Pulse poll

Question of the week: Do you agree with the ‘Hobby Lobby’ decision?

By From page A11 | July 11, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled last week that for religious reasons, businesses can deny insurance coverage for contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act.

Do you agree with the decision? Participate in this week’s poll:

Last week’s poll:

In light of the high fire danger, should Suisun City reconsider selling fireworks?

Yes: 75 percent

No: 25 percent

160 Daily Republic voters



Discussion | 30 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • CD BrooksJuly 06, 2014 - 6:08 am

    NO! Their action will challenge the Constitution and Declaration of Independence while chipping away at citizens' rights in America.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 06, 2014 - 6:37 am

    CD what are you talking about? The suit was to try and force the Christian owned Hobby Lobby to start paying the morning after pill causing abortion, they continued their regular birth control coverage, are you really familiar with the specifics of the case instead of parroting talking points?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJuly 06, 2014 - 7:31 am

    Daniel, I've made the case a hundred times and been proven accurate. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your myopic cut and paste mindless nonsense.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Teach5thJuly 06, 2014 - 9:59 am

    This is how CD always supports his comments. He writes, "Their action will challenge the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. ." Where in either document is birth control mentioned? Certainly other forms of control - governmental control - are mentioned, and isn't that exactly what Hobby Libby was fighting against? Government telling companies to set aside their religious beliefs and forcing them to provide what they believe to be an abortion- provoking form of birth control. What I can't get over is how the Left is lying about the ruling. From Hillary to Donna Brazille on Stephanopolous's show this morning - OMG - The Supreme Court is telling women what to do with their bodies! Hyperbole at it's finest, and what does the host do? Does she challenge the lie? No - she switches to soccer. So much for the press reporting the facts!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJuly 06, 2014 - 10:21 am

    I told readers here for years the Conservative party would take your rights if you put them in power. I said it repeatedly and nobody bought it. Then across the country last year, “religious freedoms” rang out and the effort went full throttle. I pointed out the dangers of this process and everyone went silent. This is an extension of that egregious act and if you don’t get it by now you are part of a very large problem. Religious rule is not law and will ultimately destroy a country if allowed to fester. It WILL NOT stop at birth control and women’s rights, wise up!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JagJuly 06, 2014 - 10:46 am

    Martha Raddatz is about ad left as you can get, she had no answer for Rick Perry he blew her away.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Jason KnowlesJuly 06, 2014 - 9:16 am

    Daniel, you and Teach5th seems to get your science from the same bad source. The Morning After pill does not cause an abortion, nor does an IUD. They work by blocking ovulation or fertilization. Huge difference. Hobby Lovby basically used religion change the definition of science-based facts, just because it is what they "believe." I do, however, agree that because they provide the other 16 methods, this does not mean what many liberals think it does. Perhaps now, the ACA can be amended to provide it to everyone who wants or needs it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JagJuly 06, 2014 - 10:38 am

    Great and lets also add to that amendment to drop the mandate, the healthy people drop out the whole thing blows up and goes away (problem solved)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 06, 2014 - 11:24 am

    If Hobby Lobby doesn't offer the morning after pill to the people that choose voluntarily to work there why don't they seek employment at one of the thousands of companies that does assuming that the employee refuses to pay for the pills themselves? I don't get it, why is the government forcing Americans to sponsor something that they're morally against?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JagJuly 06, 2014 - 12:11 pm

    Independence, if you start to let people see it they realize they don’t need government and the Democratic Party is reduced to California and New York Ok & Massachusetts….Lol

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 06, 2014 - 12:37 pm

    So it boils down to offering to offering women voters condoms and birth control pills paid for by others, including those that object, for DNC votes? If you speak up you're allegedly "at war with women"? What kind of moron would parrot that and say that it's un-constitutional by not handing out "free" condoms?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The SugarJarJuly 06, 2014 - 12:43 pm

    I spend some time examining how other's thought processes seem to work. What is taken in and what is either rejected, not heard, or just not seen as worthy to consider. Interesting but sometimes disappointing in what is worthy/not worthy of consideration.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JagJuly 06, 2014 - 1:49 pm

    @Daniel I am not sure if you are responding to me or Jason but I actually agree with you I think the government wants people to be dependent on them, business should be allowed to offer any kind of health care they like and yes even up to no health care at all. If an employee doesn’t like it move on.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJuly 06, 2014 - 8:10 pm

    @JAG: Most of the extra money flowing to these red states rely on the blue states for support.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JagJuly 07, 2014 - 9:49 am

    LMAO.... OK

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJuly 06, 2014 - 6:12 pm

    When I buy car insurance, can I op[t out of coverage in the event I hit a Christian? Meaning I do not want my insurance company to have to pay for a Christians car, if I hit them. Lets face it, if I hit them, it must be gawds will - right.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • harry ferrellJuly 06, 2014 - 1:39 pm

    "Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision allowing businesses to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives?" ....Another inacurate question. Should accurately ask:...for SOME contraceptives...!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The SugarJarJuly 06, 2014 - 1:50 pm

    Yet that wasn't really the decision. It reaches farther than that. In this case I think the poll question was worded very well.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. PracticalJuly 06, 2014 - 6:45 pm

    The question before the court was whether or not religious freedom was violated. It really has nothing to do with birth control or reproductive choice. The plaintiffs are the only ones in the case that could potentially have a freedom revolved. In no way does the decision remove access. The employees do not have to purchase the employer offered plan.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJuly 06, 2014 - 8:07 pm

    The court’s decision creates a slippery slope by which corporations can challenge other medical procedures or medicines in the future. I can't wait for the flood gates to open, and let all the religious people going to court claiming infringement of their religion, by not letting them discriminate in the workplace. Just my opinion.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodJuly 07, 2014 - 4:54 am

    The problem with the decision is not just another ramification of corporate personhood, but the fact that secular law with a legitimate government purpose must fall to someone's claim that it violates his free exercise of religion. Where does it end? Justice Scalia has reversed himself from an earlier dissenting opinion where he recognized the problem and sided with the government. He should have been part of the majority the other way on Hobby Lobby. Instead, he's compromised principle for politics.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. PracticalJuly 11, 2014 - 8:13 am

    Like Roberts did on the Individual Mandate. If he had made the right decision, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JagJuly 11, 2014 - 10:32 am


    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895July 11, 2014 - 8:00 pm

    If he'd made the right decision, you'd even be more upset.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JoshJuly 11, 2014 - 10:16 am

    It is clear that every person who responded in the comments no longer has a right to call others to be non-judgemental. Therefore, in principle, even though they disagree or agree, they should be glad of Hobby Lobby's approach to self determination and free will in their struggle to judge life as they see fit. Apparently they had others who judged the same way. Only difference between Hobby Lobby and commentors here is that Hobby Lobby matters beyond this specific web page. Moral judgements pronounced here do not.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJuly 11, 2014 - 12:09 pm

    Incorrect analogy. Hobby Lobby is using its religious "faith based" beliefs, and imposing them on their employees. Regardless of what Mr P is spinning this to be.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TJ BairdJuly 11, 2014 - 4:24 pm

    How is this any different than the way the government is "imposing" on the company? All the employees do have a choice as to whether to work at Hobby Lobby or not. I would not work at place that truly "violated" my values. Even if there was a mass exodus of employees from Hobby Lobby because of this ruling, I suspect that Hobby Lobby would not change it's stand, because those views are more than religion based views; they are deep seated spiritual convictions that have been in place since the company was founded (and likely in the founders long before the company began) Those convictions have protection in the Constitution. If we start chipping away at the first Amendment, maybe the freedom of speech would be next and none of this interaction could happen.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJuly 11, 2014 - 5:13 pm

    "they are deep seated spiritual convictions that have been in place since the company was founded". Let them keep their spiritual convictions to themselves, or have them create a religious theocracy outside the U.S., not unlike Saudi Arabia. Then they can practice their wizardry as they like. I am certainly not looking to modify their behavior through economic means. But they are. The government is basing the standards on best practices, and a history of well documented health needs, not spiritual mumbo jumbo.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TJ BairdJuly 11, 2014 - 5:39 pm

    Danny, we can agree to disagree on the "religious" side of this argument. My right to exercise faith and your right to not to if that is your desire is a gift granted by living in this country. My biggest concern is that we are pulling apart the very document (the Constitution) that holds us together. The SCOTUS decision doesn't make it so the contraceptives can't be obtained, It just allows for the first amendment to be exercised.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodJuly 11, 2014 - 7:58 pm

    TJ: You and others are very big on the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, but there is also an antiestablishment clause. When the government passes a law that places one person's religious beliefs above someone else's, that too is a violation of the Constitution. It's a quandary that the SCOTUS has struggled with for years without a satisfactory resolution. IMHO, Scalia was on the right track when he said any law with a legitimate secular purpose should stand against a freedom of religion challenge. In this case, however, the Court relied on a federal statute, not the First Amendment. The good news is it puts the decision in the hands if congress and the president. The bad news is congress won't act on hardly anything, let alone something the president and Democrats want. Not without major pressure from constituents.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.