[speechlesstx]

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.

The company is paying the premium so yes they really are paying for it.

[TUT317]

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.

Hi tom,

I don't necessarily disagree with this position. In fact I tend to support it. However, I feel as through this issue does not come under a blanket definition. Each case should be treated on its merits, or lack of them.

What I am saying is that different companies can object to the mandate based on the moral standing of the owners. But I don't think they can oppose the mandate because they feel as though it interferes with the employers beliefs and what they think their employees ought to believe. In other words you can't claim both at the same time while really meaning just your beliefs. This would clearly be wrong.



Tut


Let's look at it this way.

What if it is the case that a particular employer objected to the mandate on the basis that it interfered with their religious beliefs? In other words, they have clearly stated that their goal is in fact to exercise their religious beliefs in the daily work practices and business dealing.But the stated goal also entails the desire to promote the religious development of their employees.

In this particular instance is a problem because it becomes difficult to distinguish your motivation for opposing the mandate. In other words, you would have big problems defending your position.

[tomder55]

Fine but that is not the case. Even the Catholic Church does not discriminate in employment due to religious beliefs ;nor is their goal to convert them. Employers like Hercules HVAC before Obamacare were permitted to offer health insurance as a benefit (no one told them they had to provide any insurance ) .NOW ,the new rules state that they not only have to provide it ,or pay a punitive penalty (aka tax according to SCOTUS ) ,and not only that ;they are forced to provide provisions like abortion pills to their plan ,even as they are morally opposed to it.

[talaniman]

Few if any companies pay the full premiums no matter what the group rate is. They do however deduct an agreed upon amount of the employees wages as an offset, and even in the case of a self plan they are required by an underwriter to provide funds for unforeseen health care emergencies.

I can bet that since a union friendly company already has insurance agreements in place these lawsuits are brought by NON union corporations. Still checking, but since discrimination is against the law,as far as hiring practice, it would seem that foisting ones beliefs on those same employees would be a form of discrimination also.

Now if the employees formed a union at these non union workplaces, I doubt seriously if they would be happy with the boss discriminating against a spouse because of gender. And in the real world,who quits a job because of the pill or abortion for that matter? Who has those options?

Most taxpaying employees DON'T! Bread winners sure don't! Could this be about worker rights versus church rights? Just asking.

[tomder55]

Lucky for me that I'm not an employer . For if I was ,and I was compelled to take actions against my convictions ,I would be forced to make the terrible choice of surrrendering those convictions ,or surrendering my business. I suggest that in a free nation ,an employer should not be compelled by the state to make such a decision. Since the employees had already decided that the contract between the employer and them was worth the conditions ,then the government intervention is abusive.

In the fiction 'Atlas Shrugged' ,when confronted with the intolerable option;the employers destroyed their businesses rather than submit. What happened then to all the jobs the employers created ?

[talaniman]

The competition would expand and fill the gap. Isn't that the free market at work.

What if employees stop working? All of them? A national strike? Oh that's right, rich guys can make product without workers.

[TUT317]

Fine but that is not the case. Even the Catholic Church does not discriminate in employment due to religious beliefs ;nor is their goal to convert them.

This does not necessarily apply to the Catholic religion. The mandate could be seen to be a violation by any number of religious groups. Although, it is most likely a violation of Catholic beliefs. Most of the complaints seem to be from those of the Catholic faith.

I have seen at least one example of whereby an employer; through their Mission Statement wants to promote the spiritual development of their employees.

I am NOT saying there is anything wrong with this. I am also NOT saying that all employers want to promote some type of spiritual development of their employees. But it would seem that it is the case in at least one instance when you look at this particular company. More specifically their Mission Statement.

My point is this... If this company has (among other things)a stated goal in terms of the spiritual development of their employees then this puts them in a tenuous position if they want to claim they are opposed to the mandate. Opposed on the basis that it is against THEIR religious belief.

Based on their Mission Statement regarding employees spiritual development one could easily say they oppose it for two reasons. Their own reasons is of course the main one. But the other reason is that they want their employees to adopt certain religious values.

This is why I am saying that each case should be based judged on merit.

That is, those who don't have a desire to promote a religious belief for the employees and those that state that this is their desire.

Tut

[tomder55]

I'm just going by the law and how HHS is applying it. They make no such distinction ;and the Newlands are offered no choice .

[TUT317]

I'm just going by the law and how HHS is applying it. They make no such distinction ;and the Newlands are offered no choice .

Hi Tom,

In the end you are probably right. My suggesting was pretty much whistling in the dark.

I guess I am saying that in this particular instance; if you are going to challenge the Obama mandate then it is probably best that you don't confess you are trying to influence the spirituality of you employees.

This is not in any way a legal opinion on my part.

Tut

[cdad]

Hi Tom,

In the end you are probably right. My suggesting was pretty much whistling in the dark.

I guess I am saying that in this particular instance; if you are going to challenge the Obama mandate then it is probably best that you don't confess you are trying to influence the spirituality of you employees.

This is not in any way a legal opinion on my part.

Tut

I think there may be a much simpler way to look at this and as to why objections are happening.

Lets use this for an example:

I invite you to dinner on the town. Since Im the one doing the inviting Im also the one who is paying for it. So the decision of the eatery we go to would rest on my shoulders.

Given this example most people would object if I had invited you out for dinner and then you demanded we eat at a certain establishment of your choosing.

I think you can see where my point is going. The person paying the tab is the one with the choice. The other choice is that of the guest as to participate or not. If it is by mutual agreement then we are free to come to consensus as to where we go since we both are paying our own tab.

[TUT317]

I think there may be a much simpler way to look at this and as to why objections are happening.

Lets use this for an example:

I invite you to dinner on the town. Since I'm the one doing the inviting Im also the one who is paying for it. So the decision of the eatery we go to would rest on my shoulders.

Given this example most people would object if I had invited you out for dinner and then you demanded we eat at a certain establishment of your choosing.

I think you can see where my point is going. The person paying the tab is the one with the choice. The other choice is that of the guest as to participate or not. If it is by mutual agreement then we are free to come to consensus as to where we go since we both are paying our own tab.

When you invite me out to dinner and you are paying I have no problem going to the restaurant of you choice. Seems fair to me. If you told me beforehand that you are taking me to a vegetarian restaurant then I would have the opportunity to pull out.

However, it would be unfair if you took me to a restaurant and then told me that the only meals you are prepared to pay for are vegetarian.

If the reason you gave me for you decision is that you are a vegetarian and that you would like to try and influence me in that direction.


It would be equally unfair if you took me to a restaurant then suddenly hit me with this ultimatum.

Now that I am seated you are telling me if I don't like it I can go elsewhere or pay for my own meal? Not really much of a mutual agreement.



I actually support the objections to the mandate. All I am suggesting is that it would have been better for someone else to make a legal challenge to the mandate. Some other company who hasn't made a statement that it is their goal to influence the spiritual development of their employees. It isn't really a good look.

That's really all I am saying

Tut

[speechlesstx]

I actually support the objections to the mandate. All I am suggesting is that it would have been better for someone else to make a legal challenge to the mandate. Some other company who hasn't made a statement that it is their goal to influence the spiritual development of their employees. It isn't really a good look.

That's really all I am saying

Tut

I think it's a great look, and part of what made this country what it is today. There's nothing wrong with wanting to "influence" your employees, great business leaders do that sort of thing. The only problem with this is the left in this country can't make the disconnect between influence and coercion.

[TUT317]

I think it's a great look, and part of what made this country what it is today. There's nothing wrong with wanting to "influence" your employees, great business leaders do that sort of thing. The only problem with this is the left in this country can't make the disconnect between influence and coercion.

I agree it is a good look.

I think you should should challenge the mandate when it goes against your religious beliefs. This is a good look as you say.

The bad look is when you challenge the mandate on the basis of your religion while publicly stating that you want to influence the spirituality of you employees.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

I agree it is a good look.

I think you should should challenge the mandate when it goes against your religious beliefs. This is a good look as you say.

The bad look is when you challenge the mandate on the basis of your religion while publically stating that you want to influence the spirituality of you employees.

Tut

There is no law against it, the right to exercise freedom of religion doesn't end when you become a business owner. When it becomes discrimination or coercion is when it becomes a bad look.

[TUT317]

There is no law against it, the right to exercise freedom of religion doesn't end when you become a business owner. When it becomes discrimination or coercion is when it becomes a bad look.

There is no law against it.

But how are you going to argue that the mandate is against YOUR religious beliefs while at the same time stating that it is your goal to influence the belief of your employees.

Surely there are two motivations at work here, not just one.

If you are objecting to the law solely on the basis that it is against YOUR religious convictions then I don't see a problem. But once you have claimed you are trying to influence the beliefs of your employees then it can be argued you are also motivated by a desire to determined their choice.

In other words it could seen as an attempt not to comply with the regulation because you don't see it in the best spiritual interests of your staff and yourself.

I am not saying this is necessarily the case, but you could certainly mount a very strong argument for this position. As as said not a good look.

Tut

[excon]

There is no law against it, the right to exercise freedom of religion doesn't end when you become a business owner.

Hello again, Steve:

You're right... Take the case of Wheaton College, an evangelical liberal arts school in Illinois. Like you, they were OUTRAGED about Obama trampling on their religious freedom. So, they asked a Washington, D.C. federal court on Wednesday for an emergency waiver to PREVENT Obama from FORCING them to violate a sacred religious principle..

But, Wheaton's health plan ALREADY covered emergency contraception. They had to scramble to GET RID of that coverage in order to qualify for the exemption that would prevent Obama from REQUIRING them to purchase the insurance coverage they just got rid of, in order to qualify for the exemption, that would prevent Obama from requiring them to purchase the insurance coverage they just got rid of, in order...

Yeah, I'm getting dizzy... The bottom line is, they weren't TOO outraged when they themselves were covering contraception, but certainly managed to MANUFACTURE some when they thought Obama was trampling on their rights.

Was it FAKE outrage?? Sure.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Fake my a$$, what part of 'Inadvertently' do you not get?

'Wheaton College 'Inadvertently' Covered Emergency Contraception Before Birth Control Mandate"

I imagine a lot more who share their convictions have re-examined their coverage so it does not provide things that violate their conscience. Nothing hypocritical about it, a little self-examination is a good thing.

[NeedKarma]

'Wheaton College 'Inadvertently' Covered Emergency Contraception Before Birth Control Mandate"

You'd think after the very first claim they'd have that fixed, but no...

[excon]

Nothing hypocritical about it, a little self-examination is a good thing.

Hello again, Steve:

No?? So, you think it SLIPPED by. You think these religious organizations were covering the dreaded birth control pills and abortion services WITHOUT knowing it. Really??

Ok, that COULD be true... But, if they had such a VISCERAL and RELIGIOUS objection to covering those kinds of services, you'd think they would have done some of this "self-examination" BEFORE they wrote the check...

In fact, after a bit more deliberation, and given the abhorrence that the church displays over contraceptives, I CANNOT believe they didn't have 10 religious people POURING over their insurance coverages to make absolutely CERTAIN that they weren't buying these ANTI religious services...

But, you believe it just SLIPPED through, huh?? I'm having a very hard time believing that..

excon

[speechlesstx]

You'd think after the very first claim they'd have that fixed, but no ...

And you think the employer gets copies of the EOBs and medical records? Um no, that's a privacy issue.