|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
 Posted - 03/03/2004 : 14:39:09 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
The employees know the health coverage plan when they are hired. They can work somewhere else if they want contraceptive coverage.
Won't fly. It's like saying, "The employees know that the company discriminates based on sex before they're hired. They can work elsewhere if they're women." Just because a company makes a discriminatory policy public doesn't make it a legal policy.
And the courts here seem to have determined how much religion is needed before an organization can claim that it is, in fact, a religious organization. Should my hypothetical pornographic film company be allowed tax-free status if I do nothing more than hang a crucifix in my office? What if I also say grace during lunch? How about if all my employees are Catholic (albeit fairly lax)? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 14:45:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Nope. It says that the part of their organization that is secular in nature must be held to the same standards as any other employer. It does not require the church to change their stance on the subject nor does it require the church to change it's preaching on the message. They employ people who are not of the same religion as they are as part of that secular, non-profit business. It does not prohibit any exercise of their religion.
Don't you think that the judges are defining what religion is? The court is telling this orginazation that they have to discriminate against non christians by only hiring and serving christians if they want to operate by thier beliefs or embrace a policy that they view as a sin. That is prohibiting free excercise of their religion. The employees know the health coverage plan when they are hired. They can work somewhere else if they want contraceptive coverage.
No. They are using the standard model of religion as operation of the Church as it ministers to its flock, administers running of houses of worship, administers charities which wholly serve their members, and personal expressions of faith. If it extended the model to include secular services established by religious organizations to all people, then the services would not be regulated by the government as it applies to licensure, reporting, and eligibility to recieve Medicare and Medicaid payments. The court is saying that the non-profit secular service company that the religious group set up to serve all faiths is responsible to the same laws as any other non-profit secular service group. The company broke local law which defined that insurance coverage could not exclude contraceptive coverage. If the church didn't want that stricture, then it shouldn't administer care to non-believers or hire non-believers. Providing charity is not an expression of faith, it is an expression of compassion. Bottom line, the church chose to provide aforementioned secular service, they assume responsibility of the law which regulates such secular services.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 15:20:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Bottom line, the church chose to provide aforementioned secular service, they assume responsibility of the law which regulates such secular services.
You may have changed my mind, depending on how this organization is setup. Our church is under government regulation related to kitchen cleanliness and day care and rightfully so. But what if a church offers these services instead of a charity? Our church hires people that may or may not be Christian and serves the community whether Christian or not. Do you think my church, if in California, would have to provide health care they are morally apposed to provide? Or, would they have to only hire and serve Christians to be exempt? Just asking, not trying to make a point. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 15:55:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Bottom line, the church chose to provide aforementioned secular service, they assume responsibility of the law which regulates such secular services.
You may have changed my mind, depending on how this organization is setup. Our church is under government regulation related to kitchen cleanliness and day care and rightfully so. But what if a church offers these services instead of a charity? Our church hires people that may or may not be Christian and serves the community whether Christian or not. Do you think my church, if in California, would have to provide health care they are morally apposed to provide? Or, would they have to only hire and serve Christians to be exempt? Just asking, not trying to make a point.
Primarily, these services are rarely full time positions and have no medical benefits associated with them. If the church itself provides these services as full time and extend benefits associated only with the secular service provided, they may be in trouble with Federal law concerning corporations. They would have to use such services as an outreach prostelyzation program. Most churches that provide day care services are for members of the congregation only. Others in the PADS (homeless shelters) services are not full time and staffed by volunteers. Also given the specific legal risks associated with providing such care, churches must (if they value their existance) set up a corporation to provide such care if they decide to go full time, extend benefits to employees, and hire non-believers. They are acting like a secular corporation for this service, they have to abide by the law. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 03/03/2004 15:56:33 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 15:57:10 [Permalink]
|
It's actually a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deny women oral contraceptive coverage.
To deny women contraception coverage is to deny them a fundamental health care need (many women use oral contraceptives for reasons other than contraception, by the way. Cycle control and acne control are two examples.)
For you legalheads, check out EEOC vs. United Parcel Service (April 2001) and Erickson vs. Bartell Drug Company (June 2001).
Edited to delete the link 'cause it didn't work. |
| Edited by - Renae on 03/03/2004 16:00:57 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 16:14:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
It's actually a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deny women oral contraceptive coverage.
To deny women contraception coverage is to deny them a fundamental health care need (many women use oral contraceptives for reasons other than contraception, by the way. Cycle control and acne control are two examples.)
I think if it is a totally private organization, they should be able to do what they want as far as hiring, firing, health care benefits, etc. no matter what the organization is. I do not know if the Catholic Charities is totally private or not. If it is private then this organization is not denying women fundamental health care. Women can buy the insurance themselves if needed, or work for a company that provides that benefit. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 17:02:49 [Permalink]
|
Robb, it's a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That's not just my opinion; it's the COURT'S opinion.
The Civil Rights Act protects women, too.
Here's a link with more details.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/gr040510.pdf
The Guttmacher Institute is, I think, nonpartisan.
The idea that oral contraceptives are immoral in any way is laughable. And no, I'm not buying the "it's my religious belief so you must respect it" argument. They meet the MEDICAL need of a woman. Period.
Fer chrissakes, how many insurance plans cover Viagra? |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 06:47:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Robb, it's a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That's not just my opinion; it's the COURT'S opinion.
Only in some states and only for employers that have greater than 14 employees and only “technically” for that particular case as the article points out. The article does not say that it is mandatory for all employers nationwide, yet.
quote:
The idea that oral contraceptives are immoral in any way is laughable. And no, I'm not buying the "it's my religious belief so you must respect it" argument. They meet the MEDICAL need of a woman. Period.
Laugh all you want, I'm used to it. I personally don't have a problem with this health care if offered voluntarily. I have a problem with the government telling people it is mandatory. The fact is the freedom to exercise religious beliefs is protected by the constitution. I think the constitution is clear on what rights we do have. Health care is not one of them. Then the 10th amendment points out that it would be left up to the states to decide this matter as long as it does not violate the U.S. constitution. Every person should have access to basic health care, but why should an employer pay for the sexual practice choices of its employees? If a woman wants to have sex, she can pay for the contraceptives herself. Nobody is denying her ability to do this. Don't you argue that a woman should be able to make decisions regarding her own body? Or is it just as long as others are forced to pay for those decisions such as contraception. Do you believe Renae that all employers including churches must pay for abortions as well?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 07:21:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
It's actually a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deny women oral contraceptive coverage.
To deny women contraception coverage is to deny them a fundamental health care need (many women use oral contraceptives for reasons other than contraception, by the way. Cycle control and acne control are two examples.)
I think if it is a totally private organization, they should be able to do what they want as far as hiring, firing, health care benefits, etc. no matter what the organization is. I do not know if the Catholic Charities is totally private or not. If it is private then this organization is not denying women fundamental health care. Women can buy the insurance themselves if needed, or work for a company that provides that benefit.
If the organization is extending health care benefits to workers in a secular service, then they have to abide by the laws that regulate it. They don't get to pick and choose which benefits that are mandatory for other secular businesses they will abide by. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 07:31:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Robb, it's a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That's not just my opinion; it's the COURT'S opinion.
Only in some states and only for employers that have greater than 14 employees and only “technically” for that particular case as the article points out. The article does not say that it is mandatory for all employers nationwide, yet.
quote:
The idea that oral contraceptives are immoral in any way is laughable. And no, I'm not buying the "it's my religious belief so you must respect it" argument. They meet the MEDICAL need of a woman. Period.
Laugh all you want, I'm used to it. I personally don't have a problem with this health care if offered voluntarily. I have a problem with the government telling people it is mandatory. The fact is the freedom to exercise religious beliefs is protected by the constitution. I think the constitution is clear on what rights we do have. Health care is not one of them. Then the 10th amendment points out that it would be left up to the states to decide this matter as long as it does not violate the U.S. constitution. Every person should have access to basic health care, but why should an employer pay for the sexual practice choices of its employees? If a woman wants to have sex, she can pay for the contraceptives herself. Nobody is denying her ability to do this. Don't you argue that a woman should be able to make decisions regarding her own body? Or is it just as long as others are forced to pay for those decisions such as contraception. Do you believe Renae that all employers including churches must pay for abortions as well?
I have a problem with companies making medical decisions based on a percieved use for a medical procedure or prescription. There are some abortions which are medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Tubal pregnancies are an example of these. Oral contraceptives have dual uses. As Renea mentions, cycle control and acne treatment. There are other laws in other states which were enacted to protect workers, such as some insurance companies will consider pregnancies as a pre-existing condition if someone changes jobs. Illinois stepped in and said that insurance companies could not treat pregnancy as a pre-existing condition.
A question you have consistantly failed to address is how does providing health care under the strictures of the law for a secular service organization change the teaching of the church, change the religious dogma, or oppress the faith of the individual practioners? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 07:46:53 [Permalink]
|
By that logic, yes, employers should pay for insurance that includes abortion. My having an abortion paid for by the insurance company (not by the employer) doesn't infringe on anyone's religious beliefs, as Val said.
What if I decide smoking is immoral and, as religious people do, find some Biblical quote to support it? Would it be OK for me to deny lung cancer surgery to an employee who smoked? What about treatment for chlamydia for a sexually active woman who wasn't married, if I believe sex before marriage is wrong? Can I deny her chlamydia treatment? Or worse, can I deny HIV treatment to homosexuals if I believe homosexuality is wrong?
I could find Bible quotes to support all the above positions, if I tried.
You see the slippery slope here, Robb? How easy it is to start judging others' behavior based on our own moral code? You can do that in your head all you want, but in practice, it's morally wrong and in some cases, not legal. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 08:26:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
By that logic, yes, employers should pay for insurance that includes abortion. My having an abortion paid for by the insurance company (not by the employer) doesn't infringe on anyone's religious beliefs, as Val said.
Some employers do pay part of the premiums for the employees.
quote:
What if I decide smoking is immoral and, as religious people do, find some Biblical quote to support it? Would it be OK for me to deny lung cancer surgery to an employee who smoked? What about treatment for chlamydia for a sexually active woman who wasn't married, if I believe sex before marriage is wrong? Can I deny her chlamydia treatment? Or worse, can I deny HIV treatment to homosexuals if I believe homosexuality is wrong?
I could find Bible quotes to support all the above positions, if I tried.
Of course not. It is moraly wrong to deny people health care when needed. My church and many others pay for these needs every day for people that cannot. However, they will not pay for a procedure that are destructive to the patient such as abortion used as birth control or Marijuana used for cancer patients and the government should not force their moral code on private buisnesses or religious organizations. I would also teach them a life style that avoids these problems.How much care must be provided. Should the government require every health need be covered by insurance down to toe nail clippers? Where is the line?
quote:
You see the slippery slope here, Robb? How easy it is to start judging others' behavior based on our own moral code? You can do that in your head all you want, but in practice, it's morally wrong and in some cases, not legal.
I am not judging others. I want to provide for peoples needs in a moral and ethical way. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 09:42:08 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
Of course not. It is moraly wrong to deny people health care when needed. My church and many others pay for these needs every day for people that cannot. However, they will not pay for a procedure that are destructive to the patient such as abortion used as birth control or Marijuana used for cancer patients and the government should not force their moral code on private buisnesses or religious organizations. I would also teach them a life style that avoids these problems.How much care must be provided. Should the government require every health need be covered by insurance down to toe nail clippers? Where is the line?
And the government, in this case, is saying that if an organization is going to offer a prescription drug benefit, that benefit must include birth control (otherwise, the benefit is sexually discriminatory), unless that organization is a 'religious' one. That, as I understand it, is the law passed by the California legislature.
The courts determined that Catholic Charities, despite the name and who backs them, doesn't meet the 'religious' requirement for an exemption. It is where one draws the 'religious' line which is in question here, as the law itself was passed by the representatives of the People. So, go back to my earlier example: what standard would you apply to my hypothetical porno company, were I to claim that it was a religiously-based organization, and thus deserving of an exemption (not only from this law, but from taxes). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 09:51:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Don't you think that the judges are defining what religion is? The court is telling this orginazation that they have to discriminate against non christians by only hiring and serving christians if they want to operate by thier beliefs or embrace a policy that they view as a sin. That is prohibiting free excercise of their religion. The employees know the health coverage plan when they are hired. They can work somewhere else if they want contraceptive coverage.
Robb,
The church chose to operate as a non-profit in one of its areas, providing care for those who are not of their sect, employing those not of their sect/religion. This allows them to receive federal funding. This portion of the charity is the only portion affected, since it is by choice of the RC non-religious. Have you tried finding a job in today's market? It's not easy. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 10:25:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
By that logic, yes, employers should pay for insurance that includes abortion. My having an abortion paid for by the insurance company (not by the employer) doesn't infringe on anyone's religious beliefs, as Val said.
Some employers do pay part of the premiums for the employees.
quote:
What if I decide smoking is immoral and, as religious people do, find some Biblical quote to support it? Would it be OK for me to deny lung cancer surgery to an employee who smoked? What about treatment for chlamydia for a sexually active woman who wasn't married, if I believe sex before marriage is wrong? Can I deny her chlamydia treatment? Or worse, can I deny HIV treatment to homosexuals if I believe homosexuality is wrong?
I could find Bible quotes to support all the above positions, if I tried.
Of course not. It is moraly wrong to deny people health care when needed. My church and many others pay for these needs every day for people that cannot. However, they will not pay for a procedure that are destructive to the patient such as abortion used as birth control or Marijuana used for cancer patients and the government should not force their moral code on private buisnesses or religious organizations. I would also teach them a life style that avoids these problems.How much care must be provided. Should the government require every health need be covered by insurance down to toe nail clippers? Where is the line?
Regulation of a woman's menstrual cycle is significantly different than podiatric mantianance. I'll remind you that barrier methods to contraception are not covered by any health insurance as it's only function is birth control. Prescription oral contraceptives have other uses in the treatment of valid medical conditions.
While the church pays for insurance coverage, they do not pay for individual treatments. The insurance company is limited by the law concerning what terms in contracts they may or may not write. The local law insists that female oral contraceptives cannot be excluded as a term of a health care contract.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
