Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Should religious institutions pay for their employee's contraception policies?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dobagoh

Member

02-22-2012

Quite honestly I really don't care about this issue at all, but since it's the Catholic Church aka "We molest little boys and hide behind the law with our religion" **** them.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Uccisore

Senior Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Dobagoh:
It isn't burdensome at all. The difference between the imagined insurance plans is negligible. There is no burden whatsoever.


The burden isn't a reference to a financial burden. You're forcing people to compromise their religious principles- the burden has to be evaluated in terms of that.

Quote:

Furthermore in the history of supreme court jurisprudence the existence of a less burdensome alternative has never successfully overturned a statute to the alternative.


I don't care? The standard you're citing when you talk about reasonable state interest is still the Sherbert Test, and minimum burden is still one of it's criteria.

Quote:

How is it reasonable to expect them to pay for their own birth control?


In the same way that it's reasonable to expect them to pay for their own food, shelter, clothing, and a bunch of other things necessary or very desirable to their lives? I don't understand this question at all. In the long list of things that people have to/want to spend their money on, how did you single out birth control as one that is suddenly unreasonable for folks to purchase themselves? The whole reason health insurance is so important because it covers procedures that most people could never afford on their own- birth control isn't one of them, not by a long shot.

Quote:

So it's basically "If you make less than $X per year you won't be able to afford BC without insurance, so that's too bad"


Where X is a value so low that anybody making that little doesn't have a job with insurance benefits in the first place, yes. People working part-time aren't going to have these insurance benefits to begin with. People working full time, even at minimum wage, can afford birth control of one sort or another.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Uccisore

Senior Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Dobagoh:
Quite honestly I really don't care about this issue at all, but since it's the Catholic Church aka "We molest little boys and hide behind the law with our religion" **** them.


Yeah, I know. You don't give a **** about the law or what's reasonable, you just want to screw religious people over. I'm trying to ignore that giant irrational cloud in your approach and speak to you as though you were interested in fairly evaluating the situation. I'm sorry for wasting your time in such a way.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Powerstoned

Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Elan Tedronai:
I figured you'd miss my point when you came back to this thread. I don't know if you missed it or just ignored it when I said I don't support religious institutions not paying for birth control. And no, they don't support *** for single men and yes its hypocritical to provide them Viagra. Last I checked hypocrisy was not against the law. If it was 99% of religions would be out of business. What I do support, however, is that everyone, including institutions, should have the right to decide what they will and will not support.

Since not providing birth control in no way, shape or form infringes on anyone else's rights then it should be their right to make that decision, hypocritical or not. This isn't about right and wrong, it's about the law. Last I checked it's wrong to call someone a stupid idiot but it's not against the law.

I'm with you, the church is in the wrong. But just being wrong is not a reason to start taking away rights.


O, I caught what you said. You think churches should pay for BC, but yet defend their to not pay for it, and state that an issue regarding women's birth control, is not a woman's issue for some reason. Anyone can choose to support or not support any issue they want, that's fine. As an employer, you don't get to force your support or decisions on your employees, especially in a discriminating way. So many people posting here think employers are being charitable by giving people jobs, and everyone should be simply grateful and shut up, regardless of working conditions, discrimination or pay.

So why do you think churches should have to pay for BC? So there isn't controversy? You've taken discrimination and basic human rights off the table, so what could it be?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Uccisore

Senior Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Powerstoned:
O, I caught what you said. You think churches should pay for BC, but yet defend their to not pay for it, and state that an issue regarding women's birth control, is not a woman's issue for some reason. Anyone can choose to support or not support any issue they want, that's fine. As an employer, you don't get to force your support or decisions on your employees, especially in a discriminating way. So many people posting here think employers are being charitable by giving people jobs, and everyone should be simply grateful and shut up, regardless of working conditions, discrimination or pay.

So why do you think churches should have to pay for BC? So there isn't controversy? You've taken discrimination and basic human rights off the table, so what could it be?


Let me just ask you. Do you have the slightest idea, or the slightest concern for what the Constitution says regarding stuff like this? Because it sounds like you're arguing purely from what you demand other people to do because you think it's right, with no concern for the actual law.

And yes, as an employer, you most certainly DO get to force your decisions on your employees. Do you think political parties hire members of the opposite party? Don't you think politicians get fired all the time for espousing views that contradict their party's platform? Even in the business world, ethical breaches and misconduct that isn't technically illegal can lead to people losing their jobs.

If a Catholic priest declared he didn't believe in Jesus and started preaching Buddhism from the pulpit, he would immediately be defrocked and fired. If a nun or abbess was caught in a threesome in an alley behind some seedy bar, she would be tossed out on her head. Yes, institutions that exist to promote a certain set of values discipline/enforce those views on their members and employees ALL THE TIME, it is required for them to be able to do so in order to exist at all. None of this is illegal. None of this is questioned. You saying "employers don't get to enforce their views on employees" with regards to religious institutions is flat out false in terms of the law and practice.

So yes, if a Catholic Church wants to only provide insurance programs that don't cover BC, that's fine for the exact same reason that all of the above is fine. A law forcing them to do so is never going to make it past Free Exercise, regardless of how you think things should be, sorry.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dobagoh

Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Uccisore:
The burden isn't a reference to a financial burden. You're forcing people to compromise their religious principles- the burden has to be evaluated in terms of that.

It's not forcing anyone to compromise anything. Institutions don't have religious principles, people do.

Quote:
I don't care? The standard you're citing when you talk about reasonable state interest is still the Sherbert Test, and minimum burden is still one of it's criteria.

And the burden is negligible. There is no increased cost being forced upon them. The actual religious beliefs of religious people, is not being compromised in any way, because they are not forced to buy or use BC.

Quote:
In the same way that it's reasonable to expect them to pay for their own food, shelter, clothing, and a bunch of other things necessary or very desirable to their lives? I don't understand this question at all. In the long list of things that people have to/want to spend their money on, how did you single out birth control as one that is suddenly unreasonable for folks to purchase themselves? The whole reason health insurance is so important because it covers procedures that most people could never afford on their own- birth control isn't one of them, not by a long shot.

Because birth control is a reproductive right, which has been ruled a fundamental American right equivalent to the right to free speech or free worship. Why wouldn't I pick it out?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Uccisore

Senior Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Dobagoh:
It's not forcing anyone to compromise anything. Institutions don't have religious principles, people do.


And the burden is negligible. There is no increased cost being forced upon them. The actual religious beliefs of religious people, is not being compromised in any way, because they are not forced to buy or use BC.


That's not up to you to decide. If a religious institution/individual says that offering insurance that covers certain procedures violates their principles, then it does. The only thing that's left to decide is if the need for the law is great enough to mandate the violation, and if the purpose of the law can be achieved without the violation. Birth control simply isn't expensive enough for this violation to be mandated.

Quote:

Because birth control is a reproductive right, which has been ruled a fundamental American right equivalent to the right to free speech or free worship. Why wouldn't I pick it out?
If you're thinking of Roe v Wade, then of course you know providing abortions with public funding has been outlawed in the U.S. So clearly, declaring something to be a fundamental right is not seen as the same thing as declaring a mandate to provide it for people. Birth control being a fundamental right doesn't obligate the Church to provide heath insurance that covers it in the same way that abortion being a fundamental right doesn't obligate the State to pay for them. The Church isn't denying people their basic human rights by refusing to provide the means to those rights themselves. Try again.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dobagoh

Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Uccisore:
That's not up to you to decide. If a religious institution/individual says that offering insurance that covers certain procedures violates their principles, then it does. The only thing that's left to decide is if the need for the law is great enough to mandate the violation, and if the purpose of the law can be achieved without the violation. Birth control simply isn't expensive enough for this violation to be mandated.

If companies are required to provide health care, and the only options health insurance companies offer are those that do not separate BC coverage from the plan, then tough ****. Furthermore, "paying" for something indirectly does not violate principles. Does paying taxes violate Buddhists' freedom of religion? How about Quakers'? Mennonites'?

Quote:
If you're thinking of Roe v Wade, then of course you know providing abortions with public funding has been outlawed in the U.S. So clearly, declaring something to be a fundamental right is not seen as the same thing as declaring a mandate to provide it for people. Birth control being a fundamental right doesn't obligate the Church to provide heath insurance that covers it in the same way that abortion being a fundamental right doesn't obligate the State to pay for them. The Church isn't denying people their basic human rights by refusing to provide the means to those rights themselves. Try again.


I'm not thinking of Roe v Wade. I could care less about Roe v. Wade.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Powerstoned

Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Uccisore:
Let me just ask you. Do you have the slightest idea, or the slightest concern for what the Constitution says regarding stuff like this? Because it sounds like you're arguing purely from what you demand other people to do because you think it's right, with no concern for the actual law.

And yes, as an employer, you most certainly DO get to force your decisions on your employees. Do you think political parties hire members of the opposite party? Don't you think politicians get fired all the time for espousing views that contradict their party's platform? Even in the business world, ethical breaches and misconduct that isn't technically illegal can lead to people losing their jobs.

If a Catholic priest declared he didn't believe in Jesus and started preaching Buddhism from the pulpit, he would immediately be defrocked and fired. If a nun or abbess was caught in a threesome in an alley behind some seedy bar, she would be tossed out on her head. Yes, institutions that exist to promote a certain set of values discipline/enforce those views on their members and employees ALL THE TIME, it is required for them to be able to do so in order to exist at all. None of this is illegal. None of this is questioned. You saying "employers don't get to enforce their views on employees" with regards to religious institutions is flat out false in terms of the law and practice.

So yes, if a Catholic Church wants to only provide insurance programs that don't cover BC, that's fine for the exact same reason that all of the above is fine. A law forcing them to do so is never going to make it past Free Exercise, regardless of how you think things should be, sorry.


So again no answer, really Elan? You do it all the time, why I even pose a question to you anymore makes me the fool now, my bad. Have you ever worked for a church and got a paycheck from them? I have at 2 different churches. There are lots of things they can't force on you as a paid employee. Can you be forced to pray? No. Forced to attend sermons, no. You can't be openly anti-christian, and work for them sure, but they don't have total control of you like you're proposing. Most courts won't touch religious lawsuits out of fear of political suicide, we both know that, but paid employees do have rights, even in churches.

Again, the church gets insurance companies to strip out their BC coverage to women in their policies. They're not simply selecting policies without BC coverage. They're going out of their way to discriminate one group in our society. Any time you want to have a discussion, where you actually share your pov in half the detail as i do, friend me ingame or let me know.

I realise the constitution is written so we can not require someone to purchase a product, but say you want to purchase a fleet vehicle in this country, and you don't believe in seatbelts, any company/club/whatever, shouldn't be able to force car manufacturers to remove the mandated seat belts before purchasing them and then require their employees to drive without them.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Uccisore

Senior Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Dobagoh:
If companies are required to provide health care, and the only options health insurance companies offer are those that do not separate BC coverage from the plan, then tough ****.


No, in such a case the law may well violate the First Amendment. We would evaluate it with something like the Sherbert Rule which you hinted at.

Quote:

Furthermore, "paying" for something indirectly does not violate principles. Does paying taxes violate Buddhists' freedom of religion? How about Quakers'? Mennonites'?


If those taxes are used for something they find evil, then yes, of course paying taxes might violate their principles! First let me remind you that Churches are tax exempt for partly this very reason. Let me go on to say that, as you pointed out, we are allowed to compel religious groups to violate their principles if we have a pressing need that can't be violated in any other way - raising taxes to fund a military obviously qualifies. It's one of two duties the federal Government actually ****ing has according to the Constitution. Raising taxes to pay for abortions apparently does not qualify. Forcing employers to provide birth control coverage obviously doesn't qualify in the same way the second example doesn't qualify. The need for birth control is not pressing enough, and/or it can be met in another way (such as people buying it their ****ed selves).

Quote:

I'm not thinking of Roe v Wade. I could care less about Roe v. Wade.


You could care less about the landmark Supreme Court decision that declared the position you took one post ago? Well...OK. But whatever precedent you ARE using to declare that birth control is a fundamental human right in America, my point still stands- something being a human right apparently doesn't establish a mandate to provide it.