Hobby Lobby asks Supreme Court to hear appeal on contraception case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    The passive/aggression is mind numbing how the same people who cry "I am oppressed" whenever religion is spoken in the public sphere (despite constitutional protection from "abridging the freedom of speech") are the same exact people who have absolutely NO problem when government is forcing religious people to do things contrary to their faith (despite constitutional protections against government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). If Hobby Lobby or anyone else does not pay for your abortofacients, there is NOTHING stopping you from buying them yourself. You are NOT a victim. You are merely a perpetrator for forcing others to do something that violates their faith; when, in fact, you are perfectly free and capable of doing it yourself.

    This massive hypocrisy explains why the American left so completely and totally alienates me: Condescending lectures on tolerance appear as nothing more than a pathetic joke when they are preached by those who have never actually exhibited tolerance.

    It is one thing to require religious people to follow basic accounting and tax law; but no logical person can argue that there is any inherent nexus between operating a business and providing abortofacients.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    "What is being sought here is for a business to be allowed the freedom of their moral compass and the exercise of their religion to not pay for procedures they consider immoral and against their religious beliefs as dictated by their God."

    Businesses/Corporations do not have a "moral compass" (just take a look at Wall Street's track record). Businesses/Corporations do not have "religious beliefs" - unless they are Churches. And as much as Churches are really just "businesses", that is the deception that proves the rule.

    Corporations are NOT people!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    Government as the official representative and agent of the people has the right and the authority to tell business operations how they must operate in the service to people and in the manner that they treat their employees. In no case can the business be allowed to operate contrary to civil law.

    The government cannot tell the people of the corporation or the corporation itself how to spend its own money and who it may support.
    They can support PETA, GOP, or any thing else, but they cannot force their morals or beliefs on employees through the employment contract.

    As mentioned before, business operations don’t have any rights beyond the rights given them by the people they serve.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Oct. 22, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    @suki --

    Jehovah's Witnesses have a religious prohibition against blood transfusions. If you were in a car accident, would you be upset to find out that your insurance didn't pay for any of that blood you would so desperately need?

    Fundamentalist Christian Scientists are against any medical treatment at all. Would you be upset if your employer refused to offer any health insurance at all on religious grounds?

  • sukiyhtaky us, CA
    Oct. 22, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    Nobody is suggesting that a business should be allowed to interfere and dictate health procedures for a patient. What is being sought here is for a business to be allowed the freedom of their moral compass and the exercise of their religion to not pay for procedures they consider immoral and against their religious beliefs as dictated by their God. Lets be honest here, birth control pills run about 4-5 dollars a month and are free at PPH if you are willing to go down and sign up and if you really want it why wouldn't you? The same with the day after pill, if you just had no control over your actions and didn't preplan by getting on the pill or having a condom---whatever---and want that day after pill, the cost is about 35 dollars and is available OTC or at PP where their fees are on a sliding scale. The costs are not prohibitive to anyone, so there really is no need to press for employers to pay. Applying for jobs is also a search for the perks and extras they offer and the bonus of birth control should be one of those perks

  • Casey See FLOWER MOUND, TX
    Oct. 22, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    Let me put my 2 cents in on a couple issues raised. 1st. Single payer. if their is only one insurance plan for all americans, who establishes the rates paid. if two low, doctors drop out of providing services and we all suffer when needing to see a physician. Just ask Canada or Australia about how long people have to for a hip or knew replacement or ask Taiwan why everyone goes to the emergency room because there are no doctor offices. if the amount paid is too high, we bankrupt the system. Also in either case, it will entire some individuals to commit fraud because it is the government that pays the bills. Don't agree, check how many doctors have been found guilty of medicare and medicaid fraud.

    forcing businesses to do something against their corporate ethics, then we businesses that support PETA or other environmental causes should also be banned from doing so, because not all of their employees agree with the corporate decisions.

    Broadbrushed solutions can be applied in ways none of us would agree with. Be careful what you ask for.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    Personally, I hope SCOTUS takes the case and rules against Hobby Lobby. The owners of a business shouldn't be allowed to force their religious beliefs onto their employees.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Oct. 22, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    Maybe it is time to go back to the idea that employers do not provide Healthcare Insurance for their employees under a Company Plan. They could just increase your wages by the amount that they are paying for your coverage and let you purchase your own. Obviously, you won't get as good of coverage and will pay more in taxes leaving you less to purchase coverage with but it will eliminate this type of situation from happening.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Oct. 22, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Based on past precedents, Hobby Lobby should lose this case 9-0.

    But that will require the leading intellectual on the conservative side, Antonin Scalia, consistently applying all his past decisions (e.g., Employment Division v Smith). If he doesn’t it will be entertaining to watch the mental gymnastics he employs to satisfy is religious conservative friends, and going that direction he will continue to erode his reputation for consistency and intellectual honesty.

    And since he’s become somewhat of a grumpy parody of his former self, we should not get our hopes up.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Business as an institution is owned and controlled by the society wherein the business exists. Business operations, when allowed by the society, are generally owned and operated by private owners.

    There are no rights or freedoms given to business by the Constitution of the United States of America. The only rights and freedoms that business operations have are those temporary rights, given by a society at a specific time and place.

    In addition to the rules and regulations of the local society, the federal government places rules and regulations upon business operations in its job of protecting the American people.

    While there is danger from unscrupulous businessmen to use government to their advantage, the danger to the American people would be much greater with out the government control. We should push back against the unscrupulous rules and regulations but we must be careful to not throw out the baby with the bath water.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    It's time to remove employers from making health care decisions for their staff; time to remove them from the process entirely. Health care is for people, not corporations. Let's have it delivered to people, paid for by people. Single payer.

  • Jewell in the Crown Spanish Fork, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    They're not interfering. They're just saying "We do not want to pay for certain things. If you want to, you can." Corporations may not be people, but they are run by people, who are entitled to have "freedom of religion" and act on them in the running of their business.

  • IsaacsTM Huntingtown, MD
    Oct. 22, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    Churches are not "people" and therefore should not have the freedom of religion to impose on their congregations beliefs that are contrary to their own beliefs. Right The Scientist?

    This religious freedom issue is huge. We in America do not check our constitutional rights at the door when we start or run a business. We must push back against big government. Forcing individuals to run their businesses in a way that violates their freedom of religion is a huge problem that is accelerating at a very fast pace. The constitution never guaranteed that we would not be offending each other with our religious beliefs.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    America’s greatest danger of failing is from the internal organizations seeking to control the government for their own selfish reasons. The history of the world has been that commercial business interests have always controlled government. In many cases they have been and still are religious organizations. The true financial giants of the world are religions.

    The formation of a single nation, the USA, required a truce of sorts between the competing religions by prohibition a national religion and prevention of government interference in religious matters.

    The First Amendment establishes that truce for churches and religions organizations but does not guarantee freedom of religion for individuals. Thus religious organizations feel that they have unlimited right to use civil entities to force their belief upon individuals.

    If America is to have freedom of religion for individuals, there must be freedom from religion for individuals. And civil law must be trump over religious law.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Oct. 22, 2013 3:08 a.m.

    Corporations are NOT "people" and should not have the "freedom of religion" to impose on employees contrary to the employees' beliefs and healthcare needs!

  • UtahCentrist Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    I think it is a terrible precedent to set to allow an employer to interfere, based on their own religious ideals, in the healthcare decisions that should purely be between a doctor and a patient.

    Should a Jehovah's Witness CEO be able to make it prohibitively expensive for an employee to receive a blood transfusion? Or a Jain employer prohibiting the use of medications that may have gone through animal laboratory testing? Etc...

    Besides, there are many legitimate uses that female contraceptive drugs are prescribed that have nothing to do with preventing conception. My cousin had ovarian cysts that caused her excruciating pain and "birth control" was the medicine that relieved her suffering. It would be the height of cruelty if she were forbidden from affordable care because some distant CEO has an arbitrary objection to certain kinds of health care.

    That decision should be between the patient and the physician. Full stop.