Contraception Mandate Outrages Religious Groups...

[andysayshi]

I don't see the issue. The employer is required to provide health insurance. The decision to use that insurance for contraception remains at the discretion of the individual - an issue decided by the individual based on their own beliefs. The employer is not providing the employee with contraception: they are simply providing insurance, which the employee uses at their own discretion.

 

[bankside]

I don't see the issue. The employer is required to provide health insurance. The decision to use that insurance for contraception remains at the discretion of the individual - an issue decided by the individual based on their own beliefs. The employer is not providing the employee with contraception: they are simply providing insurance, which the employee uses at their own discretion.

Exactly. It would be like the employer demanding receipts for all my purchases during the year and then deducting from my salary anything they didn't approve of. It is grossly intrusive.

Health insurance is just now a part of the minimum wage. It is between the individual and the doctor as to what services are to be used, and none of the employer's business. No more than how any of us spend our paycheques.

 

[chrisrobin]

Nearly everything outrages religious groups... The wankers need to tend their own gardens and leave everyone else alone. Certainly, they've got their hands full!

There is nothing in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that obliges "true believers" to make those who don't agree with them as miserable as possible.

 

[Kulindahr]

In Canadian law there is a fairly clear legal distinction between clergy and lay employees. The lay employees also have freedom of conscience, which is not subject to the whims of the employer's moralising, providing they do their jobs.

That's why a religious institution can prevent a clergy member from getting married to anyone but is obliged to offer spousal benefits to the caretaker, even if she is in a same-sex marriage.

The same principle can easily apply here: if the employee in question is not the purveyor of dogma then the employer has no business regulating access to medical services.

Then those religious institutions should switch to fraternal insurance which allows only believers to join, and tell the others they're on their own.

 

[bankside]

Then those religious institutions should switch to fraternal insurance which allows only believers to join, and tell the others they're on their own.

…except if you hire someone for a lay position you can't oblige them to accept a dogmatic insurance plan…so you'd have to offer them alternative insurance coverage or you'd be discriminating on account of the free exercise of their conscience.

It really is best to understand insurance as being part of the minimum wage, and like all wages, it is not up to the employer to scrutinise the morality of private expenditures on legal purchases. The only exception is for the holders of religious office; people responsible for the doctrines of the faith. The rules are, sensibly, quite different for caretakers and clergy.

 

[rareboy]

Nearly everything outrages religious groups... The wankers need to tend their own gardens and leave everyone else alone. Certainly, they've got their hands full!

There is nothing in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that obliges "true believers" to make those who don't agree with them as miserable as possible.

I'm sick to death of the bitching and whining of the religious organizations.

If they employ lay workers, then they are no different than any other employer. Period.

If churches were allowed to set their own employment standards and practises for all workers, it is only a matter of minutes before corporations are no longer just people, they will also be religious organizations as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

…except if you hire someone for a lay position you can't oblige them to accept a dogmatic insurance plan…so you'd have to offer them alternative insurance coverage or you'd be discriminating on account of the free exercise of their conscience.

The first part is what I already said.

The second is false. Fraternal insurance isn't about being employed, it's about being a member of a certain group. There are already fraternal insurance programs based on belief, for example Lutherans and Roman Catholic nuns, for two.

And to require any organization with religious beliefs to hire someone who doesn't share those is in itself a violation of the free exercise of conscience.

It really is best to understand insurance as being part of the minimum wage, and like all wages, it is not up to the employer to scrutinise the morality of private expenditures on legal purchases. The only exception is for the holders of religious office; people responsible for the doctrines of the faith. The rules are, sensibly, quite different for caretakers and clergy.

Insurance is a contract between the payer and the payee. It has nothing to do with a minimum wage.

And ALL believers are responsible for the doctrines of the faith; that's why many groups have catechisms. Your exemption will have to include Sunday School teachers, elders, deacons, council members, deaconesses, worship leaders, prayer leaders, study leaders, fathers and mothers.... all of these are responsible for correct doctrine in many churches.

But fraternal insurance would solve the problem simply: believers can buy in, non-believers can't. It's freedom of religion.

Though I'll point out that fraternal insurance extends far beyond religion. The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, the NRA, the American Automobile Association and others have insurance programs open only to members.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sick to death of the bitching and whining of the religious organizations.

If they employ lay workers, then they are no different than any other employer. Period.

If churches were allowed to set their own employment standards and practises for all workers, it is only a matter of minutes before corporations are no longer just people, they will also be religious organizations as well.

Corporations turning into religious organizations would make no difference -- for-profit entities are taxed the same no matter who owns them.

 

[rareboy]

^ It is not about taxation. It is about being able to exempt oneself from fair labour practises.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Can someone explain what lead to religious entities who make money or hire people to not be taxed like any other organization? A lot of that is how mega church leaders are worth millions, some won't take a salary, they take a "donation".

Mainly because they are heavily regulated and no one is getting rich of these churches. Many churches would go bankrupt if they had to pay taxes and likely any cutbacks that would go into effect would mostly effect their charitable work.

I am completely fine with churches being tax exempt just like any non profit.

 

[chance1]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20120203/D9SLQB900.html


^ This is a curious, and seemingly ill-timed move from our POTUS.

It DOES move him slightly left of the "centrist" that he usually is, but I'm not sure it's the wisest move at this time.

====================

Employers that fail to provide health insurance coverage under the federal law could be fined $2,000 per employee per year. The bishops' domestic anti-poverty agency, Catholic Charities, says it employs 70,000 people nationwide. The fine for the University of Notre Dame, the most prominent Catholic school in the country, could be in the millions of dollars.

=======================


Thoughts ?

I agree with you - very curious

interesting though that media outlets spend more time on the "gaffe" of Mitt Romney's words about the poor not being his focus

lying about it really as they don't play the full tape

so Obama is safe here - as he gets "cover"

 

[bankside]

The first part is what I already said.

The second is false. Fraternal insurance isn't about being employed, it's about being a member of a certain group. There are already fraternal insurance programs based on belief, for example Lutherans and Roman Catholic nuns, for two.

And to require any organization with religious beliefs to hire someone who doesn't share those is in itself a violation of the free exercise of conscience.



Insurance is a contract between the payer and the payee. It has nothing to do with a minimum wage.

And ALL believers are responsible for the doctrines of the faith; that's why many groups have catechisms. Your exemption will have to include Sunday School teachers, elders, deacons, council members, deaconesses, worship leaders, prayer leaders, study leaders, fathers and mothers.... all of these are responsible for correct doctrine in many churches.

But fraternal insurance would solve the problem simply: believers can buy in, non-believers can't. It's freedom of religion.

Though I'll point out that fraternal insurance extends far beyond religion. The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, the NRA, the American Automobile Association and others have insurance programs open only to members.

The provision of health insurance is an obligation to the employee in the same way that the payment of a certain dollar figure per hour is. It is part of the minimum compensation due the employee as regulated by government. It is an inherent part of the employer/employee relationship in [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] this particular system of universal healthcare.

And organisations can have religious purposes as well as civil purposes. An employer cannot wrap discrimination in a magic religious bubble and expect to get away with it in its civil functions. So far as I know, no religion has made mopping the floor a sacrament. And pray where in the new testament does it say "and thou shalt rent out the church basement to the local square dancing club on Thursday evenings."

These are all activities which put the church squarely in the public square, where it must abide by precepts of equality.

Fraternal insurance would not solve the problem simply because non-believers (or more specifically, believers who do not toe the line on every detail of dogma) would be excluded from the insurance cover that must be available to all employees by mandate.

Your statement about all believers being responsible for the doctrines of the faith is even more to the point about individual conscience not being trumped by the official party line. If I'm a Catholic employee who sees no religious impediment to birth control, my employer, be he the gas station manager or the pope, has no business saying otherwise.

 

[Kulindahr]

The provision of health insurance is an obligation to the employee in the same way that the payment of a certain dollar figure per hour is. It is part of the minimum compensation due the employee as regulated by government. It is an inherent part of the employer/employee relationship in [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] this particular system of universal healthcare.

So no individuals have to have insurance? Their employers are supposed to have it for them?

And organisations can have religious purposes as well as civil purposes. An employer cannot wrap discrimination in a magic religious bubble and expect to get away with it in its civil functions. So far as I know, no religion has made mopping the floor a sacrament. And pray where in the new testament does it say "and thou shalt rent out the church basement to the local square dancing club on Thursday evenings."

If it's a church organization, then there shouldn't be any nonbelievers in it anyway. That's not discrimination, it's religious freedom.

Fraternal insurance would not solve the problem simply because non-believers (or more specifically, believers who do not toe the line on every detail of dogma) would be excluded from the insurance cover that must be available to all employees by mandate.

Then religious organizations should just not hire any non-believers.

Your statement about all believers being responsible for the doctrines of the faith is even more to the point about individual conscience not being trumped by the official party line. If I'm a Catholic employee who sees no religious impediment to birth control, my employer, be he the gas station manager or the pope, has no business saying otherwise.

That's your choice. But it doesn't give you any business dictating that they have to offer insurance that goes against their moral teaching. That's an egregious violation of the separation of church and state. If the church cannot dictate to the state how to run its business, then the state cannot dictate to the church how to run its.

 

[opinterph]

Then religious organizations should just not hire any non-believers.

Unless an employer can demonstrate a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, federal employment law prohibits discrimination in its hiring practices on the basis of religion.

Religious belief may also be considered a BFOQ; for example, a religious school may lawfully require that members of its faculty be members of that denomination, and may lawfully bar from employment anyone who is not a member.

Bona fide occupational qualifications generally only apply to instances in which the BFOQ is considered reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a particular business. For example a Catholic college may lawfully require such positions as president, chaplain, and teaching faculty to be Catholics, but membership in the Catholic Church would generally not be considered a BFOQ for occupations such as secretarial and janitorial positions. [Wiki]

 

[bankside]

So is a church allowed to pay its caretaker less than minimum wage or not?

 

[Kulindahr]

So is a church allowed to pay its caretaker less than minimum wage or not?

Do we get to question the constitutionality of the minimum wage?

 

[bankside]

It is a very old principle of the common law of English free men that two parties cannot agree to an illegal thing. And a government can define working conditions which are so poor that they are legally "unagreeable."

Working for a pittance is one definition. Working without healthcare appears to be another.

But question away.

 

[Gatorguy]

Do we also think mental health insurance must provide a gay-to-straight conversion benefit, regardless of who offers it, even a gay/lesbian organization?

 

[bankside]

Do we also think mental health insurance must provide a gay-to-straight conversion benefit, regardless of who offers it, even a gay/lesbian organization?

If it had an established medical purpose, yes. However that kind of "therapy" has been discredited by professional medical bodies as harmful or pointless. So, no.

I don't think you'd see coverage for "homeopathy" or "reflexology" either.

 

[rareboy]

Frankly, while some here seem to be fretting all the time about governments boots all over the 'churches', there are as many people out here today who are totally fucking fed up with the boots of the 'churches' all over the civil and legal rights of the citizens of the US.

As long as the churches get to butt their noses into the affairs of all citizens, then it is only fair that sometimes the citizens get to come up with a law that applies to all churches as well.