41 replies to this topic

[ImaLoner]

cormac mac airt, on 21 May 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Not if one religions beliefs are imposed on peoples outside that belief system and that's the point. It would be just as true if we were talking about Baptists trying to impose their beliefs concerning health care on Catholics. It would be just as wrong.

cormac

I see your point.  However, wouldn't that be the choice which was made by that individual who is seeking employment?  Like, if your religious beliefs are different from that of the religious organization where you are seeking employment, wouldn't that adhere you to their beliefs in a sense?  Kind of like you know what you're getting into by seeking employment with them?  An example which isn't related to religion:  I am a smoker (I know, a nasty habit), but there are places of employment where smoking on the property is forbidden.  Some companies prohibit anyone to come onto their property if they even remotely smell of smoke.  So, if I apply for and get hired by an employer who has these policies in place, I know what I am getting myself into, and therefore have to adhere to their policies.  If an employer can deny employment to smokers (people who smoke on the property or smell of smoke), or can charge more for medical insurance for smokers, why can't a religious organization determine what is covered through their chosen insurance company and what is not?  I'm truly not trying to be argumentative here, I'm trying to understand both sides.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

Like, if your religious beliefs are different from that of the religious organization where you are seeking employment, wouldn't that adhere you to their beliefs in a sense?

No, because you're being employed for a job not your religious belief. They may decide to not hire you because you're not qualified to do the job, but they cannot refuse to hire you because of what you believe. That's religious discrimination.

As to your example, while what you choose to drink/smoke/chew/whatever is indeed your choice, when it or the repercussions of its use can be shown to have an adverse affect on the health of others (for example - second hand smoke around asthmatics or people with allergies) then NO you do not have the right to impose your choice on others.

cormac

[DieChecker]

cormac mac airt, on 21 May 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

The only way this is going to work in the Catholics favor IMO is if the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic based businesses/etc. ONLY deal with, hire and cover Catholic members. Otherwise they're infringing on the rights of Non-Catholic peoples. Even the Catholic church should realize 'you can't have your cake and eat it too'.

cormac

I do agree... But....

ImaLoner, on 21 May 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

I see your point.  However, wouldn't that be the choice which was made by that individual who is seeking employment?

I also agree with this. An Employee should have the right to accept that their healthcare will not cover this when they are hired. If they sign, they loose that right. Many industrys have stuff you have to sign and different things you have to give up.

Personnally, I think this falls under the "Render unto Caeser" clause. If the government requires it, then Christians should submit to that law. Call it the cost of doing business.

I wish they instead would figure out how to get the ultra-religous cool-aid crowd to immunize their diseased kids.

[cormac mac airt]

DieChecker, on 21 May 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

I do agree... But....


I also agree with this. An Employee should have the right to accept that their healthcare will not cover this when they are hired. If they sign, they loose that right. Many industrys have stuff you have to sign and different things you have to give up.

Personnally, I think this falls under the "Render unto Caeser" clause. If the government requires it, then Christians should submit to that law. Call it the cost of doing business.

I wish they instead would figure out how to get the ultra-religous cool-aid crowd to immunize their diseased kids.

The problem here DieChecker is that we're not talking about an employees rights when they're hired on, but in a group's (in this case the Catholics) attempt to impose what benefits/services that people will receive across the board regardless of what those individuals may have to say on the matter. Therein lies the difference IMO.

The employees in this case aren't given the right to accept anything, their "choice" is being made for them.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 21 May 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[Rafterman]

cormac mac airt, on 21 May 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Unless this is ONLY directed at what Catholics do or provide for other Catholics, then it's not about religious beliefs as the Catholic Church has no authority to force its beliefs on the beliefs of others. THAT'S the precedent that could be set if they were to be successful. No Catholic based institution has the right to prevent non-Catholics from receiving services the latter wishes to have. If they wish to get around this, then they need to steer clear from any and all non-Catholic believing peoples. It's really that simple.

cormac

The Church would not be forcing its beliefs on others.  It's quite simple actually, if you accept employment, college admissions, etc. from a Catholic institution, you agree to abide by their beliefs.  No one is forcing anyone to go to Georgetown or work at St. Elizabeth's Hospital.

[questionmark]

Rafterman, on 21 May 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

The Church would not be forcing its beliefs on others.  It's quite simple actually, if you accept employment, college admissions, etc. from a Catholic institution, you agree to abide by their beliefs.  No one is forcing anyone to go to Georgetown or work at St. Elizabeth's Hospital.

No, but nobody is forcing the Catholic church either to run those services, and employment is ruled by the government not by the church. If they want to have employees they have to abide by the governments rules. As simple as that.

[cormac mac airt]

Rafterman, on 21 May 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

The Church would not be forcing its beliefs on others.  It's quite simple actually, if you accept employment, college admissions, etc. from a Catholic institution, you agree to abide by their beliefs.  No one is forcing anyone to go to Georgetown or work at St. Elizabeth's Hospital.

We're not talking about people "accepting employment" but people already in their respective positions. Arbitrarily enforcing something after the fact is NOT giving people a choice in the matter.

cormac

[Imaginarynumber1]

If you want to be a church and be against contraceptives, fine. But once you cross that line to employer....

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 21 May 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

No, but nobody is forcing the Catholic church either to run those services, and employment is ruled by the government not by the church. If they want to have employees they have to abide by the governments rules. As simple as that.

I'd argue that the Church has been employing people since religion was invented. Historicly religious employment has been protected against Government oversight/laws/rules. This has been true regardless of how many employees there are and what services are involved. This law appears to be the first real attempt by the secular government to rein in those bigger and bigger organizations that fall under the religous umbrella.

I think that those services... Hospitals, schools, churches... do fall under the religious exemption. If the government wants to finally crack that, I think they should at least Man Up and admit that is what they want to do. If the government does not want to shake the Relgion tree, they need to back off and continue with the excemptions.

[DieChecker]

Imaginarynumber1, on 22 May 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

If you want to be a church and be against contraceptives, fine. But once you cross that line to employer....

My father-in-law is an ordained Protestant Pastor, and at one point he was the only employee left of his first church. I helped him with the taxes, so I know that he was actually an employee of the Church, just as any CEO is also an employee.

There cannot be (Organized) religion without employees.

Edited by DieChecker, 22 May 2012 - 02:10 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

DieChecker, on 22 May 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

My father-in-law is an ordained Protestant Pastor, and at one point he was the only employee left of his first church. I helped him with the taxes, so I know that he was actually an employee of the Church, just as any CEO is also an employee.

There cannot be (Organized) religion without employees.

So as an employee (and employer) he should have been given access to the same federal services that other employers offer, whether he chooses to use them or not.
Either play by the rules or go away. And stop raping children. Looking at you Catholic Church....
Someone had to say it.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 22 May 2012 - 02:19 AM.

[DieChecker]

Imaginarynumber1, on 22 May 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

So as an employee (and employer) he should have been given access to the same federal services that other employers offer, whether he chooses to use them or not.
Either play by the rules or go away. And stop raping children. Looking at you Catholic Church....
Someone had to say it.

I do agree. He should have the option to those services, and also have the option to religiously exempt himself from those services. By signing a bit of paper and accepting employment, anyone employed by a religious agency could do the same.

I'm not against the government creating laws and enforcing them, as long as there is the allowance for excemptions for specific Constitutional reasons.

[Imaginarynumber1]

DieChecker, on 22 May 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

I do agree. He should have the option to those services, and also have the option to religiously exempt himself from those services. By signing a bit of paper and accepting employment, anyone employed by a religious agency could do the same.

I'm not against the government creating laws and enforcing them, as long as there is the allowance for excemptions for specific Constitutional reasons.

By all means he can exempt himself. No one is saying that you have to receive birth control. I just think that if you are an employer, under this law, you should have to provide the option, regardless if you're a church or whatever.

[DieChecker]

Imaginarynumber1, on 22 May 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

By all means he can exempt himself. No one is saying that you have to receive birth control. I just think that if you are an employer, under this law, you should have to provide the option, regardless if you're a church or whatever.

Should everyone have the right to complete free speech? Because I've signed uncounted numbers of Confidentiality agreements. Should all employers be forced to pay overtime regardless of salary agreements? No. This is the same. If you want sex related medications and procedures, don't go working for a relgious institution. It is that simple.

If people were being Forced to work for religious insitutions. If they had no options, I'd have to agree with you, but the fact is that everyone can make up their own mind about what they want to do with their lives. It is the Liberal Elite, IMHO, that think that people need... must... be told what options they need to have in their lives. If people simply put a handful of effort into thinking and planning their own lives, this kind of law would be unnecessary.

Edited by DieChecker, 22 May 2012 - 04:57 AM.

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 22 May 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

I'd argue that the Church has been employing people since religion was invented. Historicly religious employment has been protected against Government oversight/laws/rules. This has been true regardless of how many employees there are and what services are involved. This law appears to be the first real attempt by the secular government to rein in those bigger and bigger organizations that fall under the religous umbrella.

I think that those services... Hospitals, schools, churches... do fall under the religious exemption. If the government wants to finally crack that, I think they should at least Man Up and admit that is what they want to do. If the government does not want to shake the Relgion tree, they need to back off and continue with the excemptions.

People have been employing people since civilization was invented, is that reason enough to force somebody to work without pay as through a big part of our history?