Comments about ‘Hobby Lobby aftermath spawns disagreement over future of religious freedom law’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 8 2014 9:11 p.m. MDT

Updated: Tuesday, July 8 2014 9:11 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
BYUalum
South Jordan, UT

This Supreme Court ruling is NOT a war on women. Actually women are still protected in every way on insurance coverage. The part that was taken away was the pill that destroys the fertilized egg. The action taken by the SCOTUS actually means it protected the unborn child!

There needs to be a dialogue and education on unprotected sex. After the fact, when the egg is fertilized, the issue now becomes an abortion issue of a tiny human being! That is what was stricken from the law so that it wasn't covered by insurance.

I think it was a correct decision because I value the life of the unborn child!

Anti Government
Alpine, UT

The democrats ability to spin a story into some type of social hardship never ceases to amaze me.

Hobby Lobby is a company but it is owned by individuals. These individuals would have been mandated by law to pay for peoples abortions which they disagree with. They did not say or ask that people not be allowed to get abortions only that they not be forced to pay for them.

All their employees still have the same "rights" they always had...they just have to pay for what "they" themselves want. What a concept. If they want to get an abortion they can still go buy the pill or procedure to get it....but they have somehow lost "rights"?

The democrat spin/distortion never ends.

As soon as they can't get access to other peoples money to pay for their own personal choices then it suddenly a violation of their rights.

How far off track we have gotten that this is even given the ink to print such a fallacy.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

Such vitriol from the left when they do not get their way in court...

There is absolutely no restriction of women's right to health care in this decision. It is all about providing certain types of contraception. The private corporation did not want to offer two birth control options on religious grounds. If you want one of those options, pay for it yourself, or pick another one.

This reminds me of the extreme attacks on Chik-Fil-A over the owner's personal beliefs. It backfired then and may backfire again now.

The abolishment of religious freedom and establishment of secular humanism as the official religion of our country will have to wait. Sorry....

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@BYUalum
"The part that was taken away was the pill that destroys the fertilized egg. The action taken by the SCOTUS actually means it protected the unborn child!"

@AntiGovernment
"These individuals would have been mandated by law to pay for peoples abortions which they disagree with. "

@RedWings
"It is all about providing certain types of contraception."

I guess all three of you missed this detail. A couple days after the ruling the Supreme Court issued a clarification a few days after about a religious school that allowed Wheaton College more flexibility to avoid the Obamacare mandate. Wheaten wants to exclude all forms of birth control from coverage, not just the few that Hobby Lobby opposed. This was about "certain types" for Hobby Lobby, but the court believes its ruling goes beyond that.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

This isn't a war on women. It's a war on individual rights, favouring instead the corporation. Individual and religious freedom suffered because of this ruling.

Really???
Kearns, UT

Before we claim the vitriol is one-sided, let's think of the picture the young woman posted on Facebook that went viral. It's intent was to enrage liberals. When it didn't cause enough of a stir, she posted a followup photo holding a gun and a Bible while standing in front of an American flag. Her intent was to make people angry, and it created many arguments from people on both sides of the issue.

The real problem our once-great nation faces is that we are so concerned about being right that we are unwilling to listen to the sincere thoughts and consider the feelings of those who may be different. Many of the things that we argue about aren't necessarily right or wrong, but they are different ways of doing things.

I have a little book sitting on the end table in my front room that is written by Gordon B. Hinckley. It contains daily thoughts, and my favorite page in it encourages me to "Be a little Kinder."

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@RedWings:

There were no "extreme" attacks on Chik-Fil-A owner Dan Cathy for his "personal beliefs." There were protests about his very public statements on gay marriage and gay rights, and there were boycotts because Chik-Fil-A was donating millions of dollars to right-wing anti-gay groups through their charitable foundation.

On the one hand, evangelicals and other right-wing types stood in line for hours on certain days to buy over-priced fast food.

On the other hand, there was media attention to the statements and contributions, the boycotts did have some impact on bottom line, businesses severed ties with the company.

The result? In July 2012 Chik-Fil-A released the following statement: "Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."

Subsequent tax filings show they have stopped donating to all but one of the objectionable groups, "the Fellowship of Christian Athletes." All other donations go to groups that have no ties to anti-gay activity.

I am not sure what "backfired," but I hope the Hobby Lobby protests backfire in the same way.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@RedWings:

There were no "extreme" attacks on Chik-Fil-A owner Dan Cathy for his "personal beliefs." There were protests about his very public statements on gay marriage and gay rights, and there were boycotts because Chik-Fil-A was donating millions of dollars to anti-gay groups through their charitable foundation.

On the one hand, evangelicals and right-wing types stood in line for hours on certain days to buy over-priced fast food.

On the other hand, there was media attention to the statements and contributions, the boycotts had impact on bottom line, businesses severed ties with the company.

The result? In July 2012 Chik-Fil-A released the following statement: "Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."

Subsequent tax filings show they have stopped donating to all but one of the objectionable groups, "the Fellowship of Christian Athletes." All other donations now go to groups that have no ties to anti-gay activity.

I am not sure what "backfired," but I hope the Hobby Lobby protests backfire in the same way.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

The United States Code defines "person" as including corporations, and has for years. In order not to apply to corporations, RFRA would have had to expressly adopt a different definition of "person" for its purposes. The decision was not even a close call, and the Democrat politicians, most of whom are lawyers, know better than their talking points. That says something about their understanding of their obligation to truth. It's different from mine.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

The talk about modifying RFRA is simply not serious. It passed 97-3. Does any person with one foot in the real world think that a law with that level of support has the remotest chance of being amended in our current divided Congress?

We'd be lucky if we could get a filibuster-proof majority in support of a law that recognized the sky is blue, let alone get a law through both Houses that had near universal Republican support and probably still has at least half the Democratic caucus on board with its current provisions.

The secularist crusaders are going to have to take their lumps on this one and move on.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

@ Stormwalker:

Dan Cathy went on an evangelical talk show and stated his support for traditional marriage, as is his right. He said nothing discriminatory, nor did he use any derrogatory names toward gay people.

The response included Rahm Emmanuel (among others) stating that their "towns" would not allow Chik-Fil-A to open stores and calling Dan a "bigot" among other names. That met with backlash in the form of lines around the block at Chik-Fil-A stores around the country.

Simple lesson from that is that the left will bully anyone that disagrees with them. The more they do that (as they are now with the Hobby Lobby case) the more reasonable, tolerant citizens will see through their lies and manipulations.

Free speech is for all, not just for liberals who think they are smarter than everyone else....

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Amend RFRA? No. Scrap it altogether. It's a law that's unnecessary when it does its job and dangerous when it does more than its job.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

Craig Clark: "Amend RFRA? No. Scrap it altogether...."

While we are at it, why don't we just scrap the whole first amendment? Free speech, free press, and freedom to believe in religious principles are such pesky hinderances to the leftist agenda.

Life is so much better when our choices can be dictated to us from bureaucratic elites who know what is best for us. We need a whole lot more regulations and restrictions on what we can do. Obamacare with all its mandates is just the beginning of the facist state.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

TheProudDuck,

"The talk about modifying RFRA is simply not serious. It passed 97-3...."
______________________________

In the Senate, the vote was 97-3. In the House, the vote was unanimous. Being signed into law by President Clinton seemed little more than ceremonial. To call it bi-partisan support is an understatement. Sentiment was that overwhelming because it seemed innocuous, a piece of feel good legislation that everyone could get behind.

Some who got behind it don’t feel so good about it now.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

The issue is not about birth control or a war on women. It is about a Conservative Majority of the United States Supreme Court run amuck. It started with the Citizens United case and has continued through to Hobby Lobby. With Citizens United the Court said business entities have the exact same free speech rights as individual Americans. In Greece v. Galloway the court began the systematic dismantling of the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and opened the way for government to "establish" a preferred religion in the public square. With Burwell v. Hobby Lobby *Stores* business entities have again been judged as "persons deserving of individual rights" and given the green light to trump the individual religious rights of their employees. Three rulings that have essentially given rights to non-persons at the expense of every American Citizen. That this does not scare the living crap out of everyone is more troubling to me than all the ranting on the right and left about birth control. I am cautiously hopeful that the push to revise/repeal the RFRA will pick up momentum going into the mid-terms.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

Craig, any half-decent lawyer -- and the Democratic caucus has always been loaded with practitioners of our dark art -- had no reason not to expect that RFRA would not apply to closely-held corporations, given the utterly uncontroversial and nearly two-century-old doctrine of corporate personhood.

Maybe they just aren't very good lawyers.

("Two Cents", you may be surprised to learn that corporations have been deemed persons with legal rights since *at least* the Pembina Mining v. Pennsylvania case back in 1881, and in fact as early as Dartmouth College v. Woodward back in 1819. It's nothing new, regardless of what the fundraising e-mails say. And Greece v. Galloway didn't create anything new, either.)

Daedalus, Stephen
ARVADA, CO

The article states: "RFRA was key to the Hobby Lobby high-court decision, where a 5-4 majority ruled religious liberty protections applied to a closely held corporation's owners."

This is false, full-stop.

The theological novelty of the Hobby Lobby decision is how SCOTUS decreed on behalf of all the world’s religions that a corporation itself now has the capacity to "exercise religion" without any causal link to the religious beliefs of the owners. In sharp contrast, Citizens United held how the 1st Amend rights of individual shareholders flow up through and can be asserted by an association of those individuals, including a corporation. With Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS took a short-cut.

According to SCOTUS, the daily communicant who prays the rosary each night for 50+ years is no more or less a devout Catholic than a limited liability company, so long as the LLC members pass a resolution declaring it to be Catholic.

All religions and their adherents have been similarly debased.

Blasphemy is rarely dispelled with a single word.

Congress need only amend 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1(a): "Government shall not substantially burden a [NATURAL] person’s exercise of religion..."

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

History repeats itself in regards to government and people. The process starts with the creation of a new government with the loyalty and the expectation of a better life by the people who just threw out the old government. Everything works good at first and the people are proud of their accomplishment. The downfall starts as the wealth begins to be more concentrated and the oppression of the people starts. At some point where the people have nothing left to lose, they will rebel and start the process again.

America is on the downward side of the process is becoming more and more oppressive. The Hobby Lobby is just one more stone the people must bear in the growing oppression.

Daedalus, Stephen
ARVADA, CO

"...any half-decent lawyer had no reason not to expect that RFRA would not apply to closely-held corporations, given the utterly uncontroversial and nearly two-century-old doctrine of corporate personhood. Maybe they just aren't very good lawyers."

The Dictionary Act provides the default statutory definitions of words commonly used in legislation which sometimes require interpretation by the courts. SCOTUS apply the default meaning to "person" to mean both natural persons and entities, such as corporations. But the Dictionary Act prefaces its entire list of default definitions with the phrase "..,unless the context indicates otherwise."

As the Hobby Lobby dissent argues, the context here would seem to indicate that Congress meant only natural persons when the drafting RFRA.

That does not unreasonable, since I am unfamiliar with any religion that accepts non-human entities, such as LLCs or corporations as members, or allows them to participate in sacraments or even attend services.

Can anyone give a single example to the contrary?

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Prior to Obamacare, contraception was inexpensive, widely available and easily accessible. After the court decision, it still is. Therefore the allegation that women have been denied contraception is a complete hysterical manipulative lie. The ruling basically said that the Obama Administration could not set administrative policy to force religious people to violate their conscience, in conflict with a bipartisan law signed by Clinton, when there were clearly other options available. If roles were reversed the left would be screaming that THEIR religious rights were being destroyed. Furthermore the HHS mandate demands women's contraception only; no condoms, vasectomies, etc. While it is refreshing to hear feminists acknowledge the reality that men and women are not equal/same: It is ironic to hear female supremacists whine because someone pushed back about paying for free stuff that men don't get..

Those who demand tolerance and choice but display no tolerance for anyone else's choice, feigning victimhood as a method of diverting attention from their own perpetrating behavior, are particularly despicable.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the left wing secular mirror image of the Westboro Baptist Church and has the credibility of the Klan.

to comment

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