whatever said:
-CraZed- said:
whatever said:
-CraZed- said:
Aielyn said:
Churches are a special case, because they operate on a non-profit basis. And yes, YOUR religious freedoms go beyond the church... but it does not extend to being forced upon your employees.
Tell me, if I get a job working for a muslim, should they be able to force me to do prayers 5 times daily, facing Mecca? By your reasoning, my refusal to do so impacts upon their religious freedom, rather than being a case of me exercising my own. How is the case of paying for health insurance that covers contraception any different?
|
You are right being employed by someone doesn't allow them to enforce their beliefs on you. How does not paying for someone elses contraceptives amount to forcing your religious views on someone? ...
|
Not paying for contraceptives because it's against your religion is absolutely 100% forcing your religious views on your employee.
|
You are dead serious aren't you?
So now we are saying that someone must pay for someone elses personal activities otherwise you are forcing your view on them and beyond paying them a wage for services rendered an employer is now responsible for an employees personal life expenses?
What if I am an atheist or simply a god-less greedy tightwad and I simply don't want to pay for contraceptives (or anything else outside of the wages I pay for that matter) just because it affects my bottom line? Am I forcing my religious views on someone else then? Or is it okay for me not to pay for it since it isn't religiously motivated?
I think rationality has left the forums now.
|
Of course I'm dead serious. We have a federal law that requires companies to provide contraception through insurance. You can argue whether or not that should be the case, but that's not what is under discussion here. This law was upheld as constitutional by this same supreme court. So you could not, as a tightwad atheist, simply decide not to pay for contraception. It's only if it is against your religious views.
|
And I would counter by saying we have a higher law in the Constitution that guarantees the right to freely practice your religion which is why the Supreme Court struck that portion of the law down.
But as someone else pointed out (thank you Uddermode for the cogent statement on that) even if we take the religiosity out of the argument the idea that you can force someone else to pay for your stuff (like contraceptives) causes your argument to fall flat on it's face.
