Ideas for what we could do if our fight against the mandate doesn't work

[BillP]

Lastly, no, you cannot be a good Catholic and hold the Constitution about the Law of God. This sort of thinking is called Americanism, and has been condemned by the Popes since WWII (or prior, I only know of it in WWII because of the Church’s reaction to the dropping of the atomic bomb)

Also, believe me, if I could live in Vatican city, and only have to answer to the Pope and God, I would do so in a heartbeat… but sadly, they have very little use for architects anymore.

Well, I’ll take your word for it. But I’m pretty confident that I’ll be able to make my case when I wind up in front of the judgement seat.

 

[BillP]

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.

Obviously not a Business or Economics major…

 

[Cristiano]

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.

I understand economics and contracts quite well, I simply do not hide my head in the sand pretending the things are different. Anything that is given and it is not part of a contract is a gift, I agree that those gifts are given out of interest but they are still gifts. BTW the government considers any kind of gifts as income just to be able to tax them too.

 

[BillP]

Anything that is given and it is not part of a contract is a gift, I agree that those gifts are given out of interest but they are still gifts. BTW the government considers any kind of gifts as income just to be able to tax them too.

The definition of “gift” is something given without payment…

 

[Cristiano]

Obviously not a Business or Economics major…

Why are you saying that? Are you trying to imply Business and Economics majors are so ignorant of fundamentals of employment contracts that they could not figure this out? Or are you simply switching to personal attacks because you cannot stick to the argument?

 

[Corki]

Its ALL the employee’s “own money” as soon as he earns it as a wage!!

What you aren’t comprehending is that wages PLUS benefits equal compensation. The two components are part of the same compensation plan but are not interchanabe nor subject to the same degree of employee control. As long as the minimum wage is met, the employer decides what the mix of those is. It’s not how they spend it, that’s being questioned; that comes into play when the employer uses the benefit or not. It’s how the employer is restricted in what to put in the package of overall compensation.

Because he’s not the one paying for them (even though he might be writing the check) the employee is earning them!

But he decides what the employee can earn from him.

Should a Muslim employer specify that I eat only Halal food?

No but this is an excellent comparison. A Muslim employer could specify that only Halal food is served in the cafeteria that provides food for the employees. Eating at the cafeteria is an employee benefit but the employer decided what food is availabe.

Same with contraception. A Catholic employer isn’t going to tell his employees they can’t use their money to buy contraception but he doesn’t have to provide it to them either.

What if he requires me to purchase all of my food from his store, which only stocks Halal foods?

That would be wrong. But it would be fine if part of the employee benefits included a discount on food but only if it was purchased at a Halal market.

What if instead of giving me cash he specifies that I will receive Halal groceries directly from him in lieu of the wages I would have spent on food?

That’s fine. This happens all the time with employees who are in the field or on a ship. Instead of a portion of their wages, they get food provided. The employer decides what kind of food.

Do his religious liberties extend to not “paying” for my pork chops and shrimp.

They extend to not paying for pork chops or shrimp if they are part of the benefits he is providing. The employee has no right to insist that pork be a menu option in the company cafeteria or that employee purchase discounts extend to non-Halal grocery stores. The employer’s rights protect him from being forced by the employee or the government to do that. Those rights do not extend to you using the cash portion of your compensation to purchase pork chops or shrimp.

Since you are so facinated with employee compensation, there is a third part - working conditions. An employer, is free to exercise his/her religious liberty there too. An employer might have only the Christian radio station playing on the intercom or only have Jewish art hanging in the halls. The employee nor the government has any say about that and to restrict it would be to restrict the religious liberties of the employer.

 

[Cristiano]

The definition of “gift” is something given without payment…

Correct payments are for services or goods rendered as defined by contracts. Just to make sure that benefits as defined by contract are not gifts, only extra benefits are.

 

[Glennford]

And when the JW employer denies your child a blood transfusion and she dies?

I think that post gave me cancer.

A Catholic employer can’t deny anyone anything. This mentality that to refuse to pay for something is to in fact deny it to someone as a matter of freedom is bizarre. It is these bizarre attitudes that make medical care something which cannot be spoken about rationally.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

We live in a society that provides freedom of religion to everyone including non-Catholics, even when they’re wrong! the constitution specifically permits them to be wrong!

In short your religious freedom doesn’t permit you to impose your religion on other people (such as your employees who might want health cover that includes ABC).

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!

YMMV, but I don’t even know if you’re American

I am American, and up until recently I was pretty proud of that fact… (also, what does YMMV mean?)

I think that one of the issues comes down to a fundamental difference in how we view right and wrong. You are basing your precepts on the Americanized concept of freedom; that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe. The Catholic Church disagrees with this precept. We believe that we cannot force people to convert, but also that it is our obligation to ensure that society develops in a manner that is according to God’s Laws.

While it is true that the constitution provides the same freedoms to everyone, and the same “rights” to everyone, what we are talking about is neither a freedom nor a right. What we are talking about is the upholding of human life. Being against contraceptives upholds life, being against Blood transfusions does not.

Catholics believe that practicing your religious freedom cannot deprive someone else of the means or capacity to live their life fully. If we were to give the JW what they want we would be deny those people who work under them their right to life. Therefore, their “Religious Freedom” should be denied.

Religious freedom does not mean that all religions are treated equally, that was never the thought behind it. The thought behind it was that there should be a way to prevent a religion from forcing people to follow it / what it taught even when it violates their own precepts of morality. (This was in reaction to the Anglican church’s persecution of Catholics, as well as against certain religious mandates the king had made)

It was never about equality among religions, but rather about forcing people to follow a certain set of beliefs. The church is not trying to force people to be Catholic, we’re just saying that we won’t pay for your immoral activities. These people can still buy birth control and can still, sadly, get abortions. We’re not denying them anything, we’re just not paying for it.

 

[BillP]

Why are you saying that? Are you trying to imply Business and Economics majors are so ignorant of fundamentals of employment contracts that they could not figure this out? Or are you simply switching to personal attacks because you cannot stick to the argument?

Its not a personal attack at all. Its intended to be a commentary on how non-economic/business people can get so hung up on differences in nomenclature to create distinctions that don’t actually exist.

You see a massive difference between “wages” and “benefits” but from a business perspective, they are all the same thing. They are the portion of the results of the employee’s labor that is returned to them in order to induce to labor. Period.

As such, an employee has the right to dispose of them as he will. Period.

I’m sorry if you took offense.

 

[Cristiano]

Its not a personal attack at all. Its intended to be a commentary on how non-economic/business people can get so hung up on differences in nomenclature to create distinctions that don’t actually exist.

You see a massive difference between “wages” and “benefits” but from a business perspective, they are all the same thing. They are the portion of the results of the employee’s labor that is returned to them in order to induce to labor. Period.

As such, an employee has the right to dispose of them as he will. Period.

I’m sorry if you took offense.

It looks like that we agree that wages and benefits are different forms of compensation. Wages, as in monetary payment, used to be the only one and benefits are only a recent invention. They are the “previously agreed upon” results of the employees labor. As such the employe does NOT have the every right to dispose of them as will. I mentioned the example of vacation, I can add the example of using the free time or the earned salary to enter in competition with the employer, people have being fired and sued for that. You keep ignoring that two-parties contracts do exist and that they are what regulates compensation or wages if you prefer.

 

[BillP]

I am American, and up until recently I was pretty proud of that fact… (also, what does YMMV mean?)

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

We believe that we cannot force people to convert, but also that it is our obligation to ensure that society develops in a manner that is according to God’s Laws.

To me this is a paradox. If you can’t force them to convert, then you shouldn’t be able to force them to act as if they have converted.

While it is true that the constitution provides the same freedoms to everyone, and the same “rights” to everyone, what we are talking about is neither a freedom nor a right. What we are talking about is the upholding of human life. Being against contraceptives upholds life, being against Blood transfusions does not.

This only applies to abortion. Not contraception per se. That is, while there are forms of contraception that are unquestionably abortifacient (IUDs) others might be (the Pill) other clearly are not (condoms, sterilization). There can be no “life trumps freedom” case made for these last two, and Medical science is on the fence about the pill.

Catholics believe that practicing your religious freedom cannot deprive someone else of the means or capacity to live their life fully. If we were to give the JW what they want we would be deny those people who work under them their right to life. Therefore, their “Religious Freedom” should be denied.

Religious freedom does not mean that all religions are treated equally, that was never the thought behind it. The thought behind it was that there should be a way to prevent a religion from forcing people to follow it / what it taught even when it violates their own precepts of morality. (This was in reaction to the Anglican church’s persecution of Catholics, as well as against certain religious mandates the king had made)

Here is where we part company, radically. You appear to only want to give “freedom of religion” to religions that you personally approve of. the Purpose of the First Amendment, was not just to curb the poser of Anglicans, but to crub the power of Puritans as well, with a generous dash of horrification (if that’s a word) at the excesses of the Inquisition. In effect, you demand that the 75%+ of this country which does not adhere to the Catholic religion should be legally compelled to act in accordance with its moral precepts on certain issues that you (and the Bishops) will decide upon.

Again, I disagree. Vehemently.

 

[BillP]

It looks like that we agree that wages and benefits are different forms of compensation. Wages, as in monetary payment, used to be the only one and benefits are only a recent invention. They are the “previously agreed upon” results of the employees labor. As such the employe does NOT have the every right to dispose of them as will. I mentioned the example of vacation, I can add the example of using the free time or the earned salary to enter in competition with the employer, people have being fired and sued for that.

Because economically I find the distinction between “wages” and “benefits” to be an accounting artifact that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is, to sum up, who gets to dispose of the portion of an employees economic output resulting from his labor, that is assigned by the employer to induce him to labor?

I maintain it should be the employee.

You believe the employer should control some portion of it in some way.

I maintain that idf the employer controls it. Then it isn’t being assigned to the employee. (see my example of being compensated with Halal foods instead of money to be spent on shellfish and bacon).

You keep ignoring that two-parties contracts do exist and that they are what regulate compensation or wages if you prefer.

And you keep ignoring the government’s ability to define, enforce and administer contracts, which has existed from time immemorial…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

It looks like that we agree that wages and benefits are different forms of compensation. Wages, as in monetary payment, used to be the only one and benefits are only a recent invention. They are the “previously agreed upon” results of the employees labor. As such the employe does NOT have the every right to dispose of them as will. I mentioned the example of vacation, I can add the example of using the free time or the earned salary to enter in competition with the employer, people have being fired and sued for that. You keep ignoring that two-parties contracts do exist and that they are what regulate compensation or wages if you prefer.

One note in this argument is that Wages are guaranteed as part of a working agreement. Generally, and employee will chose to reduce pay a certain amount of their payment each month in order to get the benefits that the employer offers them, so they are paying for most of it (the employer still pays a portion though, and since their money is paying for the coverage then some of their money would be used to pay for contraceptives and abortions, which is why they should not be obligated to offer coverage that does. ) It should be noted that this coverage can then be refused by the employee and they can go look for something else they like more. This has always been the way it works, and should continue to be the way it works. If a non-catholic doesn’t like that their coverage doesn’t offer free birth control, then they can go look for a plan that does.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Because economically I find the distinction between “wages” and “benefits” to be an accounting artifact that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is, to sum up, who gets to dispose of the portion of an employees economic output resulting from his labor, that is assigned by the employer to induce him to labor?

I maintain it should be the employee.
.

You’re right, the employee does, and if he doesn’t like the plan the employer offers, then he can take the portion of his wages that would have paid for it and go find coverage elsewhere.

It’s pretty simple. Why should the employer have to violet his conscience when a simpler and fairer alternative exists?

 

[Nimzovik]

BillP wrote

"…We live in a society that provides freedom of religion to everyone including non-Catholics, even when they’re wrong! the constitution specifically permits them to be wrong!

In short your religious freedom doesn’t permit you to impose your religion on other people (such as your employees who might want health cover that includes ABC)."

Nimzovik Responds:

In regard to “We live in a society that provides freedom of religion to everyone including non-Catholics,…” Well the HHS mandate rather conflicts with that statement now doesn’t it?

In regard to: “In short your religious freedom doesn’t permit you to impose your religion on other people (such as your employees who might want health cover that includes ABC).” Excuse me? Just who is imposing their values on whom?

Those people that want contraception can work else where. If they insist on working for a Catholic intstitution then* they* are inflicting their religion of Atheist values* on the Catholics*.
How much more simple can it be stated?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

Ok then.

To me this is a paradox. If you can’t force them to convert, then you shouldn’t be able to force them to act as if they have converted.

We are not forcing them to act as if they have converted, we are preventing them from forcing us to act like we’ve converted to secularism.

This only applies to abortion. Not contraception per se. That is, while there are forms of contraception that are unquestionably abortifacient (IUDs) others might be (the Pill) other clearly are not (condoms, sterilization). There can be no “life trumps freedom” case made for these last two, and Medical science is on the fence about the pill.

Catholics, you should be included in this because you call yourself Catholic, believe that the use of the pill with a contraceptive mentality is the same thing as killing a conceived child. You are deny the child that has or would have developed without intervention their right to life. Both are intrinsic evils with the same end (artificial prevention of life) and therefor both fall under the same header.

Here is where we part company, radically. You appear to only want to give “freedom of religion” to religions that you personally approve of. the Purpose of the First Amendment, was not just to curb the poser of Anglicans, but to crub the power of Puritans as well, with a generous dash of horrification (if that’s a word) at the excesses of the Inquisition. In effect, you demand that the 75%+ of this country which does not adhere to the Catholic religion should be legally compelled to act in accordance with its moral precepts on certain issues that you (and the Bishops) will decide upon.

Again, I disagree. Vehemently.

I only used Anglicans as an example because Anglican domination was more prominent at the time. The same rules were to apply to all religions, that they cannot force conversion or demand that other people follow them. As stated, that is not what we are doing. The employees are free to seek coverage elsewhere, even while maintaining their job. If the government were arguing that an employee MUST take part in their company’s Insurance plan it -MIGHT- be a different story, but they are not, and the employee is not obligated to.

And, to be perfectly honest, yes, I do think the rest of the world should follow Catholic moral law. As a Catholic, you should to. Since we represent the truth of Christ’s revelations and the fullness of God’s Covenant, it would be best for the souls of the world if they did.

A couple other things. The “Horrors” of the inquest are hugely over-exaggerated, and have been for a long time; and we are not FORCING anyone to follow our moral code., they are trying to force us to follow theirs. We’re not denying them access to contraceptive medications, we’re denying paying for it. If they want to sully their souls then it should be on their dime, not ours; and since an employer does pay a portion of the costs of an insurance plan for their employee then no, we shouldn’t have to provide it.

If the employee was willing to pay for 100% of their own plan then there wouldn’t be a problem (at least not a moral one for the employer) because the employer would not have anything to do with it; but they are not paying for 100% of their coverage, and therefore should not be afforded complete autonomy at the expense of the employer.

I believe that you are trying to rationalize, and I think you should talk to a priest about 0why- you are trying to rationalize it and uphold American ideals over the laws of God.

 

[Corki]

You see a massive difference between “wages” and “benefits” but from a business perspective, they are all the same thing. .

Wages and benefits are part of the same package (compensation) but are not the same thing. From a business perspective, they are **very different **and the difference is control. An employer has very little control over the wage portion. The market really drives that. The employers have a lot of control over the benefits portion of compensation.

They are the portion of the results of the employee’s labor that is returned to them in order to induce to labor. Period.

Yes.

As such, an employee has the right to dispose of them as he will. Period.

Yes. But only **after **they have been returned to him (the employee). The employee does not have the right to say how they are apportioned or how they are returned to him. Nor does the government. (the government sometimes gets to say “when” but not “how”)

Let’s take sex out of the picture. One part of compensation that most people have experienced is paid time for non-work. It’s vacation, sick pay, leaves of absence, etc. Once the employer decides how to structure the time off policy, the employee has a right to use the time according to the company’s policies. But the employee does not have the right to tell the employer he must have 2 weeks of paid vacation, that he must be given paid sick days or that he must be allowed to use paid time off to conduct personal business. The employer can legitimately decide how the paid time off is structured, and control how it is used. The employer can even use his/her religious beliefs to determine the time off. An employer can close the office and pay everyone for Christmas Day and Good Friday but not for Rosh Hashanah or Eid Al-Fitr. Neither the employee **nor the government **can control that.

 

[interestedman]

Gee!!! What fun! Catholics get to pay double for their conscience! Some much for equality for all -eh?

Pay double? I am sure that free birth control will call for double the cost of insurance…

Also, kids certainly cost a lot more than birth control.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Pay double? I am sure that free birth control will call for double the cost of insurance…

Also, kids certainly cost a lot more than birth control.

First off, nothing is free, the money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is all the new people purchasing insurance because it is now federally mandated.

It will be costing Catholic business owner double because we are not willing to provide services which are intrinsically evil, and therefore will be fined for trying to live as good Catholics.

As for kids costing more, you’re right, they do. They are also INFINITELY more valuable, and cannot have a price put on them. If you can’t afford kids then practice NFP or, if you’re not married, abstain. You don’t need sex to live.

Nice to see you take time to read the topic and understand what’s been said before making snarky comments meant to show how “clever” you are. [/sarcasm]