As one would probably expect, I don't agree with your view of values. I think the expectation that values should be tied to, or represent, a society, actually proves my argument, because values actually represent subgroups - if not micro-groups - of a society.
An example, the US is very much an 'American' society, from there it tends to be splintered into regions/maybe states, then rural/urban, from there neighborhoods possibly still by race/ethnicity/beliefs. Fact is that doesn't even begin to set values. The same Caucasian, protestant community can have people with significantly varying values. The entire argument against stereotypes and generalizations is based on this exact principle.

When I said that we need to avoid the discussion of values, there was a point. They actually create the most division, and are unhelpful in a discussion that only requires the understanding of basic human rights, set by natural law, and protected by our Constitution. If we can all agree on that basic point, there is no need to bring our varying values into the discussion.

Congratulations on another excellent article. My experience over the last several years is that conservative people are generally far more tolerant than liberals. Certainly there are exceptions, but the general rule holds.

For example, my wife and I are in a somewhat unconventional relationship in that she is the breadwinner and I stay home. We are actually very traditional people and are raising our children as such, but certainly the way we have defined our respective roles is untraditional in the sense that the female is doing the things the husband traditionally does and the male is doing the things that the wife traditionally does.

But here is the interesting thing. We live in a fairly conservative area – Scottsdale, Arizona – and while some people have issues with our arrangement, I can tell you that no conservative person has ever done anything to me, my wife, or our kids that is discriminatory because our arrangement might not be to their liking. Yes, we have gotten our share of comments from conservatives, but no one has actually done anything to hurt us. In fact, in general, I would describe conservatives' attitudes as very much live and let live.

Not the same though for many liberals. Many of them are gung ho about our arrangement but are disappointed that in virtually every other way we are traditional. The comments we have gotten range from disappointment that we go to church to judgments about how we are raising our children with conservative values to how my wife and I should be upfront feminists to how we should be better environmentalists, etc. Many of them are of course disappointed that I homeschool, which is ironic because the homeschooling is the principal reason why I am at home and not working. And my wife definitely feels shunned by certain people in work situations because they know that we are traditionalists. Of course, how ridiculous is that? If anyone typifies what a successful 21st-century woman is-one who is doing well in her career and is successfully raising a family-it is my wife. Nonetheless, there are these people who want her to toe the party line no matter what.

There is a connection between that type of attitude and what you write about in your column. Liberal intolerance now extends far beyond making personal judgments; it is embodied in government regulation that seeks to punish anyone who deviates from what liberals think is right. Your column very eloquently makes these points.

People do not realize how deep this discussion actually is. The problem I see here is that there should be no talk of values. To have a truly free 'society', it must be void of values. Our personal freedoms are not values, but rights, afforded to us by natural law of nature/God (you fill in the blank); while values are made up, legalistic principles, designed to enforce someone's way of thinking - and inherently religious.

I, myself, am a Christian; however, I find it difficult as a believer in true freedom to enforce my Christian values on another. With that said, I also find it abhorrent when a non-Christian is attempting to force their values on me. And that is my point. Values cannot exist. The moment we begin speaking of whether it is right or wrong to do 'X', is the moment we begin to enforce a certain way of thinking. That is not freedom.

The discussion here should not be whether Hobby Lobby has the right to religious expression, or that the women who are losing their access to contraception are having a right limited, but about how this discussion is coming to fruition in the first place. Taking the discussion in the direction of religious expression forces us down the path of a discussion on values; however, taking the discussion down the path of government enforcement, leads us to the real issue - Freedom.

As I said before, freedom is a right afforded by natural law. Whether that natural law is God-given or the secular natural selection, should not matter. What matters is whether we can agree on the fact that all human beings have been selected to live a life as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the same right of another human being (within reason). If we can agree to that, then the view of the Bill of Rights changes from a dictation of rights that a government has provided, to a limitation of what a government can do upon those rights of a person. That would include that a government cannot limit/encroach upon the religious freedoms of an individual.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, have the right to express their religious values (not agreeing with contraception), and the moment the government steps in and mandates the acceptance of contraception, their rights have been violated.
As to the rights of the women, they have a right to work where they want. If they do not like the values of their employers, they have a right to leave and seek employment elsewhere. More importantly, they have the ability to find insurance from other sources. This brings up a whole new topic: Government intervention in the markets and economy.
If the government would stop regulating the health care industry, limiting cross-state business, forcing acceptance of pre-existing conditions (which makes premiums of others sky-rocket), adding premium caps, coverage minimums and maximums, forcing employers to cover insurance, specifically; insurance would be vastly more available, and far less expensive.

Social injustices and inequalities are results of government enforcement of specific values. When you take government out of the equation as much as possible, it makes everyone more free to live their life as they choose. It also allows 'society' to construct and regulate the markets and economy as they see fit. When this occurs, freedom truly exists.

I would guess that less than one quarter of Americans cast their votes with any sort of intelligence. They listen to the rhetoric that their favorita media outlet spews out, and ignore the record of their candidates.

Greed is not a religion Mel.

So if I don't believe unmarried people should have children out of wedlock, it violated my Christian beliefs, my company does not have to provide pregnant employees with pre-natal care, birthing costs, etc.? And why does HOBBY LOBBY provide Viagra as part of their health care package Mel. That violates my beliefs to...its not god's will...