Hobby Lobby to defy Obamacare contraception mandate, face millions in fines

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    soulsister wrote:

    "I am very sorry that this is happening to one of the very few stores that are closed on Sundays so that families may spend time together and they can go to church."

    Yeah, because all those stores open on Sunday REQUIRE and FORCE families to shop on Sunday!?


  • Whip Orem, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 9:51 p.m.

    Hurrah for Hobby Lobby! Sad that they're one of the few with values AND the guts to stand up for them!

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    KC Mormon, again, I understand exactly what you are saying. It really is not difficult. You want to follow the Constitution, you think it is a divine document (I assume), right after you change the Constitution. It really is not hard to understand what you are saying. Are there any other changes you would like in it?

    Turtles, I agree with you, single payer is something that should be, and should have been looked. But I disagree that religious people would not try to make a religious issue out of it.

  • Turtles Run Missouri City, TX
    Jan. 3, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    Hobby Lobby and some of the comments on this board are great examples for the to remove health care from the hands of employers.

    A single payer system is what we need. That way employers are not at a cost disadvantage and religion will not have to take place in the argument for health care access in this country.

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Jan. 3, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    Again you clearly do not understand the Constitution. NOT one conservative has suggested as some liberals have getting rid of the Constitution. What we HAVE suggested is to FOLLOW the Constitution INCLUDING Article 5 that is all about AMENDING the constitution to fix problems. Can you really say that we do not have a problem? When you have a fiscal "fix" that raises taxes $41 for $1 in cuts and results in $4 trillion being added to the national debt we CLEARLY have a problem. So what does the CONSTITUTION say we should do about the PROBLEM? Not through it out like some liberals. Not pretend it does not exist. It says AMEND it either by 2/3 of both Houses of Congress then 3/4 of the states or by 2/3 of the states calling for a Constitutional Convention and then 3/4 of the states. Two different amendments could solve this problem, either a balanced budget (government only spends what they have) or term limits ( with out 20+ years they will stop putting things in like a train between New York and New Jersey into Hurricane Sandy relief that has nothing to do with it).

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:56 p.m.

    Nope, KC Mormon, I understood you exactly. You want to follow the Constitution, as long as you can change the Constitution. Just like I said.

    All you people that want to support and shop at Hobby Lobby, you better hurry. Because they are going to lose their court case. And racking up 1.5 million a day, they are going to be out of business when that bill comes due.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    Here is another that no one seems to have noticed. The owner of Domino's and his company has won in a district court the same thing that Hobby Lobby lost. As this continues to move you will see more and more where the decision is going to have to be made by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this court is 5-4 conservative but Roberts seems to be a bit wishy-washy.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    I've been hearing lots of whining about Hobby Lobby's position--and that "Hobby Lobby is trying to dictate what kind of life their employees live."

    Not so. Hobby Lobby has not said anything about employees who chose to use this drug--they are free to make their own decision whether to do so or not. It is just that Hobby Lobby will not be a party to it by being forced to PAY for it.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    The objection of Hobby Lobby is just against abortion inducing birth controls?

    Breaking News: Victory for Hobby Lobby! All abortion inducing medications have been taken out! Or rather, they were never in there in the first place. The "Morning After Pill" does not cause an abortion. Do some research.

  • soulsister houston, 00
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    I am very sorry that this is happening to one of the very few stores that are closed on Sundays so that families may spend time together and they can go to church. I applaud you Hobby Lobby! Hobby Lobby is my favorite store and I will continue shopping and supporting them!

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Hobby Lobby's products are cheap but overpriced kitsch, just like their management philosophy and their healthcare benefits.

  • Joggle Big Island, HI
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:16 p.m.

    If employers should not be required to provide any health coverage as some believe....then wages would need to be high enough for people to afford to buy it themselves or the government has to subsidize it. The most important single change necessary if employers pay or subsidize employee insurance though is to think about health care in terms of value, not cost. Value is the health outcomes achieved for the money spent. Employers actually should have an interest in providing insurance for employees since healthy employees actually cost less to the employer (in sick time, productivity etc.) than sick ones. So-called consumer-driven health plans not only failed to benefit the consumer, but they hurt employers as well. Nowhere else in the industrialized world does a family, already down on its luck over a job loss, also suffer the loss of its health insurance. It happens only in America, under employment-based insurance. So...the aim should be to develop a robust, parallel system of fully portable insurance that individuals or families can purchase on their own, in a properly regulated and organized market, with public or subsidies where deemed.

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    You clearly did not understand ME and do NOT understand the Constitution. What some Liberals are calling for is DOING AWAY WITH THE CONSTITUTION, what I and many conservatives are are calling for is ACTUALLY listed in the Constitution. It is called AMENDING it! It is a process were the states by 2/3 majority make small changes to the Constitution to solve a long term problem. This was the same Constitutional process that ended slavery and limited Presidents to 2 terms. We have a REAL problem now of SPENDING what we do not have. Politicians who have been in office for 15-30 years and still plan to run keep promising to spend on things we do NOT need just to get re-elected. Originally the idea was you would serve for a few terms and either die or step down. This kept some of what we see today from happening. Only now they actually look at the seats as not the PEOPLES but THEIRS as in the case of Ted Kennedy. This would go farther to fix our nation than any other action could.

  • zabivka Orem, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 10:16 p.m.

    I agree that Hobby Lobby--and any other company, for that matter--should be able to decide specifically which benefits they offer employees, however, if they do offer non-standard health insurance, I would hope that they make it clear to the people they interview before hiring them. I would hate to go work for a company like that, only to find that what I consider to be basic health insurance is not covered. (I'm not saying that what Hobby Lobby wants to offer isn't basic health insurance; I'm just talking hypothetically)

    At the same time, I don't know that we want to argue this concept too deeply. I mean, taking it to an absurd extreme, you could have the Amish all up in arms, because they can't offer a health plan that doesn't include 21st Century technology. I realize that's kind of a silly example.

    Keep in mind, though, that if you want the government to respect your religious beliefs, it would only be fair for the government to recognize all religious beliefs, however silly.

  • Carmen Sandy, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 7:24 p.m.

    I'll be frequenting Hobby Lobby more often. I know it's a drop in the bucket, but if we all put our money where our beliefs are........?

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Jan. 1, 2013 6:55 p.m.

    Every week I find a reason to be glad that our Hobby Lobby and our Chik Fil-A are in the same strip mall!

  • Supercool11 R-Valley, NV
    Jan. 1, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    To atl134 who said (And yes, a tax cut is a freebie when we have a deficit since it's being paid for with larger deficits for future generations. If we had a budget surplus it'd be fine, but we don't).

    Is a tax cut a freebie when the result is an increase in federal revenue? That's what happened with the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Tax increases will lead to decreases in revenue when taxes become too great for the economy to bear. So this idea that we are simply tax paying units and shouldn't ask the government to take and spend less is wrong.

    Nobody forced the government to borrow money. The problem is that no politician wants to say there is no Santa Claus and not borrow $.42 of every dollar spent.

    Oh and Bravo to Hobby Lobby for taking a stand against the statists. We aren't meant to lay down our guns and surrender our will to the government. We need to challenge the government and keep its power in check. And hopefully not go broke in the process.

  • KTC John Wetumpka, AL
    Jan. 1, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    To Henry Drummond: "I'm always a little nervous when any organization (does that include the federal government?) decides it is above the law (does that include the U. S. Constitution?)
    To Dan O who asked: "So, what other laws should businesses be allowed to ignore based on the religious leanings of the owner?" Answer: Any other law that violates the Bill of Rights in the U. S. Constitution as decided by the United States Supreme Court from time to time. (They sometimes reverse themselves.)

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    See, here is the problem with conservatives, KC Mormon, "What we need is to simply live by the constitution and add some term limits to ALL politicization."

    In other words, what we need to do is live by the Constitution, after we CHANGE the Constitution.

    The problem with conservatives? They are clueless.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 1, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    "I am a father and accept the responsibility to provide for my children. I have no conflicting opinion with you at all on that topic."

    Well David. Lets be sure that we are talking about the same thing.

    Education costs in Ut are roughly $8000+ per year. Those without children are paying the same as those without children. Or those with 5 children pay the same as those with 1 child.

    Your child tax credit is (i believe) $3800
    Medical insurance typically maxes out at "family" which does not take into account whether the family has 4 or 8 people.

    So, I am confident that you are a good dad and that you pay for your kids clothes, food and braces. But please understand that if you have children, you are getting plenty of subsidies from others (education being the biggest)

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Jan. 1, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    We start down that slippery slope when we try to claim that a person or persons no longer may decide their own beliefs because they own a business. To the best of my knowledge, they are not forcing employees to live by their standards, and neither should they be forced to pay for their employees off-the-clock time usage. I'm assuming that people don't get pregnant at work, why should work be forced to cover the expense of 'correcting' the 'problem'?

    As stated by another participant here. If a business wishes to attract a certain category of employee by providing health care and other perks, then, so be it. But every time the government steps in to force businesses to raise their wages, increase their perks and so forth, some employees fair better and the others get laid off.

    We see the true colors of government here. They preach job creation, while enforcing unconstitutional edicts and increased regulations which in fact kills jobs. That is what government is best at.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    Joe Blow, you and I can both agree to insert "children" into the sentence you referenced and we both agree that parents should be responsible for the nurture, care, safety, etc of those children. I am a father and accept the responsibility to provide for my children. I have no conflicting opinion with you at all on that topic.

    A business owner hires an employee to perform specific duties for the business. The employee accepts the job if the compensation is acceptable. The government regulates certain aspects of the business, including some of the compensation/benefits.

    However, I do not believe that government has the right to dictate insurance benefits. That is between the employer and the employee to negotiate. If the employee doesn't like the benefits, s/he can look elsewhere for employment. Better yet, let them start their own business and provide whatever insurance benefit plan they desire.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    I'll bet $10,000 that the CEO and the male employees have Viagra covered by Hobby Lobby insurance....

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    The final word in this issue rests with the people. Business operations that are operated for profit require a business license that is issued by the government of the people. There are no Constitutional restrictions on the requirements for the business license. It can specify any conditions regarding the operation of the business to any extent desired by the people.

    A business is like an employee of the society. And like other employee conditions of employee disagreement, the only recourse for the employee is to not be an employee.

    Business involve itself in the employees health for reasons that benefit the business. The Government may not force employers to provide health insurance but if the business decides to do so they must follow the rules of doing so.

    It is important to this nation that we do not allow religious groups or individuals to extend their rights of religious freedom into the business world. The is because business operations are in effect masters over their voluntary slaves, employees. If a church can use business to enforce it’s religious doctrine, through the economic power given to business, it takes away the religious freedom of the individual.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    I guess I'll have to boycott Hobby Lobby.... I can't support a corporation that continues the war on women.

  • rick122948 boise, id
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    It is amazing that people can be so myopic in their views. It is comendable to hold to our moral and religeous standards, but we don't have the right to impose our values on someone else that believes differently. As an Independant I am taught in my faith to obey the law of the land, and having free agency accept the consequences of my choices. I think that Hobby Lobby has the perfect right to take their pricipled stand and simply pay the fine which can then pay for the additionaal insurance coverage should one of their employees choose to have a different moral position. Just as if someone chooses not to pay for health insurance they can then pay a tax to help cover the additional burden they impose on the country's health system and those of us that do pay for insurance.

  • jttheawesome Scranton, PA
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    I second Sasha's statement that medical benefits have traditionally not been required; rather they are a privilege granted to workers from their company as a part of their overall pay package. Sometimes, unions negotiate the terms of these benefits, at times to extremes. Nevertheless, there has not been - until now - a government mandate to provide any health care at all. "Obamacare," as it is now called, is using the offices of the federal government to not only force everyone onto some kind of healthcare, but also to regulate it. Perhaps it would have been better to follow Canada's model of universal health care for all, paid for by taxes. It may have ended up being considerably less expensive than Obamacare.

  • IJ Hyrum, Ut
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    Sasha nailed it!

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    The very first poster has it right (as does Sasha).

    I bet I can find a lot of stuff I can use at Hobby Lobby, and I will shop there regularly to support people who (a) have moral and religious values; (b) are not embarrassed to speak of them and especially, (c) are willing to put their money where their mouth is when their Constitutionally protected freedom of religion is being crushed under the boot of oppressive government.

    Note carefully that their objection is not to "birth control" to prevent conception, but specifically to the abortion inducing medications REQUIRED to be included Obamacare policies. They take "Thou shalt not kill" seriously, not only for school age and older.

    And, a Chicken sandwich sure does sound tasty after shopping at Hobby Lobby!

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    I have no problem with a business or individual offering or not offering any policy, or limitation on a policy. That is the essence of freedom, and I in return can excersize my freedom to participate or not with said employer or individual!
    Great statement Crow, that is exactly what the last election was about, buying votes. Apparently AZ thinks it is holy and more moral to spend money we don't have (deficit spend and debt), verses being allowed to keep more of you own money. (like that really happens, given the size and scope of government, and all its different taxes and fees)!

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 1, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    KC Mormon, Please do some real research on the two drugs you mention. Neither cause abortions. They delay ovulation. That's the problem with Hobby Lobby, they're letting ideology get in the way of fact and it's going to cost them in the end.

  • Bastiatarian TUCSON, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    Kalindra, if I didn't want to adhere to those decisions, I wouldn't work there.

    The only control your boss has over you is the amount that you give to him/her when you freely choose to work for that company. Otherwise, your boss has zero control over you.

    We have a God-given, Constitutionally verified, and logically necessary right to do whatever we want with our own property (and that includes companies), as long as we do not violate the only rights that exist: the right to our lives, our liberty, and our property. (All other legitimate "rights" are merely elements inherent to those three.)

    If I'm your employer, and I decide that what I will offer you in exchange for your time and labor will not include something (such as the abortion pills in the Hobby Lobby case), I am in NO way violating your right to your life, liberty, or property. You are always free to reject the conditions I set for the use of my property (my company) and seek employment elsewhere.

    Don't try to enslave and rob me by dictating what I can do with my property. Take responsibility for yourself.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 1, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    To those of you who support Hobby Lobby: Would you also support a business where the owner's religious beliefs held that insurance should only cover the expenses related to pregnancy, child birth, and family insurance of the first 3 children - the number required to "replenish the earth" - and any additional pregnancies, births, and children would not be covered by insurance and the employee would have to take responsibility for their actions and pay for it all themselves?

    Would you support a business owner's religiously based decision to not insure the second spouse, any step-children, and all biological children from the second marriage of a divorced person?

    Should a business owner be able to prohibit insurance payments for medical conditions caused by or related to the consumption or use of products or the participation in activities the business owner's religion considers a sin?

    How much control does your boss get to have over your life by using insurance as a tool to promote his or her religious beliefs?

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    This is a fascinating interplay between the rights of business versus the rights of the individual - similar to the Civil Rights of people who decide to work in various establishments. Similar to the gun rights issue of businesses having the right to prohibit guns on their property or the right of individuals to have them. Such balancing of these rights has been an almost intractable problem for decades. Making exceptions opens the doors to even greater chaos, disorder, and ethical inconsistency.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 1, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    David writes
    "But if contraceptives provide a benefit to society at large why can't couples be responsible for their own decisions, and pay for those decisions themselves?"

    Change contraceptives to children in the above sentence.

    Think that would cause David to change his tune?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 1, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    "How can the government force one person to pay for another person's birth control?"


    How can the government force one person to pay for another person's
    - viagra
    - child birth
    - lung cancer treatment
    - cirrhosis treatment
    - blood transfusion

    - How about if an employer decides that they will only cover 2 children per family. Can you imagine the Utah outcry on that one?

    Basically, the question is this.

    Do you want business owners or CEO's to be able to pick and choose what medical treatments or drugs that they will cover?

    Be careful what you support. They next company may come after you.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    "Above the law?" Civil disobedience as a protest to unjust laws is the essence of morality. Laws are an expression of political philosophy and when they abridge constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, there is an ethical responsibility to disobey. Look to the Boston tea party, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King and many others if you have questions.

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Jan. 1, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Here is the real problem in this Country the Right wants to live by the Constitution (the document that was written to govern how we ALL use our freedom) and some on the left as in the case of Louis Michael Seidman, a Constitutional Law Professor, want us to completely scrap the constitution. He put this idea out in an op-ed yesterday in the NY-Times. He is not the only one to suggest this however. In May Sanford Levinson, another leftist Law Professor, made the same suggestion in the same paper. What we need is to simply live by the constitution and add some term limits to ALL politicization.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    Sasha is exactly correct.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    Employers should not be required to provide any health coverage. If they do not cover pregnancy and child birth, that is their choice. If they do not cover liver disease, that is their choice. They should not be told who they can or cannot hire. If somebody chooses to start a business he must not be forced to act as a government welfare agent. He can provide benefits for his employees to attract skilled workers, but should not be forced to do so. This should be beyond obvious. Unfortunately we have grown to be so dependent that we are not able to see that anymore.

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Jan. 1, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    Hobby Lobby has said they have NO problem with standard BIRTH CONTROL what they are refusing to provide are the MORNING AFTER and WEEK AFTER pills. These have just one purpose to abort an egg that has been fertilized. That is what is against their religion and that is what they are being FORCED to pay for against their will.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 1, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    What has happened to freedom in this country? How can the government force one person to pay for another person's birth control? A dictatorship is being born in America and it is the aristocracy of the White House! Time for another tea party!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 7:15 a.m.

    @The Crow
    Says someone who voted for a guy who offered you a 20% tax cut. Yeah you totally weren't looking for freebies.

    (And yes, a tax cut is a freebie when we have a deficit since it's being paid for with larger deficits for future generations. If we had a budget surplus it'd be fine, but we don't).

  • Lionheart West Jordan, Ut
    Jan. 1, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    I think the major objection of the Hobby Lobby owners is aimed at the contraceptives that induce abortion, destroy a fertilized egg. They are against participating in any form of abortion.

  • Rynn Las Vegas, NV
    Jan. 1, 2013 5:49 a.m.

    Birth control pills can also be used to avoid illness. Seven years ago I ended up in the emergency room for what turned out to be a ruptured ovarian cyst. I then needed surgery, which is when the doctors diagnosed me with endometriosis. I was put on birth control pills because they prevent the advancement of endometriosis/cysts.
    My point is that not every woman who takes birth control medicationis doing it for "recreational reasons".

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 1, 2013 12:27 a.m.

    Two courts have already ruled against Hobby Lobby. Both Judge Joe Heaton, a Bush appointee and the 10th Circuit Appeals court. Not exactly liberal judges in any case. They are gambling at this point, which last I checked was also considered morally wrong.
    As far as as drinking analogy, it's flawed since health insurance generally covers liver disease as a result of drinking.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 1, 2013 12:17 a.m.

    David, fine. Let everyone be responsible then. Why have insurance cover the costs of pregnancy and child birth? It's certainly more expensive than contraceptives. Challenging the law is a foolish move. They're not a religion. They're a business, and as such they're operate under certain regulations.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Dec. 31, 2012 11:03 p.m.

    DanO, Hobby Lobby is simply challenging the law in court, which is their right. Our national history is filled with such instances of conflict between parties and the government, and in many instances the government loses.

    You frame the conflict as Hobby Lobby ignoring law. They are not ignoring law. They are challenging what they, and I, consider to be an unconstitutional law. They are stating that they will not pay a fine when the conflict is yet to be resolved in court. The issue has not been resolved until the Supreme Court rules upon the law, or until the challenging party (in this case, Hobby Lobby) quits their challenge.

    Liberals are offended when the law fails their efforts to force their agenda.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Dec. 31, 2012 10:55 p.m.

    Hobby Lobby protests government law which requires that employers and corporations provide contraceptive coverage within insurance policies provided to employees. These insurance policies are also required by law. Hobby Lobby executives object to this law on the grounds that the law violates their exercise of their religion.

    Contraceptives are used by couples to avoid unwanted pregnancies and some forms of contraceptives also safeguard against STDs. It could be argued that contraceptives benefit society at large, thus the law is just and Hobby Lobby executives may not be free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

    But if contraceptives provide a benefit to society at large why can't couples be responsible for their own decisions, and pay for those decisions themselves? Why must an executive be forced, against his conscience, to provide contraceptives for someone that chooses a sexual relationship that is a choice between consenting adults but the relationship does not involve the executive at all?

    If an employee chooses to drink alcohol, must an executive be required to provide taxi fare to minimize the risk of DUI harm? It is the employees choice exercised here. Why must the burden be upon the executive, against his conscience?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Dec. 31, 2012 9:38 p.m.

    So, what other laws should businesses be allowed to ignore based on the religious leanings of the owner?

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    Dec. 31, 2012 9:05 p.m.

    @ Henry Drummond,
    I'm sure they don't think they are above the law, they are just making a moral stand against totalitarianism and I applaud them in their efforts. This country is no longer free when people can't make a stand such as this.

  • jttheawesome Scranton, PA
    Dec. 31, 2012 8:58 p.m.

    Anyone who decides that they will obey God rather than a corrupt government trying to impose unbiblical regulations upon them is not "above the law;" rather, they are obeying a Higher Law. More power to them. It was moments of civil disobedience like this which have been catalysts for all the great forward-moving actions in this nation, including the civil rights movement. Indeed, this nation would never had come into existence if not for just such acts against an unrighteous government.

  • AZRods Maricopa, AZ
    Dec. 31, 2012 8:55 p.m.

    Henry, you are talking about the government trying to be above the law right??? By imposing a required health care plan that defies religious beliefs or requires citizens to do something it does not require the rest of the government to follow or obey? Right?

  • TheCrow American Fork, UT
    Dec. 31, 2012 7:08 p.m.


    I'm more worried about people like you who can have their vote bought by a government promising everything for free.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2012 6:03 p.m.

    They are taking a principled stand which, given the continuing degeneration of our society, it particularly courageous.

    I ardently hope they succeed and wish them the best of luck.

  • Eddie Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 31, 2012 5:40 p.m.

    This could get very interesting.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 31, 2012 5:05 p.m.

    I'm always a little nervous when any organization decides it is above the law.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Dec. 31, 2012 5:02 p.m.

    I'm ready to go shopping at Hobby Lobby and 'Eat more chiken'!

    I guess our great nation is going to have to be brought to its knees by this administration but I'm not giving up on it... just the idiots in Washington.

    Getting a gun, learning how to hunt and buying more food storage are on my list this New Year as well as losing a few pounds and getting out of debt.