December 17, 2012

"The founder of Domino's Pizza is suing the federal government over mandatory contraception coverage in the health care law."

"Tom Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception isn't health care but a 'gravely immoral' practice."

75 comments:

MadisonMan said...

How many boycott calls will this cause?

bpm4532 said...

There are only two consistent positions. Allow it at any time or don't allow it at all. If you try to split it by defining "viability", you show the the weakness of your starting position.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm not nearly as sympathetic to a for-profit as I would be for charities and churches. He could always just pay the fine instead.

sparrow said...

Matt,
So only have charities have religious rights? The fine BTW would be in the millions.

JHapp said...

One might think that notions of God is what all religions have in common, but sex is really the common denominator.

jaed said...

I don't think Monaghan has run Domino's Pizza in decades. He is the founder but no longer the head of the company.

On the other hand, that hasn't stopped people from calling for boycotting Domino's in the past for being associated with "a prolifer".

Matthew Sablan said...

As an employer for a company, I find it hard to justify allowing him to ignore the law. That's the issue: This is the law. He has a choice he can make to not have to be bound by it: Pay a fine and pass on the extra costs to his customers. Is there a compelling reason for for-profit corporations to be allowed to ignore laws?

Freeman Hunt said...

Isn't he right as far as it not being health care? You're not fixing anything with contraception; you're making things not work. You're also putting yourself at slightly higher risk for heart attacks and strokes, also certain cancers. None of that seems particularly healthy.

I'm not anti-contraception. Just musing a point where he's likely to be attacked.

Tank said...

Here's the deal Tommy boy, this is not a free country and you don't have any rights unless we say so. The people have voted for the guys who give out the goodies. Get over it you peon. Get with the program or else.

Freeman Hunt said...

Matthew, isn't that why he's suing, because he thinks it shouldn't be a law?

Renee said...

Too bad the government wouldn't mandate coverage of Natural Family Planning, along with contraception in health insurance plans. There is research that for couples who choose it, it is just as effective and as I mentioned in other posts it has it's own billing codes.

If the government mandates to cover family planning, cover all forms. Not fair the woman who chooses the Pill gets it free, while I choose a method that is taught. And as my body changes with age, it would be nice to get a follow up with an instructor.

Maybe I can find a way to sue the government, because my husband's employer doesn't have to cover my form of family planning in their health plan.


Matthew Sablan said...

Which is his right. I'm just not sure that he has much of an argument here. I'm just shooting from the hip though.

AJ Lynch said...

Good for Monahan. I am glad some people are not backing down from the unending regulatory juggernaut out of The Imperial City.

Pogo said...

"He could always just pay the fine instead."

He needs to get used to the idea that we no longer live in the country he grew up in.

It's dead.

Renee said...

Hey Mr. Really Really Rich Domino Man, why not create a health insurance we can buy? Have it in accordance with Catholic teaching, and market it to individuals who can opt out of their employer's/state's exchange plan?

When the government claims it doesn't qualify as insurance and taxes us, we can then sue.

Ann Althouse said...

"He needs to get used to the idea that we no longer live in the country he grew up in."

People pay taxes that go into the pot that pays for things they morally object to. Want to end that? Chaos!

Ann Althouse said...

It's dishonest or dumb to view this legal issue only in terms of Obamacare — especially if you're only hoping to come up with a way (any way) to scuttle it.

You have to embrace the general principle. If you don't understand what the general principle here is, then you need to think harder.

Tank said...

AA

We're not talking here about paying into a pool of taxes. We're talking about forcing a private individual to provide a service that contravenes his sincerely held religious belief.

Pogo said...

" You have to embrace the general principle. "

The general principle is that the Constitution is dead. I embraced that in November.

Bryan C said...

"Is there a compelling reason for for-profit corporations to be allowed to ignore laws?"

Whether a business is for-profit or not is irrelevant. Particularly since the government gets to define who's non-profit, and thus who would be exempt. Forcing anyone to explicitly support a practice that violates their religious beliefs is wrong, regardless of whether it's convenient for the government or not.

Matthew Sablan said...

Bryan: And yet, Quakers' taxes support the military and people who protest the death penalty's taxes fund the chair.

LilyBart said...

As an employer for a company, I find it hard to justify allowing him to ignore the law.

Maybe the law is wrong.

I remember years ago in the abortion debate, pro-choice people said to pro-life people: you cannot push your morality on others. I found that argument compelling.

But now, its pro-choice people who want to push their morality on others. If some people view abortion as murder - we should not make them be a party to it by making them pay for other people’s abortions.

I think we're only going to get along with each other in this vastly divergent society if we really respect each other's differences - not try to make everyone live according to our own standards and moralities. Otherwise, we’re just going to be at each others’ throats all the time because EVERY issue is going to be so damn important to everyone.

LilyBart said...

As an employer for a company, I find it hard to justify allowing him to ignore the law.

Maybe the law is wrong.

I remember years ago in the abortion debate, pro-choice people said to pro-life people: you cannot push your morality on others. I found that argument compelling.

But now, its pro-choice people who want to push their morality on others. If some people view abortion as murder - we should not make them be a party to it by making them pay for other people’s abortions.

I think we're only going to get along with each other in this vastly divergent society if we really respect each other's differences - not try to make everyone live according to our own standards and moralities. Otherwise, we’re just going to be at each others’ throats all the time because EVERY issue is going to be so damn important to everyone.

Bryan C said...

"People pay taxes that go into the pot that pays for things they morally object to. Want to end that? Chaos!"

That's why levying taxes and budgeting the proceeds is intended to be a difficult and painful process involving many, many levels of review and comment. That's less true now than it should be, but it's a process which Obamacare deliberately circumvented altogether.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also: This regulation is a lot like forcing food products to have certain safety/cleanliness standards. The question isn't whether some people are opposed to the specific regulations; the question should be if the mandate, as a whole, should stand. If it is legal, then people playing in the commercial arena need to pay the tax or cut a check to insurance companies.

MayBee said...

We're not talking here about paying into a pool of taxes. We're talking about forcing a private individual to provide a service that contravenes his sincerely held religious belief.

Exactly.

We can't keep saying these things that aren't taxes (insurance premiums, union dues) are like taxes, or we'll lose any ability to say you have any right to decide how to spend your own money.

MayBee said...

..and exactly what Bryan said.

Obamacare circumvented the tax system by requiring people to send their own money directly to a company to buy a good.

It's nice for the government because they don't have to worry about the good they've mandated getting too expensive for what they've budgeted. We all just need to dig deeper, because it's illegal no to buy the product no matter how expensive it gets.

Hagar said...

Requiring pre-paid contraception coverage is not about "health care." It is precisely about forcing the opposition to accept defeat, never mind on what grounds.

Matthew Sablan said...

"We'll lose any ability to say you have any right to decide how to spend your own money."

-- I agree, which is why I wish that the ACA had been thrown out. However, the mandate, is essentially, a tax with the insurance company stepping in as the IRS. The Supreme Court has said that if the legislature wants to set up a law like that, that's fine. So, hopefully, everyone keeps that in mind when we get our next opportunity to vote the bums out.

MayBee said...

However, the mandate, is essentially, a tax with the insurance company stepping in as the IRS.

Insurance companies can't step in as the IRS.

The IRS is collecting the fine/tax people are supposed to pay if they don't buy insurance. That's what the Court decided was constitutional.

It's still garbage. But it doesn't make buying insurance a tax.

BarrySanders20 said...

When I think harder about a deeply held religious belief and opposition to a particular program, I draw a distinction between programs that require the person to simply endure it and those that require active participation in the opposed activity. For example, many are opposed to capital punishment and do not enjoy being forced to fund, through taxes, a judicial system that allows it. But the government does not force a person who holds that belief to actually carry out the execution. That is the rub with government-forced payment for birth control or abortion. You can say that Tom Monaghan is not being forced to actually provide the abortion or pick up the prescription at Walgreens for his employee, but he is still being forced to participate and pay for it more directly than through taxes. If we had a single payer system, then the argument would be the same. Bt we don't and there is the distinction that causes the dispute.

Mitchell the Bat said...

I'd be a whole lot more sympathetic if it were true that Domino's Pizza gives its employees a pay raise for every baby.

AllenS said...

Every baby is a potential customer.

Rusty said...

Matthew Sablan said...
As an employer for a company, I find it hard to justify allowing him to ignore the law. That's the issue: This is the law. He has a choice he can make to not have to be bound by it: Pay a fine and pass on the extra costs to his customers. Is there a compelling reason for for-profit corporations to be allowed to ignore laws?

Yes. When it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
What if the law required that certain ethnic groups be identified in certain ways.

Matthew Sablan said...

Rusty: That's an interesting hypothetical that doesn't really apply here. Arguing by analogy is a trap that everyone falls into (including me), but I fail to see the validity here.

machine said...

Matthew is spot on this morning...


Pogo said...

They are forcing the contraception funding on religions/religious in order to humiliate them.
Not only must they submit to Allah, er, Statism, they must be humiliated by publicly endorsing lies, immorality, or the absurd.

Dalrymple's rule:
"...the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate...

When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
"

Fr Martin Fox said...

Our taxes already pay to distribute contraceptives, here and abroad. I don't like it, I'm sure Mr Monaghan doesn't like it, but he isn't suing to prevent that. This is the govt compelling private persons to take actions they find immoral, or to participate in those activities.

Defenders of the forced-participation-in-providing-contraception mandate like to say, oh we do this to someone's conscience all the time, if we didn't, it would be, to borrow our genial hostess' word, "chaos."

But is this actually true? Most of the examples I've seen cited are "what ifs"; in fact, we do manage to make exceptions for conscience without facing social dissolution. We allow people to opt out of classes in public schools, we allow some sects to opt out of Social Security, and we allow conscientious objectors even during a world war.

The one example we always here about is taxes paying for war. And I am entirely sympathetic to the objectors; I deeply object to the things our govt is doing under cover of "protecting" us.

However, this is a unique situation. We cannot devolve national defense or the police power to private action--I wish we could. All the more reason why our govt must be constrained by constitutional limits.

But here's a crazy idea: how about devolving to local govt, or to the private sphere, all these choices freighted with issues of conscience? If you want contraceptives, well then you pay for them. You get them yourself, don't have the govt make others provide them for you, and worse, force others to accept these things in their insurance plans.

Do you realize the govt is forcing religious sisters to accept this? No, they are not exempt, not unless they are employed by certain institutions. Some religious sisters aren't employed at all; yet they are required to carry insurance, and it must have contraception covered.

Hagar said...

It isn't "law," just a statute, and a very bad one.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Rusty:

What if space aliens arrive from Alpha Centari?

My point is, there can be an endless list of what ifs, yet have they actually happened? If not, why should we make policy on the basis of them. Don't we have more than enough real problems we can't address properly, without worrying about never-happened hypotheticals?

But there is another possible angle to your what if. This sort of debate shows the fallacy of thinking a society can be neutral on moral values. Every law, in one way or another, reflects a moral impulse. So there's no avoiding the issue of exactly what the moral consensus of a society is or ought to be.

It seems as though some people think morality is some arbitrary thing, untethered to reason or logic or reality. But is that actually true?

What is the source of morality? Where does it come from? There's no avoiding it. We can't live without it. Yet as a society, this is the topic that makes people uncomfortable. We have our own sort of neo-Victorianism at work here: "my dear boy, that's a subject that isn't discussed in polite company."

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

Stuff like this is just the crap antipasti.

Wait 'til they start shoveling in the main crap courses.

When are the suicide booths coming to every main street corner? I'm getting impatient.

MayBee said...

It isn't "law," just a statute, and a very bad one.

Exactly. What has to be covered wasn't voted on and passed by Congress, it was just a rule written up by Sebilius.

The next HHS Secretary that comes along could name any number of coverages included in the mandate. How about requiring de-gaying therapy be covered?

Would all employers gladly pony up, or would they sue to get out of it?

Hagar said...

Anything that gets rammed through Congress the way this was done, people are entitled to fight it any way they can.

Rusty said...

Father.
It was my subtle way of not invoking Godwins law. At one time in a different country it was the law that certain ethnicities identify themselves with a patch on their coat.

edutcher said...

At last count, 26 states have refused to create ObamaTax exchanges and the Senate demos realize the the ObamaTax tax would be a disaster.

I think the word "repeal" will be in our future.

And then maybe "impeach".

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm not nearly as sympathetic to a for-profit as I would be for charities and churches. He could always just pay the fine instead

Pay a fine and pass on the extra costs to his customers. Is there a compelling reason for for-profit corporations to be allowed to ignore laws?



He could also just drop insurance coverage for his employees. Pay the fine which is less than actual insurance premiums and pass on the savings to his customers. Win/win for him. Tuff enuff for the employees.

So it is ok with you for the government to force you to violate your religious principles if you are a private citizen?

SteveBrooklineMA said...

Monaghan isn't buying contraception coverage, his employees are. Monaghan is buying his employees' labor. The government is demanding that he pay for this labor with a regulated combination of cash and benefits. The effect would be in essence the same if the government made Monaghan compensate employees with cash only and made the employees purchase the coverage on their own.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Steve

The employees are not buying insurance. They are getting a tax free purchase on their behalf by the company of a group insurance policy.

Right now the employer is willing to take on that extra cost and provide a reasonable benefit. However, NOW the government is insisting that HE purchase a product for his employees that violates his religious principles.

A solution would be to give the employees a raise and tax them on the extra 10K a year and let THEM buy the insurance plan themselves. Of course most of them won't buy the insurance and will end up paying the fine to the government.

The other solution is to just not buy insurance for his employees and pocket the savings.
Unintended consequences.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Steve:

No, it isn't the same.

Imagine you have an alcoholic friend. You wish your friend would not drink, and he manages periods of sobriety, but sometimes he goes off the wagon. Suppose you call him to come over--you owe him $20 for whatever reason--and he asks you to pick up some beer for him. "Just use the $20 you owe me."

Now, you might have no problem doing so, but can you really say that someone who refuses, saying, "no, I'll bring you the money I owe you, but you'll have to buy your beer yourself," would have no good basis for doing so? You really can't see any difference?

The difference, in the case of your alcoholic friend, is the same for those of us who do not wish to be involved in the choices of others that violate our morals, in this case, contraception, etc.

SteveBrooklineMA said...

@Dust Bunny Queen

I agree that there are tax implications I am ignoring in my simplification. Still, I think the analysis is essentially correct. The government isn't demanding that employees get more salary+benefits in the long run. The market for labor will determine that. The government is regulating the mix of salary and benefits that employees get.

I think it's odd how employees are not the ones objecting here. Why aren't some objecting to being forced to buy these coverages? They really think they are getting these coverages "for free"?

SteveBrooklineMA said...

@Fr Martin-

If the government required businesses to compensate employees with a mix of cash and beer coupons, I wouldn't put much weight on the objections of business owners. I would put more weight on the objection of, for example, alcoholics and Muslims.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I think it's odd how employees are not the ones objecting here. Why aren't some objecting to being forced to buy these coverages? They really think they are getting these coverages "for free"?

Yes. They do think that it is free. They aren't taxed on the added costs of the insurance premiums. They mostly don't even KNOW how much the insurance is costing their employer. Most of them don't even care. It is free.

Maybe some of them think about the cost and would prefer to have a pay raise instead of the insurance program that has been selected FOR them by the employer. Especially the younger employees.

The smarter employees might realize that they could buy a policy that doesn't cover everything under the sun and have more money in their pocket. Or.....they could have done so before Obamacare. The government is now mandating that ALL policies be what us usually referred to as Cadillac Plans.

I don't need to buy a policy with birth control, pregnancy coverage, alcoholic and drug treatments etc etc etc. I would be better served by a high deductible policy with a health savings account. I can afford to pay for my own medical costs unless it was something catastrophic. Unfortunately....those will be phased out by Obamacare. I will be forced to buy coverage that I don't want.

Nathan Alexander said...

President Obama will never be impeached, much less removed from office.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Steve:

Why would you give weight to Muslim employers' objections to providing alcohol as pay, but you don't give weight to Catholic employers' objections to providing contraceptives as pay?

What's so terrible about employers paying employees with money?

But my question to you remains: do you really claim there is no difference between your hypothetical friend buying his own beer, and you buying it for him?

SteveBrooklineMA said...

Sorry Fr, I meant employees who are Muslim or alcoholics. I would expect them to object. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised to hear Catholic employees objecting to the requirement that they be compensated with insurance covering contraception.

I have no objection to cash compensation.

Of course I wouldn't provide an alcoholic friend with booze. The analogy to employers' compensating employees with insurance covering contraception seems quite weak to me.

purplepenquin said...

Ain't there some religions that beleive prayer, and only prayer, should be used to heal the sick and ill? So can those followers simply get out of all employer requirements for insurance....'cept those policies that pay for prayer, of course.

And what about the religions that think it is immoral for an inter-racial couple to marry? Should they be required to provide insurance for the offspring of such a couple?

Sticky wicket is sticky.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Steve:

Well, the point of my analogy was simply the issue of person A refusing to be an agent of person B doing something person A finds objectionable.

After proposing the analogy I did, I realized a clearer one would be: person A belongs to a religion that doesn't consume or purchase alcohol, being asked to help his or her friend acquire alcohol. The issue isn't whether drinking alcohol is good or bad, but the moral conundrum created by asking someone to be the agent. The objectionable purchase could be of certain food items, or X-rated videos, or guns, or anything else that some people have sincere objections to.

It's simple enough to avoid: don't ask people to participate in things they object to morally.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Purple:

I'll say it again: why spend time on "what ifs"? What if invaders arrive from Alpha Centari? What if the Mayan Calendar really does bring the end?

Let's deal instead with real scenarios. Are such things as you describe actually happening? Have the sorts of exceptions from generally applicable laws been actually asked for?

purplepenquin said...

Are such things as you describe actually happening? Have the sorts of exceptions from generally applicable laws been actually asked for?

Uhm, yes. That is what the original post is all about. This guy is claiming that his personal religious beleifs forbid him from providing the mandated insurance to their employees, and he is suing to get an injunction from having to do so.

And the other religious beleifs I mentioned aren't some fictionalized account like the aliens from outer space you brought up...they are actual&real religious beleifs that are held by a large number of people.

I'm sure this is nothing new and it came up before...so how did lawmakers&judges deal with the whole "My religion won't let me hire blacks, 'cause mixing the races is immoral" excuse?


If Domino's is successful in this lawsuit, I'm willing to bet we'll see a lot of CEO's suddenly become Christian Scientists. Or maybe even start a new religion called Christian Capitalist, with all kinds of "immoral" behavior in their scriptures they say they can't be forced to follow.

Revenant said...

He's right that it isn't health care, but wrong about it being immoral.

He's also right that it is unconstitutional to force him to pay for it.

SteveBrooklineMA said...

Fr Fox-

How about an analogy where an employer is required by law to pay the first $100 of salary in the form of a non-transferable $100 coupon to buy alcohol? This seems more apt to me. The employer isn't forcing the employee to drink alcohol. He isn't even providing more means to drink alcohol, as compared to giving the employee that $100 in cash. The employee could, after all, simply take that $100 cash to the liquor store.

I can understand a moral objection along the lines of "I don't want to have anything to do with this immoral behavior." I seems a bit weak though, compared to the objection that might be raised by the employee. He's the one being forced to accept compensation in the form of something he might have a moral objection to using.

Do you think the Catholic Church would make any headway with an argument on behalf of Catholic employees? That they shouldn't be forced to accept this form of compensation for their labor?

leslyn said...

Lilybart said,

But now, its pro-choice people who want to push their morality on others.

Hey, he doesn't have to take birth control if he doesn't want to.

Couldn't resist.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Purple:

Well, duh, I know the Monaghan example is real. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. No need to point out that the sun rises in the east, and that the earth has a 24-hour day. I know these things already.

My question was, are the "what ifs" you are talking about real? Are THEY happening? If so, please cite actual facts, not suppositions.

If you can't cite a real, actual example of someone objecting to providing medical care, but rather offering only to provide prayer, then I don't accept your claim that it's real.

Is that clear enough, or do I have to be more exacting in what I'm asking for?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Steve:

I don't know whether emphasizing the objections of Catholic employees would work. I've already pointed out how religious sisters, not anyone's employees, are forced to accept contraception/sterilization/ abortifacient coverage as part of the health care they are, under Obamacare, forced by law to purchase.

And I don't see why you think it's a "weak" complaint that an employer is forced to cooperate in something that violates his or her conscience.

We have employers who are suing the government over this--that costs real money, it's not a light matter. I have no doubt that some employers are wrestling with simply shutting down over this--if you are close to retirement, you might just say, heck with it. Or, you might sell your company and move on.

Now, that may not bother some people, but I don't see how any of this is in the best interest of our country.

The fanatical devotion some people (I don't mean you) have to their savior, the great god Contraception, is amazing to me. Everything else must be sacrificed to It.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Purple:

You claim:

"This guy is claiming that his personal religious beleifs (sic) forbid him from providing the mandated insurance to their employees, and he is suing to get an injunction from having to do so."

I would like you to substantiate your claims: namely, that Monaghan is objecting to providing insurance, per se; I don't believe that's accurate. Rather, he's objecting to certain elements of the insurance, not insurance in general.

That's not what our genial hostess said in her post--that he objected to insurance, in general; and it's not what the linked article said. They emphasize his complaint is against contraception.

Please substantiate your claim that he objects to insurance, itself, being mandated.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Purple:

Please cite an actual, real case, reported somewhere in this world, in which "religions that think it is immoral for an inter-racial couple to marry" have asked not to "provide insurance for the offspring of such a couple."

You claim this isn't a what-if, but actually happened. Citation, please.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Purple:

You claim that religious believers refusing to pay for any "employer requirements for insurance....'cept those policies that pay for prayer, of course" isn't a hypothetical, but really happened.

Citation, please?

purplepenquin said...

If you(sic) can't cite(sic) a real, actual example(sic) of someone objecting to providing medical care, but rather(sic) offering only to provide prayer, then I don't accept your(sic) claim that it's real.

You really had no idea that some people not only beleive as such, but also act accordingly? Here is one such case. The other religious beleifs I mentioned are also just as real. Please read up about Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wolf Age Pagans, and Christian Identity for more details about religious beleifs that go against current law.

I can't help but wonder if you would have also said before last month (or whenever this lawsuit was filed) the idea that someone would claim that their religious beleifs won't allow them to provide insurance that has birth control in it to be "not real" too?

Also, I'm still curious to know...do you have any idea what the response was when somebody first claimed that their religion won't let 'em hire people of color. Or do you also find it absurd that that anybody would have ever done such a thing?

purplepenquin said...

I would like you to substantiate your claims: namely, that Monaghan is objecting to providing insurance, per se;

That ain't my claim. I reckon I should've said "insurance as currently mandated" instead.

And please don't feel ignored, but I ain't gonna go respond to each&every one of your multiple posts to me...they are basically the same question and I think it has all been addressed in my previous response.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Purple:

I dunno; either you're being disingenous, or else we have a failure to communicate, and I will not attempt further to clarify, as I'm at a loss how to do it. This'll be my final attempt.

"You really had no idea that some people not only beleive as such, but also act accordingly?"

I am well aware of a diversity of religious beliefs. I wasn't aware that the topic was, "how many different religious beliefs are there?" I thought what we were talking about was what happens when someone raises a religion-based objection to compliance with law--and more specifically, regarding health care mandates. That is what the article cited by Professor Althouse was about. That's what the discussion was about. And you, and others, threw out some "what if...?" scenarios.

I asked for actual claims of exemption comparable to what Mr. Monaghan is asking for--and you still haven't provided any. The link you gave me was not about health insurance. Did I miss something in the article that says that someone was objecting to a health-insurance requirement, on the basis of a prayer-only religious belief?

So please don't patronize me about how I don't know that different religions exist. That's a substitute for the answer I asked for, and ask again: rather than speculate about what sort of exemptions people might seek, from health-care-related requirements currently in place, how about citing actual exemptions?

So far, you've failed to cite a single one other than the one on which this thread is based.

I can't help but wonder if you would have also said before last month (or whenever this lawsuit was filed) the idea that someone would claim that their religious beleifs won't allow them to provide insurance that has birth control in it to be "not real" too?

Well, I thought you knew I've commented on this site for more than the past month, and this subject of the HHS mandate regarding contraception, sterilization and abortion has been discussed, pretty widely, since January. So, first, not only would I have objected to such a hypothetical, I would have predicted it. No need to "wonder."

Also, I'm still curious to know...do you have any idea what the response was when somebody first claimed that their religion won't let 'em hire people of color. Or do you also find it absurd that that anybody would have ever done such a thing?

Your question assumes a fact I don't know about. I don't have the slightest idea when someone "first" objected to hiring people of different "color" on the basis of religious belief. How in the world would you expect me to know such a thing. That sounds like a question for an expert in anthropology or the history of racism or something like that. I have no shame in admitting, I don't know those things.

If we're talking about the USA, then we have of course quite a history of race relations, and religion was marshalled in support of slavery, the inferiority of one or more race, and for race-separation.

But that's not the same as saying, my religion prohibits me from hiring an employee of particular races. I don't know of any religion that teaches that. There may be. Is there? Do you know for a fact? Please tell us?

Otherwise we remain in the land of "what if," as I originally argued. You've yet to give an actual example that I've asked for three times now. If your claim is they exist, why is it too much to ask you to spell out what you're referring to?

Jeff said...

There's a very easy way out of this. Allow contraceptives to be sold over the counter without a prescription. Competition would drive the price down and anyone who wanted the pill would just buy it, like we do aspirin.

The pill is a very safe drug, so there's really no reason it should require a prescription.

Republicans should favor this, as it would deprive the Democrats of one of their favorite clubs. But the GOP is almost certainly too stupid to figure it out.

purplepenquin said...

Well, I thought you knew I've commented on this site for more than the past month, and this subject of the HHS mandate regarding contraception, sterilization and abortion has been discussed, pretty widely, since January.

Back in Jan those issues were all "what ifs?" rather than "actually happening", and yet you said you widely discussed the topic.

Yet now you are writing message-after-message-after-message claiming how improper it is to be talking about "what ifs".

*shrug*

All that nonsense aside, all I am saying is that if we allow this exemption for religious beleifs then we are opening the door to all kinds of other exemptions for other religious beleifs, and it is a very murky area for us to be wading into.

If ya wanna wait until we are even further engulfed in that murk before even starting to talk about it, then that certainly is your prerogative. But it is kinda weird that you spent so much time&energy saying you're not gonna say anything, eh?

If you didn't wanna talk about it, then why not just not talk about it?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Purple:

Icahn see that you are fundamentally dishonest and it is a waste of time to try to engage in discussion with you.

Prior to January, there were CATHOLICS who, speaking for their own selves, were saying they would object toa mandate imposing contraception participation. Not a blue sky what if.

You've had many opportunities to offer a similar example of someone objecting, in any similar way, to interracial marriage, or more-than-prayer, and who knows what else. You haven't, because you can't.

Do such real world examples exist? You have failed to provide them. They don't exist.

But anything COULD happen. Aliens could invade from Tau Ceti. Better get ready!

Thanks for clarifying for me that you aren't really honest about these things.

purplepenquin said...

Icahn(sic) see that you are fundamentally dishonest and it is a waste of time(sic) to try to engage in discussion with you.

I always laugh when some pompous dude says it is a waste of time to discuss something but then goes on&on&on&on discussing it...lol

Seriously, you're are spending a LOT of time explaining why you refuse to even think about the fact that there are other religious beleifs held by many Americans that also go against this mandated insurance. If you don't want to talk about it, then just don't talk about it. But it appears that you are not content with just not talking about it yourself, you don't want anybody else thinking about it either.

You've made it clear that it is acceptable to talk about "what if" in regards to your own personal beleifs(You were talking about the birth control mandate BEFORE anyone was actually being forced to provide it) but the idea that any other religions might also raise an objection is, in your eyes, as improbable as aliens from another star system visiting us.

As it was said before, granting the religious exemption(s) that you are personally requesting will most certainly open the door to other requests for religious exemptions, and it is silly to think otherwise. The fact that you are actively working to shut down that discussion, while constantly trying to explain how your personal beleifs are worthy of receiving an exemption for the law, speaks volumes.