Everyone has rights - employer and employee. However, if you OWN a company,
your right to do business your way supercedes any other right. You built
it...paid for it...risked it...laid in bed worrying about it...you have the
earned the right to do things your way.Employees were not forced to
write their own application, apply for the job, and come to work. If you
don't like what Hobby Lobby wants, go work for someone else. Hobby Lobby
will not force you to keep employment with them.Better yet, go start
your OWN business and do things the way you want to do them.
I'm offended by the Headline to this article! It's patronizing and
demeaning to the extreme. It presupposes that people of strong moral and
religious beliefs are unreasonable zealots and that the fight is really
political? No, it's a battle of deeply held religious conviction;
something that the athiestic progressive left in this country truly do not
I guess the business owners of Hobby Lobby can have a religious viewpoint that
they believe should be foisted on their employees. If that is the
"religious rights" being promoted here, I want none of it. Perhaps this
is another reason to argue against an "employer based" health insurance
system in favor of one that grants every citizen the right to exercise his/her
choices regarding their health concerns without the interference of your
employer or the government. I find one odd similarity with the
Hobby Lobby example and "Communist" China. In the recent past in
"Communist" China, employers were given a lot of power over their
employees. Your health decisions were made by your "boss" and you even
had to ask permission from your boss to get married or conceive a child. Your
boss was usually an avid communist party member who was making these decisions
in the interest of the "party." Is that what we are seeing here in
America? Are the interests of the religious right via the GOP making similar
decisions for American workers. It certainly seems like it. Religious liberty
is a two way street. It is not reserved for only business owners.
@J in AZ;The business owner chose to obey the law when they got a
business license. The owner also has no obligation to purchase the particular
plan (for him/herself) that offers the contraceptives, they don't have to
use them themselves. Offering a plan for their employee in no way violates
their own personal beliefs; rather it allows their employees to choose which
plans they'll use themselves.If an insurance plan provides
purchase of male sexual enhancement pills, they should also provide for a
provision that purchases contraceptives that are of benefit to women. How much do you want to bet that the person who has the problem
"enabling" someone else to do what the owner believes is wrong, is
actually doing something themselves? I'll bet they watch TV, and enjoy the
same shows most other people do. Shows that are filled with fornication,
violence, etc. That is hypocrisy.@procuradorfiscal;Sure, as long as they cover religious conversion therapy too.
"So, if Obamacare required employers to offer insurance that covers sexual
orientation conversion therapy, you'd be OK with that?"If
we are required to offer insurance that covers psychological and counselling
services, and there were psychologists and counseling that offer sexual
orientation conversion therapy, I wouldn't have a problem offering that to
all of my employees. It's the employees choice whether or not to go to such
a therapist, even though I disagree with that practice. You see, just because
the insurance is being offered doesn't mean that the policy holder is going
to be forced to accept and participate in it. That's where the true freedom
stands--in the individual. I also don't believe in abortion,
but as our current laws are, I am not going to deny somebody else that
(currently legal) choice.
Nobody is being denied the right to believe or worship the way they choose.
Nobody is being forced to do things that go against what they believe (for
example, nobody is being forced to use contraception or an abortion, or enter
into a same-sex marriage, if they choose not to). Religious liberty
and religious freedom is not being attacked in the United States in any way. The
only thing that is being contested is the "right" of religious
organizations and their adherents to impose their religious views on society and
demand that society live in accordance with those religious views (and deny
people's civil rights if those rights operate opposite to the views of
religious and their adherents).Despite any religiosity that the
Founding Fathers may or may have not had, the United States is a secular country
with a secular Constitution. The word "God" does not appear in the
Constitution and the word "religion" appears once, in the First
Amendment which has the effect of separating church and state.The
argument that there is an attack on religious liberty is not well founded or
re: RanchhandSo your answer to my question is yes, the government can
force a business owner to purchase services that violate his or her moral
beliefs. Now a question or two about your logic. If the employer
does not purchase a birth control rider, now is that prohibiting employees from
buying those pharmaceuticals? Before you launch into your answer take into
account that birth control drugs can be purchased from a number of retailers for
as little as $4 for a 30 day supply without an insurance plan.The
second question that I have about your logic is that you seem to be assuming
that a person should only consider their direct actions in terms of right and
wrong. Why do you discount the idea that many people have that if they
participate in enabling another to do something that they believe is wrong, then
they are morally culpable? As you answer this question remember that this is the
exact argument behind dramshop laws that hold establishments responsible for
letting drunk drivers on the road.
To the Old Switcheroo: Birth control was never a controversy before the
implementation of ACA because it was not mandatory. It was an option that could
be added to insurance plans.However, when the government mandates that coverage
at the expense of the employer, this is when people who believe that birth
control by medical intervention is a sin get concerned about their beliefs being
Re: "Providing an insurance plan that provides birth control for women is
NOT a violation of the business owner's beliefs . . . ."So,
if Obamacare required employers to offer insurance that covers sexual
orientation conversion therapy, you'd be OK with that?I thought
not.Funny how the left feels empowered and fully competent to decide
for us what does and doesn't violate our religious beliefs, though
they're quite likely to have none of their own.
@J in AZ;Is the business owner being forced to take birth control
pills? Have a same-sex marriage? No to both questions. Being
asked to allow your employees to choose to use birth control is an entirely
different issue. The employees DO pay premiums for their insurance plans and
they SHOULD be able to opt for a plan that offers the benefits that THEY
require. Businesses, and their owners should NOT be allowed to refuse to
provide services based on the beliefs of the owners.Providing an
insurance plan that provides birth control for women is NOT a violation of the
business owner's beliefs because the business owner is NOT being required
to partake themselves. Selling cakes/flowers to GLBT couples for a wedding does
NOT violate the business owner's beliefs; they're not being asked to
have a same-sex marriage themselves. If they claim their beliefs are being
violated, you have to look at the following: Do they sell or provide their
services to adulterers? Murderers? Thieves? If they answer 'yes' to
any of these questions, then they're lying to you when they claim selling
to GLBT couples violates their beliefs.
Strange how birth control is such a "fight" yet when people are polled
there arr very few people that actually think birth control is immoral.Stanger still is that birth control was never a controversy before the ACA was
passed by congress.What faux fight will be chosen next?
Re: "The premise here is that the employer has freedom to practice their
religious beliefs AND to impose them on their employees."The
usual liberal sophistry.As liberals know, that's not the
premise, at all. If it's important to them, Hobby Lobby employees are free
to buy, without penalty, their own abortion and contraception insurance, or to
work somewhere else, for a more liberal, cowardly, or pliant employer.Today's Hobby Lobby situation is actually much more closely akin to the
situation that existed under Muslim rule in the Ottoman Empire -- Christians and
Jews were "tolerated" in the Empire, so long as they practiced their
religion quietly and covertly, didn't engage in the more lucrative
professions, and were willing to split their hard-earned wages and resources
with the Sultan and his bureaucrats.That's a much more apt
comparison, and, as in the Ottoman Empire, the Obama regime's object is to
benefit the Sultan and liberal "believers," at the expense of
conservative, religious "infidels," as well as to use financial coercion
to induce "conversion."
Here are two questions for all of you. First, yes or no, If you, or your family,
are the sole owner of a business, should the government be able to compel you to
engage in business activities that violate your personal morals and ethics?
Second, is it good government to force people to engage in activities that they
find morally objectionable?Notes to Tyler D.:Rights predate
the constitution. I refer you to the opening words to the Declaration of
Independence. And in actuality , the constitution was not intended to define the
rights of the people. Rather, the intent was to define what the government was
permitted to do.There has been no supreme court ruling on ACA
violating people's first amendment rights. The constitutionality of the
decision was based on 'innovative' legal reasoning that it was a tax
even though the administration said that it was not.On the subject
of birth control. Pills are on the $4 formulary at WalMart, how is that a
burden? And, abstinence is 100% effective in preventing both pregnancy and the
transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.
Since corporations are not people they obviously have no religious beliefs. The
beliefs of the people who incorporate a business belong to the people and not
the corporation, which has no legal right to a religious belief since it
isn't a person.
Bandersen, a fetus before 26 weeks is just that a fetus, not an infant and the
Supreme Court has never sanctioned the killing of infants (a child after birth).
Heartbeats, brain activity, prior to 26 don't result in conscious life.
That occurs sometime around the 26th week. I know some passed on
this but how in the world is the ACA socialism, when it simply has a mandate to
buy private (capitalist) insurance? If that is socialism to you then I suppose
compulsory education is, stop signs are etc.
@bandersen – “Anyone who thinks that ACA is Constitutional
doesn't understand the Constitution, regardless of whether it has
'passed the test'.”Putting aside the question of
whether or not the ACA counts as “socialism,” you’re missing
the point. [By the way, the central feature of the ACA - individual
mandate - was designed by the Heritage Foundation; hardly a socialist think
tank. Yes, the subsidies are some degree of socialism, but the rest of it?
Hardly.]Anyway, the point is it did pass the test. The only question
now is what will you or any citizen do when they don’t like a law? If you believe in the Constitution, then you’re path is clear
– vote for people who believe as you do and if enough people feel the same
way, you can change the law. But if your views regarding right
& wrong (and reasonable & moral people can disagree here) trump the law
such that you’re willing to take the law into your own hands, then count
me out.As you said, you can’t have it both ways.
@bandersenI believe everyone, with little exception, loves liberty
and freedom. Where we disagree on is how they are best protected, and how to
fund that protection.Some would equate liberty and freedom to be
"I keep what's mine" others may interpret freedom in a more social
aspect of "live and let live" as long as you're not hurting anyone
else. PPeople can and do disagree over interpretation of the
Constitution. That's why we have a Supreme Court, who's decisions are
not uncommonly 5-4. Even those at the Convention disagreed over its meaning
years after ratification. Because some might disagree with you, does not mean
they are wrong, or that you are. It simply means that two informed adults with
their life experiences, views, and readings have reached different
conclusions.I love freedom and liberty, so much I am serving in the
Armed Forces, but I align more with the liberal philosophy. Others I work with,
align more with a conservative philosophy, and you know what? We get along just
fine, because deep down we all want the same thing.
Tyler: I can't help it if people want to allow the Supreme Court to make a
mockery of the Constitution, or if people would rather scrap it for something
they like better, such as socialism. Anyone who thinks that ACA is
Constitutional doesn't understand the Constitution, regardless of whether
it has 'passed the test'. It 'passed the test' according to
those who like Socialism and progressives that want something more 'up to
date', like Socialism. I don't believe in Socialism, nor do I believe
that the Supreme Court is upholding the Constitution. I like Liberty and
Freedom. Just the way I am. I con't understand why there are those who
don't! You can't have it both ways.
re: Mark B Dubya & S Palin were the "best &
brightest" the religious right were able to hoodwink some with.So, what does that say about the kingmakers in the GOP & evangelical
It's a fight. By no means arbitrarily a 'good' one, though.
This isn't about religious freedom, it's about a business wanting the
same rights as an individual, when it is not a person. Why do they
feel personally responsible for the sins of their wicked employees, but protect
themselves against liability by separating their business from their personnel
affairs?A fight for theocratic rule is never the "right or good
fight, see history again and again.
@bandersen – “I doubt the Founding Fathers would uphold Supreme
Court justices that allow for murder of infants, something the Supreme Court has
affirmed.”I think R v W was a bad ruling and abortion should
have been left to the States. Surprised? That said, if you believe
State protected life starts at conception, then don’t have an abortion.
Pretty simple… “Is there any such thing as an individual
right in your world, or are we all to be defined by what the state defines us
as?”Rights are defined in the Constitution and we have a
process for testing laws against those right. Like it or not, ACA has passed
that test.If you don’t like it, you’re free to go
through the same (democratic) process to repeal it. If you’re advocating
something more subversive, then in my view you place a higher value on your own
convictions than you do the Constitution and Democracy.And regarding
birth control, you do realize that 99% of Americans have used it, yes? And it is
paid for through premiums (i.e., earned compensation)… just like Viagra.
Re:Bandersen"Any other generation, and particularly our Founding
Fathers, wouldn't even respond to such nonsensical caricatures of
wisdom."Would those be the same Founding Fathers who didn't
think equal rights should include women and blacks? I thought this
quote by Grover Norquist in an interview with Diane Rhem interesting:"NORQUIST10:49:57Well, obviously, there are some things that the
government does that it does well. And our government is less destructive of
economic growth and human liberty than most of the other governments around the
world. So if you're grading on a curve, we're doing pretty well. I
think we can do better yet and be less expensive and less intrusive.Norquist also conceded he didn't know what the various governmental depts
do, so he wouldn't advocate for wholesale abolishment.Obviously
Capitalism needs a referee. Otherwise we would return to the days of tainted
air, food, water etc. i often wonder if it truly benefits taxpayer wallets to
be paying for services once done by the military and now being done by
for-profit entitites. The DOD is one of the largest blackholes in our economy.
Tyler: You do have a point. However, I doubt the Founding Fathers would uphold
Supreme Court justices that allow for murder of infants, something the Supreme
Court has affirmed. The laws of the land in many cases affirm the
'legality' that which is abhorrent to any decent and liberty loving
patriot. The Becket foundation has a pretty good record for upholding (Since you
believe in upholding the law of the land, right?) religious liberty issues,
Hobby Lobby being just one of them. Or do private organizations have any rights
in your world? Is there any such thing as an individual right in your world, or
are we all to be defined by what the state defines us as? I don't believe
in government healthcare! So, in your world, I guess I just go to prison. Of
course, I'm pretty certain your belief in sending me to prison doesn't
equate with denying an irresponsible adult birth control. So much for common
sense. Perhaps 'Animal Farm' would be a good read, or better yet, The
Law, by Frederic Bastiat. Or, perhaps, just reading the bible would confer some
wisdom about the importance of choice.
@bandersen – “Any other generation, and particularly our Founding
Fathers, wouldn't even respond to such nonsensical caricatures of
wisdom.”That was quite a beating you gave your strawman. I think the Founders would share my view that the democratically passed
and constitutionally affirmed laws of the land cannot be subverted by any
individual’s religious or otherwise moral objections.And there
is a long list of SC precedents upholding this view, including Scalia’s
majority opinion in the case I cited above which contained the following
unambiguous statement:The Court held that the First Amendment's
protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to
use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable
laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious
belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to
become a law unto himself."So do you believe in the Constitution
or can religious activists be “laws unto themselves,” and in the
case of the “generally applicable” ACA law, decide how that law
applies to others?
Tyler & Marxist: It makes me realize why I am as close to being a
Libertarian as you can get. Some people don't even understand the
implication of arguing in favor or any government intrusion! It's called
'States' Rights' for a reason and its in the Constitution. If
you don't believe in the Constitution, then I would much prefer the
Libertarian values, something that doesn't threaten me at all. It's
the 'government has all the answers' crowd that baffles me the most,
and the outright giving up of Individual liberty they espouse, all for the
'greater good', of course. I laugh the most at this crowd. Liberty
isn't even understood by this crowd. Everything is only seen through the
eyes of Big Brother. Whether anti-religious fervor, Athiest boredom, or
anti-capilist tirades, Government is their only means for redemption. Any other
generation, and particularly our Founding Fathers, wouldn't even respond to
such nonsensical caricatures of wisdom.
Maybe Ireland is on the right track and where some could be willing to
compromise. Prove that the abortion to be performed is medically necessary, if
not the pregnancy should progress as any other pregnancy. The same goes for
brith control pills. Prove that it is medically necessary. Otherwise, why
should anyone have to pay for another's recreational use for them.
RE: A guy with a brain "If an employee doesn't like where they work
they have a right to look for another job." Speaking as a socialist, an
employee has rights in his or her present employment situation - since he/she
does the work. If he/she had a union such rights could be negotiated and
enforced. But just because guys like you destroy unions doesn't mean such
rights can't be asserted, which I do without apology.
"Hobby Lobby is a business run by persons of faith in a way consistent with
their values, which preclude paying for drugs that may cause abortions. "The drugs in question don't cause abortions. They work by
preventing ovulation and fertilization. Hobby Lobby is applying its own label
to the drugs. Perhaps Hobby Lobby should also protest against paying for
anti-inflammatory drugs as well since they may cause a miscarriage early in
@ marxist - Salt Lake City, UT - "The premise here is that the employer has
freedom to practice their religious beliefs AND to impose them on their
employees. This reflects the bias conservatives have with the employer-employee
relationship. Employees have rights too."Seriously?That's the best you've got in this debate? "Employees have
rights, too"?This may come as a shock to you but I agree with
you 100%. Employees DO have rights.If an employee doesn't like
where they work they have a right to look for another job.
@ A Scientist - Provo, UT - "So, a positive article about a woman's
success story...is turned into a Bash Obama tirade by off-topic, disruptive
comments?"Scientist - Obama is not being spoken
negatively here for false reasons out of thin air.Obama IS being
spoken negatively here because HE'S the guy that championed the disaster of
a nationalized health care law.....they don't call it "Obamacare"
for nothing.If you utterly refuse to see that then there's
nothing we can do to help you....
The premise here is that the employer has freedom to practice their religious
beliefs AND to impose them on their employees. This reflects the bias
conservatives have with the employer-employee relationship. Employees have
I contribute regularly to the Becket fund, and will proudly continue to do so.
I encourage others concerned about these issues to do likewise.
So, a positive article about a woman's success story......is
turned into a Bash Obama tirade by off-topic, disruptive comments?
It's good to know that someone has the passion to never give up in fighting
for my free agency. I hope that God watches out and over her.
Great article about a great organization run by what appears to be a great
person.I sincerely hope she and them the greatest of success in
fighting for rights to freedoms of thought and expression that are under
constant and mounting threat from not just the current Progressive in Power, but
all like him.
So, are we back to fighting 2012 all over again? Mr. Obama, now in his second
term, will not stand for reelection again, though I suppose he could run for a
different office, as John Quincy Adams did. bandersen's
implication that current Americans are just plain dumber than their ancestors
would be pretty hard to prove, unless, perhaps, you take into account that GWB
was duly elected once (and that wasn't in 2000). If the voting public ARE
dumber, then shouldn't the preceding generation take some of the blame?
@bandersen - "This Religious issue alone would bar any thinking person from
voting for him"Hogwash!The kind of religious liberty
the Right is currently championing is when a few activist religious people can
bend every aspect of society towards their beliefs and pseudo-morals (e.g.,
birth control). Today it’s healthcare, but if they win this fight it will
encourage religious intrusion into our lives for decades to come. Thankfully Scalia’s precedent in the Oregon Peyote makes it clear that
should never happen.
It isn't just religious liberty that's under attack by the
Socialist-in-Chief. Freedom of the press, free speech, prohibitions against
unreasonable search and seizure, requirements for obtaining a search warrant,
etc., are all under attack.Making religious speech or freedom of
conscience a crime is part and parcel with socialism.
Why would anyone vote for someone that doesn't believe in religious
liberty? BO doesn't, so I find it difficult to understand why anyone would
vote for someone that wants to destroy religious liberty. Forget all the other
'social justice' issues. This Religious issue alone would bar any
thinking person from voting for him, something most previous generations would
have been educated enough to process to its conclusion.
Article quote Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, Executive Director, Becket Fund for
Religious Liberty: "Objectively, I grew up poor. But I never felt poor. We
were rich people temporarily without money. With education and will, we would
eventually triumph. And we did." I'd bet you $1000 that she
didn't vote for Obama.And I'd bet you another $1000 that
she never would.