• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Judge rules private company owners cannot be forced to violate their religious belief

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
cybrsage said:
You have it backwards, the employee is still free to use contraceptives, just not purchased for them by the owner. You put who is forcing their beliefs onto who.

It gives the property owner the right to say you cannot bring a gun onto his property. I know, not what you wanted to hear, but the truth.
Click to expand...

The owner isnt bearing the cost so his religious beleifs shouldnt ve considered
 
cybrsage said:
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ffer-contraceptives-judge-says/#ixzz2NcCzcSiG

Should the government be allowed to force you to perform gravely immoral acts?
Click to expand...


No, of course not. But in this specific case, "gravely immoral" is rather subjective.

Birth control is certainly not "gravely immoral" to the majority of rational, educated humans on this planet; but only to a niche group of antiquated nutballs. Fortunately for them, the constitution sides with their desire to practice antiquated nutballery, so it appears that the judge decided in the correct manner.

This is certainly not an issue of preventing the government from forcing gravely immoral acts; it is one of preventing the government from forcing private "individuals" (remember: a corporation is an individual!) to compromise their religious batshittery.

stop making dumb posts.
 
hardhat said:
Corporations are supposed to be separate entities, and therefore should not have any ability to claim religious standing.
Click to expand...

sorry, you didn't hear?

SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are now individual, private citizens. It's the new hotness!
 
nehalem256 said:
So businesses that provide health insurance do not contribute to the costs? 🙄
Click to expand...

pretty much. for 99.9% of employees, it's the employee who bears the costs.

PokerGuy said:
What do you mean the owner isn't bearing the cost? Is the employer not paying for any portion of the health insurance?
Click to expand...
economically, pretty much not. and that's really all that matters. everything else is just bullshit.
 
Pens1566 said:
This. The judge is saying the owner's religious beliefs are above those of his employees. Not a great precedent to be set. I'd imagine it goes higher and gets thrown out.
Click to expand...

Well it's his business. And it's private. Anything related to the business and what/how he compensates his employees is really between him and his employees. As long as the pay is legal, what benefits he offers/doesn't offer above/beyond the pay is really none of our business.

Hey, if you do X job, you'll only make $10 an hour and get insurance that doesn't cover birth control.

Don't like it, don't work there. If you want birth control to be covered, you have just as much right to 'ask' for it just like you can 'ask' for $11 an hour instead of $10. It's not rights, it's compensation. You don't have any RIGHTS to birthcontrol when it's paid out of someone else's pocket.
 
ElFenix said:
pretty much. for 99.9% of employees, it's the employee who bears the costs.
Click to expand...

My employer pays my insurance. Nothing comes out of my paycheck.

Granted, I could probably talk them into skipping the insurance and paying me the difference, so indirectly I guess it 'does' come out of my pocket.
 
Is it considered a gravely immoral act to do business with another company that does provide contraception to their employees?
 
something to consider,

if an employer disallows female specific healthcare choices while allowing male specific healthcare choices it could be considered sex discrimination based on fringe benefits.

Now if said employer wants to not offer birth control for example, thats fine as long as he doesn't offer coverage for certain men's health issues.

He is free to practice religious freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. its perfectly acceptable to say have a health plan that doesn't provide gender specific coverage.
 
ElFenix said:
economically, pretty much not. and that's really all that matters. everything else is just bullshit.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you haven't looked at health insurance costs and how they are paid recently. Most employers pay a significant majority of the health insurance costs for their employees. The employees usually pay a premium as well, but it's the employer that pays most of it. Any notion that the employer isn't paying for it is simply wrong.
 
lotus503 said:
something to consider,

if an employer disallows female specific healthcare choices while allowing male specific healthcare choices it could be considered sex discrimination based on fringe benefits.
Click to expand...

Hence my earlier post. The simple answer is to mandate coverage for things that are medically needed to treat a condition. Doesn't matter what gender. "not wanting to get pregnant" (for example) is not a medical condition that needs treated, while "endometriosis" (for example) is a medical condition that can be treated. It's a simple distinction, let those who want to use a product as part of their lifestyle choice pay for it, while those who need medical treatment get insurance coverage.
 
PokerGuy said:
Apparently, you haven't looked at health insurance costs and how they are paid recently. Most employers pay a significant majority of the health insurance costs for their employees. The employees usually pay a premium as well, but it's the employer that pays most of it. Any notion that the employer isn't paying for it is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

true in almost all cases I pay $450 for my coverage I know for a fact my employer pays $1200 or so now for my coverage.
 
PokerGuy said:
Hence my earlier post. The simple answer is to mandate coverage for things that are medically needed to treat a condition. Doesn't matter what gender. "not wanting to get pregnant" (for example) is not a medical condition that needs treated, while "endometriosis" (for example) is a medical condition that can be treated. It's a simple distinction, let those who want to use a product as part of their lifestyle choice pay for it, while those who need medical treatment get insurance coverage.
Click to expand...

thats fair, then all women could claim birth control pills help with menstrual pain and conditions.
 
PokerGuy said:
Hence my earlier post. The simple answer is to mandate coverage for things that are medically needed to treat a condition. Doesn't matter what gender. "not wanting to get pregnant" (for example) is not a medical condition that needs treated, while "endometriosis" (for example) is a medical condition that can be treated. It's a simple distinction, let those who want to use a product as part of their lifestyle choice pay for it, while those who need medical treatment get insurance coverage.
Click to expand...

The reality, though, is that birth control is a wide-ranging social benefit that lowers medical care costs to everyone, regardless of who is making what lifestyle choices.

I know this issue is about religion, but disallowing birth control as some form of "government austerity" is, to put it mildly, "the dumbest dumbfuck argument from ignorance" as regards to healthcare costs. --Just want to put it out there.
 
PokerGuy said:
Apparently, you haven't looked at health insurance costs and how they are paid recently. Most employers pay a significant majority of the health insurance costs for their employees. The employees usually pay a premium as well, but it's the employer that pays most of it. Any notion that the employer isn't paying for it is simply wrong.
Click to expand...


who is bearing the cost != who shovels money around on paper
 
Last edited:
Ummm.....I don't agree with this. If this was a private religious organization, then that's okay. But in this instance, I think this ruling is wrong.
 
lotus503 said:
something to consider,

if an employer disallows female specific healthcare choices while allowing male specific healthcare choices it could be considered sex discrimination based on fringe benefits.

Now if said employer wants to not offer birth control for example, thats fine as long as he doesn't offer coverage for certain men's health issues.

He is free to practice religious freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. its perfectly acceptable to say have a health plan that doesn't provide gender specific coverage.
Click to expand...

They don't have to cover Viagara
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top