Join the discussion: How can religion and business work together?

Return To Article
Add a comment
    July 7, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    I love the hypocrisy of the left. It is truly an amazing thing to watch.

    Here we have none other than Hillary Clinton with her apocalypic statements of how women's rights have been nearly destroyed because one specific type of company can refuse to pay for one or two types of birth control on religious grounds. Note that the birth control is still available at market rate to those employees.

    Yet, when the right predicts a future of bigotry and repression of religious freedoms based on the fallout from SSM rulings, there is loud shouting from the left that it is nonsense.

    I sometimes miss the world of the liberal, where I could create my own safe version of reality and get the government to shut out all the "bad people" who disagree with me....

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 7, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    To "Mister J" and what is your point? So they didn't have a book that you wanted. You do realize that you went into a bookstore that carries books primarily for the LDS church, and other books that it feels reflects the values of that church.

  • SuziQ Springville, UT
    July 7, 2014 12:24 a.m.

    If you are talking about the true cost of insurance to individuals, you need to broaden your baseline. According to many of the comments, I am an anomaly, because I now receive less coverage of what I need for $1800 a month rather than more coverage at $1200 a month. We had a good health care plan which covered our family needs quite well. It is now illegal, because we did not have maternity insurance. Good thing I am paying an extra $600 a month for a benefit that I am not physically capable of ever taking advantage of. My tubes were tied and I am menopausal. Maybe some people have more benefit, but I sure don't. In fact, what I do need has now doubled in cost. My medicine price has doubled. My benefits have gone down. My premium has gone up. These are my facts.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 5, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    In the name of religious principles some don't want to pay for drugs they believe enable an action they find objectionable. I do understand this and even agree (although not for religious reasons). But this isn't the reality on the ground. The reality is that it isn't a matter of whether we pay, but when. No one escapes this, no matter what their principles or what SCOTUS says.

    The reality is that when women have access to birth control, unwanted pregnancies and abortions decrease. When they don't, these things increase as do the financial and social costs we already know are associated with unwanted children. So we can pay now and reduce our costs or we can pay later when its more expensive. SCOTUS just gave a few people and institutions the right to make us pay more later.


  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 4, 2014 1:56 p.m.


    I pay my part of healthcare, but I have to still pay a co-payment when I see a doctor and I have to pay many thousands of dollars if I visit a hospital. Using YOUR logic, I should not have to pay anything. Are YOU willing to pay my co-payments and my deductibles? If not, your assertions are baseless.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 3, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    Since Government seems to be injecting itself into BOTH now days... maybe the better question is... can GOVERNMENT and Business work together. And can Government and Religion work together. And can Government mandate that businesses violate peoples religious beliefs at work?

    Obviously business and religion can work together, they have for years. The question is... with our NEW partner (Government) sitting beside us and mandating what we do, and affecting BOTH... does it work?

    It seems like, "you must accept gay marriage", and "you must fund abortions", is the mantra of the Government worshipers today.

    Even IF the Government accepts gay marriage... does that mean I must accept it? I mean I don't have to accept it as "normal", but I do have to accept it as "marriage".

    And if someone doesn't want to fund someone elses abortion... can the Government force them to do it? I don't think so. That's something you have to do on your own.

    I'm not saying you can't have an abortion, you can have it... that's your right... I'm just saying don't force ME to pay for it.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2014 2:30 p.m.


    "Why can't religion co-exist with business?... Has anybody ever gone to Deseret Book?"

    I tried to get a copy of Under the Banner of Heaven & was unsuccessful.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 3, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    To "Laura Bilington" you are saying that even the CBO has an axe to grind? Who does the CBO hate? The SL Trib, what axe do they have to grind?

    I don't think you actually looked at them because had you actually read them and looked at them, I had liberal, conservative, and neutral sources that all say the same thing. Government mandates on insurance companies raise the cost of insurance.

    Please read the articles, don't just look at the source and then dismiss it. They all explain how mandating things like autism and mental health issues raises "TOTAL medical costs to people" in a state or across the nation.

    Another great source the Batton Rouge Area Chamber and their report "The True Effects of Comprehensive Coverage: Examining State Health Insurance Mandates". Their report is from 2007 (Pre-Obama), and they are really good at explaining how insurance mandates raise the cost of insurance.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 3, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    RedShirt, you have just proved my point. Every one of these sources--particularly the Washington Policy Center, has an ax to grind. And NONE of these "reports" mentions TOTAL health care costs to individuals, which is the real number that matters. And if you can't come up with a real example (not something patently silly like the hangnails one), then don't make your claim. If policies today cover autism and mental health (which some didn't before), and they cost more, how has that increased TOTAL medical costs to people? Only to the people who never get sick. And you can't stay in that cohort forever.

    There's a reason that people who get their news from biased sources (think Fox News) score lower on tests measuring knowledge of current events than people who don't watch the news at all.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 3, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    The only faith that is protected by the decision is that of the owner of the company.

    Why does religion have to be part of the work place? I don't go to work to get a dose of religion, I have church for that.

    This is about protecting institutions, not the liberty of individuals.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 3, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    @one vote

    Re: "All profits to the poor"...

    A grand sentiment, but ridiculous in reality.

    Who in their right mind would risk everything and work his fingers to the bone to start his own company... if the only possible reward of his labor was... All the profits went to the poor?

    Nobody would start new companies... and how would THAT be for the poor?

    You have to see things in reality.


    The boss should SHARE the profit with the poor... but not ALL profit to the poor.

    And most bosses do help the poor.

    What gets MOST people out of the ranks of the poor?
    Why are YOU not among the ranks of the poor?

    You guessed it... a pay-check.

    And where do pay-checks come from? You guessed it... the evil guy who started the company and then hired you to help him.

    So in a way they are helping the poor.

    But I wouldn't demand "ALL" profit go to the poor... that's just not reality talk.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 3, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    To "Laura Bilington" I am not cherry picking stats. If you don't believe that it is government adding to the cost of insurance, just think about what government does and what the insurance companies do in response. If the government mandates that health insurance begin to cover treatment for hangnails with a $0 co-pay, how do you think the insurance company will cover that new cost?

    Now, if you still can't figure out how government adds to cost, read the following:

    "The Cost of Health Insurance Mandates in Washington" Washington Policy Center

    "The Cost of Care" Connecticut Business and Industry Association

    "Utah autism treatment coverage bill clears first hurdle " SL Trib

    "An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" CBO shows that premiums will raise

    Is that enough for you to believe that adding mandates will cause insurance premiums to rise?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    All profits to the poor.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 3, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    RedShirt, if you really want to know what is going on, you probably should read articles written by people who DON' pick statistics to prove their point. "Government has been making insurance more expensive for decades" ? Insurance companies set their premiums; state insurance offices either approve them or don't. Hospitals and Big Pharma are making billions in profits--I don't believe "government" is telling them what to charge. The average person is concerned with TOTAL medical costs, not merely an insurance premium. All individual policies had a pre-existing conditions clauses and limits; now they don't. Some didn't cover hospitalization at all. Some were cheap-- because they paid out virtually nothing. As a group, the new policies PLUS the out-of-pocket costs are costing LESS than the old ones plus out-of-pocket costs. Just talking about the premium costs is deceptive.

    My son had no coverage. His wife's work policy covered herself and their son. Their new insurance (not through her work) covers all three with better benefits for $120 a month LESS than before.

    Single payer would have been better still. But Obamacare is a welcome start.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 3, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    "Can they co-exist" and "how can they work together"... are 2 very different topics.

    Of course they can co-exist. They do today, and the sky isn't falling.

    Can they work together... Of course they CAN. The better question is, SHOULD THEY?

    IMO with very few exceptions (where religion IS your business), business and religion should be separate. But at work you are still tolerant of ALL religions.

    You don't lose your religious convictions and obligations just because what you are doing is "business". We need to take our selves to work. And part of our self is our religion. I can't make decisions at work that violate my religious code (and I shouldn't be forced to).

    Some workers decisions just affect themselves and customers they work with. Manager's decisions affect a team. And the owner's decisions CAN affect the whole company. But you can't just throw your moral code out the window when you go to work. And you shouldn't be forced to (By the government OR the boss).

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 3, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    To "Laura Bilington" isn't a lie. Government has been making insurance more expensive for decades, but Obamacare really added a lot all at once. Read the DN article "Obama's health care law to raise claims cost 32 percent". The Society of Actuaries found that insurance was going to raise by 32%. They were wrong. Forbes reported what the actual increase in premiums was last November. Read "49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41%" where we see the AVERAGE increase was 41%.

    Do you know more than the Society of Actuaries or the Manhattan Institute?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 3, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    Why does religion need to be in the mix of business and people at all? It's the one component that offers no basis in fact or evidence of reality. If we're going to let myths determine our health care options via empowered corporations, it's time to take health care decision making away from them entirely.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 3, 2014 8:37 a.m.


    You wrote:

    "Who owns business?

    Who creates the opportunity for a business operation?

    Who creates the need for a business operation?

    Who provides the customers for a business operation?

    Who provides the workers for a business operation?

    Who specifies the quantity, quality and the manner of creation of the product?

    Who provides the infrastructure needed for the business operation?

    Who provides the protection from other businesses for the business operation?

    Who provides the rules and regulations for the business operation?

    Who pays for all the costs, wages, taxes and profits?

    The answer to all of the above is Society and its agent called government."


    I disagree completely. Look at the business license. It is not issued to society. It is issued to the business owner.

    Check with the accountant. The business, not society pays for everything on that list.

    Who PAYS the workers for their service? The business owner, not society.

    Obama is using your theory. He thinks that he can hire everyone to work for government. He is failing. America is failing.

    Religion says, "Thou shalt not covet". It's time to listen.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 3, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    Who owns business?

    Who creates the opportunity for a business operation?

    Who creates the need for a business operation?

    Who provides the customers for a business operation?

    Who provides the workers for a business operation?

    Who specifies the quantity, quality and the manner of creation of the product?

    Who provides the infrastructure needed for the business operation?

    Who provides the protection from other businesses for the business operation?

    Who provides the rules and regulations for the business operation?

    Who pays for all the costs, wages, taxes and profits?

    The answer to all of the above is Society and its agent called government.


    Who provides the money to build, run and create the product?

    Who gets all the profit?

    The answer to these questions is the Investor, who loans the business operation some of his surplus money.


    Who has risk?

    The investor may lose his money.

    The worker may lose time in this life, it's not just at risk, it's gone, even if the business succeeds.

    The society may lose the service it was expecting along with all the time and effort that is lost, not just at risk.

  • coltakashi Richland, WA
    July 3, 2014 5:12 a.m.

    The people who are attacking the notion that a corporation can have religious freedom rights are hypocrites, because they would be among the first to insist that, if a corporation owned by a family had committed religious discrimination, that the "corporate veil should be pierced", and the owners held liable in their personal capacity.

    A closely held corporation is a legal alternative to a partnership, in which each partner is legally liable for the debts and the legal violations of any other partner. The corporation limits the liabilities to the assets owned by the business, but there are exceptions in which the owners can be held personally liabe, because it is recognized that the corporation is an "alter ego" of its owner-operators.

    Many for-profit corporations have religious purposes. They produce books, magazines, web sites, music, movies and computer games with religious content. Decorative items we display in our homes that have religious themes have to be made, distributed and sold by someone, someone like Hobby Lobby! Punishing religious companies is a way to punish the free exercise of religion.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 3, 2014 3:49 a.m.

    Redshirt, the claim of "Instead they made insurance more expensive and added the bonus problem of making insurance cover less than it did before." is nonsense. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true.

    The plans that were canceled did NOT meet the minimum standards. Pre-existing conditions are covered, the lifetime limits are gone, and the costs are LESS than the insurance companies estimated. And these companies are in business to make a profit--and they're not complaining. How does this jive with your gloom and doom announcements?

    You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

  • MormÓn de SunDevil Nation Mesa, AZ
    July 2, 2014 8:04 p.m.

    It's America - and - no matter how hard some try to erode the foundation.... the magic is the connection between effort/risk/reward and ones beliefs (aka motivations).

    The SCOTUS for the win.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 2, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    There are many who drink the cool-aid being presented here that those who ONLY work 40 hours a week are entitled to own a company without investing their money and taking risks. They want others to take the risks. They want others to put their money into a company, but they refuse to do anything above the very minimum until the company is profitable; then, just like the animals in "chicken little", they want to eat at the table without paying and without sharing the real work.

    That theory is nothing new. Almost every country that tried it has ruined its economy. Why not spend time in France, Italy, Spain, Greece or Russia. They tried and lost.

    The founders of this nation believed that those who put their necks on the line should reap the rewards. Many liberals think that they should just stick out their hand and demand the profits.

    God taught us the parable of the talents and of the harvest. The irreligious ignore religion and demand food without sowing, without weeding, without harvesting, without grinding, without cooking.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 2, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    It saddens me to hear an American claim all the credit for his success in the society of America. It is sadder still that an American cannot lift himself above the jungle and join the mass of people searching for the good life by working together.

    I am a strong believer in the notion that everything that is America has come about by people working together and not by individuals in disarray. The jungle law has done us well and produced a being that can defeat the jungle, but the future of mankind's survival is with the group and not the jungle.

    For the most part, the other critters come into being and eventually become extinct because they have no control over their fate. Mankind has a thinking brain that can effect his environment.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 2, 2014 5:41 p.m.

    The problem here is not that women are being denied contraception. The real problem is that a business is allowed to substitute the religious beliefs of its owners for the medical judgment of the woman's physician as to what is best for her. And while a woman can purchase those prescriptions with her own money, the reality is that many of the employees aren't paid enough that they can afford the additional costs.

    What's the solution? We already know that most of the people on Medicare are quite happy with it. Why not expand it to cover everyone in the country, eliminating both employers and insurance companies from the health care industry?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 2, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    In America, those who take the risks get to keep the profits. If they can convince people to work for them at below market prices, then they will make a larger profit UNTIL another business values those employees more and pays them better.

    In my first business. I bought an IMSAI computer for about $7,000 with all the attachments that I needed. Using that computer generated a profit so that I could buy an AlphaMicro for $19,000. That computer let me do the work of six people. My business prospered. I prospered. I was able to raise eight children. Who took the risk? Who did the work? Who deserved the profit?

    My religion taught me that I was responsible to provide the necessities of life to my family. With God's help, I was able to do that. Government did not buy those computers. Government did not run the machines. No one on welfare stopped by to lend a hand. But, government took tens of thousands out of my pocket and let me work 80 hour weeks!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 2, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    Business as an institution, is a wholly owned process of the society wherein a private business operation can exist.

    A private business operation exists only with permission from the society and its government and usually implies that the business operation will abide by the civil laws of that society.

    The basic purpose of business is to provide a service to the society. It is an income producer when it does its job.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    July 2, 2014 2:07 p.m.

    So what would stop a Christian Scientist from giving employees an "insurance" policy that is a list of faith healers,(as they don't believe in modern medicine) What about business's owned by Jehovah's Witness's, can they exclude blood transfusions from their insurance policies?. These are not made up, these beliefs are sincerely held by certain religions, and they believe this as strongly(if not stronger) than Catholics believe that you shouldn't use birth control. Are we really going have to take each religions tenants to court and decide which ones their employee's have to follow? And of course, we could avoid all of this by going to a single payer system.....

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 2, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" why is it all or nothing with you. You complain about Conservatives believing in a good/evil view of the world yet you exhibit the very mentality that you say you hate.

    Anyway, that is just a side not. Conservatives have never said that Congress cannot add scope to their duties. We just ask that they act according to the Constitution. If Congress wants to form a national healthcare system, let them do what the Constitution says. Follow the requirements of Article 5. We only ask that they follow the Constitution.

    Next, why should politicians offer the solution? Typically when government "fixes" something, they end up causing more problems than they actually fixed. Just look at healthcare. They wanted to "fix" it and make it cheaper. Instead they made insurance more expensive and added the bonus problem of making insurance cover less than it did before.

    Liberals do not live in the reamls of reality. They think that if they just make government a bit bigger or make a program cover just one more thing, or throw more money at a problem it will be fixed. History teaches us that liberal solutions will end in failure.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    July 2, 2014 1:04 p.m.


    So why would a business hire someone if there is no profit in it for the company?

    Paying anyone who works for the company (from base laborer to CEO) is a wage. But then there are the investors. Are they due nothing? Is there no compensation for the time value of their money or the risk of loss they take?

    Traditionally, that has been the role of corporate profits without which they cease to exist (and there is no employment of anyone).

    Just curious.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    July 2, 2014 1:00 p.m.

    Problem is my money goes to all sorts of things I disagree with. Even some things I think are abhorrent. I give up, here is some money, please build a bomb and drop it on some kids in the middle east. Am I right folks?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 2, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    OK 2 bits,
    Since you’ve gone after everyone here without ONE proposal,
    And have pointed out endless problems without a single solution.

    You have the podium.

    Please state:
    1. Your plan.
    2. How it operates without fail.
    3. How you intend to PAY for it.

    Rules: As a conservative, you will not be allowed increase either the size or scope of Government, or be allowed to raise any taxes – especially on the rich.

    You will be allowed to use the NSA facility in Draper – since your side put it there and it will create jobs.

    For the rest of us, you will be required to stay within the realms of reality,
    It must not defy the laws of the physical universe, use magic, or imaginary Sci-Fi or comic Book super-powers [i.e., teleportation, seeing through walls, mind reading, etc.]

    Your move.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 2, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    Why can't religion co-exist with business?

    Hasn't anybody ever had a "Hebrew National" hot dog?

    Has anybody ever gone to Deseret Book?

    What about companies like SodaStream that hire muslim clerics to lead their workers in their religious prayers?

    What about Chick-Fillet that close on Sunday's to allow their employees to attend religious services?

    There are many businesses out there that mix business and religion all the time with no adverse problems because of it.

    To "Marxist" you do realize that when liberals are in charge the division in wealth increases the most, and the closer we get to your ideal socialist/Marxist/liberal ideal the greater the income disparity. Just look at Cuba and North Korea, they have the super elite 1% and the 99% that are dirt poor. Is that really what you want here in the US?

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    July 2, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    I am getting cheaper Insurance on my own than what was coming out of my paycheck.

    Being frugal as well taking care of myself and not relying on a large bureaucratic entity aren't that hard it just takes effort.... Ironically I'm not a 21st century conservative either.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    Religion is a business. Aside from its gospel and the favored treatment demanded from government, it operates in exactly the same way as any other business operation. It has a product to sell, salesmen, and people who benefit from its existence.

    As the owner of other business operations churches and religious individuals act like a holding company. And given that they have economic power over employee, they can have an unfair influence over the employee. Unfair only if you accept the notion that individuals can have freedom of religion.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    The majority of religions ARE businesses.
    Take a look at how they make money and what they're doing with it.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    And regrading profit, ever since John Calvin, making profits is a sign of a capitalist's elect status in the hereafter.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    Re: Tyler D "So there’s no value ...[f]or those with the entrepreneurial skills needed to run a business?"

    If the owner is "paid" for their managerial talent (nobody says they shouldn't be) that is a wage. Anything above that is profit, which comes out of the hide of labor. No business hires somebody unless they can make money off of the person hired. The person hired is never compensated completely for the value he adds. Otherwise, why would he be hired?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 2, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    @marxist – “The value for which they are not compensated is surplus value - the source of profit.”

    So there’s no value (or compensation to be paid) for both those who have saved up their own money and are now investing it in the business, or those with the entrepreneurial skills needed to run a business?

    Also, in a free market wouldn’t we expect that if some firms are underpaying their employees, other firms would offer a better wage thereby attracting the better employees who would produce better products which consumers would want more than the inferior ones (why we drive Hondas and not Yugos)?

    This (labor) theory of value seems to be missing some crucial factors…

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    Re: Mike Richards "The fact is that people are paid for the value of their service to a company. When the government decrees that employers have to "match" Social Security taxes, the employer simply that tax in lieu of wages. When companies are required to furnish health insurance, the business pays that TAX in lieu of wages. "

    Most of what you say here is true. Most liberals won't understand, but as a socialist I do. However, I do differ with you on your first statement. It should say "People are paid for the value of their service to the company, but not completely." The value for which they are not compensated is surplus value - the source of profit. In capitalism, capital is always in control. That's why in spite of liberalism, the concentration of wealth at the top 1% continues to grow.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    July 2, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    If we could only detach health insurance from the workplace. My employer doesn't provide my car insurance. My employer doesn't provide my LTHC insurance. My employer doesn't provide my homeowner's insurance. If, as Mike Richards points out, employers are simply reducing my wages because they provide health insurance, then why not provide me with a raise instead and let me buy my own health insurance in the marketplace?

  • use the noodle Casa Grande, AZ
    July 2, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    These businesses just beg to completely cut the ties between health insurance and employers. So I appreciate the work they are doing towards a national health care system like Canada's.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    July 2, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    to Mike Richards

    If its a privately owned company the Gov't should have minimal interaction. Then, only if legal issues (civil rights violations or criminal hijinx) occur.

    However, a publicly traded company is a different story. Interaction w/ the IRS & SEC for example.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 2, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    the idea that women do not have access to contraceptives because their boss isn't paying for them is ludicrous.

    they carry protest signs saying "keep my boss out of my bedroom!" That is just what the recent SCOTUS ruling did. Forcing your boss to buy your contraceptives is forcing him INTO your bedroom.

    c'mon libs, You can disagree with the ruling, but at least be honest in your arguments. Or is honesty too much to ask from liberals?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 2, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    Psssst, Um -- don't look now, but ---

    Many Religions ARE just businesses...
    visa versa...

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    I am looking fwd to seeing comments from the theological, pro free market, right wingers who feel that government is the only evil but only when there is a "socialist" occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 2, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    Does anyone really think that business is "owned" and "operated" by government? Many people are telling us government has the right to tell employers how much to pay employees, how much to pay for benefits in lieu of wages. The fact is that people are paid for the value of their service to a company. When the government decrees that employers have to "match" Social Security taxes, the employer simply that tax in lieu of wages. When companies are required to furnish health insurance, the business pays that TAX in lieu of wages.

    No employer provides free prescriptions. Those "free" prescriptions are paid for in lieu of wages.

    Every woman can pay for her own birth control. There is no law that restricts a woman from doing that.

    There is no FREE birth control.

    The outrage should be focused where it belongs - on government mandating benefits in lieu of wages. We are not infants. We have the right to receive a full paycheck and then to decide for ourselves how we will spend it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 2, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    They have coexisted for generations and generations... I see no reason why it would stop being able to coexist now.