Hobby Lobby

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kora Cedar Hills, UT
    July 10, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    I am going to ask a question I suspect no liberal will directly address: Does your health insurance offered by your work cover every single medication that exists and is FDA approved? Does your health insurance offer any non-generic medicine, except for birth control, free without a copay? Why not? How does a company not paying for a medicine prevent your doctor from prescribing it and you paying for it out of pocket?

    There are many medications that people need to survive that are not free, many that are expensive even with the copay. Why is birth control so much more essential than these that people will protest and fight to ensure they can get them for free when it can easily be bought cheaply? If insulin for diabetes is not free, why is birth control? It is still my understanding that abstinence is free and not a health risk in any way, shape, or form.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 8, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    John Pack Lambert of Michigan: "The issue is can the government force someone to violate their deeply held religious convictions."

    Where do I apply to find out if my religious convictions are sincere enough to excuse me from laws I don't like?

    Is this something that can be done locally? Or will it only apply to those with the money to hire the lawyers to get in front of the 5 conservative, straight, white, Catholic guys on the Supreme Court?

    And if my views aren't the same as those 5 conservative, straight, white, Catholic guys will it meet the test of sincerity? Can it be sincere if it isn't conservative christian teaching?

    Or perhaps I should find an Imam... excuse me, Minister, and have him issue a fatwa... excuse me again, but we seem to need a new word - the Christian equivalent of "fatwa" - to successfully ride the slippery slope.

  • genetics Canada, 00
    July 8, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    Abortion is supposed to be rare, even according to liberals, so few people are affected.

    Excellent point- the real problem here is that abortion is used as a means of birth control. Since Roe vs Wade estimates indicate as many as 55 million abortions have occurred in the US alone, which is close to the total number of individuals who lost their lives in WWII. With all of the current means that are available to preclude conception one has to hope that personal responsibility will become a valued norm in our culture.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 10:49 p.m.

    Vapid: It is truly mindless to put contraceptive decisions in the hands of a third party then act surprised that those decisions are affected by the third party. Is the left really that mindless?

    Dishonest: The allegation that women have been denied contraception is a manipulative lie. The court ruling basically said that the Obama Administration could not set administrative policy to force religious people to violate their conscience in violation of a bipartisan law signed by Clinton), when there were clearly other options.

    Hateful: The HHS mandate demands women's contraception only; no condoms, vasectomies, etc. While it is refreshing to hear feminists acknowledge the reality that men and women are not equal/same: It is pathetic for female supremacist's to whine that they are victims when in fact they are receiving privilege. This disgusting passive/aggression is only superseded by patronizing male apologists who feign chivalry as a manipulative way of expecting nuns to clean up their mess.

    Those who demand tolerance and choice but display no tolerance for anyone else's choice, represent everything I find offensive about modern politically correct left wing hate.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    July 7, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    Since Hobby Lobby pays double the minimum wage, maybe these employees who don't like the decision could quit and find another job in a place that pays them minimum wage and be covered.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    July 7, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    @John Pack Lambert of Michigan. You said "The issue is can the government force someone to violate their deeply held religious convictions."

    My father in law is racist. He believes God made people of color inferior. If he opens a business should he be able to discriminate against hiring or serving people based on the color of their skin because he holds deeply religious convictions?

    To be clear my issue with this case is not the access to birth control but that corporations can have first amendment rights. Corporations are not people and their rights should be limited. The whole point to incorporate is to separate the owner, shareholders, and employees from the business. A corporation can not hold religious beliefs because it is a fictitious entity to begin with.

    If Hobby Lobby the corporation wants to hold religious convictions I suggest they dissolve the corporation and act as a sole proprietor where the business and owner are not separate.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 7, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    John Pack Lambert of Michigan said: "Actually, the only people who have questioned the sincerity of the beliefs held are those who oppose the decision."

    So when they used to offer the same coverage before 2012 that they now morally oppose under the ACA I shouldn't questions their sincerity?

    When the Green's invest in the same pharm company who makes the drugs they are now opposed to allowing their employees to use, I shouldn't question their motives or morals?

    When they buy and sell goods from china whom has a well known record, on Real Abortions and human rights issues
    I shouldn't be allowed to point out their supreme hypocrisy and question the sincerity of their beliefs based on Profit not Prophets.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    July 7, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Actually, the only people who have questioned the sincerity of the beliefs held are those who oppose the decision. Forcing Hobby Lobby to act is the only path that would deny the sincerity of beliefs held, and it is only Ginsberg and her allies who have questioned if the beliefs are sincere or claimed they can question this.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    July 7, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    Those who specialize in the issue treat contraception as happening at fertilization. That is when a new organism comes about. Those "scientists" who try to argue differently are stooges of an abortion industry that has tried to use sophistry to cover what it is truly doing.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    July 7, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    To begin with, the Hobby Lobby decision is not about contraceptions but about abortion-inducing drugs.

    That said, to call this a "victory for intolerance" is just plain wrong. The issue is can the government force someone to violate their deeply held religious convictions. The answer should be now and always no. We do not have a right to force someone to do something that their religion teaches them is wrong. To do so is a violation of the basic freedoms in the 1st amendment.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    J Thompson

    The statement "The federal government was not established to provide condoms, contraceptives or abortions to its citizens. Those who think otherwise have not read the Constitution", is not necessarily so.

    The Constitution is only the first few pages of the American Code of Law in which every law, every legislated regulation or preference, signed by the President has just as much power and effect as the Constitution itself. That is, until struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States.

    The federal government was established to provide the overall control of the American people. It is by that control of all Americans that rights and freedoms are secured and made available to all Americans. If we lose that control we lose our ability to exercise our rights and freedoms.

    The fact that certain words are not in the "Constitution" does not limit or prevent the government from doing the will of the people, even if that will does not include every American. If the will of the people was to have government provide condoms, the government would/should do so.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 7, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    "We are not allowed to impose our beliefs on others, not through bigotry, intolerance or through the application of restrictive laws."

    Somehow I think that the writer is assuming that Hobby Lobby is bigoted or intolerant to their women employees. That is a stretch. Are we supposed to take this on faith?

    "Application of restrictive laws"? Well, a law that says if you don't provide certain kinds of contraception in your insurance policy that you are going to get stiff fines even if it violates your religious belief is pretty restrictive.

    I am puzzled how many people who claim to be liberal accept that the government can make laws that require people to forfeit their rights for some greater good. The government needs to fight crime. The police should be able to search without a cause? The government needs to raise funds, they can confiscate your property, car, etc? There is a slippery slope here and it goes down towards fascism.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    I love how it is now intolerance to not want to pay for someone else's birth control. I have a great idea. Lets pass a law that requires employers to pay for tithing on their employees paychecks to the Church of the employee's choice. Now please show your intolerance by objecting to my idea.

    I tell my kids that when they want to be treated like an adult they need to act like an adult. That means paying your own way. If you want coverage for birth control, a breast augmentation surgery {hopefully a term that will get by the censors}, circumcision or anything else your employer may not want to pay for - act like an adult and pay for it. Do not demand that other people buy you things - that is what little kids do.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    As far as I understand the decision, it is extremely limited to this particular instance. It is very limited in scope.

    Because it isn't "life threatening" and the President has already proposed alternatives for religious institutions on this issue, the Supreme Court simply opted to include Hobby Lobby in that exemption.

    There is much hyperbole on both sides as to what this decision means. It was not necessarily a win for religious freedom, nor a door to prohibit blood transfusions.

    I don't agree necessarily with the Court's ruling, but I am glad that they did limit it in scope.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    to There You Go Again last night...

    Would that be a Star Chamber of Puritans or Pharisees?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 7, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    @John Charity Spring: "It has never been the resposibility of business to bankroll employees who treat sex as a recreational activity..."

    I sincerely believe that any couple with more than 2 children engages in sex as a recreational activity and uses childbirth as an irresponsible scoring system, putting an unfair strain on society and other taxpayers. I believe that couples can have as many children as they want, but only two pregnancies and two children can be covered on health insurance or receive taxpayer funded education or benefits.

    As far as business owners bankrolling activities - by your logic adult diabetes, most heart disease, high cholesterol and any accidents or injuries sustained in sports or hobby activities should also be denied coverage. Why should business bankroll those who eat poorly or who engages in dangerous activities?

    There are two real issues here. Hobby Lobby covered those drugs and treatments until the ACA went into effect, and then they discovered religious objections. This is political grandstanding, not sincere belief.

    And, we are talking about women and sex, always a hysterical hot-button for the religious.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    July 7, 2014 4:24 a.m.

    So... the logic is if I understand it as follows. 1. Hobby Lobby shouldn't be able to infringe on the rights of their employees. 2. The $ when it is paid out becomes the employees' property so the employee should have the say so in where it goes. 3. When Hobby Lobby says they don't want to pay for contraceptives that they see as abortive, they are infringing on the rights of their employees since certainly some of their employees believe otherwise.

    But... the law as written doesn't give the employees the choice either now does it?

    Hobby Lobby would have been fine with the employee taking their salary and paying for a contraceptive rider. They never in the past have told employees (nor could nor should they) how to spend their salary. With the employee paying for it directly, not as written under the ACA, Hobby Lobby paying for it in behalf of the employee who may or may not want it. There is a difference. Rewrite the law and give the control to the employees.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 6, 2014 8:55 p.m.

    @Christopher Morris "In the specific case of Hobby Lobby, it matters not what the owners believe."

    Of course it matters what they belief. Your out-of-hand dismissal of their religious beliefs is the very essence of intolerance.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 6, 2014 8:27 p.m.

    "This is not a victory to be celebrated, but a loss to be mourned."

    It was a loss of freedom for all Americans . . . Another successful "Conservative" initiative carried out at the expense of this nation.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 6, 2014 8:01 p.m.

    The letter neglected to address the fact that 5 male Republican lawyers decided that they alone can determine "...sincere religious beliefs..." as expressed by Kennedy in his majority opinion.

    5 unelected Republican lawyers can now decide if your religious beliefs are sincere.


  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 6, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    No woman is being denied contraceptives. They are being told to take at least a smidgen of responsibility and to pay for their contraceptives themselves - about $10 a month. They are being told that their employer is not responsible for their personal sexual activities. They are being told that Obama's lie about some "rich dude" being liable for their sexual activities is equally a lie. They are being told that no one in America is responsible for what goes on in their bedroom except them and those with whom they have sex.

    I agree with that.

    The federal government was not established to provide condoms, contraceptives or abortions to its citizens. Those who think otherwise have not read the Constitution. The Federal Government is a noble government that responds to PROPER requests from its citizens. Nothing in Article 1, Section 8 permits the Federal Government to tax us to provide health care. Nothing in that section allows the Federal Government to require ANYONE to provide no cost contraceptives to anyone.

    Liberals may disagree, but where is their proof? They are distorting the truth for their own purposes.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 6, 2014 6:49 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Make no mistake about it, when the government forces one person to pay for the pills that destroy another, that government is despotic.

    8:07 a.m. July 6, 2014


    Governments similar to ours --
    and Socialist, even more so....



    Countries who do as you say:

    I'll base my opinions on facts, data, and personal observations --
    and leave the hysteria, paranoia, and fear-mongering alone.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 6, 2014 5:29 p.m.


    The SC opinion in Hobby Lobby has been extended to Catholic majority owned closely held corporations. Therefore, employees of those companies are going to lose their ability to obtain any birth control through their employer sponsored insurance.

    Joe, please remember that employer provided insurance is part of your total compensation package with any company. Also, please remember that an employee is generally obligated to pay a portion of that same insurance with after tax earnings as well. Therefore, these employers are telling employees what to do with money and compensation they are paid for their talents and labors.

    This is not right. This will harm women. And this principle will soon be expanded I am sure. In fact, the Hobby Lobby opinion, despite explicit language otherwise, has gone beyond just perceived abortificants to all birth control. This is a substantial burden in legal and moral terms.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 6, 2014 5:09 p.m.

    Employees are the modern day version of slaves. The control over them has lessened but the are still excessively controlled and regarded as second class citizens.

    The Hobby Lobby and their like, would never countenance any other government telling them and their fellow businessmen how to run their personal lives. They consider themselves to be free.

    Hobby Lobby probably will still buy products make by employees of non-religious companies.

    Hobby Lobby probably will still work with non-religious businessmen, even those who have the old-time slaves.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    The issue here is much more nuanced than it is being presented to be both in the letter and the comments. The company owners are not opposed to ALL contraceptives, but just those deemed to prevent pregnancy after the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb. They are not opposed to contraception, but to abortion.

    Hence once again we arrive at a scientific standoff. The vast majority of scientists say that no contraceptive cause abortion, but the company owners faith causes them to take a different view. So now we are looking at a case where the Supremes say the company is not only entitled to religious freedom, but also "scientific" freedom. How can anyone say that this decision will not result in a flood of litigation that claims new rights. Doubters need look no further than the injunction given to Wheaton College last week, when they claimed that needing to file the required form to obtain their new found religious right to have the government or the insurance company pay for contraceptives, violates their religious rights! Look out below!

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    July 6, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    I see lots of angst and lots of opinion but not one opponent to this ruling has yet made the case that this harms women in any way or that it imposes any form of hardship. Please stop the rhetoric and make a logical argument.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 6, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, is against drugs that are abortive, but the company does include 16 types of contraception in its health insurance plan. Hardly a war on women. But we could discuss the Margaret Sanger war on the poor and the blacks. Progressive racial war on blacks, planned parenthood, has limited the grow of the black race in America by 3 to 4 percent keeping the total population below 12 percent.. How many are supporting Margeret's program.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 6, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro­hibiting the free exercise thereof"

    And liberals are saying no they can make laws to force others to follow their ideas and rules. The Hobby Lobby ruling is just such an argument. If we yell loud enough, make misrepresentations, and scream long enough, we will get the federal government to make everyone conform to our way of thinking.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    July 6, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    What I find interesting is that many say gay marriage is a slippery slope because they argue what is next? Siblings marrying and so on. However they do not see the hobby lobby case as being a slippery slope. Under the law of the land certain insurance coverage was to be provided. If hobby lobby, a corporation not a person, can claim their religious beliefs are being violated then why can't a corporation ban blacks from their business based on religious beliefs?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    From truthout - this says it the way it is:

    The First Amendment the constitution says, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro­hibiting the free exercise thereof;." This right-wing Republican Supreme Court, using its one-vote majority, has re-written that language. The Amendment now reads "Congress shall make no law that requires a person to comply with it if they claim a religious exemption, and the religious views of one group of citizens can be held to outweigh those of another group, by law;."

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 6, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Well said, Christopher Martin. You are exactly right.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    July 6, 2014 11:34 a.m.


    Wrong! Satan wanted us to go through life with no personal accountability and he would take care of everything. Jeez this sounds so familiar. I got it! Its this issue here. Society wants us to eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die and if we are guilty God will beat us with a few stripes and we are saved in the Kingdom of God. Getting a free ride through life without being held accountable is a million time more seductive and easier to get people to follow than being forced to do good which only about 5 people wouldve agreed too.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    July 6, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Why do babies have to die just because someone doesnt want to be a parent. Since we are talking about equality, I want a license to kill also. Its only fair.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 6, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    "If anyone believes that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, that person would have to also agree that an unborn baby deserves at least as much protection as the hardened criminal who has been sentenced to death."

    Your error Mr. Richards is that a zygot, or a week old fetus is not a "baby". It's not human. It may or may not become human but it's not, and there is no science that says it is, only religions.

    That's what's tragically wrong with this decision. The court said it doesn't matter if your opinion is correct or not. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    July 6, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    It has never been the resposibility of business to bankroll employees who treat sex as a recreational activity to be engaged in at any time with any person. No truly reasonable person would claim that it is.

    Business pays for standard health care because healthy, responsible employees are a benefit to the business. Employees who engage in irresponsible lifestyles are a detriment to business, and no business can prosper if it is forced to pay for its own destruction.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 6, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    Great letter Christopher Morris.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 6, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    Look what Obama has done! He has turned us against each other where some people claim that a businessman must pay for contraceptives that destroy life! If anyone believes that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, that person would have to also agree that an unborn baby deserves at least as much protection as the hardened criminal who has been sentenced to death. The criminal has been found guilty by a jury, has been sentenced to die, and has had opportunity to appeal his case. On the other hand, some people DEMAND that someone else pay for the pills that destroy life inside the womb.

    Make no mistake about it, when the government forces one person to pay for the pills that destroy another, that government is despotic.

    Nothing in the Constitution requires a business to pay for abortifacients. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

  • Sal Provo, UT
    July 6, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    The Hobby Lobby ruling does not harm women. The government can provide any woman with contraception if it thinks it is that important. No employee will be denied this intervention.

    However, the writer is correct in worrying about what other benefits might be denied employees based on religious beliefs. He didn't mention any specifically.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 6, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    "We are not allowed to impose our beliefs on others, " Here's where conservatives disagree with you Christopher.

    Conservatives believe that religious freedom includes the right to not be associated with, come in contact with, or in any way feel they have been forced to lend support for acts they consider immoral. Now the court has said that right is certain even if their belief is not true.

    This wasn't much of a problem in 1790. Now it's a huge issue because of the expansion of both religious influence and government influence. Still until now the public space (including employment) was pretty free from forced religious influence. The Roberts court however is determined to specifically re-define the public space of commerce as deserving the rights afforded humans (pretty good trick if you ask me). I suppose because it's consists of humans.

    What's sad is at the same time they are purposefully restricting the rights of actual humans.

    Watch out because this is an ideology so until there is a SCOTUS that is more friendly to actual humans it will continue.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    July 6, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    Religious freedom? It was Lucifer that wanted to force us to follow the rules. I can't buy this religious freedom bunk because a) Hobby Lobby changed their positions after the ACA became law and b) they are invested in the very companies that manufacture these products in question and c) getting a tax break is not tantamount to being "forced" to do anything but put money on the bottom line. This letter is nothing if not hyperbole.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    July 6, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    What a twisted argument. The letter writer doesn't provide any evidence that a limit on employee benefit restricts another person's freedoms any more than requiring a person to work on his/her Sabbath imposes on another person's freedoms. He makes no argument, other than his own opinion, about how it is intolerant of others. There is nothing in this law that prevents an employee from getting an abortion, just that it does not have to be funded by someone who is opposed to abortion for religious reasons. In fact, it is no different than conscientious objector laws of the past and present.

    In fact, the intolerance is on the part of the letter writer. Abortion is supposed to be rare, even according to liberals, so few people are affected. The ruling does not affect availability of abortion so it's not much of an inconvenience. The ruling does not allow employees to be terminated for having an abortion so there is no discrimination.

    But this letter writer wants to impose HIS opinion on employers. He should keep his opinions out of the workplace instead of worrying about the deeply-held beliefs of others.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    July 6, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    Religions do have the right and religious people the right to speak out on issues of moral concern. That right is not limited to atheist's or those that religions are on a different version of morality than traditional Judeo Christian values our nation was founded on.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 6, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    If I understand Hobby Lobby correctly, the Supreme Court made the correct decision. They claim they would have been forced to provide a form of birth control that kills a fertilized egg or a ' days old' human being. In their mind this was murder. Its close enough that they should not be forced on this issue.

    That said, companies should not be allowed to deny benefits to employees because it violates the owners religion. Employers should not be allowed to push their religion on their employees. It would be wrong for employers who are Jehovas Witness to deny insurance to employees thsp pays for blood transfusions for example.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2014 12:17 a.m.

    I agree with the writer. Here's something I have wondered about. Do the Deseret News and like minded media support Hobby Lobby because they think providing the contraceptives in question violates Hobby Lobby's owners' religious freedom, or simply because Hobby Lobby claims such does?

    I don't see how any rational person could believe Hobby Lobby's owners were having their religious liberty circumscribed. Apparently it is enough for them to CLAIM that was happening. So if I say some law or regulation violates my religious freedom, then it is necessarily so. This is a slippery slope for sure.