Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So they should be forced to do/provide something that goes against their fundamental beliefs?

They should be forced to pay their staff per the law of the land. Whether staff choose to use the health coverage provided to access services the employer finds immoral is simply no business of the employer, just as its no business of the employer if the employee chooses to use the cash they are paid to buy alcohol, gamble, or do anything other legal thing that might not fit the employer's morality.

Sebster, that "law of the land", you cite appears mutable according to whatever Obama's whim is. This goes directly against another law of the land that requires such changes to go through the designated legeslative procedures. There have been exceptions for religious beliefs in the past, so there is precedent here.

Relapse wrote:
Sebster, that "law of the land", you cite appears mutable according to whatever Obama's whim is. This goes directly against another law of the land that requires such changes to go through the designated legeslative procedures. There have been exceptions for religious beliefs in the past, so there is precedent here.

That Obama has handled the issue poorly with a range of half-assed compromises is beside the point. The issue at hand is whether an employer's morality can play any role in how an employee might use their salary and benefits, and on that issue I think it really is, or at least should, extremely clear.

And doesn't the legal precedent only extend to what may be forced upon you, there's no precedent for letting someone continue to dictate what they might force upon others. So, for instance, a person with a religious oppostion to war would not be forced in to the draft, but a religious organisation wouldn't be allowed to prohibit its employees from being in the national reserve.

You're missing the point Seb...

The act of self-certifying essentially facilitates the extension of insurance coverage of contraception to the employees of religious organizations, which means that they end up being the conveyance vehicle of the benefits... whether they directly pay for it or not.

It boggles my mind that this administration wants this fight... it's a fight they'll likely lose.

I'm mean, they'd have an easier time just simply granting waivers to those wanting religious exceptions and push through this contraception mandate via other means... like an expansion of Title IX.

Heck, if this administration would GIVE the Religious Establishments this waiver, then this administration would acquire a powerful advocate for the PPACA.

Alas... that's not what this administation wants. They would rather push through their "Statist Control".... Why? 'Cuz they think they know better.

 sebster wrote:
That Obama has handled the issue poorly with a range of half-assed compromises is beside the point. The issue at hand is whether an employer's morality can play any role in how an employee might use their salary and benefits, and on that issue I think it really is, or at least should, extremely clear.

No, the issue at hand is whether the government can force an employer to provide benefits that go against their religious beliefs in the first place.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Sebster, that "law of the land", you cite appears mutable according to whatever Obama's whim is. This goes directly against another law of the land that requires such changes to go through the designated legeslative procedures. There have been exceptions for religious beliefs in the past, so there is precedent here.

That Obama has handled the issue poorly with a range of half-assed compromises is beside the point. The issue at hand is whether an employer's morality can play any role in how an employee might use their salary and benefits, and on that issue I think it really is, or at least should, extremely clear.

And doesn't the legal precedent only extend to what may be forced upon you, there's no precedent for letting someone continue to dictate what they might force upon others. So, for instance, a person with a religious oppostion to war would not be forced in to the draft, but a religious organisation wouldn't be allowed to prohibit its employees from being in the national reserve.

You are being to generous to Obama when you call his changing law by decree, "half assed compromises":

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/07/10/this-was-the-law-how-can-they-change-the-law-n1637309

 sebster wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So they should be forced to do/provide something that goes against their fundamental beliefs?

They should be forced to pay their staff per the law of the land. Whether staff choose to use the health coverage provided to access services the employer finds immoral is simply no business of the employer, just as its no business of the employer if the employee chooses to use the cash they are paid to buy alcohol, gamble, or do anything other legal thing that might not fit the employer's morality.

That law of the land that has been unilaterally amended, had deadlines adjusted, and waivers granted without being properly amended? That law of the land that you laud so much?

So you're saying that the law should force people to act in a manner incompatible with their religious beliefs? You remember what caused the Pilgrims to come to this land right? Or what about the First Amendment if you are so concerned about the law of the land?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Relapse wrote:
You are being to generous to Obama when you call his changing law by decree, "half assed compromises":

Stick to one thing at a time. The date of the employer mandate is not the exceptions made to the contraception requirement.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You are being to generous to Obama when you call his changing law by decree, "half assed compromises":

Stick to one thing at a time. The date of the employer mandate is not the exceptions made to the contraception requirement.

Dreadclaw pretty much covered it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That law of the land that has been unilaterally amended, had deadlines adjusted, and waivers granted without being properly amended? That law of the land that you laud so much?

Where did you get "laud" from? You've attempted to invent some kind of interpretation of my post based on some 'lauding' of the law of the land, and it's kind of a bit ridiculous. The point is that the "religious freedom" to dictate how employees might spend their money is, simply, complete and total bs.

So you're saying that the law should force people to act in a manner incompatible with their religious beliefs?

No, I'm saying what I already typed out, that explicitly gave the difference between the law forcing you to do something against your religious beliefs, and the law forcing you pay someone who in turn is free to make their own choice about what services and products they access.

To give my analogy, again, a religious conviction that war is wrong would reasonably lead to a personal exemption from war... but the idea that that person's religious conviction should mean that they can deny their employees the ability to join the national guard would be deranged.

You remember what caused the Pilgrims to come to this land right?

Because the law of the land back home wasn't sufficiently hostile to people who didn't share the pilgrims religion? That's a pretty good comparison, though not for the reasons you intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The act of self-certifying essentially facilitates the extension of insurance coverage of contraception to the employees of religious organizations, which means that they end up being the conveyance vehicle of the benefits... whether they directly pay for it or not.

Yeah, the employer pays. Just as they pay if employees choose right now to spend their salary on abortions.

It boggles my mind that this administration wants this fight... it's a fight they'll likely lose.

The provision of free contraception and sexual healthcare is a crucial element to improving all manner of healthcare, and in improving rates of unplanned pregnancies (and all the benefits that come with that).

What's really disappointing here is the invented outrage of the conservative noise machine, looking to shut down a really important advance in healthcare over a basic nonsense issue, just to win some headlines for a little while.

Perhaps laud was too strong. Although the fact that you choose the exact phrase that the Administration did/do when discussing the ACA and touting it's benefits it could easily lead to that impression.

That comparison is apt for my argument. Yours not so much. Unless of course you think that the Pilgrims traveled because they were not getting birth control on someone else's dime.

The law of the land Sebster is that Congress is not able to prohibit the free expression of religion. That should mean that people are not forced to act in a manner that is incompatible with their religious beliefs. If you don't see how providing or enabling someone (and paying/helping to pay for it) could be objectionable to people of a religious persuasion then I'm not sure how else to progress this discussion as you as discounting the core argument. But I would be interested in hearing why you think that nuns and priests should be required to have coverage that includes birth control for themselves.

If you take a job with a religious/faith based employer you know what to expect, or you reasonably should. Excepting them to go against their religious beliefs and principals is like going to a vegan restaurant and demanding steak, then getting annoyed that the owners are respecting your choice of meal.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The law of the land Sebster is that Congress is not able to prohibit the free expression of religion. That should mean that people are not forced to act in a manner that is incompatible with their religious beliefs. If you don't see how providing or enabling someone (and paying/helping to pay for it) could be objectionable to people of a religious persuasion then I'm not sure how else to progress this discussion as you as discounting the core argument. But I would be interested in hearing why you think that nuns and priests should be required to have coverage that includes birth control for themselves.

If you take a job with a religious/faith based employer you know what to expect, or you reasonably should. Excepting them to go against their religious beliefs and principals is like going to a vegan restaurant and demanding steak, then getting annoyed that the owners are respecting your choice of meal.

If by "forced to act against their beliefs" you mean "forced to not force others to follow their beliefs" then yes. There is no reason that an employer should have the right to force their moral decision on you. That is freedom of religion. Even so, religious organizations are allowed to be exempt from paying for contraception, if they apply for an exemption*. Businesses meanwhile, can suck it up (and it's very little to suck up, as insurance companies will throw in Contraception nearly free, as it saves them on maternity costs), and stop trying to force employees to follow their religious beliefs. It is no worse than pacifists being forced to pay for the military, or Hindus having to pay for the inspections and promotion of American beef. Suck it up ya wilting daisies.


*Just wanted to add in that many Catholic organizations already had contraception included in their plans anyway, and were fine with it from a religious stand point until Obamacare came along. It's wedge politics by a few individuals is all.

 Maddermax wrote:
There is no reason that an employer should have the right to force their moral decision on you.

To the best of my knowledge, employees of the businesses advocating for a religious exemption have not tried to tell their employees they cannot use contraception, which would, indeed, be forcing their moral decision on you, so I'm not sure where this argument comes from.

 Maddermax wrote:
If by "forced to act against their beliefs" you mean "forced to not force others to follow their beliefs" then yes. There is no reason that an employer should have the right to force their moral decision on you. That is freedom of religion. Even so, religious organizations are allowed to be exempt from paying for contraception, if they apply for an exemption*. Businesses meanwhile, can suck it up (and it's very little to suck up, as insurance companies will throw in Contraception nearly free, as it saves them on maternity costs), and stop trying to force employees to follow their religious beliefs. It is no worse than pacifists being forced to pay for the military, or Hindus having to pay for the inspections and promotion of American beef. Suck it up ya wilting daisies.

*Just wanted to add in that many Catholic organizations already had contraception included in their plans anyway, and were fine with it from a religious stand point until Obamacare came along. It's wedge politics by a few individuals is all.

But the employer is not saying that the employee cannot use birth control. There is no penalty for the employee using birth control. The employer is saying that they simply will not provide it. That is very different to your claims that the employer is forcing morality on its employees. The only forcing in this instance is the government forcing religious institutions to act in a way that is incompatible with their beliefs.

Your last throw away statement is wholly incorrect.

 Seaward wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
There is no reason that an employer should have the right to force their moral decision on you.

To the best of my knowledge, employees of the businesses advocating for a religious exemption have not tried to tell their employees they cannot use contraception, which would, indeed, be forcing their moral decision on you, so I'm not sure where this argument comes from.

This is the world we live in today, where Christians trying to stick to their own morality are vilified. "If he won't give me the means to abort children, he's pushing his morality on me!!!"

 djones520 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
There is no reason that an employer should have the right to force their moral decision on you.

To the best of my knowledge, employees of the businesses advocating for a religious exemption have not tried to tell their employees they cannot use contraception, which would, indeed, be forcing their moral decision on you, so I'm not sure where this argument comes from.

This is the world we live in today, where Christians trying to stick to their own morality are vilified. "If he won't give me the means to abort children, he's pushing his morality on me!!!"

Add in 'Freedom of religion' is supposed to ensure the federal gov't does not have an official state religion nor infringe on an individual's right to practice their religion. It has ZERO to do with what any private organization does or does not do in regards to religion (except to protect them from the Federal Gov't).

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
There is no reason that an employer should have the right to force their moral decision on you.

To the best of my knowledge, employees of the businesses advocating for a religious exemption have not tried to tell their employees they cannot use contraception, which would, indeed, be forcing their moral decision on you, so I'm not sure where this argument comes from.

This is the world we live in today, where Christians trying to stick to their own morality are vilified. "If he won't give me the means to abort children, he's pushing his morality on me!!!"

Add in 'Freedom of religion' is supposed to ensure the federal gov't does not have an official state religion nor infringe on an individual's right to practice their religion. It has ZERO to do with what any private organization does or does not do in regards to religion (except to protect them from the Federal Gov't).

What part of the law is infringing on someones practice of religion is hard to get? These people's religion prohibits contraceptive measures. Forcing them to provide it infringes on their religious beliefs.

There is nothing stopping their employees from getting contraception. Nothing at all. Nada, zip, zero. Their right to such is in no way being infringed. The only infringement occuring here is on those whose religious beliefs prohibit contraception. And that is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 Maddermax wrote:

*Just wanted to add in that many Catholic organizations already had contraception included in their plans anyway, and were fine with it from a religious stand point until Obamacare came along. It's wedge politics by a few individuals is all.

Not here in the States... These Catholic parishes would ONLY approve contraceptive medicines for off-label uses... such as hormornal treatments, etc... just not solely for contraceptive.

Looks like Obama is now trying to backtrack on that 7 million enrollment being a sign of success:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01/07/cbs-correspondent-calls-out-jay-carney-for-re-writing-history-again-92694

Yup... the DCCC is apparently "doubling down" on the PPACA:



This seems appropriate:



Nice spin eh?

Nice spin? Good un, Whembly. Now they need a faces ad showing the many more people that have lost their insurance because of Obamacare.

Relapse wrote:
Nice spin? Good un, Whembly. Now they need a faces ad showing the many more people that have lost their insurance because of Obamacare.

Obama was just saving all those people from the terrible burden of choice!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Nice spin? Good un, Whembly. Now they need a faces ad showing the many more people that have lost their insurance because of Obamacare.

Obama was just saving all those people from the terrible burden of choice!

He's already saved Congress from the burden of ammending laws. This guy is an absolute sport!

Relapse wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Nice spin? Good un, Whembly. Now they need a faces ad showing the many more people that have lost their insurance because of Obamacare.

Obama was just saving all those people from the terrible burden of choice!

He's already saved Congress from the burden of ammending laws. This guy is an absolute sport!

Most efficient President EVAR

Definite multi tasker, what with taking the powers of all three branches of government for himself.

Let's see, there's a term for someone like that, but I can't quite put my finger on it....

Relapse wrote:
Definite multi tasker, what with being all three branches of government in one man.

Let's see, there's a term for someone like that, but I can't quite put my finger on it....

Maybe Obama is a Dakka Moderator
(Before anyone banes me, I have indeed read that thread.)

 whembly wrote:
Yup... the DCCC is apparently "doubling down" on the PPACA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DVDBrTFyRcU

When you don't have an argument, and the facts do not support your case (more losing health insurance than gaining it) all you can do is appeal to emotion and try and blame a bogey man.

Let's see a similar ad from all those people who have lost healthcare because of the ACA, had their premiums jump, be forced to take unnecessary cover, or that conflicts with religious beliefs

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That comparison is apt for my argument. Yours not so much. Unless of course you think that the Pilgrims traveled because they were not getting birth control on someone else's dime.

No, but spend a second thinking about what the word puritan means. Go and read about the actual religious disputes the puritans had in England. Read about the efforts of James I to appease the Catholics (tolerating crypto-Catholics even in his own court, leaving some Catholic trappings in religious sermons etc) and how these were unacceptable to the puritans, leading to them insisting on being seperate to the CoE.

Now, the CoE handled that seperatism dreadfully (such were the times), but the point is that the pilgrim's original dispute was about religious allowances granted to others. They left in the name of their freedom to not tolerate other people's religions.

And here now we have people freaking out that their employees might make a personal choice not in keeping with the employer's religious beliefs. The parallel isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good.

If you take a job with a religious/faith based employer you know what to expect, or you reasonably should. Excepting them to go against their religious beliefs and principals is like going to a vegan restaurant and demanding steak, then getting annoyed that the owners are respecting your choice of meal.

But the US isn't a vegan restaurant. It's got a long and proud history of offering contraception to people who want it, but not forcing it's use on anyone.

So what we're actually talking about is a restaurant that sells both meat and vegetarian dishes, which everyone at the table was free to order as they pleased. Then at the end of the meal, it was decided that it was best if everyone just paid an equal share for the meal. At which point one of vegetarian diners put their hand up and said 'I'm fine with everyone paying an equal share, but I won't pay in for any of the meals that included meat, because that would infringe my religion'. That person is a dill weed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
This is the world we live in today, where Christians trying to stick to their own morality are vilified. "If he won't give me the means to abort children, he's pushing his morality on me!!!"

The ACA employer mandate doesn't cover abortion. Individual states can require coverage for abortions deemed medically necessary to save the life of the mother (or not, if the state chooses), but regular abortions are expressly not covered.

This idea that employers are going to be forced to pay for coverage for abortions is a right wing myth, told because the reality 'it's forcing me to pay for coverage for the pill for my employees' is nowhere near scary enough to justify all this nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
What part of the law is infringing on someones practice of religion is hard to get? These people's religion prohibits contraceptive measures. Forcing them to provide it infringes on their religious beliefs.

What part of 'if you cover your employee's healthcare, you don't get to choose what healthcare options they can access' is hard to get?

 sebster wrote:
But the US isn't a vegan restaurant. It's got a long and proud history of offering contraception to people who want it, but not forcing it's use on anyone.

No, it doesn't.

It has a long and proud history of having corporations around who make and sell contraception, though, so nothing's going to change there.

 sebster wrote:
No, but spend a second thinking about what the word puritan means. Go and read about the actual religious disputes the puritans had in England. Read about the efforts of James I to appease the Catholics (tolerating crypto-Catholics even in his own court, leaving some Catholic trappings in religious sermons etc) and how these were unacceptable to the puritans, leading to them insisting on being seperate to the CoE.

Now, the CoE handled that seperatism dreadfully (such were the times), but the point is that the pilgrim's original dispute was about religious allowances granted to others. They left in the name of their freedom to not tolerate other people's religions.

And here now we have people freaking out that their employees might make a personal choice not in keeping with the employer's religious beliefs. The parallel isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good.

No. No one is freaking out. People with religious beliefs are just concerned that they are being forced by law to act in a manner that is incompatible with their faith. I shouldn't have to restate this but the religious employer is not "freaking out" about providing contraception. The employer does not care if the employee uses it or not. The employee suffers no penalty from the employer for using it. The employee is at liberty to obtain the contraception elsewhere (like Planned Parenthood, free of charge). All the employer wants is to have their religious beliefs respected per the First Amendment - the law of the land as you so succinctly noted.

But thank you for further supporting my comparison with the Pilgrims

 sebster wrote:
But the US isn't a vegan restaurant. It's got a long and proud history of offering contraception to people who want it, but not forcing it's use on anyone.

A long and glorious history? Really?? There may not be a "long and proud history" of forcing people to use contraception, but there are moves to force people to provide it against their conscience and religious belief.

I'm still waiting to hear why you think that nuns and priests should be obliged to have coverage that includes contraceptives.

 sebster wrote:
So what we're actually talking about is a restaurant that sells both meat and vegetarian dishes, which everyone at the table was free to order as they pleased. Then at the end of the meal, it was decided that it was best if everyone just paid an equal share for the meal. At which point one of vegetarian diners put their hand up and said 'I'm fine with everyone paying an equal share, but I won't pay in for any of the meals that included meat, because that would infringe my religion'. That person is a dill weed.

You do know that being a vegetarian is not a religion, right? And that faith based employers do not offer contraceptives (unless for medical necessity), and this is something that people are aware of in advance, not when they attempt to get payment for their contraceptives, so you are offering a false comparison that bears little resemblance to the factual position.

That last sentence was the sound of you throwing away your credibility for the sake of petty, nasty name calling because you do not agree with someone else's beliefs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
That Obama has handled the issue poorly with a range of half-assed compromises is beside the point. The issue at hand is whether an employer's morality can play any role in how an employee might use their salary and benefits, and on that issue I think it really is, or at least should, extremely clear.

It is extremely clear, and it is enshrined in the First Amendment as quoted above.

 sebster wrote:
And doesn't the legal precedent only extend to what may be forced upon you, there's no precedent for letting someone continue to dictate what they might force upon others. So, for instance, a person with a religious oppostion to war would not be forced in to the draft, but a religious organisation wouldn't be allowed to prohibit its employees from being in the national reserve.

Again that is a false comparison. No religious organisation is prohibiting it's employees from using contraceptives. It is not mandating that employees must refrain from contraceptives. All they are saying is that they as an employer founded on religious principals do not want to act in a manner that is opposed to their religious beliefs. The employee can obtain contraceptives elsewhere.

 Seaward wrote:
No, it doesn't.

It does, actually. I mean, not if you go back to the 18th century, but that'd be kind of insane. Instead you look at the 20th century and the key role played by the US in advancing all manner of sexual health policies and practices and there's a lot there to be proud of.

The US today is also home to the strongest anti-contraception lobby in the developed world (excepting maybe Ireland), but that doesn't deny it's history.