Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a limited decision, ruled Monday that closely held, for-profit companies can claim a religious exemption to the Obamacare requirement that they provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives. For-profit corporations — including Conestoga Wood of Pennsylvania, owned by a family of Mennonite Christians, and Hobby Lobby, a family-owned chain of arts and crafts stores founded on Biblical principles — had challenged a provision of the Affordable Care Act.
It requires companies with more than 50 employees to cover preventive care services, which include such contraceptives as morning-after pills, diaphragms and IUDs.
Interesting case.
I admit I don't currently have a strong view on this.
I come from a country which has free healthcare and automatically provides free contraception to everyone (the responsible thing to do obviously), so I admit to finding it a little odd that companies should have to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees...(shouldn't the government provide it directly?)
So I'd be interested to hear others views on this.
This would seem to make sense:
Quote:
The Obama administration argued that the freedom of religion applies only to the company owners individually, not to the for-profit corporations they run. It's the corporations, not the family members themselves, who are required to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives under Obamacare, the government said.
I did find this interesting:
Quote:
The court found that there are other ways for the employees of the small companies to get contraceptive coverage. For example, the government already pays for the coverage for employees of certain nonprofits, such as churches and church charities.
???
Is this saying the government pays for coverage of contraception for those who work for churches and church charities?
I don't know what to make of this really.
I'll be interested to hear you views.
I believe that employers should not be forced to provide contraception for their employees. That would be a violation of religious freedom. Once religious freedom is denied in one area then how can we be sure that it would not be violated in other areas? Besides there are natural ways of family planning that are inexpensive and close to 99% effective such as the Creighton Model Fertility Care System and the Symto thermal method. Contraceptives are a big money making business which is tied into the abortion industry. The contraceptive business hides the truth about their products such as the birth control pill being a level 1 carcinogen (same as cigarettes) and causing increases in breast and liver cancer. If you were an employer would you pay for your employees cigarettes? I wouldn't. Contraception has led to a whole host of problems in society too numerous to list in this post. Employers who know the truth do not want to be forced into being part of the problem. Here is a link to a show about the health problems caused by the birth control pill. Women of Grace - TV/Radio -> Television Episodes -> 10430 - The Birth Control Pill: Separating Fact from Fiction
This is just yet another case of religious whackos who think that their freedom to practice their religion is infinite - that they can impose their own personal, individual beliefs onto everyone within their sphere of influence. In this case, the employers are holding their employees' livelihoods hostage. "Either you obey my religion or else you can just find somewhere else to work."
So what does that mean? That a Muslim business owner can now require all women who work in his company to wear burqas? Hey! That's freedom of religion, is it not? Hell, religious business owners can even start discriminating against anyone they think aren't living the kind of life they "ought" to be living according to the employer's religion.
Essentially, this decision has weakened all past and future cases that stand against religion trying to creep into the business world - which is just as bad as religion creeping into government.
This is just yet another case of religious whackos who think that their freedom to practice their religion is infinite - that they can impose their own personal, individual beliefs onto everyone within their sphere of influence. In this case, the employers are holding their employees' livelihoods hostage. "Either you obey my religion or else you can just find somewhere else to work."
So what does that mean? That a Muslim business owner can now require all women who work in his company to wear burqas? Hey! That's freedom of religion, is it not? Hell, religious business owners can even start discriminating against anyone they think aren't living the kind of life they "ought" to be living according to the employer's religion.
Essentially, this decision has weakened all past and future cases that stand against religion trying to creep into the business world - which is just as bad as religion creeping into government.
So long as it stays in the private sector, its consistent with religious freedom either the practice of or the freedom from. The Muslim business you describe would not likely stay in business very long, so this nor the other events you describe would like occur.
From 2003 to 2011, my tax dollars payed for a war that I did not believe should be fought. Was I then permitted to stop paying my taxes because the money was being used in a manner that violated my conscience? Unfortunately, the answer is "no." Compromise is part of living in a civilized society.
I join you in paying for wars that I don't like...you join me in paying for contraception that you don't like...
From 2003 to 2011, my tax dollars payed for a war that I did not believe should be fought. Was I then permitted to stop paying my taxes because the money was being used in a manner that violated my conscience? Unfortunately, the answer is "no." Compromise is part of living in a civilized society.
I join you in paying for wars that I don't like...you join me in paying for contraception that you don't like...
Thanks.
Yikes, what a great post. I am opposed to abortion for me and my family, but find no compelling reason to force that view on others. The lame argument that it is murder when over half the people in the nation are in favor of allowing abortion practice simply means that as a group we Christians have once again not shown our faith with HOW we live our lives, but by telling others how they should live theirs.
Now I would have no problem with this ruling if a ten percent health insurance "tax" were imposed on "religious" corporations who showed their "faith" by dipping into their own pocketbooks. They technically would not be providing abortion services and the extra tax could go to take care of people who desired abortion services which were not provided by their employers or anybody else.
But the reverse will happen. Companies not providing such coverage will pay less---and more and more corporations will suddenly find a need to please God by refusing to pay for such coverage.
The ruling itself is pretty narrow, and is centered around the RFRA act of 1993?
Tell me ... should people be allowed to discriminate against black people because they have the sincere religious belief that black people bear the mark of Cain? Maybe they should be allowed to keep slaves because of that sincere religious belief ...
At some point the Constitution trumps hateful religious doctrine that I am pretty sure that Jesus Himself would not condone.
Anyone who wants to argue that your hate filled doctrine trumps the freedoms we embrace here in America - bring it on!!!!!
I will be happy to give my Yes or No answers if anyone is interested.
How is any of this relevant to a court ruling that implies that corporations have religious beliefs, and that having those beliefs allows those corporations to ignore the law?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
