History is replete with proof that this is not true. From the Crusades, through the Thirty Years War on to the Northern Ireland Troubles and most recently the entire tragedy that is the Middle East (both Jew versus Moslem AND Sunni versus Sharia).
That happens all the time. Employers routinely set working hours based on religion, pay education benefits based on the employer’s religion, make hiring decisions based on the employer’s religion, etc. It’s not usually an issue and I believe the only reason it’s an issue this time is because it involves sex.
False analogy. First of all, JW’s rarely hire non JW’s. Second, no one is suggesting that we deny contraception to anyone. Contraception is widely available to all, even to those employed by Catholic institutions.
I don’t believe CS employers offer health insurance. A Catholic employee would certainly have known that when she accepted the job. If someone really needs contraception and knows that her employer doesn’t offer it, she can take another job or get her contraception elsewhere.
No problem with that. But the mandate isn’t about what’s Ceasar’s, it’s about what is the employers’ own money spent on their own employees.
I think that you are very confused of how things work. Refusing coverage it is NOT denial of service. Only a medical facility can deny a medical service. If a person wants to get the pill the individual can simply go to the pharmacy and buy it, no Catholic employer will stop them from doing so. Passing lack of support for denial is a major logical fallacy.
Yet it is the only part that the USCCB has an issue with, right? What do you think you know that the bishops don’t?
Ah! Now you are undone my friend!
Once again, Bill, you are missing the point, and missing the entire underlying issue as to why the Church is against supporting it.
You have it backwards. The employer is obligated to provide services the operate within his conscience, so long as they do not deprive the employee of what they need to live. The employee can, in turn, reject it if it doesn’t meet his standards and use the money that -would- have been deducted for the benefits (but is no longer being deducted because they refused the service) and seek out a plan that operates according to what they feel is right.
You need to look up the definition of logical fallacies, I think.
It’s the part that affects the USCCB directly the most but it’s not the only part they object to. You should read the material on the USCCB website about the mandate. The biggest concern voiced is protecting conscience, the most** immediate **threat to that is the insurance mandate.
That would be my “undoing” if the mandate only covered health care plans that employees paid for themselves. Most employer sponsored plans are paid for primarily by the company. In fact, to have the plan be a pre-tax expense, the plan must be at least 50% paid for by the employer. The employer has the right to structure the total compensation plan (pay, benefits, working conditions) in the way that best meets the employers needs.
And that is why we aren’t discussing any employer forbidding the employee from using her own money to buy contraception.
How? Why does the employer not have the right to use his/her religious beliefs when choosing what benefits to pay for? How does infringing on that right not infringe on the employer’s religious liberty?
No, a tu quoque fallacy is the attempt to defeat an argument by saying “you’re doing the same thing”. Whereas, I’m trying to point out that you would have a different perception of the argument if you didn’t start from the idea that Catholic morality is the only valid morality on the planet. (which may actually be true, but is most definitely not the basis of the US Constitution).
Because our freedoms aren’t being denied or abridged as a result of this law. No one is forcing me or my wife to purchase or use contraception. or have an abortion.
Yet this is the exact right the JW and the CS (and RCs) are guaranteed by the US Constituiton!!
… you’re really just not listening at all are you.?
Its ALL the employee’s “own money” as soon as he earns it as a wage!!
Because he’s not the one paying for them (even though he might be writing the check) the employee is earning them!
When it comes to employment relationships I personally believe that health insurance is not a wage but a benefit as vacation time etc. When I accept to work for someone I accept their wages and benefits. If the employer says that some benefits are not available, then I can either decide to work for them or not. I have my employer changing my benefits over the years and I have the choice to move on if I do not like it. Just look at vacations as a benefit, you are usually not allowed to take the time off as you please but you must get the approval of your employer. It is your time off but you are not free to use it as you wish, it has constraints.
Bolding MIne:The alternative is to have non-Catholic employees subject to the religious sensibilities of their Catholic employers. Do you like that better?
How about when a Catholic sales person comes on this forum complaining that his Witness boss is denying his kid a blood tranfusion because it goes against the bosses religion.
Don’t work there
How about when another Catholic comes here complaining that her Christian Scientist boss is refusing to cover the surgery and chemotherapy she needs to fight breast cancer but the boss refuses because his religion doesn’t believe in medicine.
Don’t work there
Lets agree to do what the master said and “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”
methinks. I just do not think so.You are correct, I realized that after I posted. There is a fallacy for it, but I do not recall what it is called. Tu QuoQue does not apply in this instance.
You’re begging the question of whether or not Contraceptives are in fact intrinsically evil. You’re assuming that they are because the Church tells you that they are. (I agree for what its worth). But we don’t live in a society that uses that standard.
I’m pointing out that the US Constitution gives the JW exactly the same rights as it gives Catholicism. That document treats all religions the same. As an American I’m proud of that, even though I think the JWs are a cult, but here, they’re guaranteed the right to be a cult!
Economically, from a business standpoint, you’re wrong here. All costs of an employee are accounted for and the economic benefit of the employee is compared to the aggregate of those costs. The benefits of the employee must be greater than the aggregate cost to hire/retain the employee. Thus the aggregate costs of the employee are a portion of the employer’s economic benefit from having access to the employee’s labor that the employer assigns to induce the employee to expend his labor to create the economic benefit.
I think you don’t understand economics my friend. Employers don’t make “gifts”. They assign a portion of the economic benefit that results from the employee’s labor to the use of the employ in order to induce the employee to work.
You are wrong here. From a business point of view those are benefits and not wages. From a governmental point of view, in relation to taxation, those are considered wages. The government does not care how the two-parties agreement is done, the government simply tries to maximize the amount of taxes that it can collect, until recently the government has not dictated anything in regard to benefits.
