The fall out of the dictatorial edit by HHS has resulted in law suits by religious organizations that are destined to climb up the judiciary ladder .

Now the same can be said about small businesses who's owner's morals are being violated by this attack on their 1st amendment rights .
http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/fil...-COMPLAINT.pdf

The Newlands are a Catholic family that owns an HVAC business that employs 265 people . Under Obamacare , businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate under the Sebellius edict ,the insurance must include "free" sterilization,contraception,an abortifacient benefits.
They are devout Catholics who are morally opposed to sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion .

While most of the free exercise debate has focused on religious institutions ;what hasn't been addressed in the discussion is how this dictate also violates the rights of small business owners. The Newlands run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous coverage that is consistent with their beliefs .

The complaint states that faith "does not allow them to violate Catholic religious and moral teachings in their decisions operating Hercules Industries,”... “They believe that according to the Catholic faith their operation of Hercules must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that the adherence of their business practice according to such Catholic ethics and religious and moral teachings is a genuine calling from God, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that their Catholic faith requires them to integrate the gifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical social principles of Catholic teaching into their life and work."“The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils,” says the complaint. “As a matter of religious faith the Newlands believe that those Catholic teachings are among the religious ethical teachings they must follow throughout their lives including in their business practice.”

The Justice Dept's response is that if they don't like the rules ,give up your business. They argue that “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.’”

The Newland's complaint states “The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” “Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” This is the equivant of arguing that once a news organization is incorporated ,they give up their1st Amendment right to freedom of press.

They have no options . Under Obamacare if they stop providing insurance through their company ,they still are forced to pay a fine ,and they would be forced to purchase insurance for themselves that offers the provisions they object to. Under any circumstances ,under the Sebillius dictate ,they are forced to violate their relious moral code ;and give up their free exercise rights..

Interesting reading Tom, but in the end it is all academic. None of us will have a say in this outcome or any future outcomes. It is all the lap of the Supreme Court.

unless the law is repealed in the next session of Congress ,and the repeal signed by President Romney... or a President Romney could reverse the dictate by the HHS commissioner . That would be the more probable outcome of a Romney victory.(hopefully)

Tom seems to me a higher law is in operation and sadly people refuse to heed it. Render unto Cesaer, this has been forgotten. If the law of the land requires you to do something then you have a choice, you can do what the law requires, or you can do what your conscience requires and accept the penalty of the law. The Law is not a law specifically made to establish a religion or to prevent free practice of a religion and therefore we will see this debate go around and around in circles as it has already. The Law has not been found to be unconstitutional, that is, it does not violate the amendment.

That the law permits a benefit to be paid for such odious practices as abortion and steralisation is an anathema to people of faith but it is not the unforgivable sin

I disargree that it isn't a free exercise issue because the law compels them to violate their religious conscious.

Nice. So now small business owners aren't allowed to have values. Who gives a hoot that first amendment rights are again being violated, that 265 people will lose their job or that this family could lose their business? Oh wait, they didn't build it anyway so what right do they have to the fruits of their labors?

Of course they can, they may not be the exact values you want them to have but they can have values.

They merely break the company up into 5 new companies, each covering perhaps a with separate duties. If they keep them completely separate, they may then not have to offer them any coverage at all. This is being done more and more I know of two local companies doing that as we speak. Different corporations, one can even pay rent for usage of building or office space, keep book keeping separte, a little more work, but they can get around the new laws.

This will work with those smaller companies.
One heating and air company where I am friends, is dividing up residential and commercial. Then residential is being divided into sections of the city each section a new company.
Each company will buy their supplies from a central warehouse ( guess what a separte company) that will also lease them their trucks and tools.

Fr Chuck... indeed ! For the same reason companies hire armies of lawyers and regulatory experts for compliance ;and armies of CPA and tax experts... It all comes down to the same thing ;the heavy jackboot of government on business activity in the country .

Do you ever have anything relevant to say?

Why do you attack people for believing different things that you believe? Is this what you are taught?

Are you also allergic to reality?

See, there's another example. That reminds many of us why organized religion does not make on a better person.

And there you go again, injecting religion into the topic for no good reason.

Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court in Colorado has granted an injunction in favor of the Newland family, saying they do not have to comply with the Sebellius dictate that they provide contraception coverage .

Kane( a Carter appointee), said the government's arguments "are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.

"As the Tenth Circuit has noted, 'there is a strong public interest in the free exercise of religion even where that interest may conflict (with another statutory scheme) ...' Accordingly, the public interest favors entry of an injunction in this case."
First plaintiff beats Obama HHS-abortion mandate in court - New York Catholic | Examiner.com
TAX THAT!

If someone opposes birth control on moral or religious grounds, that is their right, but I don't see why that should give them the right to deny birth control to someone else who doesn't share their beliefs. For example, someone working as a cashier at a convenience store may not approve of adult magazines or videos, but if a customer wants to rent or purchase one, they cannot refuse to do it, so why should businesses and pharmacists be allowed to refuse to provide birth control to anyone?

No one forces them to work there . What is being objected to is the government forcing businesses to provide services/products /benefits they are morally opposed to.

Part of your thinking as it applies here is incorrect. The difference being that as per your example a third party is paying for an item or service. What the current debate about birth control is over is the company (entity) paying for the birth contol for someone else to use. There is a huge difference.

Well the company is not really paying for it, the client's premiums are the funds used to buy the goods... that the client uses.

In this case the company is the self insured entity that is providing the premium payout. So yes the company is out of pocket for the expenses and not a third party entity.