Quantcast
Faith

Propaganda war continues in Hobby Lobby aftermath

Comments

Return To Article
  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    July 24, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    The title of this article is nothing but propaganda!

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    July 24, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    @Worf, @Ha-Ha...With all the talk of the Tribune closing down the comment section alone regarding this article is proof for the need of two newspapers. Am I the only one that finds it quite interesting how neo-cons are continually allowed to name call those of us which are clearly liberal with their political affiliation while others are clearly held to a much different set of rules? Regardless of the fact this tactic clearly shows an extremely adolescent mind set. Wouldn't you agree @Ha-Ha-Ha?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 23, 2014 9:27 p.m.

    @ TheProudDuck

    The HL Plaintiffs' belief that the four contraceptives in question are abortifacients is not a religious belief, but a mistaken belief about the science behind them. I think this is what Stormwalker meant.

    As for your offer, here's my counter:

    All schools from K-12 will be required to offer religious history classes. Children will be required to learn how religions evolved and where their parents' religion fits in. They'll compare and contrast - doctrine, miracle claims, moral proscriptions. And throughout they'll be reminded that non-belief exists as well.

    Deal?

    P.S. The perfect religions shouldn't have a problem with this. It's an excellent opportunity to demonstrate their obvious superiority.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 23, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    Stormwalker:

    "The court did not rule based on religious belief, the court ruled based on a belief - or misbelief - about science."

    Wrong. Read the decision.

    Courts do not inquire into the accuracy of a religious belief, but only its sincerity. You could run a scientific analysis of a Catholic communion wafer and determine that no, it is in fact the physical flesh of Jesus Christ, or at least has none of a human body's physical characteristics.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 23, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    We hear that religious conservatives are taking us someplace unprecedented -- to a theocracy not seen since the Middle Ages.

    Well, this religious conservative has a modest proposal:

    Let's return church-state relations, and morals legislation, to their position during, say, the second year of John F. Kennedy's administration. Do that, and I promise to close up my religious-conservative shop and say not one more word about it.

    Deal?

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 23, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    Hobby Lobby gored three major liberal sacred cows -- corporations bad! superstitious religionists bad! free birth control good! -- and therefore it *must* be wrong, never mind whether it properly applied the law.

    Modern left-liberalism is antinomian. The result is all that matters. Fidelity to truth and the rule of law are quaint relics.

  • Cletus from Coalville Coalville, UT
    July 23, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    "What then would we call it every time Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck step in front of a camera???"

    Answer -- Certainly less theatrics than we get from the comic relief team of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Now that's true entertainment.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    @Counter Intelligence
    "The court even went as far as saying the government could provide free contraception as long as it obeyed the law"

    This is true with regards to the Hobby Lobby case, however a few days after the court sided with Wheaton on whether they have to provide coverage for any birth control as their case was going through the system. The Wheaton case challenges this gov't alternative to provide free contraceptive coverage. So that would suggest that they really don't support such an option (and that's why Sotomayor had a couple dozen page blistering dissent on the Wheaton decision calling them out on what appears to be a reversal).

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    re: Cletus from Coalville

    ["Why are they making these false claims? It is all political theater." Of course it is – that's what liberals thrive on – political theatre]

    What then would we call it every time Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck step in front of a camera???

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    July 22, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Liberals were all for freedom of conscience during the 1960s when they were protesting against the Draft and the Viet Nam War. This commitment has mysteriously diminished, however, when people began disagreeing with them on issues like abortion. It's funny how those who insist that birth control is their own personal business (not their employer's or the government's) are the same people who insist that their boss or the government pay for it! This is not surprising, however, since the concepts of personal character and personal responsibility have largely disappeared from modern liberalism. As for me, I contribute to the Becket fund, and will continue to do so.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 22, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    @MurrayGuy: "Hobby Lobby STILL provides birth control, they DON'T want to pay for termination of a fetus"

    The real point is that the owners of Hobby Lobby *believe* the two drugs and two IUDs terminate a fetus. According to doctors and scientists all four prevent the fertilization of the egg in the first place, none of the four are an abortifacient. What the Green family believes and the scientific facts are two different things. The court did not rule based on religious belief, the court ruled based on a belief - or misbelief - about science.

    @RG: "But people are still entitled to their beliefs, be they wrong or right."

    True, they are. But in public policy that impacts others, there must be a balance of facts against belief. You believe the earth is 9,000 years old? Dinosaurs lived next to Adam and Eve? Cool. You demand that be taught in public school in science class, presented as credible?

    Well... people have a right to believe... Religion at church. Reality in public and public policy.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    July 22, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    Why can't some people understand what the SC ruling actually does?
    There are 20 birth control drug choices that are available and the SC said that HL only has to completely cover the cost of 16 under their employer provided insurance. That's the same as saying that out of 60 different drug choices for hypertension the company only has to cover 48 of those. And those hypertension drugs don't have to be covered at no cost to the employee under the PPACA even though they are more likely to save a life.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    July 22, 2014 7:21 a.m.

    Firstly, Health Benefits have always been an incentive for employers to attract better workers. Hobby Lobby is at risk of losing quality workers by tailoring the benefits they offer their employees to restrict medical benefits the private owners view as immoral. Certainly this has received enough publicity that if it were to be a huge negative to them financially they should be feeling it from negative backlash. There's no evidence that has happened. HobbyLobby now can create a workenvironment it desires.

    The Obama Administration's attempts to entrench abortion into the government beuracracy has always been controversial and monolithic. They continue to marginalize religious citizenry, dismissing them from economic participation, and from competing in the American Dream, relegating them to anything that doesn't interract with the public.

    The Supreme Court made the right decision by enabling citizen business owners the freedom to establish their businesses on the basis of their core religious values. I think protecting this freedom will ultimately make our country stronger. We all have room for each other, the political progressives need to stop marginalizing a large portion of America's most fundamental contributors.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    Women have not been denied contraception (HHS mandate does not include men); that is simply a left-wing lie. Contraception remains widely accessible an inexpensive. The court even went as far as saying the government could provide free contraception as long as it obeyed the law: A law that was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy and signed by Bill Clinton. Obama simply cannot willfully violate the religious conscious of individuals or organizations when there are clearly numerous other alternatives available; and there are thousands of alternatives.

    The idea that "corporations are not people" may be true; but the courts never said they were; that representation is again a left-wing lie. In response to a lawsuit where the FEC deemed Michael Moore's Farenhight 911 to be free speech, but Citizens United film "Hillary: The movie" to be regulated political speech; the court said the First Amendment right not only applied to individual, but also groups of individuals; including unions, associations and corporations, Government censorship is not acceptable.

    Even George Orwell would be amazed at the duplicity of those who are vehemently anti-religion and anti-free speech all in the name of "tolerance".

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    July 22, 2014 2:38 a.m.

    Stormwalker: "Belief over fact. Belief over science." As a scientist, I appreciate that you want to emphasize facts. I really do. But people are still entitled to their beliefs, be they wrong or right. Religious beliefs in our constitution occupy a special niche and have special protections. There are a lot of religious beliefs out there that I think are plain wrong but to deny others rights based on how wrong their beliefs are will eventually come back to bite me when others deny me my rights when they disagree with me over my beliefs. And it can bite you too. Therefore, this isn't really about if certain contraceptions do or don't kill fetuses, but about liberty to believe, rightly or wrongly.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    July 22, 2014 2:33 a.m.

    Gary O, you also say: “American Right Wingers are America's Enemy Number ONE.” Personally, I think fanatical/fundamentalist Islam is a bigger enemy. If you think that right wingers, because they ask you to pay for your own birth control, is worse than terrorism, well, this is just another example of extreme liberalism. Right wingers only want liberty and justice for all, and that means we’re all adults and we all take responsibility for our own lives, we don’t whine when government or employers don’t buy us everything we want.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    July 22, 2014 2:32 a.m.

    Gary O: It is always fun to see the logic of the far far left.

    You say: “Religious oppression occurs when a particular religion is able to insinuate itself into the lives of others against their will, and with the backing of government.”

    Huh? I think being forced to pay for someone else’s birth control, which they could just buy with their own money (most of it isn’t that expensive) is the real oppression – going against “someone elses’s will.” The libs say, “my birth control isn’t Hobby Lobby’s business.” I say, that’s right! Pay for it yourself! Don’t involve Hobby Lobby. Why do the libs want everyone to pay for everyone else’s stuff? Does personal responsibility mean anything anymore? Aren’t we adults?

  • MurrayGuy Murray, UT
    July 22, 2014 12:05 a.m.

    People are again missing the point, Hobby Lobby STILL provides birth control, they DON'T want to pay for termination of a fetus, so why on earth should this matter....except that people want the right to make choices without consequences.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 21, 2014 11:03 p.m.

    A big part of the problem is that it allows lay people (employers) to let their opinions about how various sorts of birth control work to override the educated opinions of a woman's physician. And if they're really so concerned about the results of a fertilized egg failing to implant in a woman's womb, what do they propose to do about the 30 to 40% of fertilized eggs that naturally fail to implant and are flushed away or discarded with sanitary pads each month. By their thinking, they're throwing away a dead baby instead of giving it a funeral. It's irrational to argue that a fertilized egg is a baby when someone wants birth control and then argue that it isn't when it ends up being discharged from the body naturally.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 21, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    If I want advice on knitting or scrapbooking I'll check with Hobby Lobby. If, in the other hand, I want information on birth control it makes more sense to ask medical doctors and scientists.

    According to the very clear amicus brief filed by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology none - repeat none - of the two drugs and two IUDs cause an abortion. All four stop fertilization before it happens.

    The five Catholic men on the Supreme Court did not acknowledge the science in any way.

    They did not rule on the Green's objection to what the drugs actually do.

    They ruled on what the Green's *believe* the treatments do.

    Five hundred years ago the Catholic men of the Inquisition believed the Earth was still, and the sun moved in the sky. They ruled that science was wrong and sentenced Galileo to be imprisoned for the rest of his life.

    Belief over fact. Belief over science.

    After being forced to recant the facts, Galileo added: "And yet, it moves!"

    To the Greens and SCOTUS: "I doesn't matter what you believe, these are the facts!"

  • Jester:) Martinsburg, WV
    July 21, 2014 10:33 p.m.

    "Megan McArdle reponded with an explanation that the nationwide craft store chain, which is self-insured, doesn't run a mutual fund but outsources its 401(k) plan to a company that provides mutual funds, some of which happen to invest in companies that make birth control."

    Is it just me or does anybody else see the irony in this whole case? I love this country! Good point Dragline!

  • brian of ohio Kent, OH
    July 21, 2014 7:55 p.m.

    still thinking, thanks for your comments. Glad there are still people out there like you. No one is forcing a person to do anything. Nor is Hobby lobby telling Women they can't use birth control or any type. Some form of Birth control are still covered by Hobby Lobby. Just not the abortion ones. Women can still pay for their own. This is just a form of what americans feel they are: self entitled. They are entitled for Government to pay for their stuff, to provide for their every need, and to anyone but themselves. I belive in freedom of choice! Noone is forcing anyone to join a religion or hear religious doctrine, only a persons moral stance based on that Religion.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 21, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    @HaHaHaHa

    "nobody is going to force your religion to perform gay marriages". Yeah that is what you say today, but 10 years from now?

    No one will perform your religion to perform any wedding it finds objectionable, that would be clearly unconstitutional. I would challenge you to point to one case where the Government of any state in the US has forced any religion to perform any marriage it finds not in line with it's tenets. Just one.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 21, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    Funny how many things that something that only exists "in paper" can be required to do. Funny how many people are standing around with their hand out, waiting for that something that only exists in paper, give it a paycheck or pay for their healthcare, or plan their retirement. Also funny what serves as "fact based" knowledge for so many elite know it all's.

  • Aurelius maximus Berryville, VA
    July 21, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    The Left / liberals claims there is a war on women.

    The Right claims there is a war on religion.

    I just say play on.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    July 21, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    Listen to the howling of the liberals. They scream, scream that we are about to enslave Americans under the Taliban or something. That "Corporations" shouldn't have any rights.

    Great! I look forward to the government shutting down the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Salt Lake Tribune. After all, they are corporations and therefore have no 1st Amendment rights--surely not the freedom of the press. Right? The 1st Amendment only applies to individuals, so if the government under, say, President Ted Cruz shuts down or orders the Times to print something, you leftists will smile and high five. After all, "Corporations don't have rights!"

    And I particularly like GaryO's hysteria that by telling women that they are responsible for their own birth control is the greatest threat to America in history! What, before 2008 we all lived under the Christian boot or something? Women were slaves, in chains to the whatever! Who knew that liberals support forcing your boss to be in your sex life, because they are paying for it?

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 21, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    Unless Hobby Lobby employes only men, or women incapable of getting pregnant, they are or can be directly paying for abortion via the wages they pay their employees. They better change their employee screening. Maybe Beckett Fund will defend them when they are sued for discrimination.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 21, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    my_two_cents_worth,

    "....Wait until this ruling hits close to home with a "Christian" being denied something based on the Hobby Lobby ruling and I suspect tunes will change."
    ______________________________

    Bulls eye! When that day come, there will be a lot of howling and crying foul.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 21, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    GOP Sens. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire, and Deb Fischer, Nebraska:

    "Additionally, the court said that 'our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs' — meaning, you must show a legitimate religious objection."

    The plaintiffs in the HL case did not have to show a "legitimate religious objection." Their objections were not scientifically legitimate, and no attempt was made to assess the sincerity of their objections - the court simply took their word for it.

    This is not a dangerous decision because it denies women access to birth control. It doesn't. It is a dangerous decision because it confers religious rights onto something that exists in paper only, and because it set a precedent of accepting belief over fact-based knowledge. Neither serves the interests of individual citizens or the nation as a whole.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 21, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    @Anti Bush-Obama

    "Something tells me if this were a case of a Hindu forced to fund a steak house, you would hear nothing from the left."

    And given that your silly hypothetical is not even close to the same thing as is going on with Hobby Lobby and others I would bet you are dead wrong. I'd also bet that if a Hindu were denied a job by a privately held "Christian values" company simply for being Hindu you and the rest of the American Christian zealots would be saying "well, he can find a job someplace else!" Wait until this ruling hits close to home with a "Christian" being denied something based on the Hobby Lobby ruling and I suspect tunes will change.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    July 21, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    The Supreme court is doing a good job of upsetting both hard core liberals and hard core conservatives. Sounds like they are doing a great job to me.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    July 21, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    Something tells me if this were a case of a Hindu forced to fund a steak house, you would hear nothing from the left.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 21, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    Craig Clark -

    "I tremble to contemplate their next move in this wholly imaginary war on religion."

    I know what you mean.

    BTW, the government's "war on religion" used to go by another name before the advent of Right Wing radio and FOX "NEWS."

    It used to be called "The Separation of Church and State," and it is (or was) a founding principle that kept this nation free for over 200 years.

    But now the freedoms of all Americans have been limited by the application and institution of reactionary "Conservative" values.

    We can change that, but it's going to take time.

    Recent decades of "Conservatives" in high office has demonstrated the inherent foolishness and the unabashed anti-American malevolence inherent to Right Wing leadership. This will most likely keep more discerning Americans from voting for a Republican President for some time to come. And new SC appointments will consist of more reasonable people, who will eventually reverse recent shameful, un-American, and foolish Supreme Court decisions.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 21, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    I don't think that the liberals actually read the article. Had they read it, they would not have continued to spew the very lies that the article dispels.

    To "Hutterite" once again, this case did not give corporations the same rights as an individual. This case ensured that individuals could retain their religious freedoms.

    Hobby Lobby is owned entirely by the Green family. The head of that family believes that drugs that cause abortion are against his religion. He doesn't want to be forced to pay for those drugs. Companies like GE, Apple, Microsoft, or HP are not included in the ruling because they owned by thousands of different people.

  • Dragline Orem, UT
    July 21, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    Hobby Lobby throws up its hands when it invests in birth control: "outsources its 401(k) plan to a company that provides mutual funds, some of which happen to invest in companies that make birth control."

    Why can't Hobby Lobby outsource its healthcare to a private company and say its someone else's fault that birth control is covered--just like they do with their investments in birth control--thereby avoiding going against their religious beliefs?

    I know, follow the money.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 21, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    Hey HaHaHaHaHaHa . . .

    " . . . but forcing someone to go against their religion, is very un-American"

    Right.

    That's why polygamy is not against the law in Utah.

    And that's why we let worshipers of the Great God Baal throw babies into furnaces.

    And that's why we let fundamentalist Aztecs cut out the hearts of their slaves.

    No . . . Forcing someone to go against their religion (if it's a ridiculous and harmful practice), is NOT un-American.

    Face the facts.

    Here's a fact:

    American Right Wingers are America's Enemy Number ONE. They're just to willfully unaware to realize it.

  • cpafred SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 21, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    Re:HaHaHaHa

    Can I get away with calling conservatives names--"rightwing nuts" and "drama queens?"
    I thought name calling was a no-no.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    "Actually religious oppression is when you compel someone to participate in or pay for something that goes against their religious beliefs. "

    We really don't know yet the full implications of the Hobby Lobby ruling, time will tell.

    But, HaHaHaHa, to get an idea of where you're going consider the following scenario. Say an employee of yours, who is otherwise a good employee, attends supportively a pro-SSM rally. Would you fire him or her because you viewed them as acting against your religion?

  • still_thinking Draper, UT
    July 21, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    The one thing I think that gets lost on this point is that the ruling didn't take away anyone's freedom, or force anyone's religion on anyone else. What it did was state that a private company is not forced to pay for someone else to violate their beliefs. The ruling doesn't state employees can't use that specific birth control, it just says the company doesn't have to pay for it. What kind of 'freedom' requires me to pay for someone to violate my core beliefs? Our constitution guarantees that I can't tell you what to believe, but it doesn't require that I pay for it.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 21, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    GaryO,

    "....Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided in favor of religious OPPRESSION, while simultaneously damaging America's long-held and cherished principle of the Separation of Church and State...."
    ______________________________

    I remember the 1960s when conscientious objectors who were eligible for the draft got no sympathy from the courts for cases based on grounds of religion or conscience. Those much maligned 'draft dodgers' must now be shaking their heads in disbelief at how passive and docile the Supreme Court has become in caving in to an extreme religious right that is no danger of being sent to Southeast Asia to get shot at.

    Religious extremism has just been handed a decision favoring their claims and it obviously is not enough for them as they still act they have something to squawk about. I tremble to contemplate their next move in this wholly imaginary war on religion.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    "RFRA has not, like Murray and others claim, offered a blank check for religious believers to do whatever they want in the name of religion,"

    Yes, but that is what "religious liberty" here abouts means (almost).

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 21, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    Change one aspect of the Hobby Lobby case: Make the owners Muslim instead of Catholic. Do you still support he decision?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    @Cletus from Coalville
    "Of course it is – that's what liberals thrive on – political theatre."

    You must not be paying much attention to the House Republicans.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    July 21, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    1aggie said,

    "Hobby Lobby's health insurance covered Plan B and Ella before Beckett Fund approached them and invited them to file a lawsuit. This was driven by the Beckett Fund."

    Maybe it did cover it before and their conscience helped them change their minds. Or maybe they're just disgusting hypocrites. Either way, that's not the point. The SCOTUS ruling was about closely held corporations having the right to establish those grounds based on their religious beliefs.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 21, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    "The Supreme Court decided in favor of religious liberty . . . "

    WRONG

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided in favor of religious OPPRESSION, while simultaneously damaging America's long-held and cherished principle of the Separation of Church and State.

    Religious oppression occurs when a particular religion is able to insinuate itself into the lives of others against their will, and with the backing of government.

    Facts are facts. Face the facts.

    It is religious oppression. It is un-American, and it is a horrible shame.

    Be assured though that Al Qaeda would approve. This sort of thing is exactly what they have in mind for the nations they occupy.

    This nation stood safe and secure under the Constitution for well over 200 years until now . . . When it has been brought down to the level of Somalia and its Islamic theocracy.

    Way to go "Conservatives."

    You must be soooooooo proud.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 21, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    "Megan McArdle reponded with an explanation that the nationwide craft store chain, which is self-insured, doesn't run a mutual fund but outsources its 401(k) plan to a company that provides mutual funds, some of which happen to invest in companies that make birth control."

    Of course Hobby Lobby doesn't "run" a mutual fund. It doesn't " run" an insurance company either. But it can, direct who it outsources to to avoid pharmaceutucal companies, or outsource to someone else who will.

    Hobby Lobby's health insurance covered Plan B and Ella before Beckett Fund approached them and invited them to file a lawsuit. This was driven by the Beckett Fund.

    It iis a lie to refer to keep referring to these drugs as abortifacients. There is no evidence to date that they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Pregnancy was once considered to be when the egg was implanted and growing in the uterus. Conservatives changed the definition of pregnancy. In fact, most fertilized eggs don't implant. Are women having numerous spontateous abortions?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 21, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    The ruling diminishes the religious rights and freedoms of all of us, by affording them to an inanimate corporation which has expenditure power over those it employs. Real humans, not corporate ones, lost rights and freedoms in this case.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 21, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    "distortions are what libs do because they "can't handle the truth"
    ______________________________

    In the Hobby Lobby case, distortions are what the religious right is doing because it has utter contempt for the truth and regards itself as above the law.

  • boneheaded, but not a smidgen SLC, UT
    July 21, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    distortions are what libs do because they "can't handle the truth".

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 21, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    It's not just the impact on women's health that alarms me about this decision. It's the obvious fact that any private company can now discriminate against anyone on the basis of religion. All they have to do is claim that it's a "burden" on their consciences: "It's against my religion to . . .
    Serve black people in my restaurant...
    Treat Muslims in my clinic...
    Sell snow-cones to liberals...
    Ad infinitum, ad nauseam ..."
    At least the lawyers will be happy.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 21, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    "Why are they making these false claims? It is all political theater. This is the reality: The Supreme Court decided in favor of religious liberty,"
    - Kristina Arriaga, executive director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby before the high court.
    ______________________________

    So the Supreme decided in favor of religious liberty, did it? Not unless liberty means license, Ms. Arriaga. The Supreme Court set an extremely dangerous precedent.

  • Cletus from Coalville Coalville, UT
    July 21, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    "Why are they making these false claims? It is all political theater."

    Of course it is – that's what liberals thrive on – political theatre. This case is NOT about women's rights, or even religious liberty for that matter. It's all about compelling an employer to PAY for something liberals feel they are entitles to. Employment should be about a contract between an employer and an employee for the employee to provide a service and an employer to provide commensurate compensation. Employees are always FREE to seek employment with an employer who agrees to pay what an employee feels he/she is entitled.

    Government should not be compelling employers to PAY for anything beyond that agreement.