California college will not comply with HHS mandate

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Ceece

Employer's are now out of the loop and insurance companies will provide the bf coverage directly to the policy holder...I like where this is going.

Not exactly and I think this is far from over.

The reason is many religious organizations are self insured... even if they have a health plan covering 200,000 individuals as does the Southern Baptist Convention...

So saying the insurers will have to bear the burden is no improvement for those self-insured.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

I doubt that we'll be hearing from user_id again on the topic of employment discrimination by religious institutions. If he comes back, he'll change the subject.

Oh ye of little user_id experience...

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by user_id

I'm welcome for what? I'm aware of the religious organization exception ...

No, you were not aware of the religious organization exemption. You said:

"the college isn't allowed to restrict employment based on faith"

and:

"here you have an institution that can't legally hire based on religion"

You were wrong. You had absolutely no basis for making those statements. The EEOC exemption page that I quoted for you, and which you apparently did not read, spells it all out. Let's look at the EEOC's criteria to determine whether they apply to Thomas Aquinas College:

Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose;

They do.

whether its day-to-day operations are religious

They are.

(e.g., are the services the entity performs,

Check.

the product it produces,

N/A

or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?);

Absolutely.

whether it is not-for-profit;

It is.

and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

Of course: the Catholic Church.

So, user_id, what you need to do is admit that you made two utterly false statements which you hereby retract, on a subject about which you were in fact completely ignorant, and that you have been decisively proven wrong in this forum.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Oh ye of little user_id experience...

I stand corrected.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

... I doubt that we'll be hearing from user_id again on the topic of employment discrimination by religious institutions. If he comes back, he'll change the subject.

... followed by:

Originally Posted by user_id

I'm welcome for what? I'm aware of the religious organization exception, but its often difficult for colleges to quality as such (especially true if they deal with public financial aid). It depends entirely on the details of the organization....and its doubtful any non-Catholic faculty would even bother applying so they'd never need to test the legality of their oath in the first place. But, to say it again, their oath was just for faculty members. Regardless of legality, its just bad policy for a college to discriminate against the majority (non-Catholics) for jobs that have nothing to do with religion (i.e., non-faculty staff).

Anyhow, whether or not all its employees are Catholic or not, one has to be amused by the denial of the mere availability or something. I guess they are worried about people having moments of sanity when they are not around church officials....?

You were saying, Pilgrim?

[Fontucky]

He stands corrected.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

... followed by:

You were saying, Pilgrim?

You got me.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

You got me.

I am tempted to respond with: "... o' ye of little faith ..." ... but I'm gonna let it pass, so to speak

[nullgeo]

All righty then ... now that the ice has been broken, and I didn't have anything to do with it this time: dog pile:

Sure ... good idea: opposing birth control ... because, as everyone can see, the world -- at 7 billion and counting rapidly -- still doesn't have near enough people ... or is it just: not enough Catholics? After all, the 1st world Catholics are dropping the religion like a bad habit ... which seems to be connected to: the more educated and culturally sophisticated people become, the less likely they are to continue kneeling for papal bull ... so the Vatican focuses like the devil on recruiting primitives and third-world sufferers to fill its quotas for the future.

As usual, this whole resistance has nothing to do with honoring the wisdom and beauty of Christ. It is a sham in the name of religion.

[NewToCA]

Topic becoming too P&OCish, and is now closed.