Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

bjo1015 wrote:

From the article on Scalia...

Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

So, while I agree that employers are people, They are participating in a commercial activity as a matter of choice, their religious beliefs and conduct shouldn't be imposed on their employees.

For the record,I was raised catholic, and I strongly disagree with the church on this issue.

WaveRyder wrote:

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

it really shouldnt matter how any of us feel about. it's a matter of what's right and wrong.

the majority of people don't support gay marriage but that doesnt mean banning gay marriage is the right thing to do.

You wont hear me complaining about individual states doing such a thing because I believe state governments can better assess their needs than the federal government. 50 states could adopt the policy but I still wouldnt support the fed mandate.

I'd also like to note that the mandate doesnt force anyone to use contraception. That is correct. The mandate does require some catholics to pay for it. Example, Avera McKennen is a Catholic based hospital in my home town and the second largest hospital in the state. The people who own that company are Catholics. The policy mandates that money comes out of those pockets to provide something that is inherently against their beliefs.

I believe EVERYONE - employer and employee - already had choice. This policy eliminates choice for the employer ... and employers are people, whether it's one person or a hundred.

I feel like much of what you said here contradicts your previous arguments, but whatever. :?

My question is: Is it REALLY money from the pockets of the people who own that hospital that is going to fund contraception coverage? Does the hospital have shareholders? Does it receive public funds? Is the amount they pay for insurance going to increase specifically because of contraception? I would argue that business finances and personal financed are different, and so the individuals who own the hospital are not really paying for anything.

to your first point, maybe i wasnt making myself clear but i dont see how any of that post is contradictory.

Secondly, business finances have an impact on personal finances. share holders personal finances are impacted by business finances. and yes, the amount an employer pays for insurance will increase if they have to offer insurance that covers contraception. if you dont realize this, then you have no grasp on how business works.