With recent ruling, Supreme Court gives Christian college the Hobby Lobby treatment

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:41 p.m.

    It is fascinating how those who advocate tolerance and choice are so intolerant of anyone else's choice.

    Contraception is widely available, inexpensive and easily accessible. Buy your own pills: problem solved.

    A person cannot credibly claim to be a victim merely because they can't force others to pay for free stuff against their will: that is the behavior of a perpetrator. (If that is what liberalism is all about, then I expect the Human Rights Campaign to pay for my ex-gay therapy and the NOW to buy me a subscription to playboy)

    Those who feign victim status to mask perpetrating behavior are the real threat to freedom and tolerance. The hate and hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby critics is mind-numbingly offensive.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 5, 2014 5:27 p.m.

    The Evangelicals who stayed home on Election Day rather than vote for Romney are part of a huge majority block that clearly see little distinction between 2% of the population that is GLBT and the 2% that is LDS.

    Pastor Martin Niemoller penned "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out..."

    His words are real, again.

    First they ruled against four contraceptives and I didn't object. Then the ruling extended to all contraceptives and I still didn't object. The ruling extended to transwomen and gays and I let it go once more. When the ruling was extended to Jews and Mormons and Buddhists and Jehovah's Witnesses I couldn't speak up. Objecting was against the law because the law was the "sincere beliefs" of The Leaders, no other views or beliefs permitted.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 5, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    @BrentBot 12:26 p.m. July 4, 2014

    No abortifacients are involved. No pregnancy has started so no termination of pregnancy is possible. The only abortion-causing drug is RU-486, and that is not at issue here.

    But accepting your argument as accurate (which I don't), why do you think that a fertilized egg that hasn't even implanted in the uterus and started a pregnancy and/or the body under construction in a pregnancy into which no spirit has joined (and into which no spirit will join until there has been a birth and a breath taken, which is the definition of life according to the sealing regulations of the LDS Church) is more deserving of actual care and concern and importance than the actual living, breathing, live-in-being in the equation -- the woman?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2014 1:31 a.m.

    RE: Stormwalker "Wanting to be able to legally discriminate against a group of people while receiving government funding is now being called a "religious right."

    Exactly. In the new drive for "religious freedom" one can do anything, discriminate against anyone, as determined by one's religious faith. The fragmentation of the United States is well underway.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 4, 2014 4:04 p.m.

    I would like to marry my partner so we can have exactly the same rights and legal benefits as straight couples.

    These "christian" groups want to be specifically exempted from a law that is supposed to apply to any organization receiving Federal money to serve the public.

    Wanting to be treated like everyone else is called a "special right."

    Wanting to be able to legally discriminate against a group of people while receiving government funding is now being called a "religious right."

    Slippery slope indeed.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 4, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    No one forces anyone to have an abortion. Not everyone believes it is wrong to have an abortion, particularly before viability. So no one is saying that those who do not favor terminating a pregnancy must violate their religious sensibilities, but allow others to follow the teachings of their religion, dictates of their conscience and the advice of medical professionals.

    Or is that asking so much of those who oppose abortion, and birth control as well? I think that those who do oppose a woman's right to choose, using their religion, are only trying to turn the US into a fundamentalist Christian Sharia Law style state.

    And anyone so naive as to believe that the working majority on the Supreme Court are using their personal religious sensibilities to dictate the science and scope of woman's health. Heck, they don't even know what constitutes a abortificant.


  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    Faith leaders, quoted in article: "We believe that all persons are created in the divine image of the creator, and are worthy of respect and love, without exception."

    And then they immediately proceed to ask for an exception. Try living your faith fully.

    It looks like the slippery slope that Justice Ginsburg warned about in her Hobby Lobby dissent is getting watered. Should be nice and muddy soon.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    Access to abortifacients is not written in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution specifically ensures a right to life. Do the unborn have no rights? And how about folks whose religion doesn't permit abortion? There is also a right to practice your religion, without the state proscribing which tenets you must believe.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 4, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    Under the guise of a weak excuse that 'they want to serve their community members', so called 'religious' leaders are fighting for the right to actively engage in discrimination. Again this ruling serves institutions, corporations, and various self appointed clerics; it represents a blow for religious freedom and freedom in general for individual people, including those who applaud it.