Another suit over Obamacare contraception mandate to be appealed to Supreme Court

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Country Lawyer Falmouth, MA
    Nov. 25, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    It's gonna be fun watching Scalia twist history, logic and the Constitution, once again, this time to uphold a corporation's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. This is just the predictably inane offshoot of the Citizens' United ruling that recognized corporate free speech, defining the scope of free speech as being proportional to the amount of money available to purchase mass media exposure.

    If individual owners can assert religious freedom through a corporation, why should the corporate fiction then shield them personally from tort or contract liability. The corporation either is or is not a separate "person" created by law and the almighty dollar as opposed to God. So, if it is not after all a separate person for religious freedom, why should it be so for imposing civil or criminal liability?

    I predict that Scalia will answer such questions with a theory of corporate ensoulment -not at conception as with biological human beings, but simply when the articles of incorporation are filed with the state secretary. Hey, it makes just as much sense as corporate free speech exercised by spending money passed through from anonymous donors.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    So the conservatives above who believe that that corporations can mandate their beliefs on their employees, would be fine with corporations discriminating against any person, or group of people based on their religion, race or sex ,because their religious beliefs command them to do so.

    Also a business like hobby lobby who buys most of their tacky home interior goods from China, are willing to overlook China's stance on abortion to make more money shows where their loyalties really lie, doesn't it?

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 6, 2013 1:51 a.m.

    the truth
    Holladay, UT
    @Bob K
    What would Jesus do?
    He would expect you to take personal responsibility.
    And not demand others to pay for your choices.

    ....Only a conservative man with NO understanding whatever of poor women would put such an incorrect thought into the mouth of Jesus.

    Only a conservative (and probably older) man would call contraception a choice for working women -- it is a necessity.

    It is not conservative at all to encourage unwanted children to be born, to burden families and taxpayers, by a very not Christian comment.

    If women were still chained to the stove, men could get away with not thinking compassionately of them, nor with putting a political view above their lives.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 5, 2013 9:10 p.m.

    During the late 1930's,-ninety five percent of Austria voted for German rule under Hitler, with the promise of a better economy, and healthcare.

    Why are people so gullible?

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    Bob K,

    What would Jesus do?

    He would respect the rights of people to make their own choices and enjoy the consequences. An employer would not be forced to offer abortion services under Jesus plan, guaranteed. Nor would an employer be forced to offer contraception.

    Remember the parable of the laborers? Each were paid the same, regardless of when they started their day of labor. It was fair when the agreement/contract was made.

    Employees can choose where they want to work. If their options are limited, then the employee may accept a job that may be in a non-ideal environment (where the owner's religious values may be expressed, as this article is about). I can't help but believe that would be a positive for most employees.

    It is the liberal ideological influence that makes us believe that corporations MUST provide certain benefits for an employee. In a true free market, though there would be some regulations to protect the employee, an employer would not be forced to provide abortion services and contraception. That would be negotiated as terms of compensation.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    @Bob K

    What would Jesus do?

    He would expect you to take personal responsibility.

    And not demand others to pay for your choices.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 5, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    It seems that all of the comments, particularly those responding to me, are by men.

    Perhaps it is hard for you to put yourself in the place of a woman struggling to support her family, a woman whose education and circumstances force her to seek low-wage employment wherever she can get it, even if not ideal.

    Perhaps you find it OK to say "work elsewhere", or "find your own contraception".

    One of you even suggests she "avoid unprotected activities" -- if that is not an invasion of privacy and indecent to even suggest, I can say nothing to you.

    What would Jesus do?

    He would insist that all the women got the benefit, equally, and that the bosses, in their hubris and resentment, were being the very opposite of those who follow Him.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 5, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    @ Mr.Smitty. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or restrict the free exercise thereof." Can the government force you to pay for other people's abortions? If you for religious reasons believe, as I do, that abortion (or birth control pills) is morally wrong, can the government force you and me to fund them? The answer is yes they can thus violating people's religious rights. Have no fear, the SCOTUS will not uphold religious rights because they are corrupt. Thus the constitution is meaningless when it comes to the protection of religious rights.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    Bob K,

    If an employee doesn't like working for a corporation that reflects the owners religious values, that employee can seek a new work environment. You fail to persuade me to any degree that a corporation should be forced to adopt values that the government dictates.

    A corporation should be able to reflect the values of the owner. The employees make a contract with the owner/corporation to provide services in exchange for compensation. If the employee doesn't like anything about the contract or work environment, the employee can make a change.

    If a customer doesn't like anything about the culture, environment, or service of a corporation or organization, the customer can seek services elsewhere. No one's freedom is restricted.

    However, if the government imposes restrictions upon a corporation requiring it to provide services that oppose the values of the owner, that is limiting freedom. I disagree strongly with such a scenario.

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    @Mountanman: You wrote, "The SCOTUS is going to decide whether citizens of the US may have any other God other than the government. Liberals on the court will, of course say we may not!"

    How they rule will have absolutely nothing to do with anyone deciding whether U.S. citizen may have a God. If they rule against having prayers in government meetings, you still get to keep your religious beliefs.

    If they rule in favor of prayers in government meetings, are you ok with fairness? For example, if you have Hindu representatives, are you going to give them a turn at prayer? How about Satan worshipers? Religion should be kept separate from the government. It's better for religious people, though many don't see it. If you believe Church and state should not be separate, which Church should have the most power?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    The court cannot make up its mind. The individuals would be burdened, but their company would not? Who decides what the company will do? The SHAREHOLDERS. Why do contraceptives need to be mandated anyway, if not to force BO’s and the dems’ morality on the rest of the nation?

    Bob K,
    Why cannot women (or their partners) buy their own contraceptives? They can say, “no” to unprotected activities. Both are effective methods of planning their own families. Why do YOU want to insert their employer into their bedroom behavior?

    Employers are not prohibiting ANYTHING or forcing their beliefs on ANYONE by NOT buying contraceptives. To misconstrue the argument to say employers are trampling the rights of their employees is a despicable act in my view.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 5, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    "Tyranny of corporations"? Name one corporation that can force anyone to do business with them! Corporations can not tax you to death, can not regulate you in any way, can not put you in prison, can not spy on you, can not force anyone to do business with them, can not force you to buy healthcare from them. On the other hand, there is the government! Where does real tyranny come from?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 5, 2013 7:14 a.m.

    Corporations are people with religious rights. so the individual does not possess a unique place in our society that protects and guards it from the tyranny of corporations and business. We're all the same?

    Any questions why Americas middle class has struggled for the past 30 years?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 5, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    The SCOTUS is going to decide whether citizens of the US may have any other God other than the government. Liberals on the court will, of course say we may not!

  • Max Charlotte, NC
    Nov. 5, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    This absolutely amazing. Are we going to mandate that chewing gum also be supplied by insurance companies? How about haircuts? So much heated debate over something that is so cheap. We are talking about $10 per month. Just buy your own contraception.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 5, 2013 2:42 a.m.

    Centerville, UT
    Why would a judge or court rule that a corporation is a secular organization?

    ..... sorry, this lacks the most basic understanding of the word "secular"
    1. Worldly rather than spiritual. 2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body
    If you are in business, you are not a church, and vice versa.

    You think only of the owners, not the right of employees in a business open to the public to have the same rights as if they worked elsewhere.

    Perhaps you are thinking of fiefdoms and serfs.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 5, 2013 2:37 a.m.

    .....Hobby Lobby, whose Christian owners say the mandate's requirement to provide abortifacients under their employee health plan violates their religious beliefs......

    Note that "abortifacients" is an obscure term that right wingers use to make contraception sound like baby killing -- a despicable act, in my view.

    The rights of Poor Women are being trampled on by self-righteous employers.
    Women who work for minimum wage do not always have the luxury of finding employers who give benefits -- and they may risk pregnancies that hurt their other kids to put the contraception money toward food, shoes, etc.
    Not to mention that the public is forced to pay to school, feed, and police unwanted kids.

    With Obama's policies and the ACA, millions of poorer working women are assured of the chance to plan their families, as the more affluent already do.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 9:42 p.m.

    Why would a judge or court rule that a corporation is a secular organization?

    In reality, a corporation, business, or any organization reflects the values of the leaders of the organization, as well as the values of everyone in the corporation.

    A corporation that values honesty, integrity, quality, hard work, service, compassion, faith in God, love for God and fellow-mankind, loyalty, respect, and so many other values of humanity and religion is an organization that will serve others well. It is an organization that will be successful, and one that I would want to do business with.

    A corporation that is secular may reflect a foundation that is shifting, in my opinion.

    I believe a corporation reflects the values of the owners. A corporation should be free to exercise religious beliefs and be protected by religious rights of expression. If someone disagrees with the values of the corporation, then do business somewhere else. But government should not force a corporation to adapt certain values that are offensive.