Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: What it doesn't say ...

Comments

Return To Article
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    Good point.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    But Jenica, corporations are people too. I have it on good authority. So let's just baptize Hobby Lobby and get it over with.

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    So clever, such great wit, until other non-christian religions begin demanding the right to excersize their beliefs and the same crowd this contributor belongs to will switch sides and want the separation of church and state enforced.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    Denizen is correct; if you concede to one you concede to all, including a whole bunch you want nothing to do with. The only workable solution is separation.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 1, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    When Hobby Lobby files a 501.c [not for profit],
    they can preach religion all they want to.

    Businesses are NOT Religions.
    and visa versa....

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    slcdenizen,
    RE: "until other non-christian religions begin demanding the right to excersize their beliefs"...

    Non-christian business owners already demand the right to exercise their beliefs, and not be forced by government to violate their religious beliefs.

    Here's one example.... a Muslim restaurant owner refuses to serve pork in their restaurant. Non-Christian business owners want to live their faith too. And I don't hear anybody complaining. So your assumption is false (that they would flip if a business owner of another faith wanted to run his business AND not violate his faith).

    ===

    The situations are not identical. But there ARE people of other faiths who expect to be able to own a business and still observe their faith. And no religious zealot right-wingers complain. So your pre-judgement of them was wrong.

    ===

    I agree that just providing insurance that provides things that violate your religious beliefs is not YOU violating your religious beliefs (so I don't side with HobyLoby). But nobody flips when a business owner of another faith demands the right to exercises their beliefs.

    And I would not support a government mandate that all business owners must serve pork.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 1, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Let's make a deal....

    I'll support Hobby Lobby's right to not cover birth control,
    if Hobby Lobby agrees to provide for the life of any child born without it.

    Deal?

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    April 1, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    The original purpose of corporate "personhood" is to allow corporations to enter into/enforce contract rights. The expansion of that legal fiction into the full legal rights held by individuals is unsound and inadvisable, both legally and ethically. Citizens United has already set us on a dangerous path without injecting religious rights into the mix.

    If a corporation has religious rights, does it have suffrage rights? Second Amendment rights? Can it be imprisoned? Executed? Where do you start drawing lines?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    @2bits

    Here's one example.... a Muslim restaurant owner refuses to serve pork in their restaurant. Non-Christian business owners want to live their faith too. And I don't hear anybody complaining. So your assumption is false (that they would flip if a business owner of another faith wanted to run his business AND not violate his faith).

    ==================

    This argument is a strawman. First of all, there are no laws requiring every restaurant to serve pork (and would you want pork from a restaurant that didn't want to serve pork). And people are generally free to decide which restaurant they wish any way.

    When it comes to work, the expectation changes. Can an employee working for Hot Dog on a Stick tell the manager they cannot serve pork and expect to be employed there for long? Or and LDS member refuse to sell alcohol and the check out register and Walmart?

    On the flip side; and especially with unemployment where it is at; job hunters often don't have the luxury to find the perfect employer; they have an option of take this job and eat, or good luck finding your own.

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    April 1, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon- You do realize that the hobby Lobby company health plan already covers 16 different contraceptive drugs, don't you?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    OMM,
    Nice shifting of responsibility... but it wasn't HobyLoby who made the decision to engage in the type of activity that results in the need for abortions or contraceptives. So I don't think your solution is fair (to shift the responsibility for your decision to them).

    Anti-Hobyloby people keep insisting hobyloby is preventing them from getting contraceptives. I keep pointing out that's not true.

    HobyLoby is not standing between you and your contraceptives... they just won't pay for it. There's a difference.

    Every person still has the right to walk into their drug store and buy their own contraceptives (they are actually very cheep and readily available).

    Just because they won't PAY for your contraceptives... doesn't mean they are PREVENTING you from getting them!

    HobyLoby is actually doing nothing to PREVENT you from getting contraception. They just don't want to be forced to provide it (or pay a company to provide it).

    ===

    FACT is... Every person in the United States can get contraceptives.. Whether they work for HobyLoby or not. Just because someone else won't pay for them... doesn't mean you can't GET them!

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    When Hobby Lobby stops profiting from business from China and stock in contraceptive manufacturers then and only maybe then you may convince me it's about religion, otherwise it's just another step towards corporate influence and control of our society. Lobby is seeking the tax benefits without the compliance.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    Jenica:

    You start with a false premise: "and the question of whether people in corporations have religious rights, ..."

    Of course people IN corporations have religious rights. Your problem is that Corporations are not people nor do they have religious beliefs.

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    April 1, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon wrote "When Hobby Lobby files a 501.c [not for profit], they can preach religion all they want to."

    I really don't think you want to go there. What you are suggesting is that where a business is owned by an individual or a single family, those owners sacrifice part of their 1st amendment rights. Do you really want to say that they cannot express their world view during business hours?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    FACT is... Every person in the United States can get contraceptives.. Whether they work for HobyLoby or not. Just because someone else won't pay for them... doesn't mean you can't GET them!

    =======

    OK, that's fine by me --
    Let's start by giving them all a Minimum wage increase.

    And when has a Muslim [or, Jewish for that matter] Resturant owners EVER been forced to serve pork?

    I don't smoke, I don't drink - but I have worked for company who did serve them.

    Did that violate MY relgious convictions?

    Strawman arguement.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    @2 bits;

    The problem with your argument is that you allow Hobby Lobby (2 b's in each word, btw) to tell the employee what the employee's insurance premium will cover. That money IS the employee's.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    airnaut, open minded Mormon, lds liberal etc...

    Lets make a deal.

    I'll support Hobby Lobby being forced to provide birth control when you can prove the individuals who are trying to prevent pregnancy had no choice but to engage in such acts that would cause the birth of a child.

    Someone wants to have sex?

    Fine - you pay for the consequences.

    I never asked anyone to have sex - don't ask me to pay for the consequences, or the prevention of a baby because of it.

    Hobby Lobby never asked anyone to have sex, so they shouldn't pay for it.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    I hate to break it to everybody here, but this isn't about Hobby Lobby the business. This is about David Green not wanting to be forced to violate his religious beliefs by purchasing chemicals that are designed to end the life of a fetus.

    Imagine you were told by the government that you had to buy a statue of Zeus and keep it in your house. The statue is manufactured by privates companies that manufacture ceramic products for your home. Would you complain about having to do that, or would you just roll over and do as the government says?

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 1, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    It is reported that, ironically, Hobby Lobby investments include makers of emergency contraceptives. Oops!

    Strip away all the rhetoric, the fact remains, contraceptives reduce the abortion rate.

    There is no scientific evidence emergency contraceptives prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The Beckett Fund falsely, flatly misrepresents how emergency contraceptives work. They are designed to prevent ovulation and fertilization, (as are contraceptives in general).

    Hobby Lobby has the option to not offer health insurance at all and to simply pay the "tax/fee/penalty."

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    Darrel 10:09,

    RE "there are no laws requiring every restaurant to serve pork"...

    That's the whole point of this controversy. There SHOULD BE no laws requiring Muslim restaurant owners serve pork. And there SHOULD BE no laws requiring a Christian store owner to violate his covenants. That's the point!

    I know there are no laws requiring a Muslim to serve pork, but the point is... neither should be required by the Government to violate their covenants.

    I didn't say there was a law to server pork. Just that there should NOT be a law to Christian store owners MUST do something they feel violates their covenants with their God.

    ===

    2nd... the reason for the example was... the statement that we would object if other religious business owners wanted to observe THEIR covenants... the example shows that they do... and we don't care.

    ===

    Last comment.. sorry I wasted one.

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    April 1, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    anotherview wrote "There is no scientific evidence emergency contraceptives prevent implantation of a fertilized egg."

    Let me explain to you the difference between regulatory science and science. Regulatory science is governed by the 'approved' documentation that has been supported by evidence. Science in general is not fettered by the regulatory process.

    The FDA approved safety documentation for the four products that the Green family does not want to cover in their health plan all state that they may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The Beckett Fund, a group of lawyers, is not being deceptive. They are doing what lawyers do and rely on the federally approved safety literature.

    If you want to blame anyone, blame the manufacturers who have not filed updates to the safety documents in order to make them in line with current knowledge about the mechanisms used by these drugs and devices.

  • JenicaJessen Riverton, UT
    April 1, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    Ranch:
    *A* corporation is not *A* person, but a corporation is a group of people. You admit yourself that people in corporations can have religious beliefs. I don't see the difference between "the corporation" and "the people in the corporation". It's like trying to distinguish between "the forest" and "that large group of trees". So if people can have a religion, and those people assemble, and in that assembly they earn a profit, and they happen to call that assembly a 'business' or 'corporation', where along the way do they lose their religious rights?

    slcdenizen and hutterite: You assume too much. I am all in favor of giving non-Christian religions the same rights. (I find it interesting that you've automatically decided I'm part of a "crowd" of bigots.)

    In fact, I am also completely in favor of separating church and state-- it protects the church FROM the state. If church and state had been separated in this case the state would be staying out of the Greens' business. "Separation of church and state" means that government and religion leave each other alone, not that religion should be completely removed from public life.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    April 1, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    "There SHOULD BE no laws requiring Muslim restaurant owners serve pork."

    and in addition:

    Nor should be no law requiring every citizen to purchase pork, AKA bloated cost health care, AKA the ACA, AKA Obamacare.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    April 1, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    Do churches have religious rights?

    They are groups of people, who have religious rights, just like corporations.

    It seems ridiculous to deny churches religious freedom.

    It seems equally ridiculous to deny corporations religious freedom.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    So I assume you all are fine with companies refusing to cover blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses) or vaccinations, or any other random thing a company deems unnecessary because the owner has some sort of religious view? (Talk about bloating the insurance industry, forcing there to be tons of new plans to comprise each and every little whim of a company...).

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 1, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    @Schnee

    Or better yet, these Insurance companies suddenly "finding religion" One trustee can be opposed to blood transfusions; another contraception; another prenatal care; another mental health services; and the chairman anything besides faith based healing and prayer.

    They'll still gladly take your full premium, they'll just take out what they find objectionable.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 1, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    re:JinAZ
    Here's what the Becket Fund (website)says:
    "Most serious is the fact that certain of the mandated drugs and devices can cause early abortions by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb. The FDA's own birth control guide confirms that this is way certain emergency contraceptives work.

    Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for Becket Fund:
    "the way they operate is to prevent the implantation of an egg in the womb."

    Here is the FDA description of an emergency contraceptive and the monthly oral contraceptive (which Hobby Lobby is not opposed to). See a difference?

    Ella:
    When taken immediately before ovulation is to occur, postpones follicular rupture. The likely primary mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception is therefore inhibition or delay of ovulation; however, alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also
    contribute to efficacy.

    Monthly combination oral contraceptive:
    Combined oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 1, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    "So I assume you all are fine with companies refusing to cover blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses) or vaccinations, or any other random thing a company deems unnecessary because the owner has some sort of religious view?"

    This argument is a real reach, castigating a religion because it has beliefs you don't agree with. In fact other than a contracted insurance company, I know of no company that covers blood transfusions in the general course of business. And I for one am OK with a company owned by another religion not buying a policy covering something (like blood transfusions), they feel is against their religion.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 1, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    Ranch,
    the employee only pays a "portion" of the insurance (even under ObamaCare) the Employer pays about 2/3 of the real cost...

    just so you know, it is not just the employees money being used.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 1, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    JenicaJessen says:

    "*A* corporation is not *A* person, but a corporation is a group of people."

    -- Yes, a group of people, who as individuals have freedom of religion.

    "You admit yourself that people in corporations can have religious beliefs. I don't see the difference between "the corporation" and "the people in the corporation". It's like trying to distinguish between "the forest" and "that large group of trees"."

    -- Seriously? In the forest, they're all trees. A corporation is a legal entity created to separate real people from the risk. A corporation, while it employs people is NOT a person, and therefore has NO religion or need for religious freedom.

    "...where along the way do they lose their religious rights?"

    -- When "they" become a corporation. You see, "they" aren't the corporation and the corporation isn't them. "They" become two, separate entities.

    @Copy Cat;

    Churches are in the "business" of religion, not profit (hopefully).

    @anotherview;

    If the egg never implants then it isn't an abortion.

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    April 1, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    Overall Comment: This whole controversy is the fault of the manufacturers of the two drugs and two IUDs in question. NONE of them have acted to get the changes to the legal safety documentation changed to reflect their current understanding that the four products do not prevent implantation. If they had done this, this set of suits, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, would not have happened.

    anotherview - let me restate my point. When it comes to drugs, medical devices, and insurance, current science DOES NOT MATTER if the legal safety filings with the FDA are not in line with that knowledge. the regulatory filings are all that counts. Check the FDA web archives for these products. The FDA approved safety documentation for the four products all state that they may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The fact that new information contradicts that does not matter in the insurance coverage world. All that the pharmacy benefits management units of insurance companies care about is the FDA approveed documentation.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 1, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    Unfortunately this is not an issue in this case, but I simply don’t believe the owners are sincere in their beliefs, primarily because they purchase products made in China, a country that actively funds and promotes abortion as a means of controlling their population. But maybe the HL owners' god doesn't care about Chinese fetuses.

    Two, and this is directed at the lawyers out there, would a decision in the owner's favor have any impact on future attempts to pierce the HL corporate veil? They seem to be saying in this instance, "No, we and our company are one and the same." Could this be used as an argument against them on a subsequent liability issue?

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 1, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    Re:JinAZ
    I will restate mine as well.
    The FDA includes the same language for emergency contraceptives as the most commonly used birth control pills.

    So why is Hobby Lobby not opposed to birth control pills?

    Emergency contraceptives are available in Italy, where the Catholic Church is headquartered.

    This issue merely provides another argument and need for single-payer.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 1, 2014 6:00 p.m.

    @Karen R. 4:34 p.m. April 1, 2014

    ...

    Two, and this is directed at the lawyers out there, would a decision in the owner's favor have any impact on future attempts to pierce the HL corporate veil? They seem to be saying in this instance, "No, we and our company are one and the same." Could this be used as an argument against them on a subsequent liability issue?

    ----------------------

    Absolutely! Yes !!! That's called a statement against interest. They just asserted that they and the company are one entity. The argument "I only meant that for THIS issue" would be laughed out of court. There's a good chance they have already cooked their goose on that one. Good catch!

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 1, 2014 6:01 p.m.

    First amendment rights are enjoyed by all people groups and organizations, however the people choose to organize themselves.

    First amendment rights apply to all. period.

    There is no demarcation or definition of who gets rights in the first amendment.

    It simply say what congress can not do.

    The extreme left here is extremely wrong about the first amendment.
    Their interpretation is wildly off the mark.

    Whether something or someone is a person or not is irrelevant.

    The only question that needs to be asked is congress abridging or interfering, or playing favorites?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 1, 2014 6:39 p.m.

    @2bits

    This is not about what the business owner provides for customers, this is about business owners and employees.

    If a Muslim business owner required all female employees - Christians and Jews, not just Islamic women - to wear a burka, most would be bothered.

    If an orthodox Jewish business owner required all male employees to have a full beard and forelocks most would see it as a problem.

    Hobby Lobby wants to provide insurance, but then wants to come between female employees and their doctors as to what is prescribed and why. I have a problem with that.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 1, 2014 6:44 p.m.

    I get and agree with the idea of a company owner should have the right to not spend their resources on things they do not believe in.

    But that doesn't explain the moral contradiction here where Hobby Lobby has no issues sending their dollars to China to buy cheap products, a country that is well known for its single child policy. I am not sure how you justify the contradiction. It makes their moral stand seem rather conditional rather than based on any deep seeded principles. It makes one wonder if this is more about politics than anything truly moral based.

    I am for people and companies having the right to choose who they will do business with. We saw the impact of such decisions had on ending apartheid in South Africa. But this one stinks a little of something else.

    Its about being consistent.

  • Kora Cedar Hills, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    Stormwalker- Explain how Hobby Lobby not paying for contraception prevents a doctor from prescribing it and the women going to the drug store to purchase it. I am a physician and. I can write a woman a prescription for birth control even if they don't have insurance. And no insurance has ever told me what I can prescribe or prevented someone from purchasing the medicine out of their own pocket, ever. I treat a lot of uninsured college students, and everyone who wants birth control is able to get it. This being the case, why does insurance have to pay for it? It is $9 at Walmart, or free a many clinics.

    What did the Citizens United case that went to the Supreme Court decide? It essentially stated that Corporations had the same Constitutional rights as individuals and are protected by Free Speech rights in the 1st Amendment. If that is the case, why would these same corporations be protected by the rest of the 1st Amendment?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 1, 2014 11:14 p.m.

    @Kora:

    You are, of course, right. A patient can ask, and a physician can prescribe and neither the insurance company nor the employer can actually stop that from happening.

    I still - and this is my opinion - don't think it is the employer's business. They are providing compensation that includes pay and benefits. Trying to restrict the use of the benefits to fit their religion is, in my opinion, no different than if they insisted on paying employees with a pre-paid debit card and then restricted the employee from buying alcohol or cigarettes for religious reasons.

    And I disagree with Citizens United for the same reason I would disagree with giving a citizen with Multiple Personality Disorder the right for each personality to make the maximum campaign contribution or for each personality to vote.

    A corporation is people, but those people already have the right to contribute to campaigns, to express an opinion, to vote. Extending "speech" and now "religious rights" to a legal construct seems disingenuous at best, especially because the executives and board already have free speech.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 2, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    Excellent comment on piercing the corporate veil. Either a corporation is a separate entity or it's not. Why do we have the legal structure of incorporation if it doesn't mean anything.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 2, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    I was pondering last night....

    If what conservatives say is true --
    that CORPORATIONS are indeed people,
    and fully protected by the Constitution....

    Then,
    Could the Biblical Anti-Christ spoken of in the book of Revelations, Book of Mormon, and by numerous other prophets & Apostles - both ancient and Modern -- actually be a CORPORATION?

    I will keep thinking and pondering,
    but something about that rings true....

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    Why do Christians feel a need to stick their noses into the sexual lives of others? How do they know which employees would use the insurance to get contraceptives? Maybe they are married? Does Hobby Lobby interview potential employees and make them explain their sex lives before they get the job? I think religion has become so old to people because we are getting sick of all the self righteous people who constantly judge and condemn people! It is creepy! I certainly wouldn't work for these people! They have so much contempt for people!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 3, 2014 7:04 a.m.

    RFLASH
    Salt Lake City, UT

    ======

    Agreed.

    How can SAY you are for freedom and liberty,
    and then BAN just about anything you disagree with for everyone else?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 3, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you should be able to explain that quite easily. You say you are a libertarian, but would be perfectly happy implementing Communism.

    How is it that you can say you are all for freedom at the same time you want to government to be oppressive and freedom killing?

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    April 4, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    LOL @ Open Minded Mormon

    "If hobby lobby agrees to cover the cost of the child"

    This kind of reasoning is going to far. How about this: avoid sexual intercourse. Ha