, responsible employees are a benefit to the business. Employees who engage in irresponsible lifestyles are a detriment to business, and no business can prosper if it is forced to pay for its own destruction.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"If anyone believes that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, that person would have to also agree that an unborn baby deserves at least as much protection as the hardened criminal who has been sentenced to death."

Your error Mr. Richards is that a zygot, or a week old fetus is not a "baby". It's not human. It may or may not become human but it's not, and there is no science that says it is, only religions.

That's what's tragically wrong with this decision. The court said it doesn't matter if your opinion is correct or not. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

Why do babies have to die just because someone doesnt want to be a parent. Since we are talking about equality, I want a license to kill also. Its only fair.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

Ugottabkiddin

Wrong! Satan wanted us to go through life with no personal accountability and he would take care of everything. Jeez this sounds so familiar. I got it! Its this issue here. Society wants us to eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die and if we are guilty God will beat us with a few stripes and we are saved in the Kingdom of God. Getting a free ride through life without being held accountable is a million time more seductive and easier to get people to follow than being forced to do good which only about 5 people wouldve agreed too.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

Well said, Christopher Martin. You are exactly right.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

From truthout - this says it the way it is:

The First Amendment the constitution says, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro­hibiting the free exercise thereof;." This right-wing Republican Supreme Court, using its one-vote majority, has re-written that language. The Amendment now reads "Congress shall make no law that requires a person to comply with it if they claim a religious exemption, and the religious views of one group of citizens can be held to outweigh those of another group, by law;."

Shaun
Sandy, UT

What I find interesting is that many say gay marriage is a slippery slope because they argue what is next? Siblings marrying and so on. However they do not see the hobby lobby case as being a slippery slope. Under the law of the land certain insurance coverage was to be provided. If hobby lobby, a corporation not a person, can claim their religious beliefs are being violated then why can't a corporation ban blacks from their business based on religious beliefs?

jsf
Centerville, UT

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro­hibiting the free exercise thereof"

And liberals are saying no they can make laws to force others to follow their ideas and rules. The Hobby Lobby ruling is just such an argument. If we yell loud enough, make misrepresentations, and scream long enough, we will get the federal government to make everyone conform to our way of thinking.

jsf
Centerville, UT

The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, is against drugs that are abortive, but the company does include 16 types of contraception in its health insurance plan. Hardly a war on women. But we could discuss the Margaret Sanger war on the poor and the blacks. Progressive racial war on blacks, planned parenthood, has limited the grow of the black race in America by 3 to 4 percent keeping the total population below 12 percent.. How many are supporting Margeret's program.

joe5
South Jordan, UT

I see lots of angst and lots of opinion but not one opponent to this ruling has yet made the case that this harms women in any way or that it imposes any form of hardship. Please stop the rhetoric and make a logical argument.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

The issue here is much more nuanced than it is being presented to be both in the letter and the comments. The company owners are not opposed to ALL contraceptives, but just those deemed to prevent pregnancy after the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb. They are not opposed to contraception, but to abortion.

Hence once again we arrive at a scientific standoff. The vast majority of scientists say that no contraceptive cause abortion, but the company owners faith causes them to take a different view. So now we are looking at a case where the Supremes say the company is not only entitled to religious freedom, but also "scientific" freedom. How can anyone say that this decision will not result in a flood of litigation that claims new rights. Doubters need look no further than the injunction given to Wheaton College last week, when they claimed that needing to file the required form to obtain their new found religious right to have the government or the insurance company pay for contraceptives, violates their religious rights! Look out below!

to comment

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