U.S. legislators come to Hobby Lobby's defense in contraception lawsuit

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • webb_golf yukon, OK
    June 11, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    Interesting point about the blood transfusions. However, I think this all points to a more important question. Should the US government be able to dictate how a company is run and what benefits are offered. I understand the government's responsibility to ensure safe working environments and fair labor standards, but when did health insurance become an employer's responsibility. People have a right to choose where they work. Hobby Lobby offers great pay and benefits on top of that. Perhaps they should not offer health insurance and instead give an allowance that employees may choose to use to buy health insurance. Then, it wouldn't violate the Green's beliefs and the onus would be on the employee....oh wait, the government mandates employers over a certain size offer insurance and places requirements on what that insurance must cover under ACA. ACA is a gross overreach of the fed, however good it's intentions were.

  • padgett95 Columbus, OH
    April 30, 2013 6:22 a.m.

    Many use no contraception. Some because they remain sexually inactive in an act of service and obedience to their God. Some because they believe in sexual responsibility. Others because they believe it is a joy to raise children. It is a personal choice.

    Employers have never had an obligation to financially participate in the sex lives of their employees. The law requiring them to do so belies our culture's perverse over-emphasis on sexuality and the abuse of government to intrude into the personal lives of citizens, their sex lives and their health care. These should remain the private choice and responsibility of individual citizens as they have always been in the USA.

    Obama was wrong. Who better to indicate the intentions of the Religious Freedom law than the framers of it? Their voice is unmistakable on this matter. Obama's overreach will be denined.

  • LoBo4Justice Coalville, UT
    March 5, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    The first false premise is that corporations are entitled to the same Constitutional rights as "we the people" are. Corporations don’t die, go to jail, give birth or any number of other characteristics deining human life. Because they are not people, corporations should not be entitled to inherent rights under the Constitution. Instead they should be granted privileges to operate, which can be rescinded should the corporation engage in criminal behavior or wrongdoing.

    The second false premise is that a business can be a religion. If profit-making is at the core of the organization, it is a business--not a religion. A person can be both religious and in business, but it is the person who has inherent rights, not the business. Businesses selling religious stuff have no more rights than a business selling any other kind of goods or service.

    Hypocrisy level: High. If Viagra is covered, contraceptives should be covered, especially if one is opposed to abortion.

    No surprise a white man has brought this suit. Poor guy feels oppressed by his government. We who are regularly oppressed by our government and our religion--women, people of color, youth, LGBTs, etc.--welcome you to our ranks.

  • gary2635 Placentia, CA
    Feb. 23, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    Current law prohibits the federal government from laws or mandates that restrict a citizen's religious beliefs unless there is a compelling government interest. Even then it must be done in the least restrictive manner. The mandate to provide birth control was not passed by congress as part of the health care initiative. It is a mandate by our president. It requires people to provide services that they consider to be murder (a well-known, long-standing, established religious belief shared by millions in this country) in order to provide to healthy, responsible adults a way to have more sex while avoiding the responsibility of raising children (Other medical uses of hormone treatment are not even being questioned). They are mandated to do so at no cost, while patients with debilitating pain, terminal illnesses and chronic physical and emotional disorders must pay part of the cost. There are many who have different religious beliefs than these. That does not excuse people, in the name of equality, to force a person to commit what they belief to be grave offenses to God. Not even a president should have the right to define our most sincere religious beliefs.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 3:15 p.m.

    No, Lost, I got that when I accidentally tuned Rush in on my car radio.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    Nothing is free – SOMEONE has to pay the premium. But then, with 2000+ pages we need to read so we’ll know what’s in it, it can be easy to get confused by the mess BO and the dems foisted on us.

    What ban on marriage equality? The same rules apply to everyone, so everyone’s equal.

    Old man,
    Spewing unsubstantiated DNC and MSNBC hate speech again, I see.

    More hate speech from the left.

    Turtles run,
    BO is ALREADY allowing exemptions, so the anointed one himself has started us on your slippery slope.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    1993, argued the law was intended to prevent the government or the court from carving out a class of believers whose religious liberty wouldn't be protected.

    There should be a class of believers whose religious liberty we should be protected from, and it should contain all believers. Otherwise, what's to protect us from sharia law? Religious liberty of the group can't be allowed to supersede the freedom of the individual. The freedom of any one person is equitably, inextricably tied to that of any other person in our society, or we're living a lie. In other words, people must be expected to choose for themselves, and they must not expect to be able to choose for others.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    To "Scoundrel" you should realize that if a woman really needed birth control pills for the problems that you list, she can get them for as little as $9/month at Target. Why should insurance cover something so trivial? For most insurance plans, the co-pay is more than what the pills would cost.

  • SoonerUte Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    This is the slippery slope begun when the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations are People. They can donate as much as they want to a political campaign, and now Corporations can have religion.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    Scoundrel: You bring in lots of example religious beliefs. Do you know of religions who believe those things or are those hypothetical examples that you have made up? Do we deny someone's rights because you can think of a hypothetical example which dictates that some version of their rights is impractical?

    I know one example that was referred to and that is blood transfusions. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are immoral. I wonder what their take on this requirement is.

    The problem is that the government is micromanaging our lives for our good and they have opened up a Pandora's box. By their own admission, they weren't aware of what they were doing with regards to the religious objections of contraception. (Another example how utterly ignorant some people are on diversity these days) . I guess it goes along with Pelosi's comment, "We have to pass it so that we can know what is in it."

    They didn't put a lot of thought into something incredibly complicated. I suspect that we are going to find a lot more other mistakes in this as the ACA is executed.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    If my employees want to drink --- don't ask me to pay the bar tab.
    If they want to gamble -- don't ask me to ante-up for them.
    If they think they "need" medical marijuana --- don't ask me to pay for it.

    Now, if they choose the spend their own $$ (even if earned from me) on that stuff --- that's different.

  • Turtles Run Missouri City, TX
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    John Wilson

    An employer is not allowed to dictate which laws it will follow. The ACA is the law of the land and as soon as we start allowing exemptions for religious reasons that leads to a slippery slope of other issues.

    The bottom line is if someone wants to operate a business in the public marketplace then they must conform to the rules and laws of society.

  • Turtles Run Missouri City, TX
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Chris B

    It is not hypocritical at all. Hobby Lobby is a business not a religious organization. Employers are not entitled to force their religious beliefs on others.

    Many businesses are forced to comply with various regulations and laws that may run counter to a religious belief. I would use the example of a Halal market, should they be allowed to violate food safety laws by claiming a religious exemption? No, they must comply just like other businesses.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Isn't it funny that so often the catch phrase by liberals is "keep your hands off my body" or "keep your hands off my birth control" in this fight?

    Its ironic, because in reality they are fighting to force others to pay for their birth control, so wouldnt a more accurate phrase by "keep your hands ON my birth control"

    Just a little ironic hypocrisy.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Rynn makes a good point about a company owned by someone who doesn't believe in blood transfusions.

    In fact, if I were a sneaky employer paying low wages and minimal benefits, maybe I'd say I believe that employees ought to trust in God for their health and rely on prayer, fasting, healing, herbal remedies, etc., not health insurance. Then, when the government says I have to provide coverage, I'd say, "You're violating my religious beliefs."

  • John Wilson Idaho Falls, 00
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    A business is entitled to provide whatever benefits package they deem appropriate. Employess are free to either accept the benefit package, or seek employment elsewhere. The Federal Government has no right to dictate what benefits an employeer decides to offer their employees.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    A good solution to the problem of health insurance coverage would be to get business our to the personal business of their employees. An even better solution would be to get religious organizations out of business.

    Business operations exist because of the need, want, wishes of the people. As the receiver of business activities, the people have the authority and the right to control the nature and quality of the product. No one is forced to operate a business but if that someone chooses to operate a business, he must have the permission of the society and agree to abide by the laws of that society. No one in America should have the right to pick and choose which laws they wish to abide.

    Probably there are no laws that do not conflict with someone’s personal beliefs. And no laws that have perfect adherence. It is enough that most people respect most laws most of the time that makes our nation great. But in order to have even that much compliance requires enforcement and constant vigil of those who are charged with law enforcement.

  • Rynn Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    I like Hobby Lobby but why does embracing your religion mean that your employers have to live the same way? The problem with this is, what if you work for a company that chooses not to cover contraceptives and you are fine with that. But then your employer sells the company to someone who doesn't believe in blood transfusions. Now your new boss decides that he/she doesn't want blood transfusions covered in your insurance? I think that's the problem here.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    If, somehow, this had been a requirement set up by the Medicare Part D law passed under Bush, it would not be an issue to Republicans.

    But Obama is in the White House, so things are completely different.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    The religion clauses have been under attack for some time now. The free exercise clause is here directly implicated, of course. Mandating anyone, be it pastor or employer, to violate religious convictions is unconstitutional.

    Ironically, from an establishment clause perspective, however, the attack could be interpreted as follows. The ACA establishes a state religion -- the state religion requiring obedience to the commandment "thou shalt pay for abortifacients or be fined."

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Feb. 21, 2013 6:33 a.m.

    Hobby Lobby is an employer, not the employee's pastor. You lost my business.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Feb. 21, 2013 5:33 a.m.

    Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

    Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment
    (Matthew 25:44-46)

  • ChuckGG Gaithersburg, MD
    Feb. 21, 2013 5:30 a.m.

    This all seems a bit odd to me. I thought ACA's latest revisions included optional birth control, for free, not paid for by any of the insured or their employers, and certainly not mandated, except that it is available as an option from a private, separate insurance company. The individual female employee then would decide if she wanted this coverage or not. I fail to see how a particular employer feels they are somehow violated when their employee chooses a free option from an independent insurance company. If the employer is that wound-up about the issue, then they should dictate to their employees. But, forcing an employee to comply would seem to me to be a violation of the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion. Frankly, I find the employer's intrusion into an employee's personal life to be quite offensive.