Why the Hobby Lobby decision isn't anti-liberal

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    July 6, 2014 5:05 p.m.

    The mere existence of this controversy underscores how much we need to drop the antiquated and rather bizarre practice of making employers serve as the means by which people get their health insurance. I don't know of any social democracy that does that. The idea was invented as a gimmick during World War II pay freezes, as a way to increase compensation when raising salaries wasn't allowed. There's no reason to put employers in the middle of this, and the more we do, the more we will have problems where the government's mandate conflicts with the employers' consciences.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 4, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    The concept of "corporation" was devised as a way to separate and protect the owner, any stockholders, and their collective and separate assets from liability for any nefarity perpetrated by the corporation and its managers. It was meant to create a wall of separation between owners and corporation called the "corporate veil". If legal action were brought against a corporation and a judgment against it was entered, the judgment creditor could only go after the corporation's assets to satisfy the debt. If there were no assets, the creditor would be out of luck. In order to establish liability against the owners it was necessary to "pierce the corporate veil" and show that owner and corporation were so closely tied that therefore owner controlled and was liable for corporation's actions.

    This decision shows that there is no real corporate veil between the Greens and Hobby Lobby. They made it very easy for a creditor to collect a judgment not only against Hobby Lobby but against the Greens as well. I wonder if the Greens know how badly they stepped in it with the arguments they made in this case. Plaintiffs' attorneys are going to thank them for this decision.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 4, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    @ bits 4:33 p.m. July 1, 2014

    If you need Plan-B... you have already made a very unwise mistake...


    You're saying being raped is "a very unwise mistake." Unbelievable.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 4, 2014 12:36 a.m.

    @ VST

    Instead of looking for "Roe v. Wade," look for the word "abortion." I think you'll find it.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 3, 2014 2:16 p.m.


    "Mr. Green is not a business entity."

    The case that went before the SCOTUS was "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby" not Burwell v. Green. Hobby Lobby, the business entity, not Mr. Green was claiming religion as grounds for ignoring the ACA.

    "All of Hobby Lobby's expenses come from Mr. Green."

    Wrong. ALL of Hobby Lobby's expenses are covered by profits from sales of craft items (most of which, ironically, come from China). My original question to you stands.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 3, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    To "my_two_cents_worth" Mr. Green is not a business entity. He is an individual who owns Hobby Lobby. All of Hobby Lobby's expenses come from Mr. Green.

    To "pragmatistferlife" there already are all sorts of over the counter contraceptives, so what is there to do?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 3, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    "Until liberals begin taking that vision of tolerant generosity to heart, they will fall short of what liberalism at its best demands and requires."

    'Liberalism' has gotten side tracked by PC. Everyone runs off like lemmings after a fad without thinking.

    My hope is that one of these times when all the 'liberals' go running off to the far right side of the political spectrum that they will return and find their previous positions are now occupied by someone else, like the Tea Party or something.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 2, 2014 6:14 p.m.

    @ VST

    "The Supreme Court has made their decision..Deal with it and quit your incessant griping..."

    It occurred to me that this case would never have been filed if anti-abortionists had taken your advice and just dealt with the Roe v. Wade decision.

    Besides, this is one of Americans' favorite pastimes. If you don't like it, stop reading the paper.

    @ UtahBlueDevil

    "You want to play like adults, you need to be prepared for everything that comes with that."

    The classic "double-standard response." Well done!

    Has anyone ever noticed how the standard operating procedure of males with an authoritarian bent is, "We have all of the authority, but none of the responsibility?" That's a sweet position to hold. Maintaining it is one of the primary purposes of some religions, including the Greens'.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 2, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    So conservatives you want the government off your back, you want a smaller government, you want deregulation, you don't want to pay for someone else's medical expenses, here's an idea that will do all of the above and solve the whole contraception problem. Make all contraceptives an over the counter item and you're done.

    Bobby Jindal supports it.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 2, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    "To those who think that this is a victory for corporations, you are wrong"

    Now that is about as silly as it gets. Mr. Green would have no ability at all to tell you what birth control you could use except for the fact that he is your employer. The ACA has a mandate that says employers must provide contraception coverage. Both influences on you are because of your employment. But for your employment you and you alone make all decisions about contraception. So Mr. Green as an individual citizen didn't win anything. Mr. Green as an employer won. Corporations won, and it is true that decision continues this courts practice of expanding corporate privileges.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 2, 2014 4:52 p.m.

    @ RedShirt

    "To those who think that this is a victory for corporations, you are wrong. This is a victory for individual liberty."

    You are going to have to explain to me how granting religious rights to a business entity thereby giving it power to impose "its" religious beliefs on its employees and/or curtail the employees ability to practice a religious belief contrary to that of the business entity is in anyway, shape, form or fashion protecting of "individual liberty."

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    July 2, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    I love liberal tears.
    What they are arguing is that women, apparently, cannot be trusted to control themselves, and are such sluts that they need their employers to pay for all of their birth control, since birth control is a constitutional right or something.

    Because, clearly, before 2008 and Obamacare, women were being oppressed by having to buy a pack of condoms themselves. It's a war on women!

    News flash: Health insurance is not a right. You do NOT have to have an insurance card to see a doctor (at least, not yet... just wait until the liberals declare they know what you need for health more than you do). You do not have to sign up for your employer's health care plan, if they offer one. Perhaps, and this requires some thought, liberals, --maybe a woman would prefer a cheaper plan that does not cover birth control, because (and this is the hard part) that woman knows she is a responsible person who is in control of her life and if she has sex, will be responsible--and take care of it herself, rather than have her boss all up in her sex life. Inconceivable, I know.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 2, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    Bountiful, UT
    I have a comment to all those who do not like this recent decision from the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court has made their decision. Per our Constitution, they have the final say.

    Deal with it and quit your incessant griping about something you have absolutely no control over.

    12:21 p.m. July 2, 2014


    I'm sorry,
    please forgive me,
    I thought you were talking about the ACA [Obamacare].

    BTW -- Please don't be a hypocrite.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 2, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    To "CHS 85" but that isn't a problem either because, according to the JWs, there are artificial blood alternatives that they approve of to replace blood. So, even if you need blood, you can get it and still be inline with the JW religion.

    To those who think that this is a victory for corporations, you are wrong. This is a victory for individual liberty. It is against the religious beliefs of David Green to pay for abortions. He has no problem paying for birth control. If you bothered to read the ruling, you will find that it only applies to companies that are privately owned, not publically owned companies.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    Look up plan B. It doesn't kill the baby, it's a large does of regular old birth control. ALl it does is stop an egg from dropping if it hasn't yet. That's it. If a woman has conceived prior to taking plan B guess what, taking it doesn't kill a baby. It's not the abortion pill(there is one, but it's not plan B). Spreading that kind of mistruth makes people wonder if you are telling the truth about anything.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    @2 bits

    "hey still cover MOST forms of birth control."

    Yes, Hobby Lobby was opposed to only a few forms of birth control, BUT, the SC ruling itself does not impose the same limits, and there are 50+ other suits pending that will be decided by this ruling, some of which would bar all forms of birth control based on the religious views of the company owners. That's not a straw man as you claim. It's a fact.

    Separate this case from the ruling as a whole and re-assess. Read Ginsberg dissent and re-assess.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    So I have a question. DOes this mean that any religious employer can force any tenant of their religion on their employees? For example, the Deseret News is owned by the LDS church, but because it is a for profit company they don't have the same hiring rules as the administration of the LDS church, they have to follow EEOC(can't discriminate in hiring based on race or religion) So does this mean the LDS church can fire Deseret News employees who don't follow the LDS church rules, or is this just about insurance. Essential, does anyone know how broad this ruling is?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 2, 2014 9:24 a.m.


    Re: "Of course, when Grandpa does not understand that no form of birth control whatever is provided"... but that is not the situation we are discussing. Try to stay on topic.

    They still cover MOST forms of birth control. That was my point! That most are still covered. And they you swing wildly into the "They won't provide ANY birth control" (straw man)...

    What they don't cover (the morning after pill) is used when you engage in unprotected sex and then regret it in the morning (that's a mistake).

    They cover MOST forms of contraception. Just not the kind that kill the baby after conception.

    I suspect that 95% of their employees will be happy with the forms of contraception they DO cover. The other 5% may have to pay some out of pocket costs to get the type THEY want.


    If you have an abusive husband... you have more than an insurance problem, and you need to get OUT (not get new insurance that will cover plan-B pills for you)


    Bottom line.. they are NOT leaving their employees with "no form of birth control whatever" (as you falsely stated).

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 2, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    I would like to expand on a comment made earlier by me.

    What gives the owner of Hobby Lobby or any company the right to tell me how my after tax earnings are spent? Since I have to pay a portion of my after tax earnings to pay for company health coverage, don't I have a say in things? And besides, health care coverage from my employer is part of my compensation package.

    Apparently not. That's not the American way. I am supposed to have a say over things I pay for.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 2, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    I have to disagree adamantly that this is a decision about religious freedom. This decision simply says that a business owner can impose their values on your life as an employee. Religion just happens to be the vehicle for this decision.

    To say a business owner can tell you that you as an employee don't have the same opportunities as other Americans because they don't believe in those opportunities, and then use the term freedom to describe the situation is beyond ironic, it's deceitful.

    The right has been fooled big time with this decision. SCOTUS has never been afraid to restrict religious practices that were deemed illegal, and there's nothing here that wouldn't allow them to continue this practice, except this continues this courts practice of expanding corporate privileges.

    The expansion of the principle of personhood to corporations and fertilized eggs is what's at play here. Not freedom.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 2, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    To those who say that this court case was only about a few birth control measures that Hobby Lobby did not like.

    How completely, totally, insanely wrong you are.

    The Court orders (we learned yesterday) also apply to other lawsuits in the judicial queue that involved closely held Catholic owners who object to any form of birth control. Employees in those businesses are set to lose their all ability to have family planning mechanisms covered by their insurance (which I also imagine they pay part of, since few employers pay the whole tab).

    Plainly, simply and without any reservations, this Court found that an owner's religious preferences trumps the needs of his/her employees.

    This decision is a war on woman, and their right to reproductive freedom.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 2, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    "I hate to tell you but, Justice Alito's remedy is to have the government pay for it. That means you and I will be picking up the slack for the billionaire Greens."

    That is because the cost of preventing a pregnancy is a lot cheaper than the cost of having a child. This is a no brainer for the insurance companies.

    Of course, the cheapest answer is to net get into the situation in the first place. But that is a story for another day. You want to play like adults, you need to be prepared for everything that comes with that.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 2, 2014 2:34 a.m.

    @ gmlewis

    So basically, you concede that this ruling by activist judges opens the door for both liberal and conservative and whatever in-between to a use the powers of "religious beliefs" to do whatever you want with this business.

    Want to be pollution free? Ecology is my religion (this was the scenario you used).
    Want to pollute, same thing, my religious belief is x...

    Wow. Is this what you folks really wanted? Talk about opening a can of worms....

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 12:05 a.m.

    RE: Kings Court "It is hard to believe that this op-ed supports giving a non-person (a corporation) more rights and power to the actual individuals."

    Well such is dismaying but not hard to believe. This whole issue of "religious freedom" is about who will wield power - corporations and religious on the one hand or individuals on the other. The Hobby Lobby decision is massive loss of autonomy for individuals.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    July 1, 2014 11:20 p.m.

    More Faux outrage by the Liberals.

    There are 16 other contraceptives that Hobby Lobby's insurance plan covers. There are basically three remedies for women working for Hobby Lobby 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

    Here's a forth remedy specifically aimed at our good, generous, Liberal friends: find one or two female Hobby Lobby employees, and purchase their contraceptives...in particular, one of the four that Hobby Lobby doesn't wish to pay for. I mean, if this is a "war on women", you folks should be happy to step up to the plate and help these poor, poor women out...right?

    Reality is, Liberals are only generous with other people's money.

    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." Predictable.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    July 1, 2014 11:11 p.m.

    Liberals were all for freedom of conscience during the 1960s when they were protesting against the Draft and the Viet Nam War. This commitment has mysteriously diminished, however, when people began expressing perspectives which are different from theirs (on abortion or same-sex marriage, for example). This court decision simply means that liberals will have to start practicing what they preach when it comes to "pluralism" and "diversity". Religious liberty is not conditioned on whether the liberal community happens to like a particular set of religious beliefs.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 1, 2014 11:04 p.m.

    As I looked at the decision the first thing I noticed was demographics. All three women on the court were opposed. Easy to put that down to them being liberal, much more likely it had to do with gender and realities faced by women that men do not understand.

    On this board I have seen comment after comment declaring that women just don't need birth control, including one individual who compared birth control to a Hawaiian vacation.

    Gentlemen, unless you have been the one to always buy and use protection every single time in your relationship, you don't get an opinion.

    Unless you can describe, in detail, the full process of the female cycle and the effects and risks of pregnancy, you don't get an opinion.

    Unless you have been a vocal advocate against women being coerced by husbands, boyfriends, and others, you don't get an opinion.

    Unless you are willing to listen - without comment or argument - to women explaining why this is an issue, you don't get an opinion.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 1, 2014 10:08 p.m.

    @ Mountanman

    I hate to tell you but, Justice Alito's remedy is to have the government pay for it. That means you and I will be picking up the slack for the billionaire Greens.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 1, 2014 10:00 p.m.

    ‘Why the Hobby Lobby decision isn't anti-liberal’


    What kind of a statement is that?
    as opposed to this:

    ‘Why the ACA [Obamacare] decision isn't anti-conservative’

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    July 1, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    The issue is that the ACA *mandated* the specific medical prescriptions and contraceptive devices. They removed the freedom of choice that was previously available through the insurance market. This has set a dangerous precedent for future incursions into our freedom.

    Surely Liberals who own companies will want their companies to align with liberal values and practices. They would be aghast if a conservative administration were to pass legisation that forces them to use coal in their manufacturing processes.

    They could then admit that ecology is their religion, and that pollution is a sin to them. Problem solved.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    July 1, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    I need etiquette help. Suppose HL comes to my church. Would I address him as "Mr. Hobby Lobby" or "Brother Hobby Lobby", or maybe just "Mr./Bro. Lobby"? This business of the "beliefs" of corporations is going to take awhile to get used to.
    BTW, are birth control pills for ANY purpose still OK to Republicans, or could we expect their banishment by the party of small government?

  • LikeBoth Ogden, UT
    July 1, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    This ruling was not a constitutional ruling it was a statute ruling. It said the interpretation of this law broke another law. A law signed by president Clinton in fact called the "religious freedom restoration act of 1993". So please put the blame where it belongs if you think it was a bad outcome.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 1, 2014 8:08 p.m.

    Message to liberals from the SCOTUS: Buy your own birth control pills, period! You can not force anyone else to buy them for you any more than I can force you to pay my tithing for me!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    I would sincerely like to know ---

    What about the woman who is raped?
    The Victim of Incest?
    In danger of life or health?

    Will she be denied coverage because her employer is anti-abortion,
    Believes victims should make lemonade from lemons,
    that "legitimate" rape victims self abort?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:00 p.m.

    Yes, this decision is somewhat 'Anti American' It provides privilege to corporate entities as if they can assume a religious belief, and weakens that right for individuals, to whom it absolutely should accrue first. The owners of hobby lobby or any other outfit in no way had their religious beliefs compromised personally because their company provided health care they disagreed with because it was supposed to. This ruling is a blow against religious freedom, and personal freedom. It empowers employers to make decisions they should not be able to make for their employees. And it blatantly demonstrates why we need a single payer health care system so badly.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 1, 2014 7:49 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    "The birth control options the DO cover should be sufficient.
    If you need the other ones... you can pay for them. $49.99 at Wallgreens.
    If you need them... you have already made a very unwise mistake... and it's now an emergency and you're going to go buy it over the counter anyway. You don't have time to wait for a prescription so your insurance will pay for it.
    All is well... it's NOT the end of the world...."

    Yes, women definitely need men DN readers to talk to them like a stern Grandpa. Of course, when Grandpa does not understand that no form of birth control whatever is provided, then assumes that women working low wage jobs have a spare 50 bucks after feeding the other kids...

    Yes, women make a very unwise mistake when not refusing their husbands during any time they might be fertile. And the husband is never wrong to insist.

    Yes, using Plan B is not the end of the world, unless you have a heart, realizing you created a potential life, and must now swat it like a fly.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 1, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    Hey 2bits –

    “Don't get all sour grapes when they don't rule in your favor... but praise them when they do”
    You should probably look up the meaning of “sour grapes,” because the term doesn’t really apply here.

    Hey Cowspackle –

    “Yes it is so anti-American to uphold Religious Freedom. I am so glad our country was not founded on such a principle.”

    The United States was indeed founded on the idea of religious freedom . . . freedom of religion and freedom from religion. And that is what makes the principle of the Separation of Church and State so fundamentally American.

    Hopefully, at some future point, a wiser Supreme Court will reverse the ridiculous decision of our Right/Wrong-leaning Supreme Court that has been whittling away at our freedoms.

    It’s happened before. Look at how Brown v the Board of Education reversed Plessy v Ferguson.

    History has shown that that little dark ages of “Conservative” oppression in this country can be undone by enlightened justices as that opportunity arises. Fortunately the Presidency (and its power to appoint SC Justices) is likely to be in more reasonable Democratic hands for some time to come (knock on wood).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 1, 2014 6:55 p.m.

    Saying that because companies cannot be forced to pay 100% of contraceptives that abortions will increase is absolutely incorrect. Hobby Lobby already pays for all contraceptives except those that cause abortions. Of the 20 pills and devices available, Hobby Lobby pays 100% of sixteen. They claim exemption for pills and devices that terminate life AFTER conception.

    No woman is denied the RIGHT to purchase prescriptions prescribed by her doctor, but that doesn't matter to those who have no regard for truth. They want us to think that somehow the Court has ruled that contraceptives are illegal. Any woman can buy a prescription if she is willing to pay for it. No woman can expect her neighbors to pay for her contraceptives. That concept is asserted by the 10th Amendment. Contraceptives are not on the list of items that Congress can tax us for; therefore, the purchase of contraceptives are left to the State or to the people.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 1, 2014 6:53 p.m.

    If this issue is really about freedom of religion then why are so many "conservative" commentators here lecturing women and taking delight in their difficulties?

    Not one conservative commentator has celebrated religion. However, all of them have laughed scornfully at women.

    So please, don't you dare tell me that this is about religion. The cover has been blown. Conservatives are merely interested in control of women's' lives and belittling them.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 1, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals: "I wish one of these articles would fully explain the ramifications of the decision."

    Both sides are too busy spinning to actually clearly report the meaning.

    From what I have seen:

    The decision does not eliminate all birth control, only four specific items - two drugs and two IUDs. All, it is claimed, cause "abortions" rather than stopping fertilization. Medical experts are saying that is not actually true, for technical reasons.

    HHS has already put forth a plan to allow the women so affected to obtain those treatments, if needed.

    Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby covered all four items on their plan up until 2012, according to several reports. This would seem to have been more about attacking the Affordable Care Act and scoring points with the extreme religious right than any stand on long-held principles. As others have pointed out, HL owners also invests in companies that make and distribute these treatments, and does extensive business with China where human rights abuses such as forced abortions and slave-like labor are rampant.

    Some principles, it would seem, are more sincere than others.

  • Rule of Law Pittsburgh, PA
    July 1, 2014 5:54 p.m.

    Seems to me that one way out of this is to get employers out of the health care business entirely. Remove the employer mandate from ACA and get rid of the tax break for providing health insurance. Employers who have any religious objections can just not provide insurance, freeing up that money to give to employees directly, who can then get whatever insurance plan they're comfortable with on the individual exchanges. And yes, loosen the requirement that insurance must cover this as well. Presumably there will still be some plans that would cover the drugs in question, since there's clearly a market for them. Is this a viable option?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 1, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    This decision will lead to more abortions. Happy now?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    I wish one of these articles would fully explain the ramifications of the decision. The court may have left the door open for the gov't to do what it does with religious organizations and that is have the exemption and then have the insurance companies just provide it for free (the insurance companies are fine with this since birth control is cheaper than pregnancies on their end). The Little Sisters of the Poor case is one that challenges this claiming it's just a backdoor mechanism that makes the exemption in name only.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 1, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    Another 5-4 SCOTUS decision by 5 unelected Republican male lawyers.

    Nothing anti-liberal or anti-woman about that vote at all.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 1, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    The birth control options the DO cover should be sufficient.

    If you need the other ones... you can pay for them. Plan-B one step is $49.99 at CVS or Wallgreens.

    If you need Plan-B... you have already made a very unwise mistake... and it's now an emergency and you're going to go buy it over the counter anyway. You don't have time to wait for a prescription so your insurance will pay for it.

    All is well... it's NOT the end of the world....

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 1, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    More of the DN's pattern of grabbing any and all chances to tell you to take sides.

    "Liberals" never call something "anti-liberal". In the case of this decision, the issue is that owners can bring their religion to work, and try to coerce workers into following it.

    Working women who cannot do better than low end retail jobs generally are not the best educated, with the best resources. However, they are equal American citizens.

    Anyone who understands low income people knows that women will tend to sacrifice for the family, perhaps buying shoes for Johnny and foregoing the cost of family planning.

    A couple of commenters here show the misogyny of the Hobby Lobby owners -- sneering at women who lose out on this important health protection because they had to take the job they could get.

    Furthermore, it is conservative to encourage birth control's easy access. Unwanted kids cost money for education, food stamps, health care, and prisons.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    July 1, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    It is hard to believe that this op-ed supports giving a non-person (a corporation) more rights and power to the actual individuals. I understand the argument, but in the case of for profit corporations, it is always disingenuous. Hobby Lobby willingly supports forced abortion in China by paying taxes to Chinese government and supporting the communist regime by outsourcing American jobs to that country. They are also a major stock holder in the drug companies that invented, manufacture, and distribute the "abortion pill." They just played the Supreme Court for the fools they are and now they are playing the public for the fools they are too. Meanwhile, they can laugh all the way to the bank, because this has been about money as usual. If Hobby Lobby wants to win me over, they need to change their business practices, big time.

  • One of a Few Layton, UT
    July 1, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    Not an expert but from what I've read, Hobby Lobby decision may not mean anything. Decision seems to be based on accommodations granted to religious institutions. By doing so, government established that accommodations for religious view points were not burdensome. Apparently, had the administration not drawn those distinctions, the 5-4 decision could have easily gone the other way. Of course, failing to grant religious accommodations would have set the right into a frenzy. So in a way, this decision is the best of all possible outcomes. Court based decision on law, not on constitutional right. Government can continue to reasonably accommodate religious view points. The liberal base and moderates will be energized for the upcoming elections. And there really is an easy work around, the administration will figure out a way to provide birth control to those who can't obtain it through their insurance.

  • cowspackle LOGAN, UT
    July 1, 2014 3:49 p.m.


    Yes it is so anti-American to uphold Religious Freedom. I am so glad our country was not founded on such a principle. (sarcasm should be implied)

    Yes I am delighted that finally a win for religious freedoms, at a time when the government is slowly taking away our freedom. Open your eyes, because a Socialist regime is not far in the future. Especially when people sit back and forget the principles this country was founded on.

    Hobby Lobby already covers 16 of the 20 birth control options mandated by the Affordable Care Act. What they had an issue with was the two different types of "Morning After" pills and two types of IUD's.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 1, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    CHS 85 - the ruling specifically called out the circumstance you state.... and Justice Roberts specifically said that this ruling does not permit that level or manipulation of coverage. The ruling makes it very clear that "life saving" restrictions are not allowed.

    This is a very American ruling. You have a choice who you work for. If you don't believe in the restrictions your employer places on you, work somewhere else. If you don't like the beliefs of the employer, shop somewhere else. If you want to work at HobbyLobby, and know the beliefs of the management, then expect to pay for that additional medical coverage yourself.

    I don't think that the employer should have the right to fire you if you use birth control, or are gay, or are of another political persuasion, so long as it doesn't impact your ability to do your job. That is a whole different matter. Don't expect a Muslim employer to buy you alcohol. Don't require a jewish owned business to be open on Saturday. Don't expect me to reimburse expenses for a sales person and his client at a "gentleman's" club - not going to happen.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 1, 2014 3:48 p.m.


    We now know that insurance for all forms of birth control are up to the owner's of closely held companies. And I would imagine that a lawsuit is on the horizon to challenge even that. Soon, I predict, any business entity can claim religious exemptions for all kinds of discriminatory behavior.

    It is a war on a woman's reproductive freedom for her employer to tell her that she can get her birth control included in her compensation package which includes health insurance. If an employer sought to rid coverage for that little blue pill that is advertised so much on TV for the male of the species, we would have a revolution. However, it must give men and conservatives great joy to know that they have inflicted harm on woman's health.

    Shameful, just shameful.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 1, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    The Church of the Almighty Dollar, formed by corporations in the early part of 21st century, set about to write a set of religious tenets that give advantage to Corporations over their employees.

    The great problem of having corporate citizens is that they aren't like the rest of us.
    As Baron Thurlow in England is supposed to have said, "They have no soul to save, and they have no body to incarcerate."

    Corporations were given the rights of immortal persons. But then special kinds of persons, persons who had no moral conscience. These are a special kind of persons, which are designed by law, to be concerned only for their stockholders. And not, say, what are sometimes called their stakeholders, like the community or the work force or whatever.

    Bad Decision

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 1, 2014 3:28 p.m.


    Re: "It's about being anti-American"...

    Come on.. grow up.

    You will be on the other side when the SC decides that marriage can't be limited. Don't get all sour grapes when they don't rule in your favor... but praise them when they do.

    The court is trying to be consistent... you should too.

    It's the Supreme Court's job to decide these issues (not ours). They don't always have to rule the way you want them to... or they're "Anti-American".

    I'm pretty much expecting the SC to have to rule on SSM soon. And I expect them to show the same NON-partisan logic (and make SSM legal). And I promise to not throw a "it's anti-American" tantrum when they do. I suspect we will have SOME who do though.

    What's "Anti-American" about it??

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    Most women "need" birth control like I "need" a vacation to Hawaii because my doctor said it will lower my stress.

    As soon as the libs foot the bill for my trip to Hawaii I'll help pay for their birth control.

    Yes, its a loss for the liberals. And I love it!


  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 1, 2014 2:54 p.m.


    They are delighted until they have surgery and get stuck with a $10K hospital bill when they need five pints of blood and come to find out their health insurance doesn't cover transfusions because the company is owned by a Jehovah's Witness.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 1, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    This ridiculous Supreme Court decision isn't about being anti-Liberal or anti-Conservative.

    It's about being anti-American.

    This decision has invalidated the principle of the Separation of Church and State by allowing religion to dictate the law.

    There is nothing more anti-American than that.

    And of course, "Conservatives" are delighted.