• Joe.02

    I think the U.S. v. Lee language particularly damning, including the “binding on others” language. The Hosanna-Tabor ruling, e.g., spoke about the difference between internal decision-making of religious institutions and “outward acts.” This is one — particularly when it interferes with the employees, whose own money is involved here. I find it troubling when even a college interferes with their students, but for profit corporations … come on!

  • JMax

    The contraceptive coverage issue IS NOT a matter of free
    exercise of religion. It is a matter of compensation.

    An employee receives salary or wages and benefits in
    exchange for their labor. This is their compensation for the work that they do
    for their employer. The compensation may be any combination of money, vacation
    days, sick days, health insurance premium support, 401k dollar matching, etc.
    It is the employee who freely chooses what to do with the fruits of THEIR labor,
    their compensation. They can choose a luxury car or a rattle trap, American
    made or foreign made. They can buy liquor. They can gamble where it’s legal.
    They can use their vacation to go to a nudist colony or make the haj. They can
    invest in solar energy or oil production. They can do all this without
    infringing on the religious convictions of their employer.

    And they can choose to use contraceptives or not. They can
    make this choice based on their health needs, their family situation, their
    doctor’s recommendation or THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

    Their employer and his beliefs have absolutely nothing to do
    with it.

    If the employer was allowed to opt out of the contraceptive
    mandate, then the employee would be forced to use their salary or wages to buy
    contraceptives. As with health care premium support, the contraceptives have
    been obtained with the compensation that is the fruits of their labor.

    In which case, what has the employer gained? What is the
    difference? Either way the employer has paid the compensation with which the
    contraceptives are paid for, and the EMPLOYEE freely exercises THEIR OWN religion.

    • Joe.02

      I think the issue covers various things so it isn’t one single thing but appreciate the comment overall, including this:

      And they can choose to use contraceptives or not. They can make this choice based on their health needs, their family situation, their doctor’s recommendation or THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

      One thing that really bugs me is that at the end of the day, as a whole, if there is any “substantial effect” on free exercise at the end of the day, it probably is more an infringement on the employees. The government can protect them when regulating for profit secular businesses in this fashion as they do when they protect against religious discrimination generally at the work place.

  • survivor2011

    TAX the religious and non-profit bastards and see how quickly the corps jump ship.

Mobile Theme