Supreme Court rules in favor of religious freedom in Hobby Lobby case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mormonmama0106 Phoenix, AZ
    July 6, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    @ Testimony and TheTrueVoice:

    It is strictly your opinion that pregnancy doesn't begin until an embryo is implanted. To me, and others who believe as I do, pregnancy and human life begin at conception. I could never personally use any product that prevents the implantation of an embryo, as to do so terminates an already developing life.

    The owners of Hobby Lobby feel the same, hence their unwillingness to cover any birth control that could result in preventing implantation of a already developing human being. By that definition, anything that prevents implantation is indeed an abortifacient.

  • BeagleDancer Duchesne, UT
    July 3, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    Year's back Hobby Lobby's insurance program included contraceptive coverage. This is purely a political decision by far right justices. Hobby Lobby owners simply wanted to use the issue for political purposes against the President and common sense. Men cultural do little about contraception so the burden falls to women and Hobby Lobby merely makes that burden heavier.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    July 1, 2014 1:06 p.m.


    The fact is, their are 16 other contraceptives that Hobby Lobby's insurance plan covers. So, there are basically three remedies women working for Hobby Lobby can employ if they're not happy with this SCOTUS decision:

    1) Use one of the other 16 forms of contraception that are covered under Hobby Lobby's insurance plan

    2) Pay for the four contraception methods not covered by Hobby Lobby themselves

    3) Find another employer who's insurance plan covers the other four contraceptive methods

    TheTrueVoice, I have a fourth suggestion that you could be directly involved in. Why don't you and all Liberals by extension, find one or two deserving female Hobby Lobby employees, and purchase their particular, one of the four that Hobby Lobby doesn't wish to pay for. I mean, if you feel a company should be compelled to purchase their employees contraception, you shouldn't have any objection in compelling yourself to do the same thing...right?

    BTW, Obama already has the authority under ACA to make insurance companies pay the costs for these four contraceptives. Obama and the Democrats have nothing positive to run on, so they have to invent the bogus "war on women." Pathetic!

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    July 1, 2014 12:31 p.m.


    If you read Ginsberg's dissent, which is very well written by the way, she explains how the majority did not apply the RFRA so much as completely reinterpret it counter to the stated purpose of the Act and its legislative history. The dissent is published as part of the decision (in the back), posted on the SCOTUS website.

    Mormonmama0106 and others,

    This anti-abortion excuse for restricting certain contraceptive methods is dishonest. Abortion is ending a pregnancy. A woman is not pregnant until implantation takes place. Implantation is a complex process and frequently fails on its own. (Ask any couple who had trouble conceiving.) These methods aren't foolproof, they just increase the odds of failure. If implantation never takes place, pregnancy doesn't occur, so abortion isn't what's happening. It's just pregnancy prevention, which is what contraceptives do.

    Over-defining abortion to include preventing implantation is an early step towards outlawing contraception altogether, taking away women's rights, and possibly even creating the world of The Handmaid's Tale.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    July 1, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    Actually, it is those that profess these drugs "result in abortion" who are intellectually dishonest.

    Not only is it factually incorrect, it is downright misleading. These products are not abortifacients,and their only connection to abortion is that they can prevent the need for one.

    A rather horrible day for those women who just want to be left alone to determine their own health choices.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    July 1, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    @ The True Voice;
    You said "Regardless, this particular SCOTUS decision is horrible beyond words. It is right up there will 'Citizens United' decision, truly awful on multiple levels."

    Since SCOTUS ruled on this based on the Religious Freedom Protection and Restoration Act (RFPRA) which was passed by both houses of Congress in 1993 with only 3 dissenting votes total and signed in Nov 93 by President Clinton I would expect more than just a statement that the decision is truly awful.
    Could you please explain why it is so horrible that SCOTUS would uphold a law that was in place long before the PPACA?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 1, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    Let freedom ring!!!! Let Barack and the progressives go down in flames once again!!

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    July 1, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    Reading the comments by Liberals on DN and elsewhere over the past 24 hours proves that most Liberals are ignorant of what's in Obamacare.

    First, this ruling simply provides Hobby Lobby the freedom not to have to pay for drugs that result in abortions. HL's insurance covers 16 other contraceptive drugs which don't result in the death of the unborn baby. This ruling simply provides them the religious freedom not to have to offer the four drugs that do result in an abortion.

    Secondly, this faux outrage by the Left that this is a "war on women", is simply a campaign strategy. News flash for Liberals: Under Obamacare (ACA), Obama has the power to compel insurance providers to cover the costs for the drugs that companies like Hobby Lobby do not wish to pay for, for religious freedom reasons. I'll wager Liberals don't even know this fact.

    A simple question for Liberals: why, if Obama has the power to make insurance companies pay for these abortion drugs under Obamacare, is he instead waging a war on Hobby Lobby and other like minded private businesses, and blaming the Republicans? Easy Peasy, the faux “War on Women” campaign strategy.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    July 1, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    "This ruling opens the door for corporations to discriminate based on religious beliefs on all sorts of things. Imagine being able to not hire or to fire someone because your religion is opposed to gay marriage."

    Yeah, just ask the former CEO of Mozilla.

  • Mormonmama0106 Phoenix, AZ
    July 1, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    This ruling means that a business owner doesn't have to be party to something they believe is murder (ie. abortions caused by birth control and morning after pills). I think that's fair.

    My husband and I don't like the health insurance offered by his current employer, so he is looking for work with companies who offer what we consider to be better coverage. Hobby Lobby employees are free to do the same if they want birth control coverage. Lots of employers have health insurance coverage that does not meet the needs (or wallets) of their employees and many people do change jobs for that reason. Again, Hobby Lobby employees are free to do the same. Most jobs at Hobby Lobby are minimum-wage, customer service type jobs that are available all over. It's not as if Hobby Lobby is the only employer out there, or even the most lucrative one.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    July 1, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    If corporations could get pregnant, contraceptives would be free.

    If men could get pregnant, contraceptives stores would outnumber Starbucks.

    Strange how the faithful are not using the term "activist judges" now. This tune will of course change when SCOTUS makes SSM the law of the land, which they can do by refusing to hear the Utah appeal on the 10th District's decision.

    Regardless, this particular SCOTUS decision is horrible beyond words. It is right up there will 'Citizens United' decision, truly awful on multiple levels.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    To "riverofsun" I hate to tell you this, since you didn't bother to learn more about the case. Hobby Lobby still has insurance that covers 16 forms of birth control, and is happy to pay for those 16 forms. All they have objected to is paying for pills that are used to abort babies.

    Would you pay for your daughter to abort her babies?

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    July 1, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    We now find out that Hobby Lobby invests in the very contraceptive companies it denies it's employees for their health insurance coverage....
    Yes, they invest in these contraceptive companies for their employees retirement plans.
    Do they also invest in the companies who make and sell Viagra?
    Do they invest in the instruments used in vasectomy procedures, as well?
    Hypocrisy at it's very finest!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 1, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    I'm not sure whether this case was decided on a strictly conservative/liberal legal divide or simply on a patriarchal sectarian divide. As Ginsburg points out in her dissenting opinion, the majority of the Court violated their own legal principles of strict interpretation and engaged in some torturous and acrobatic interpretation of otherwise irrelevant legislation to justify the decision they signed. She doesn't accuse the five male Catholics on the Court of being in thrall to Rome, but that's who comprised the majority, and I think we're entitled to wonder. The lone female Catholic and the three non-Catholics in their dissent are actually the real legal conservatives in this case, hewing to the case law and legislative history and not to religious doctrine.

    As for those of you who are condemning "loose women" for their use of contraceptives, let me remind you that family planning is a thing. Most contraceptives are used by married women. Especially IUDs by women in families who've had the number of children they want and don't want the medical risks of hormonal methods for another thirty years.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 1, 2014 6:31 a.m.

    Stephen Daedalus wrote, "By admission, their religious faith and practice is no different from the faith and practice of a mere legal fiction..."

    On my mind as I read through all of the vitriol in the comments was, "All of this over something that isn't even real." And then I read your post. LOL!

    IMO, the plaintiffs' objections were always much more about the government dictating to them and I could relate to this. I'd feel the same way. In this respect, I agree with others who commented that the sooner we move to a single payer system, the better.

    To hockeymom who felt free to judge as "murderers" those who have abortions, you are the embodiment of "a good Christian." You and others like you continue to be the best players on my team. Thank you.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    July 1, 2014 12:21 a.m.

    Once again, we see positive proof that 4 liberal judges are blinded by ideology. Their vote to uphold the mandates on these two issues is COMPLETELY unconstitutional. Unfortunately, these people want the federal government to run every aspect of our lives. Can they not see that the last 6 years of Obama policies has done nothing but screw up this country?? One more liberal judge on the U.S. Supreme court, and our freedoms are all but gone.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:31 p.m.

    If someone wants contraception, they can go and get it without prescription at the local drug store of any type. I personally don't see why my hard earned money has to pay for someone else's contraception or abortion. Good move by the Supremes. Of course Ginsberg would object.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    June 30, 2014 9:53 p.m.


    As only a couple of other comments explained, this SCOTUS decision is not about the hoary "Religious Freedom" of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. No, this is small ball bickering about what may be only a drafting error in a 1993 statute. Could Congress have stated that within RFRA "person" means "natural persons"? Sure. And some future Congress could, and likely will do so. This case is an odd footnote.

    Lost on many is how the owners of Hobby Lobby have debased their own religious traditions for this short-term win.

    By admission, their religious faith and practice is no different from the faith and practice of a mere legal fiction, some paperwork on file with the Secretary of State, collecting dust in a 3-ring binder on a law office shelf. The Good News swapped out for corporate minutes and by-laws. Limited liability instead of conscience. Sacred replaced by the blandly profane.

    It is no surprise organized religions in America are losing the hearts and minds of young people. But hey, at least ya'll have some dandy potpourri and needlepoint kits, amirite?

  • Granny Saint George, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    I wish I had a Hobby Lobby close to me. I'd shop there at every opportunity.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 30, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    For all the so-called 'liberals' who argue that the people running corporations should not apply their morality in running the company, they should whatever they want to do to make money, only as long as it is legal.

    This is not a liberal viewpoint. It is a PC viewpoint, i.e. it is a fashion, like bell-bottoms and leisure suits from the 60's and 70's.

    Remember apartheid and companies and universities in the US divesting from South Africa, or the current drive to divest from Israel?

    Corporations should be socially responsible.

  • Aggie5 Kuna, ID
    June 30, 2014 8:27 p.m.

    It amazes me how liberal slc has become. Just so interesting to read some of these comments. Of course most conservatives, are busy at home, or at work.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 30, 2014 7:24 p.m.

    "By the way, corporations are people."

    Corporations are 'people.' But they are not 'human' people. They are ruled to be people because they are authorized to do business as an entity regardless of what 'human people' own the 'business.' And they can sue and be sued. You can't sue or be sued by a non-entity.

    @Frozen Fractals:
    "Then there's no logic to this ruling. Why only allow one religious exception [abortive drugs] but not others [transfusions]?

    Because the transfusion issue was not before the court. The religious group that doesn't like transfusions need to bring it to the court. But, as soon as we get single payer health insurance, there will be no meed for SCOTUS to get involved.

    "...women's contraception sold over the counter is not that effective..."

    The issue is not about contraception. It's about abortion drugs. Big difference.

    "Since when are abortion-inducing medicines considered 'health care'?"

    Abortion inducing drugs are far cheaper then costs associated with pregnancy, giving birth, and health-related expenses in raising a child. Hobby Lobby probably didn't consider this, but should-a.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    June 30, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    Men are covered for vasectomies and Viagra in the religious world of Hobby Lobby and like corporations.
    So much for their talk and rationalization of "equality" for men and women.
    A continuation of what has come before in past political campaigns from the ultra right conservative Republicans.
    Just makes it easier for the Dems in the forthcoming elections.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    June 30, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    First, glad the Supreme Court ruled the way they did. A 5-4 vote makes me wonder if Justice Roberts voted for Hobby Lobby primarily because he knows deep down he caved in to his own unwarranted desires for 'fame' in being the deciding vote to pass Obamacare.

    Second, the liberals are out in force today.

    Just what is so hard to see that business owners have no "good" reason to get into this mess of providing contraception to their employees? Again, the key word being "good".

    Liberals claim they don't want to force others yet that is exactly what they are doing to others. Why do they refuse to see that? You want to have an abortion? Fine. Do it on your own dime.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 30, 2014 5:43 p.m.



    I've read each comment.

    I know...give me a star...get a life etc..

    Another 5-4 cave to the reich-wing?

    How many women voted for this ruling?

    Women...please remember that number when you vote.

    Also remember there is no one in the voting both who knows exactly how you voted.

    Reich-wing men should remember that last sentence as well.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    The HobLob case only highlights the error in having healthcare insurance provided by employers. Hopefully this ruling (which leaves the ACA intact) will hasten the day when national health insurance will make this kind of discussion seem like ancient history. It would have been helpful if some news source took the time to analyze what kind of coverage the company is providing its employees. The way of survival the last ten years that has kept the prop under the current system is that deductibles, copays and caps have grown as rising prices have made it out of reach of many families.

    Not discussed much, but a growing phenomenon is that even insured people can be bankrupted by catastrophic illnesses or more than one member of the family being sick at the same time. Hence we are now not only paying the highest prices in the world, but we are still in danger of bankruptcy all the time. About another 10 years of business as usual and we will all be asking when the profit is the next thing removed from health insurance.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    June 30, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    RE Duckhunter:

    I have to give you props. Your post was just classic, I can't stop laughing. Now Liberals/Democrats are baby killers? Oh my.

    I'm quite sure your totally serious but I hope you're not.

    I was surprised to see that the D-news posted it but I am glad they did.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 30, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    The court made the right decision because Hobby Lobby was objecting to a form of birth control that when a pill was taken killed a fertilized egg. They consider that murder and its close enough that I have to side with them.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    June 30, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    Oh no! Hobby Lobby's stock in contraception companies is certainly going to take a hit with this announcement. Or should I say the Christian owner of Hobby Lobby's stock in contraception companies is going to take a hit. Oh the Irony!

    I would suggest those fans of Hobby Lobby take a closer look at their business practices and then tell me they are a "Christian" company.

    Religious they are, Christians their not.

    I thought the Founding Fathers came to this country to escape Religious persecution?

    Silly me....

  • fowersjl Farmington, Utah
    June 30, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    For those who think this is a "terrible" decision, furthering the supposed "war on women", consider this: Hobby Lobby benefits already pay for 16 different methods of contraception. Their complaint was about the morning after pills that basically cause an abortion. I welcome a victory for religious freedom and letting the free market decide how things should be run, not the federal government. As for the war on women, that is a fictitious idiocy manufactured by the left and perpetuated by the mainstream media in order to garner votes. Hope women everywhere are smarter than they were in the last election. But probably not. (I am a woman, by the way.)

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    It should be clear that the ACA itself supports women being able to get birth control if they want it. But they have let companies controlled by a religion opt out before when the Catholic Church employers had this same issue. Then, another option for birth control is offered (not by the employer). So, women can get it if they want. And under the ACA website, it is a requirement under those insurances. This country will reach a point someday where people are not controlled by religion, but by their own choices.

  • birdbath SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 30, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    A win for the First Amendment. A loss for doing the reasonable thing. I guess that's America folks.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    May I remind all you nay sayers about how this SCOTUS ruling is going to be bad and that Corporations are going to be people.... One little fact...

    Hobby Lobby is a family owned business, it is NOT traded on the Market... It is PRIVATELY own, while corporations such as Microsoft or Starbuck are publically owned corporations.

    That is why SCOTUS made the ruling that PRIVATLEY owned corporations, have the right to refuse Contraceptives as part of their insurance.

    the second part of that, is discrimination based on the 6 Federal classes, will not be affected by this ruling, so "No" this does not open the door to other type of discrimination.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 30, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    To "Schnee" so what you are saying is that you don't think that women should have to be responsible for their sexual behavior?

    You think that women should be free to have unprotected sex or be that .1% that gets pregnant despite using protection, then should have somebody else pay for their abortion (in this case using chemicals)?

    Is that really what you are advocating for?

  • Bendana 99352, WA
    June 30, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    Fair warning to all of you cheering this decision. Do you actually believe that this is now settled law and everyone is just going to quietly accept it? The SC and fox news cheerleaders have just handed the democratic party the best gift ever for the Nov. elections, in that they will point at this ruling as more proof of the GOP 'war on women'. They need the votes of single young women (ask Romney how important those votes are) and they will hammer this talking point every chance they get. You may have won this battle, but in doing so you have conceded ever regaining the majority of women voters. (Keep railing against immigration too...).

  • NoBoxScot Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 30, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    Don't anyone get excited. If you take note, the decision was 5 to 4. If Obamacare and all it's waste, fraud, and abuse is still around in a few years, I'm sure this will come up again - or maybe it will be negated by presidential mandate.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 30, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    @lost in DC – “I read some of Ginsburg’s dissent. Her evident disdain for the religious protections included in the first amendment is disconcerting.”

    I found no disdain for religion in her dissent.

    What I did find was a brilliant dismantling of the Court’s “logic” in arriving at their decision. She demonstrated quite clearly that not only is there zero case law precedent to support the Court’s claim that for-profit corporations can “exercise their religion,” (the can of worms this unique ruling opens up is mind boggling!), but she goes on to show how these so-called Originalists and Contextualists grossly misinterpret RFRA.

    This decision is painful in its application of personal belief (and the deep sympathy they felt for the Plaintiffs) combined with a total disregard of the law, and Ginsberg shows with stunning clarity just how arbitrary today’s decision was.

    Two big silver linings in this decision will hopefully be 1) to speed up the decoupling of healthcare from employment and 2) to energize the Move To Amend movement which seeks to make clear – by constitutional amendment – that We The People does not mean We The Corporations.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    June 30, 2014 2:36 p.m.

    I can imagine the people who are happy about this are strutting around and pointing their fingers at those who oppose it. Better get off your pedestal before it breaks and remember the other three fingers are pointing back at you.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 30, 2014 2:18 p.m.


    I know exactly what types of contraception the ruling was referring to tech. I just used the general term because it was easier. While I thought your answer to the question about transfusions and vaccines fairly reasonable I still think it seems that this one area of religious freedom is getting preferential treatment.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 30, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    These creation of these "Corporations" into these fictous "people" protected with constitutional "rights", but not being "real" ---

    IMHO -- Pretty much sums up each and every prophesy of "the Beast" mentioned in the Book of Revelations...

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 30, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    CMO Beaver
    Beaver, UT
    if you don't like it then you don't have to work for hobby lobby, we are all free agents

    9:31 a.m. June 30, 2014


    Since WE don't like it then WE won't have to SHOP at hobby lobby either, we are all free agents.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 30, 2014 2:05 p.m.


    The Supreme Court has ruled badly over the last 10 years --

    Corporations are "people",
    they now have unlimited Free Speech,
    and of course legalized bribery or our popliticians,
    now - sadly - they have Religous Freedom as well.

    America will rue the day they cheered the Corpoate Gadianton's took total control of the Country right out from underneath their noses.

    BTW --
    This would've have even gotten to this point with a Single-Payer Healthcare system like the rest of the Civilized world enjoys...

  • Jared NotInMiami, FL
    June 30, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    @Bleed Crimson: "Everything the government touches fails miserably!"

    Like the military? The government is incredibly inefficient for many things, which is why the Founding Fathers preferred leaving things up to private enterprise as much as possible, but there are some things that might be done more efficiently by the federal government than the private sector. I'm not saying that healthcare/health insurance is one of those areas but sweeping generalizations don't help the discussion much.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    Re: Henry Drummond "The justices ruled that the federal government can require insurance companies to provide contraceptives as long as there isn't a separate line item charge for it. Its just included in the overall plan. They specifically stated this doesn't violate religious freedom."

    Thanks for the clarification.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    June 30, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    Now, perhaps the politically correct crowd members will practice what they preach when it comes to freedom of conscience (Or practice what they used to preach during the 1960s when they were protesting against the Draft and the Vietnam War.)

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    June 30, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards

    My 83 year old Dad living in Canada also "needs" a hip replacement. He eats whatever he wants, has high blood pressure and high cholesterol and didn't exercise when he was healthy enough to do it. These things have made him a non-candidate for the surgery. They don't want him dying on the operating table, so he'll take his pain meds, and he'll live as long as he has (by his choices) chosen to. I love him. but I understand why the doctors make the choices they do.

    Find out the reasons why they aren't giving your aunt the surgery. Could be the same kinds of reasons as my Dad. Those decisions are not made by the government, they are made by the educated doctors who can and do order procedures based on greatest need and least risk. I promise, they have her best interest at heart.

    If you're bothered by it, why not bring her to the US for a second opinion and if warranted, pay for her surgery out of your pocket for her here? Just a thought.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 30, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    I read some of Ginsburg’s dissent. Her evident disdain for the religious protections included in the first amendment is disconcerting.

    Mr. J,
    yes, religion is STILL under attack – read ginsburg’s dissent.

    I cannot believe some think forcing me to pay for your contraceptives is me forcing my beliefs on you. What terribly twisted “logic” that is. NOTHING the employer is doing prevents an employee from purchasing their own contraceptives. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

    June 30, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    Tyler D -

    I agree entirely. To me, the Executive and Legislative branches have used their responsibilities in appointing SC judges for political gain for years. This is true for both the right and the left.

    Sure makes life interesting, doesn't it? :)

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 30, 2014 1:16 p.m.


    "Among others, this is a reason we need a single payer health care system."

    Agreed. That would void religious freedom claims in a case that is not about religion or beliefs. Freedom of religion was never intended to grant religion(s) a special dispensation from the rule of law.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    June 30, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    Wow! How far have we come. To so many on the left, a decision by the SC to prevent the government from FORCING a company to pay for something that the owners objected to on moral grounds is the same as allowing a company to "discriminate" against their employees. To them, Hobby Lobby is somehow also imposing their religious beliefs on others by refusing to cough up the dough.

    If I won't give a beggar on the street $10 of my hard earned money because he is sitting in front of a bar (and the sign says "need a beer!", please give) and I don't want my $10 to go to buy alcohol, then I must be guilty of discrimination and trying to force my religious beliefs on that guy, right??? Such is the twisted logic of those who think Hobby Lobby should be forced to pay for abortion drugs.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 30, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    The headline is misleading

    It wasn't for religious freedom; The government failed to show the had exhausted all avenues, and had a backup plan in place. The Supreme Court simply said to go with the backup plan. The women still get their coverage (on the government dime, so instead of Hobby Lobby being asked to violate their conscious, it gets moved onto the taxpayer)

    Interestingly pointed out that "A few judges can override the will of the people")

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    June 30, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    @Bleed Crimson

    People who have never lived with a single-payer system only think they don't want it because they don't know or are afraid of how good it really is. It isn't completely "free" in Canada either - other than the fact that knowing you always have it regardless of your employment status makes your life worry "free". Taxes and the cost of living are higher in Canada, because everyone pays in to it, the premise being you or your loved ones will need it at one or another, just like freeways in Utah. You still need blue cross insurance for your meds, eye care, dental and private hospital rooms. But you never have to decide between feeding your family or getting your health care needs met. I can still choose my doctor in Canada, and the absence of malpractice law suits gives doctors the freedom to focus on being really good doctors without fear of being sued. They use state of the art equipment and help develop new methods that in turn US doctors use also. Doctors in Canada drive expensive cars and live in gorgeous giant houses on large properties.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 30, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    The probable truth is that Hobby Lobby will be paying for birth control. Most or all of the things they sell are purchased from other business operations. Some of those other business operations may not choose to exclude birth control from their employees insurance. Therefore, they will be paying for the birth control of employees in other companies while denying such to their own employees. Using the argument that it is against their religion should cover all their disbursements.

    China has much stronger birth control than us, do you think that that they should refrain from buying things from China for their business and their home?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 30, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    I have an elderly aunt living in Canada who needs a hip replacement. She will never receive that hip replacement. She has been put on "pain" medication and she will remain on that medication until she dies. Someone in the government decided that she is "expendable". Someone decided that others are more "deserving" than she. She paid the exorbitant taxes that would guarantee her health care all of her life, but she is "expendable". Obama has already shown us that 10 year olds are expendable. What about the rest if us? Are all conservatives expendable?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 30, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    The scary thing about this SC is that it is almost impossible to tell, based on either the Constitution or past precedents, how they will decide politically charged cases. A far better predictor is simply to note which party/ideology each judge adheres to.

    Admittedly it was the liberals who started us down this road towards a black robed dictatorship with the Warren Court, but today’s conservatives have raised this strategy (of politicizing the judiciary) to a new level, starting with Bork. Gone are the days of judicial restraint and if the Constitution is silent on an issue, deferring to the legislature (and our right of self-government).

    If a SC Justice like Scalia can decide Employment Division v Smith one way and today’s case another, then legal principles would appear to play little part in his jurisprudence.

    The SC may now be the most political branch of our government.

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    June 30, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    @ Hutterite

    "Among others, this is a reason we need a single payer health care system"

    No,we don't need a single payer health care system. Everything the government touches fails miserably!

    Why would we want the Washington bureaucrats be in charge of our health care?

    Let the private sector take care of health insurance which will give potential consumers a choice in what kind of coverage they want. Open up state borders which will create competition among insurance companies which will lower premiums.

    Give people the right to choose their health care plan and not force them to buy one.

    Nobody should be entitled to "free stuff". If you want it that bad, then you should pay for it yourself.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    June 30, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    @ Hutterite

    I agree 100%. By your screen name, I assume you are from Canada, I'm from Alberta, now in American Fork. Yes, I have happily lived the benefits of the Canadian Health Care system, and though there is some (albeit minimal) wait time for elective and non-life threatening procedures, it is still a superior system than we have in the US. If Obamacare puts us on the path to "Socialized" medicine, I say, "bring it on"! But Obamacare is a train wreck the way it is and it may take several years to become something that resembles a truly good system.

    It is obscene that the "working poor" loose their homes or go bankrupt when health issues arise. Health care should never go through the employer. My husband is in construction. When he is laid off, we loose not only income, but health insurance. When there is no income, there is not $700/month for COBRA either. If you loose your job to an illness, how do you buy health insurance in any form? Ridiculous.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 30, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    I wonder how many posters have bothered to read the Constitution, or whether they , like Obama, have already decided that the Constitution is invalid?

    Article 1, Section 8 enumerates (lists) the duties of the Federal Government. Health care is not on that list of 17 duties. The 10th Amendment requires all duties not SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution to be left to the States or to the people. Contraception is a "duty" best left to those who have sex. If they don't want to bring a baby into the world, the responsibility is theirs.

    The 1st Amendment protects our right to live our religion without government interference. God's commandment to multiply is fundamental to many religions. The 1st Amendment prohibits government from changing that doctrine.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    June 30, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    I wonder if the fans of Hobby Lobby realize that it manufactures most of its items in China and pays taxes in China that are used in part to fund the forced abortions for women who have more than child. Until Hobby Lobby fights for the right of the unborn child in all countries, I will not spend one dollar in that store.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 30, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    Actually this is an ingeniously written opinion that in the end will give the Obama Administration exactly what it wants.

    The justices ruled that the federal government can require insurance companies to provide contraceptives as long as there isn't a separate line item charge for it. Its just included in the overall plan. They specifically stated this doesn't violate religious freedom. If the administration does this, then everyone including Churches will be providing the coverage and paying for it.

    Apparently its only the accounting that violates the First Amendment. In the end everyone can claim victory. Nicely done!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 30, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    1. Corporations have more rights than individuals.

    2. The only religious freedom this upholds is that of the employer. For the employees, rights were taken away.

    Conservatives, will you whine when the issue cuts against you? This will cut both ways down the road.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    June 30, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    @ The Wraith:
    Please read the decision. It specifically mentions that this only applies to specific forms of BC such as Plan B and Ella as well as IUD's. It also clearly states that women have other sources for these forms such as Planned Parenthood or paying for them out of pocket. As to blood transfusions there are no alternate sources at this time and vaccines are like the other forms of BC that are not linked with abortion.

  • Kindred Mesa, AZ
    June 30, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    It was a good decision by the Supreme Court, but I am a little concerned that the decision was essentially split along the lines of gender. All of the women on the court dissented as did one of the men. I am concerned that there is increasing antagonism between men and women in this country. It is unquestioningly to our detriment.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    @ one wife only

    Hobby Lobby isn't being asked to pay for the gay marriage. I'm sure they hire gay people, because it would be against the law to discriminate a qualified gay person from the job based on his/her sexual orientation.

    Hobby Lobby won't be firing anyone who has an abortion either. That's none of their business. They just don't want to have to pay for an abortion.

    On a side note - anyone who can't admit that abortion is murder is lying to themselves. Anyone who chooses to have an abortion (rape, incest, mother's life in jeopardy aside) is committing murder, and either is so far removed from their natural sense of right and wrong or just doesn't care.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    Take that....Obama, hope more like it are coming your way.

  • HeresAThought Queen Creek, AZ
    June 30, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    Since when are abortion-inducing medicines considered "health care"? In a culture war, words make all the difference. Abortion != health care. If you want an honest debate, you all need to first agree on ground rules, terms and definitions, and goals. A goal you will never accomplish here is changing one's mind, as adults are most assuredly cemented in their way of thinking. But back to the program: pushing your beliefs on your employees would include forcing all males to wear Jewish head coverings because the owner is Jewish. What the Supreme Court decided was that corporations could not be forced to offer certain types of abortion inducing drugs to employees provided the business owner is religiously opposed to it. Besides, there are lots of corporations probably more than happy to employ you who will gladly provide this coverage.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    Why is contraception so important and special? How can the court possibly say that "religious freedom" only applies to contraception and not blood transfusions or vaccines? Are these lower down on the evil scale or something?

  • Me an Der Lees Summit, MO
    June 30, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Re: byronbca
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Why does my boss get to make important decisions regarding my love life? ...... Why does somebody else's religious beliefs get to dictate what is covered on my health care plan?

    The answer to your question is simple. It is because the GOVERNMENT has mandated it.
    When the people are left to make their own decisions then the government is not in control of you and your family.
    So, go any time the issues arise and vote to keep government out of your life.

    June 30, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    If a medical professional states that a woman (such as my daughter) needs these hormones for a medical condition, will they be covered?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    Among others, this is a reason we need a single payer health care system.

  • Red San Antonia, TX
    June 30, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    It's the 4th of July and time to celebrate our Freedom!

    Remember the Alamo!

    You would think the government would be there to protect our freedom.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    With this, and the ruling on union dues, we head back to the gilded age (almost there), when men were men and women were chattels.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 30, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    The ruling grants religion a special exemption from compliance with the law. A ruling of such magnitude is bound to be controversial when the vote is only 5-4.

  • Jared NotInMiami, FL
    June 30, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    @Frozen Fractals "Birth control isn't an abortion." Not everyone agrees with you. Besides, the birth control at issue in this case is primarily the "morning after" pill, which many view as abortion. If "personhood" begins at conception (and eventually develops into a corporation, apparently), being forced to cover morning after pills is being forced to cover abortions - that's the issue. Others believe "personhood" doesn't start until birth or after (hence the long history of infanticide). There is no clear consensus other than the fact that most people believe personhood begins in the period between and inclusive of conception to birth. That's about 9 months of variability in beliefs.

  • David Centerville, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    People are free to exercise their beliefs. A woman who wants contraception can purchase it. A person is not required to provide contraceptive coverage for others. Again, freedom applies to everyone.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    It's a pretty narrow ruling with a split decision. It's not really a suprising ruling given the activist SC we have had since the Roberts appointment a few years back. It's the world, country we live in. Progress continues to be made and for every small step backwards we continue to progress with more liberities and freedom.

  • Jared NotInMiami, FL
    June 30, 2014 11:28 a.m.


    So by your arguments we get rid of "person" status for unions as well (see Citizen's United ruling which applies as much )?

    Corporations have been regarded as having similar rights as individuals in the United States since at least 1819 with the ruling of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Back then, corporations were more difficult to form (usually needing legislation rather than registration) but that was the start of them explicitly being "persons". The major "corporate personhood" SCOTUS decisions were in the late 1800s and mid to late 1900s.

  • shesaidohkay Utopia, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    For all those saying "just go to the drugstore and buy it" there are two HUGE issues (which unless you are celibates you should already know): women's contraception sold over the counter is not that effective and condoms require the participation OF THE MAN who many times does not bear the burden of the pregnancy. If you're REALLY against abortions (which I am) help women prevent them!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    "All that changes is that women are being made more responsible for the sexual behavior."

    Yes, a group of all men decided what womens responsibilities include/exclude. That's not exactly a new concept this week.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    To "Furry1993" and how will women suffer? The ruling does not eliminate all contraceptives from being covered by insurance. This only is allowing Hobby Lobby to NOT pay for pills like "Plan B" and other similar drugs that will abort a viable baby.

    The question is, do you believe that the government can force you to do something that goes against your religious belief? More specifically, would you pay for women to abort viable babies that are only seeking abortion because they don't want to be pregnant?

    Plus, you and your ilk forget that women can still go to Target and other pharmacies and get birth control pills for $15/month.

    Tell us how not having insurance pay for the drugs impacts the women? They are still able to purchase the birthcontrol pills or else get them for free from Planned Parenthood.

    All that changes is that women are being made more responsible for the sexual behavior.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    Our government is the organization that controls everything that goes on, outside of personal bodies, that is humanly done, in the United States of America. It is the ultimate employer.

    As the ultimate employer, every business operation in the USA, with the exception of churches as shielded by the First Amendment, should be regarded as employees of the society and their government. They should have the same status and rights as other human employees. They should be governed by rules and regulations made by their employer and have the same recourse if they cannot abide as human employees. They can QUIT.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    Wow - we have become completely unhinged as a country - when an employer not paying for birth control is equated with denying access to birth control. Since I have a constitutional right to free speech, I guess my employer should be forced to pay for my home internet connection so I can post of facebook. If my employer is unwilling I can scream about how my employer is denying my right to free speech. Oops! I better not suggest this. Undoubtedly GaryO or the like will advocate requiring employers to pay for internet service.

    If what you do on your own time is your own business, do not ask someone else to pay for it.

  • vangroovin West Jordan, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:07 a.m.


    If you don't like what your employer's rules are, you have every right and freedom to find another employer whose rules suit you better. There is no law that says you have to keep your job. Business owners should have some say in the direction they want their company to run. Why is it such a big deal to allow religious freedom to a business owner? Why should we force them to do something they think is immoral? If people don't like what they do, nobody is forcing anybody to do business with them or work for them, so why does it really matter?

  • SpanishImmersed Mesa, AZ
    June 30, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    Win-win. Private employers' religious liberty is protected, and employees may get their birth control anyway, courtesy of taxpayers.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    @Rocket Science
    "It specifically does not allow opting out of blood transfusions,all forms of BC etc. "

    Then there's no logic to this ruling. Why only allow one religious exception but not others?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    " They just are paying for women to be promiscuous."

    The vast majority of women use birth control for a variety of purposes. A friend of mine used it to reduce cramping, another used it because her sister got pregnant from a rapist and she didn't want that happening to herself too, others use it because they're married and just don't want a kid (or additional kid depending on how many they have) now. Why do you have to assume they're sleazy?

    @Seldom Seen Smith
    "if you could force a company to pay for the death of a fetus"

    Birth control isn't an abortion.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:56 a.m.


    How is forcing a corporation to pay for birth control or abortion freedom? Forcing one person or entity to do something for another person is not freedom - it is a form of slavery. Every penny a corporation pays for birth control, or even health insurance, is a money out of the pocket(s) of the owner(s). You have no more right to force me to pay for your birth control than I have to force you to pay for my auto insurance. If you want to engage in that behavior, pay for it yourself, just like I pay for auto insurance because I want to drive a car.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:55 a.m.


    You're not suffering medically from lack of a love life. If you want one and don't want to have kids - you can pay for your own birth control.

    There is no more reason for me to pay for your birth control than you should have to pay for my trip to Hawaii, which my doctor recommends to help with my stress level.


  • RBB Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    Byronbca - The real question is why does your employer have anything to do with your love life at all. Progressives argue that what they do outside of work is none of their bosses' business. So why should your boss have to pay for it? For that matter, why should your boss have to pay for your health insurance at all. If you want something, pay for it yourself. Stop using the government to force companies to do something that you should be doing for yourself.

    With respect to corporations being people, I have no problem with corporations not having a voice in government - just as soon as government has no say over corporations. The old "taxation without representation" statement applies pretty well here. If the government is going to tax my company and tell it what it can and cannot do - then it has every right to petition government and defend itself from the looters.

    Corporations without a voice is what every progressive wants (except left leaning corporations which funnel large amounts of cash to democrats). That way they can take what ever they want to have benefits they do not have to pay for.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    Gary O and others this in no way sets a religion up to rule. It simply gives people a way to say no, this is objectionable to me, I should not have to provide an abortion pill.

    Gary in case you don't know there was an actual extermination order issued in Missouri against the mormons in 1838. That law existed on the books until 1976. I was wrong in 1838, in 1976 and that type of things is never OK but it is now way shape or form similar today decision. Dont create hysteria on false premise.

  • anneray Kosciusko, Mississippi
    June 30, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    Hobby Lobby does have birth control available to their employees already. This ruling reflects that Hobby Lobby does NOT have to make FOUR (4) meds available to their employees....these 4 birth control meds are for abortions. Only those employees who want an abortion will have to pay for that. Get it straight people! I sat and listened to all the readings this morning with an open mind and I agree with the SC that the right thing has been done.
    Stop your _ithching and go read it! Thank you.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 30, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    "A terrible ruling."

    I wouldn't worry too much about it. SCOTUS knows that Obama's goal is a single payer healthcare system... which is coming just around the corner. Then Hobbt Lobby and other businesses won't have to worry about employer provided insurance.

  • mattrick78 Cedar City, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    "I hope this who are crowing victory will be happy when they go to order a wedding cake and the baker refuses to make one for Mormons. Or to take pictures after their child's baptism."

    How would they know when the cake is ordered that it was for Mormons? Who pays for a photographer at someone's baptism especially since everyone has a camera? Really?

  • donn layton, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    RE:GaryO, " It’s a victory for “The right to life”. No, it's a victory for the right to impose one's peculiar religious beliefs upon the whole nation, at the expense of everyone ultimately.

    What about the unborn child? Gary, If you could ask the child in the womb, "Life” or death, which one do you think he or she would choose? Your parents chose life.
    When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby(John the Baptist) leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.(Luke 1:41)

  • Mc West Jordan, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    This ruling does not weaken the separation of church and state. It strengthens it. Your statement that it was weakened only shows that in your mind that separation means religion can't enter the world of government, but government can interfere with religion whenever it wants. You want religion contained in church buildings never to affect everyday life outside the building and to you anything outside the church building is government domain.

    Corporations are started and run by people who establish goals and standards for their business. They hope to make money while running the business in keeping with their ethics and beliefs. For government to step in and tell them they have to violate those beliefs or face huge fines weakens the separation of church and state, allowing government in where it doesn't belong.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 30, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    @Mikhail – “It may be a legal fiction, but that is the reality since corporations have existed.”

    Not true…

    Corporations prior to the late 1800’s were typically chartered for specific purposes and in the days of the Founders those purposes were always finite (i.e., the corporation was dissolved when the project – like building a canal – was complete).

    By the way, the Founders and people like Adam Smith were highly suspicious of corporations because they recognized they are by definition amoral and have only one goal – enrich shareholders. Nothing wrong with that except when that goal runs counter to the public good, which it often does and then needs to be checked.

    These brilliant figures of the Enlightenment would find the power of corporations today (over all areas of our society) pathological. Of course they would likely say similar things about the power of the Federal government.

    For better or worse we are a totally different society than any of the Founders envisioned (Hamilton notwithstanding) and they would have much to criticize about both liberals and conservatives, much to the ironic dismay of the Tea Party crowd.

  • mattrick78 Cedar City, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:40 a.m.


    An employer can refuse to provide health insurance as they often do. And just like Hobby Lobby, you can refuse to work there. This is nothing new, and so far the sky has not fallen because of it.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    I am not really surprised how many liberals obviously did not read the article. Many liberals just jump to making comments about how there will be legalized discrimination and that this is a WMD in what they want to call a war on women. This ruling specifically allows for the payer of insurance cost, PERSONS who own a business, to opt out of the abortion pill forms of birth control. They dont have to provide the morning after or week after pill. It specifically does not allow opting out of blood transfusions,all forms of BC etc.

    But then liberals like to try to spread hysteria with uninformed rhetoric, half truths or out and out falsehoods.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    Modern day employment is the current version of slavery. The notion that it is voluntary is far from the truth, it is only voluntary if you don't want to eat.

    Throughout most of American history, employment, voluntary slavery, has progressed much, but has much to go. Even if we could get to the point where the employer is excluded from the personal lives of their employees we would still have the control over time and methods.

    The Supreme Court of the United States in recent actions seems to be taking us backward in the progress to bring freedom to voluntary slaves.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    Liberals would have been much happier if Hobby Lobby had lost the case, shut the company down, closed the stores, and laid off all the employees. Then just think of all the wonderful free time those employees would have! Freedom to pursue their passions and deepest interests--once again, at the expense of the taxpayers, the economy, and society in general. I still say that anyone who actually believed that Obeymecare would make things better has a very poor understanding of government, politics, economics, "health" (medical) care, and insurance. Surprise, surprise . . . a bunch of liberals working feverishly to come up with thousands of pages of a bill that was hastily passed with NO support of Republicans was supposed to be a miracle for us, but somehow it didn't work--even with the myriad of changes, delays, and last-minute modifications by the administration.

  • Jared NotInMiami, FL
    June 30, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    I see that many commenters are reacting to an understanding of the ruling that is not correct. This ruling applies only to family-run private corporations (e.g., Hobby Lobby). Publicly-traded corporations cannot have this exemption. Further, 2 of the "liberal" justices sided with the majority regarding the role the Religious Freedom Restoration Act plays in this ruling. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties subsidize other birth control methods - they were specifically protesting "morning after" pills and specific kinds of intrauterine devices, by the way, not all contraception methods.

    I love this quote by Harry Reid: "We will continue to fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage and keep bosses out of the examination room" - so Democrats want to keep bosses "out of the examination room" by requiring them to pay for more health care for their employees? I think the irony is lost on Sen. Reid. By requiring "bosses" to provide access to all forms of "contraceptive care" Democrats are forcing bosses into "the examination room."

    This ruling is a huge win for liberty and the Constitution.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:38 a.m.


    "By the way, corporations are people. That is the whole idea behind a corporation."

    Corporations are only "people" because the Supreme Court said so early in the Twentieth Century in a badly-written bit of dicta in a corporate lawsuit. If corporations are really people, please demonstrate how a corporation can get married, adopt children, be convicted of a crime and either sent to prison or be executed, etc.. If that corporate person can be a church member, I'd be fascinated to see how it is baptized and receives sacraments. Does it require unanimous consent of the board of directors for any of the above things?

    The reality is that they're only "persons" when it's financially convenient or profitable for them to be seen that way.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    Finally, a flicker of sanity. Maybe we actually have a functional supreme court after all.

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    June 30, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    We would be one seriously depraved and decadent people if you could force a company to pay for the death of a fetus, or in the parlance of politically correct liberal doublespeak, unwanted tissue disposal.

  • vern001 Castle Rock, CO
    June 30, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    I hope this who are crowing victory will be happy when they go to order a wedding cake and the baker refuses to make one for Mormons. Or to take pictures after their child's baptism.

    Now that discrimination based on religious belief is legal, the sky's the limit.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    Wonderful, Wonderful Day!

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    June 30, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    Response to Techpubs
    Souix City, IA:
    Hobby Lobby does not want to provide insurance coverage for certain contraceptives to their female employees. SCOTUS agrees based on religious grounds. Now any corporation who has a religious belief can claim exemption to a law on religious grounds. Obviously, they will also need to fight the case through the court system but I do not see what would stop a religious corporation with deep convictions against the LGBT community from acting on their religious conscious with regard to their employment practices. This is not about an employer being forced to pay for a marriage ceremony. It's about a corporation being allowed to choose how its female employees will use the wages and benefits (in this case it's all about insurance benefits) she earns. Imagine a religion who has proclamations which state that children are best raised by a mother who does not work outside the home. The religious corporation supports that same religious belief. As a result, pregnant females are promptly fired so they have the opportunity to raise their children instead of working outside the home. The possibilities of religious corporations imposing their belief on their employees are now endless.

  • uncommonsense CENTERVILLE, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    Do you know if Hobby Lobby provides for Viagra or any other ED drug in their insurance policy? If it's like mine they do but the cost to me would be over $90 for 5 tablets. Not exactly "providing" (I know this because was curious and called to find out). In other words they "provide" it but pay nothing on it.
    This was not about NOT providing birth control but only about not providing abortofacients, ie. the "Morning After Pill". If a woman needs hormonal birthcontrol pills to control her cycle those were provided under the policy.
    At least get your facts right before you rant.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    June 30, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    @byronbca - "Why does somebody else's religious beliefs get to dictate what is covered on my health care plan?"

    It isn't solely "your health plan" if the boss is paying all of part of it.

    It is notable that the ruling didn't stipulate all contraceptive coverage, just those few methods that kill a fetus. Also, it didn't make them unavailable, just available through alternate funding by the employee or the government.

  • Robroy Murray, utah
    June 30, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    How does this ruling interfere with women's or men's reproductive rights? If you want contraception you go to the nearest drug store and buy it. If you want it for free you go to the nearest planned parenthood and get it. If you are unable to do either of these two things you should reconsider engaging in the activities that may require contraception.

  • LP suppporter Lehi, Utah
    June 30, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    Re Gary 0
    You must play baseball because you are so far out in left field on this. The SC did not say the women may not have the desired contraceptives, but that a privately held corporation does not have to pay for them on religious grounds. There are federal programs available to them and /or they will have to pay for them. Finally, I found your remarks about Mormons being killed in Missouri and Illinois offensive. Because their religious rights were not protected by the government hundreds of "Mormons were killed because of their beliefs including many of my ancestors.So please save your diatribes for some other cause you missed this completely.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 30, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    I am saddened by the loss of individuals freedom of religion and the strengthening of religions control of government.

    Perhaps this nail in the coffin of religious freedom for individuals will be the nail that strikes the firing pin in a new quest for freedom.

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    June 30, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi: I would conclude that the real liberals are the ones who support Hobby Lobby's freedom of conscience.

    You are confusing 'liberals' with 'neo-liberals'. The former are interested in social issues, the latter in economic.

  • Kaladin Northern, CO
    June 30, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    Liberals are bent out of shape about this saying that the employers are forcing their religion on their employees by not paying for contraceptives. This wasn't an issue until King Obama declared that they had to pay for contraceptives. There are lots of things my insurance and your insurance doesn't pay for, why is this any different. This is more about King Obama than Hobby Lobby.

  • CougarColby Fort Benning, GA
    June 30, 2014 10:02 a.m.


    No, it's a victory for the right to impose one's peculiar religious beliefs upon the whole nation, at the expense of everyone ultimately.

    Now we have much more in common with Jihadist States than we ever did."

    How is Hobby Lobby imposing their beliefs? They aren't proselytizing at their store. They just are paying for women to be promiscuous. If they want to have sex, they can go and buy their own condoms. What is the big deal about that?

    Give me a break, we aren't anywhere near a Jihadist State, but then again somebody who has never been to one is making that statement. You liberals "what if" a situation to make it look like the end of the world. Get over it, this Supreme Court decision will not effect your life at all.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    Abstinence is still free.

    I thought it was important to keep government out of our bedrooms. Why do you want government there now?

    Medical insurance used to be a benefit that the employer used to attract the best employees. Now the government is mandating that employers provide coverage or pay a fine. I believe that is an overreach of power that still needs to be reversed.

    If these drugs are not covered the cost of the plan to the employee will be less so the employee will be better able to afford to purchase the drugs.

    I am much more concerned about forcing people into plans that do not provide access to medical care within a reasonable distance from their homes.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 30, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    The court seems to have made a clear distinction of the employer paying for a "lifestyle" insurance service that does not agree with their principles, and life saving insurance, which they deemed as not optional - regardless of religious beliefs. It is a very fine precarious line they have tried to create.

    I wonder if Hobby Lobby would allow its employees to pay the difference for the upgrade in policy.. akin to the cafeteria style plans many employers provide. Or is this that the owners of hobby lobby don't want their employees on birth control at all?

    What would be interesting is to see how this is used a precedent with regards to other business rights - for example the right of that Oregon photographer to not shoot a gay wedding. At what level does a business have the right to deny benefits or service based on religious beliefs. This is hardly the end of this discussion. Can an employer restrict benefits for interracial adoptions?

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    Another 5-4 ruling. It would appear that four justices are determined that the government will always be right (except when the president violates the recess appointment laws)when it comes to determining what is best for the people.

    By the way, corporations are people. That is the whole idea behind a corporation. The shareholders of the corporation create a "person" that is to be treated like a separate individual for all purposes. It may be a legal fiction, but that is the reality since corporations have existed. When attributing morals to corporations, might it not be even-handed to treat corporations as individuals. Some subscribe to your moral thought, some do not.

  • Pugman TREMONTON, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    @ 1978

    Well put....that is the bottom line

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    What ridiculous whining from the liberals. Why should a private corporation be required to pay for something they don't want to pay for anyway? The truth is when employers work out medical insurance plans to offer their employees there are already things that are negotiated as covered and not covered so why should birth control be the one thing exempt from that?

    I am amused by the entitlement mentality of the modern liberal, they all seem to think that just because something exists and they want it that they are entitled to it and they are entitled to have someone else pay for it for them.

    If you want to kill a baby then pay to kill that baby yourself, don't expect that others should have to pay for your desire to kill babies.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    I thought courts couldn't overrule the will of the people? Oh wait, that argument only gets pulled out by conservatives when they lose something, not when they win.

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    June 30, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    I applaud the Supreme Court's ruling today. They got it right!

    No employer should be forced to pay for their employees birth control.

    If an employee wants to sleep around they have to options. 1) They can purchase their own birth control or 2) Don't have sex!

    It's been enjoyable watching the liberals squirm over this ruling. It's like they lost their minds.

  • General Alpine, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    yet a bakery is required to make a cake for a LGBT wedding.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    June 30, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    It is hypocritical of the supposed religious who oppose birth controls and then fight against social programs to assist mothers who can't afford to support their unwanted children.

  • Johnnyoh! ,
    June 30, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    The supreme court seems to have figured out it constitutional duties although a 5-4 decision, it was an appropriate one.
    Seems like they found a previous law than was some how overlooked in the obamacare mess of let us pass it to see what's in it method of making rules and laws.
    The guy in the white house can't blame this mess of obamacare on the republicans, no matter how tired he gets of them.
    Nice to have some wins for the Christians, very nice.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    To all liberal posters on this article - The supreme court did not say a women can't purchase contraceptives it simply said that an employer is not required to pay for it. What is the objection to that?

    The more I see in the thought process of the current liberal (PC) crowd I realize that freedom is not valued at all. Forced compliance to their idealogy - for everyone - is their end goal.

  • DBH316 Cordova/Shelby, TN
    June 30, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    So my boss's religious convictions can overrule my own, but it still pays for Viagra. Still, you have a choice to work for or shop at Hobby Lobby. Some may decide to do neither as a result of this action. It is easier to vote with your pocketbook than to cast a ballot.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 30, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    First, corporations became people.
    Now corporations can dictate or at least influence the life style a/o health issues of their employees.

    Therefore the SCOTUS has made Corporations "more people" than humans. We are definitely not created equal anymore.

  • CMO Beaver Beaver, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    if you don't like it then you don't have to work for hobby lobby, we are all free agents

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    @A Quaker 9:13 a.m. June 30, 2014

    I agree with your comment (with one exception -- I'm a true conservative, i.e. a moderate mainstreamer, and not a liberal). You said it well. Good job.

  • donn layton, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    RE:GaryO, it's not a victory for "religious freedom." It’s a victory for “The right to life”. Human life should be protected in the womb, because every unborn child is a special creation of God.

    You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out. before a single day had passed.(Psalm 139 13-16)

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 30, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    This SC continues to establish itself as the true rulers of our country by handing down one Solomon-like decision after another (usually the 5-4 variety). These arbitrary decisions (e.g., D.C. v Heller) contain lots of line-drawing language that make it extremely difficult for future parties to know, on principle, where those lines are, and will likely have the effect of increasing litigation requiring the SC to once again (likely often) to play Solomon and tell us where those lines are.

    The Justices said this decision does not apply to blood transfusions or vaccinations. Why? Well, because they said so.

    There is no principle that can be derived from this ruling that would establish those boundaries by definition. Those boundaries apparently can only be provided by the wisdom of nine (or five) unelected philosopher-kings.

    That said, the practical effects of this ruling are nil as the government will simply open up the same avenues provided to already exempt non-profit employees to obtain birth control, so this is all much ado about nothing.

    But as legal precedent it is a big deal… and not in a good way.

  • Nuschler1 Atlanta, GA
    June 30, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    The Supremes are WRONG! This is the second move by the Supremes to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices! Employees are Hobby Lobby are NOT members of a church because Hobby Lobby is not a church.

    I am sure that Cialis and Viagra will continue to be covered under Hobby Lobby's insurance.

    These "Christian" owners are certainly anti-abortion. To prevent abortion, one needs to take precautions against getting pregnant. Women need to be able to obtain birth control through their health insurance. Birth Control pills are used in my medical practice and by other LDS Ob-Gyns for other reasons.. such as menorrhagia, uterine fibroids. Birth control is expensive...don't blame the doctors or Nurse Practitioners for this. Pharmaceutical companies continue to overcharge for BC pills, estrogen/progesterone shots, and IUDs. An IUD can cost hundreds of dollars! Hobby Lobby pays their employees a pittance.

    It's as if the Supremes consider any intercourse that does NOT result in pregnancy to be a sin. We might as well live under Sharia Law! Shame on these justices!

  • Spas Ivins, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    Corporations are not people. The only reason for corporations to exist is to create wealth for the shareholders, whether the company shares are publicly traded or privately held. Check it out in any basic finance textbook.

    Religious people never seem to be happy with just practicing the religion of their choice in this free country where they can. They seem always to need to impose their religions on everyone around them. I find it frightening. And what arrogance to assume you can tell a woman whose personal situation and fears you cannot possibly fathom that she must do as you decide. I find compassion lacking and self-righteousness overpowering in most religious people.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 30, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    It's interesting how conservatives view this as an issue of conscience or freedom when, in reality, the net result is that an employer was stepping in between an employee and her health care provider to demand that she abide by the employer's social construct.

    Freedom is the ability to determine one's own actions whereas this ruling gives employers the ability to force their employees to do as the employer wishes - the opposite of freedom. This case negates the will of the employee in favor of subjecting them to the haphazard religious views of their employer.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 30, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    As Alito notes in his opinion, this case has nothing to do with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. It hinges entirely on two things:

    1) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a Congressional piece of legislation which can be repealed or amended by any Congress.

    2) The fact that HHS already worked out a "Plan B" (pun not exactly intended, but oh well) for religious non-profit corporations which could easily be extended to cover companies like Hobby Lobby. Under that plan, the government and insurance companies work something out directly that covers women for contraceptive coverage without the employer being involved.

    While, as a liberal I'm concerned that the ruling unfairly disregards the secular and religious values of employees of such companies in favor of their employer's, as long as a compromise is available that provides the same benefit, and this narrowly-written decision doesn't open a pandora's box of religious exemptions for any other laws, I think we can live with it.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    Women won't suffer and employers won't be able to discriminate based upon religious grounds. Employees who want this type of contraception can just buy it themselves. What in the world did we do before King Obama and the ACA went into effect? My goodness, the sky isn't falling. No one is forcing these employees to work for this corporation and the banter about a plan of salvation for corporations is just silly.

    What if the government decided everyone had to paint their building some shade of green? Would that be oppressive or illegal? (Remember that in the old Soviet Union there was very little color allowed in buildings.) This is a free country and you can work where you want and up until now buy the insurance you wanted. In fact, you could even choose your own doctor and then keep him. Does that sound at all familiar, liberals?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    On the surface, this appears to be a victory for religious freedom. Unfortunately, it is another ruling towards the concept that "Corporations are people too".

    "And on the eighth day, God created Corporations" is a punch line to a joke. It shouldn't be public policy.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    June 30, 2014 9:07 a.m.


    San Diego, CA

    This ruling opens the door for corporations to discriminate based on religious beliefs on all sorts of things. Imagine being able to not hire or to fire someone because your religion is opposed to gay marriage.

    Can you please explain this reasoning? I don't see where the employer is being forced to pay for the marriage ceremony to base the refusal to hire or the reason to fire on.
    The SC was fairly clear that there were plenty of other options for women to obtain Birth Control inexpensively without the employer having to pay for it.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    Why does my boss get to make important decisions regarding my love life? According to this ruling my boss gets to decide if my health care covers birth control.If I have a boss whose religion is against drinking coffee can that boss now deny me health care if I get an ulcer that is related to drinking coffee? Why does somebody else's religious beliefs get to dictate what is covered on my health care plan?

  • cstott Lehi, UT
    June 30, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    Liberals will have to go find a new hobby!!

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    I guess this means that religion isn't under attack?

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    June 30, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    per Eliyahu

    This morning, CNN said that the Citizens United ruling may set a precedence for ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.

    Other than the slippery slope that Citizens United & Kelo v New London rulings are, I did not have a dog in this fight and really don't care.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    June 30, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    @Robert Riversong

    "...these so-called Christian profit-makers want to force their religious beliefs onto their employees..."

    No different than the Atheist/Agnostic profit-makers wanting to force their religious "beliefs" onto their employees. It's all about your point of view, and whether you have the inner strength to see others' point of view as well. Pretty sure I can guess where you fit in.

  • Grandmato14 Taylorsville, UT
    June 30, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    Glad to know that sometimes the little guys win!

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 30, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    @Darrel8:30 a.m. June 30, 2014

    I must confess myself a bit surprised.

    Both sides definitely had a case, but the Government failed to prove theirs.


    Agreed. And, as a result, women will suffer. For the general welfare of the country, it's time for the feds to step up and mitigate this issue. Perhaps having the medical insurance companies, as they do for other basic preventative health care issues, provide coverage without charging a premium would be the best way. That would certainly be more economical for the insurance copanies -- they would pay a lot less for basic contraception than they would for pregnancy care, neonatal care for the fetus, and then medical care once a birth has occurred and there is a baby. Plus people like the Greens wouldn't have to fake "religious liberty" to force their beliefs on their employees. Problem solved.

    June 30, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    This is a good decision. Mandating all forms of health care and requiring employers to fund them is an overreach.

    It is nice to see that religious freedom not completely dead, although there are certainly many federal court judges looking to kill it....

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    June 30, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    A terrible ruling. This isn't about religious freedom it's about forcing your religion on your employees.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 30, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    @Chris B:
    "Can't wait for the liberals to squirm and get made over this one."

    Reading some of the recent comments supporting Hobby Lobby vs those who think that the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby have some hidden, devious agenda, I would conclude that the real liberals are the ones who support Hobby Lobby's freedom of conscience.

    Liberals like you, Chris B.

    Woohoo! I applaud this decision. Let freedom ring!

  • Robert Riversong Warren, VT
    June 30, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    Ironic that Jesus was pretty clear that money and morality don't mix, but these so-called Christian profit-makers want to force their religious beliefs onto their employees.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    June 30, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    This ruling opens the door for corporations to discriminate based on religious beliefs on all sorts of things. Imagine being able to not hire or to fire someone because your religion is opposed to gay marriage. That is just the first that came to mind. I'm sure there are many other areas that DN readers will point out in these comments. I wish we could create a new type of corporation: Religious For Profit. That way those of us who would prefer to not support these types of entries could easily tell which corporations were overtly religious and which simply wanted to run a business in the marketplace. I'll be shopping elsewhere.

    June 30, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    That's too bad; but the Court has ruled.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 30, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    Apparently corporations are not only "people", but they're religious people. Does it follow that there is a plan of salvation for corporations so that the corporation can go to heaven, and, in the likely absence of such a plan, that corporations are going elsewhere in the afterlife?

    How does this ruling apply to a corporation owned by a Jehovah's Witness or a Christian Science believer? Can they provide health insurance that, in the first case, doesn't cover blood transfusions or, in the second case, only covers "divine healing"? Health insurance is supposed to cover the medical needs of the employee; not just what the employer might approve of.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 30, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    I must confess myself a bit surprised.

    Both sides definitely had a case, but the Government failed to prove theirs.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    June 30, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Finally, common sence wins out.