Kali Supreme Court Violates 1st Amendment; Establishes Religion

[bountyhunter]

When a religious organization is forced to change their belief system to conform with the govt., the govt. is dictating theology and thus, establishing a change in the religion.

Completely wrong. The organization is not forced to change it's beliefs one iota, they just can't force them onto others who don't share them by selectively excluding payment for things they don't like. My dad served with a guy whose religion didn't allow any kind of drugs, and he had cavities filled without novacaine (seriously).

How would you like to work for his company with the dental plan that doesn't cover any kind of pain killers for dental procedures?

 

[Geech]

I think you're having trouble with the definiton of 'imposed', bounty hunter. When you impose something, that's an active restriction. For example, if the charity mandated that you can't use contraceptives while you work for them, that would be imposing the belief. That's not what's happening here.

 

[atk]

rock jock,

Thanks for the clarification. I think I see your point, now.

Do you belive it's okay for the government to make special exceptions for religion, or should it treat religion as any other organization (for profit or not)?

Thanks,
atk

 

[rock jock]

atk,

Religion plays a special role in society as does the media by way of the First Amendment. The govt should stay out of both. Actually, I don't think they should be able to dictate the details of a medical plan to anyone. Imagine a feminist group being forced to provide female circumcision as part of their paid health benefits.

 

[bountyhunter]

I think you're having trouble with the definiton of 'imposed', bounty hunter. When you impose something, that's an active restriction. For example, if the charity mandated that you can't use contraceptives while you work for them, that would be imposing the belief. That's not what's happening here.

I am not having any problems understanding this, I simply do not agree that an organization which employs the general public may impose restrictions that are based solely on religous belief and inflict THAT RESTRICTION onto their employees who do not share their beliefs and did not volunteer to have Big Brother pass judgement on their sex lives.

It would be the same if they offered a medical plan which covered employee health and then reviewed it to "make sure" nobody got any surgery they didn't approve of. It's not their F-ing business and it's not their business if people choose to use contraception in their sex lives. If it is prescribed by a doctor and covered as a medical service, they should pay and not subject their employees to review based on their own "lofty" moral standards.

The supreme court is NOT imposing a religion, they are making sure the public workplace allows people to work without having to suffer monetary loss because they don't subscribe to the religion of their employer. I'll say it once more: you just don't get the point.

 

[Black Snowman]

I agree that the fundimental problem here is the the fact that this is regulated at all. This is something that is quite easily handled by the free market if California would just get their noses out of where they don't belong. If the employees don't like the "benie"s they can go work elsewhere, or ask for compensating pay. It's taking freedom out of the free market and it can't possibly end well.

I have to pay for all of my benefits from the company I work for but I choose to still work for them because since the optional benfits (none of which I really care about) are made up for with better pay. I think it's an ideal setup because I have the option each year of deferring pay to benefits or pocketting it. It's the way things would work if there weren't so many people sticking their noses in other people's business.

If the people are so irresponsable that they won't buy contraception when needed just because it's not discounted they have to deal with the consequences and it's not up to the government to make sure they get a "coupon" from thier employer. The whole concept behind the law is flawed (like most laws I've seen coming out of the PRK or most governments in general).

We need a "That's freaking stupid you idiot" veto power somewhere in the system.

 

[dustind]

Would anyone buy a pistol if it only shot one specific cartridge? So why take a job that only has one healthcare plan? Before world war 2 this was all private. Then pay freezes were enacted, and buisnesses needed perks to get people to work for them. Ever since the American citizen has payed for it. Now days health insurance only cares about your immediate well being. They used to look out for you in the long term, now they assume you will not be a customer for very long.

Seperating health care and work would also make it harder for corporations and governments to screw over their employees. Your employer can change healthcare details very easily, and screw you out of your contracted benifits, this would be nearly impossible if you only recieved a wage.

 

[rock jock]

I'll say it once more: you just don't get the point.

I would say the same of you. Guess it just depends on what we feel is the appropriate role for the govt.