You want employers to be able to discriminate [make a distinction] against people based on their beliefs.[/quote]
I then asked, basically, don’t you? I couldn’t imagine that you’d force a Christian Church to hire a gay, atheist, clergyman. [/quote]
My question fit HIS statement perfectly.
[/quote]
Based in the conntext of his question, which you neatly trimmed out, no it doesn’t. Your question is like forcing a fire department to hire someone who can’t do a single pushup.
His was based around employers cutting off certain parts of health coverage based on religious views. Now allowing employees to remove parts of their coverage of their own accord… not such a big deal.
His was based around employers cutting off certain parts of health coverage based on religious views.[/quote]
They’re not cutting off certain parts of health coverage based on religious views. No matter what you’re religious view is, you don’t get contraception coverage.
Making the decision to withdraw healthcare from one employee is a little different than deciding not to hire someone flat out because they have already put their other options on hold to serve you. If you tell them “no” before they put those options on hold, no harm done. If you accept them, lead them to believe that they’re going to be given something, they take it and thereby dismiss their other options, and then you decided to change your policy so you can alter just their individual healthcare package, you’ve just cost them all of the other opportunities, that are no longer open, which were available at the time they were hired.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Making the decision to withdraw healthcare from one employee is a little different than deciding not to hire someone flat out because they have already put their other options on hold to serve you. If you tell them “no” before they put those options on hold, no harm done. If you accept them, lead them to believe that they’re going to be given something, they take it and thereby dismiss their other options, and then you decided to change your policy so you can alter just their individual healthcare package, you’ve just cost them all of the other opportunities, that are no longer open, which were available at the time they were hired.
[/quote]
Then you’ll have to blame Obama for promising them something they won’t get.
Bottom line, Catholic associations can not and will not provide this coverage. How much force will you use. Will you fine soup kitchens, hospitals, and battered women’s shelters? Throw Bishops in jail? Will the government take the Church into a sort of guardianship, rewrite it’s docrtine, dogma, teaching, and filling it’s positions before signing off it’s return to a quasi-private status? How far will you go?
His was based around employers cutting off certain parts of health coverage based on religious views.[/quote]
They’re not cutting off certain parts of health coverage based on religious views. No matter what you’re religious view is, you don’t get contraception coverage.
[/quote]
Oh come now, you’re not even trying anymore. The employers religious belief is affecting his employee, who can perform their job regardless of religious affiliation (unlike your example).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bottom line, Catholic associations can not and will not provide this coverage. How much force will you use. Will you fine soup kitchens, hospitals, and battered women’s shelters? Throw Bishops in jail? Will the government take the Church into a sort of guardianship, rewrite it’s docrtine, dogma, teaching, and filling it’s positions before signing off it’s return to a quasi-private status? How far will you go? [/quote]
What exactly makes providing this coverage so un-catholic?
His was based around employers cutting off certain parts of health coverage based on religious views.[/quote]
They’re not cutting off certain parts of health coverage based on religious views. No matter what you’re religious view is, you don’t get contraception coverage.
[/quote]
Oh come now, you’re not even trying anymore. The employers religious belief is affecting his employee, who can perform their job regardless of religious affiliation (unlike your example).[/quote]
Oh, so the employee is superior to the employer who offered the job. Catholic associations don’t want to provide contraception and abortifacients. Who knew!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bottom line, Catholic associations can not and will not provide this coverage. How much force will you use. Will you fine soup kitchens, hospitals, and battered women’s shelters? Throw Bishops in jail? Will the government take the Church into a sort of guardianship, rewrite it’s docrtine, dogma, teaching, and filling it’s positions before signing off it’s return to a quasi-private status? How far will you go? [/quote]
What exactly makes providing this coverage so un-catholic?[/quote]
Contraception and abortifacients. The Church maintains it’s sinfulness. Can not have any part of it’s provision.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”[/quote]
Pish posh, you want to make things so uncomfortable for anyone who disagrees with you that they will have no choice but to conform.[/quote]
The irony. It hurts.
[/quote]
If your personal beliefs disctate that you must not use contraception, then don’t use contraception. Hell, push for an option where you can remove it from your own coverage, and recover the money that would have been used for it.
[quote]Makavali wrote:If you knew there was no God, would you be a murderer and/or rapist?
Tsk tsk. Still no answer.[/quote]If you knew you didn’t exist would you be a murderer and/or rapist? Tsk tsk. Still no answer.