Guest / Limited Access /

Hobby Lobby is heading toward D.C. this year—but it won't be to set up shop for craft-staved Washingtonians. Rather, the evangelical-owned retail craft chain aims to appear before the Supreme Court in 2014.

Days before the Affordable Care ...

Read More

Displaying 1–11 of 11 comments

THOMAS F HARKINS JR

October 05, 2013  3:38pm

Alan, I am a lawyer, and you seem to know the law pretty well. However, a corporation can exist with only a few shareholders. Also, officers and directors can sometimes be sued for their actions personally. However, I don't think that is the issue. Owners, officers, directors, whoever may be "in charge" have to set company policy. Whether as to what "medical procedures" to cover or many other things. I say they should not have to approve what they do not believe in. Again, people are free to work for that company or some other company, but they don't have the right to tell the "owners" what to do. And the government does not have that right if doing so goes against First Amendment rights (in general).

Report Abuse

Alan Beagley

October 05, 2013  1:05pm

Responding to THOMAS F HARKINS JR "Can a 2-man office have religious liberties? What about 5? I don't see the difference between those scenarios and a larger corporation." Perhaps it depends what kind of business it is -- I mean: What kind from a legal point of view? A 2-man office *might* be just a partnership, where the partners still have all the liabilities of "natural persons" -- e.g.., being able to be sued and have their homes, etc., seized and sold to pay creditors. A corporation -- probably no matter how many people are involved -- is not a "natural person" but a "legal person"; perhaps not being able to exercise their individual religious rights is the price the people who set up the corporation must pay for being immune from personal liability to the corporation's creditors. (I am not a lawyer, but I can't help wondering about technical legal aspects of things.)

Report Abuse

THOMAS F HARKINS JR

October 05, 2013  12:13pm

I respond to Nathan Rice. Can a 2-man office have religious liberties? What about 5? I don't see the difference between those scenarios and a larger corporation. The issue is, can someone who runs a business run it based on his religious convictions? If not, why not? You make the point that there are other religions. I certainly think they should be able to object to government mandates based on their sincerely held religious beliefs as well. As far as Jehovah's Witnesses, under longstanding judicial precedent, the government has exercised the right to protect life and balanced that against a claimed religious exercise--there will always be tough cases to resolve, but does that mean we just throw out the right to act on religious beliefs altogether? As to Boyd Miller, employees do not have to share their boss's beliefs, but they still have to recognize that those are his beliefs, and decide if they want to work for that boss. The boss should not have to pay for actions he opposes.

Report Abuse

James Aist

October 05, 2013  9:51am

According to the God of the Bible, human life begins at conception. God has a plan for our lives before we are even conceived, and abortion thwarts the plan of God. We are made in the image of God, and He condemns abortion as sin because it is murder, an act of utter and total disrespect for the image of God himself and a grave offense to the very being of God. And, it is a sin to be “pro-choice”, because a pro-choice position, in effect, approves of and encourages the sin of abortion. Read more at http://rethinkingtheology.com/2013/05/13/abortion-a-biblical-perspective/

Report Abuse

Nathan rice

October 04, 2013  6:57pm

Corporations definitely do NOT have religious rights. Are Jehovah's Witness corporations going to deny their employees blood transfusions? Is that what you want? Are Muslim corporations going to refuse lunch breaks during Ramadan? YOU DON'T HAVE THE ONLY RELIGION.

Report Abuse

J G

October 04, 2013  6:16pm

Abortion is sinful before God. I hope (and expect) that future court decisions will favor entities like Hobby Lobby. But let's be clear: no one in this situation is being forced to have an abortion, just to pay for someone else's abortion (or not). The sin of abortion is borne mostly by the woman who seeks it, and possibly the doctor who performs it, because they are the ones who actively choose it; very little guilt is borne by the entity that pays for it. Contrast that with the 100,000s of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths caused directly by America's unrighteous war. My tax dollars were used to actively kill innocents, not just to give some third party the option of killing them if it wanted to. So what is more unrighteous? Paying for someone else's choice, or funding certain death?

Report Abuse

Boyd Miller

October 04, 2013  4:03pm

Must I have the same religious convictions that my employer has? A second question is does the law require the use of contraceptive products? While my personal view on abortion is important to me and I use it to guide myself. I am always disappointed when Christian fail to tell the women who have had one of the forgiveness and love of Jesus Christ. A couple of things I would like for you to consider. One is did God tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge because he did not want them to be like God, or because He knew of the gray areas of moral and ethical issues? A second one is how can we limit someones right to choose with out limiting our own?

Report Abuse

THOMAS F HARKINS JR

October 04, 2013  3:45pm

Hurray for Hobby Lobby! "We must obey God rather than man." As Christians we cannot support, or finance, abortions. Hopefully the Supreme Court will see through the "smoke screen" of corporate versus personal. What are corporations? Collections of people. Who are corporate executives? People. To say that persons cannot live out their Christian religious convictions in the "marketplace" is tantamount to saying they cannot live them out at all. Christians cannot be limited to being Christians in church buildings. Or even only in classrooms. Freedom of religion has to mean that one has the right to order his life around what he believes, not just "worship" in a certain way. I trust that the Court will not be blinded by politics and instead be guided by the Christian principles upon which this nation was founded and has been made great. "If America ceases to be Christian, it will cease to be great."

Report Abuse

REV DONALD G ELY

October 04, 2013  3:43pm

Give Hobby Lobby lots of credit for their corporate stance. Honoring God comes first; business -- and profit -- come second. The liberals in government are attempting to take away Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion via the back door by enacting these laws. If I were a businessperson, I would much rather walk away from even the most lucrative business than contradict God's specific directives.

Report Abuse

THOMAS F HARKINS JR

October 04, 2013  3:16pm

Hurray for Hobby Lobby! "We must obey God rather than man." As Christians, we cannot support abortion. I hope the Supreme Court will see through the smoke screen of corporate versus individual when it comes to First Amendment freedoms, most particularly freedom of religion. What is a corporation? A combination of people. What are executives? People. To say particular people cannot act on their convictions because they run a company is absurd and bears no resemblance to reality. Christians cannot be confined to church buildings. Free exercise means being able to guide one's life out in the trenches according to one's religious conscience. To take this away essentially means that the government can disregard people's Christian convictions where they matter most--in living out what they believe in their lives in their community.

Report Abuse

Alan Beagley

October 04, 2013  3:06pm

In countries that have universal health care, are abortions and contraceptive products covered? If so, do religious bodies and organizations run by persons with Christian or other religious convictions -- or the individuals themselves -- try to get a reduced-rate plan that excludes such coverage?

Report Abuse