Same-sex marriage law prompts changes in agency's employee benefits

  • Thread starter Thread starter petitsourice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

petitsourice

Guest
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000882.htm

Ahh, Freedom FROM Religion, not OF Religion

I absolutely hate the new freedom from religion america. New same sex marriage laws are forcing religious institutions to drop spousal health care coverage.

Is this that “freedom” that we keep hearing people parrot that we’re killing for?

Maybe God shouldn’t bless america…
 
I don’t like paying my income tax. I still pay it.
Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming don’t have any personal income tax…
And freedom of religion should never be freedom from religion… Because we are all free to choose our religion (or drop it altogether) we should also be free to practice our religion.
 
Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming don’t have any personal income tax…
And freedom of religion should never be freedom from religion… Because we are all free to choose our religion (or drop it altogether) we should also be free to practice our religion.
Does it seem more like Jesus to take away healthcare from spouses of future employees (and employees looking to add a spouse) just because a few people might use it to get their partner healthcare, or does it seem more like Jesus to continue to provide health care to all spouses, despite some of them “living in sin.”
 
Does it seem more like Jesus to take away healthcare from spouses of future employees (and employees looking to add a spouse) just because a few people might use it to get their partner healthcare, or does it seem more like Jesus to continue to provide health care to all spouses, despite some of them “living in sin.”
Did Jesus ever support sinners in their sin? Didn’t He say things like “Go and sin no more”?
Do you think it is right to place a false tolerance before loving the Lord?
 
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000882.htm

I absolutely hate the new freedom from religion america. New same sex marriage laws are forcing religious institutions to drop spousal health care coverage.

Is this that “freedom” that we keep hearing people parrot that we’re killing for?

Maybe God shouldn’t bless america…
Look, a lot of different employers offer different types of benefits. Some don’t offer any benefits at all. Some are so small that it makes the premiums quite expensive.

When one looks for a job, one has to consider what is important to them in the way of perks. If this is a deal breaker (like with any other company with comparable benefits), just look elsewhere for a job. At least they are not changing benefits for existing employees with spousal coverage. This is for new hires, and for currently single employees. And those employees just don’t have to work there. Many people have changed jobs because of benefits issues. Most were economy-driven, this one was law-driven. They have the right to change their policies if the law forces them to break their catholic rules.
 
Does it seem more like Jesus to take away healthcare from spouses of future employees (and employees looking to add a spouse) just because a few people might use it to get their partner healthcare, or does it seem more like Jesus to continue to provide health care to all spouses, despite some of them “living in sin.”
Jesus doesn’t run any human monetary medical health care system.
Primitive humans do a fine job making a mess of it themselves.
After all it’s the profitable rich who run the system.

Your barking at the wrong tree. And humans are responsible for their own sins.
 
Jesus doesn’t run any human monetary medical health care system.
Primitive humans do a fine job making a mess of it themselves.
After all it’s the profitable rich who run the system.

Your barking at the wrong tree. And humans are responsible for their own sins.
What do you mean I am barking up the wrong tree? What about people that have been divorced before, and then are remarried? Do their spouses get benefits? Aren’t they living in as much sin as homosexuals? What about gluttons, or people that are not good Christians? Do they take those things into account? If you are over 300 pounds, does your spouse not get health care? If they are going to say that they will not support sin so they will not provide health care for same sex spouses, shouldn’t they deny people coverage for other sins? If not, it is a double standard and it is completely unnecessary.

And just to talk about the title of the thread, freedom OF religion should be freedom from religion for those that do not wish to participate in any religion at all.
 
Does it seem more like Jesus to take away healthcare from spouses of future employees (and employees looking to add a spouse) just because a few people might use it to get their partner healthcare, or does it seem more like Jesus to continue to provide health care to all spouses, despite some of them “living in sin.”
Jesus would never support an evil just to get more healthcare coverage for people. He would probably preach to the people living in sin and try to get them out of it.
 
Jesus would never support an evil just to get more healthcare coverage for people. He would probably preach to the people living in sin and try to get them out of it.
How is healthcare supporting an evil? What about in places like Canada where there is universal healthcare…would you support taking away healthcare for homosexuals?
 
How is healthcare supporting an evil? What about in places like Canada where there is universal healthcare…would you support taking away healthcare for homosexuals?
would you support taking away healthcare for homosexuals?
This won’t happen in Canada because the Supreme Court of Canada has already given same-sex unions the same supportive federal benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy. As for single gay men and women, they too share the same liberty as being part of every other Canadian citizen who have access to federal and provincial health care services.

However; not all medical services are universally free to Canadian citizens.
The Rich verses the Poor is part of every global society.
 
What do you mean I am barking up the wrong tree? What about people that have been divorced before, and then are remarried? Do their spouses get benefits? Aren’t they living in as much sin as homosexuals? What about gluttons, or people that are not good Christians? Do they take those things into account? If you are over 300 pounds, does your spouse not get health care? If they are going to say that they will not support sin so they will not provide health care for same sex spouses, shouldn’t they deny people coverage for other sins? If not, it is a double standard and it is completely unnecessary.

And just to talk about the title of the thread, freedom OF religion should be freedom from religion for those that do not wish to participate in any religion at all.
The majority of people in the western world…the vast majority in Europe… are de facto agnostics with no meaningful relationship with religious belief so what you suggest “should” be clearly “is” so there is no need for the modal should.
 
The majority of people in the western world…the vast majority in Europe… are de facto agnostics with no meaningful relationship with religious belief so what you suggest “should” be clearly “is” so there is no need for the modal should.
Can you please clarify what you are talking about?
 
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000882.htm

I absolutely hate the new freedom from religion america. New same sex marriage laws are forcing religious institutions to drop spousal health care coverage.

Is this that “freedom” that we keep hearing people parrot that we’re killing for?

Maybe God shouldn’t bless america…
Freedom of religion is not absolute. Aztec religion involved human sacrifice, that is now against the law and rightly so. Some versions of Christianity supported slavery up to 1865, again slavery is now illegal and rightly so.

The debate on the respective rights of homosexuals and religious believers is currently ongoing in the USA.

rossum
 
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000882.htm

I absolutely hate the new freedom from religion america. New same sex marriage laws are forcing religious institutions to drop spousal health care coverage.

Is this that “freedom” that we keep hearing people parrot that we’re killing for?

Maybe God shouldn’t bless america…
No one is “forcing” them to do anything. They are choosing to drop the coverage rather than comply with a civil rights law that they don’t agree with. The laws are a result in a shift in social norms by people of many religious and no religious belief systems. You may disagree with those who support same sex rights, but you need to respect their right to live in accordance with their beliefs because freedom of religion applies to those you disagree with, too.
 
No one is “forcing” them to do anything. They are choosing to drop the coverage rather than comply with a civil rights law that they don’t agree with. The laws are a result in a shift in social norms by people of many religious and no religious belief systems. You may disagree with those who support same sex rights, but you need to respect their right to live in accordance with their beliefs because freedom of religion applies to those you disagree with, too.
You are on a slippery slope
Based on your above statements the state can make any practice of any religion illegal
Who gets to decide?
I don’t think are founding fathers had this in mind.

I
 
You are on a slippery slope
Based on your above statements the state can make any practice of any religion illegal
I don’t think so. Providing health insurance to employees is not a religious practice.

Catholic Charities has no business policing the bedrooms of its employees. Or some employees, anyways. As others have mentioned, CC is singling out the sin of homosexuality, while turning a blind eye to all the other repeated sins which are lived by its employees. If CC is to be consistent, they should be advocating denying health coverage to couples involving divorced and remarriage etc. But they haven’t done that
 
Here’s an idea: institute a Moral Code for all the Catholic employers, including Catholic Charities, schools, universities, hospitals and clinics, and so on. And put it in there, clearly, that only those who comply with this book of Moral Code are eligible for employment by said Catholic employers. Then, compile the list of what’s required and what’s not permissible under this Moral Code, and have it approved by the Bishops, or even better, by the Vatican and the Pope himself. A single Moral Codebook could apply to the whole range of Catholic employers in the USA, and even across the globe, why not? In this Moral Codebook, spell out things such as: practicing homosexuals, heterosexuals who shack up and live together without being married to each other, people who get remarried without an annulment after divorce, are not eligible for employment.

It would protect the Catholic employers from the government trying to impose immoral laws on them. It would also take care of many other problems and keep the Catholic institutions truly Catholic.

Consider also, for example, the falling away of Catholic Universities. I’ve read that recently Boston College decided to put back the crucifixes into the classrooms, and the Chairman of the Department of Chemistry was outraged. Well, put it as a requirement into the Moral Codebook, that the employee must not be hostile to the Catholic religion and its symbols, and don’t allow people such as the mentioned Chairman to be employed, in the first place, at Catholic institutions. Also codify as a prerequisite of employment whatever the Pope and Bishops deem necessary, and whatever is needed to keep out people who push open dissent from Catholic teachings such as the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, condemning abortion, artificial birth control, the inappropriate use of sexuality including the homosexual lifestyle, and so on.
 
You are on a slippery slope
Based on your above statements the state can make any practice of any religion illegal
Who gets to decide?
I don’t think are founding fathers had this in mind.
Nor do I think that the Founding Fathers would have allowed someone to take up Aztec religion and start a series of human sacrifices claiming it was legal because of freedom of religion.

Freedom of Religion does not give anyone complete freedom from the law.

rossum
 
No one is “forcing” them to do anything. They are choosing to drop the coverage rather than comply with a civil rights law that they don’t agree with. The laws are a result in a shift in social norms by people of many religious and no religious belief systems. You may disagree with those who support same sex rights, but you need to respect their right to live in accordance with their beliefs because freedom of religion applies to those you disagree with, too.
The laws are not a result of the shift of any norms. When a few lawyers and a few judges create laws out of thin air, that does not mean the other almost 300 million people in the US agree with them. Freedom of religion applies to same sex rights? How so? Homosexuality is religious?

That is called social engineering. It occurred when a handful of people called the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973. In 1973, a non-scientific vote removed Homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. A few judges and lawyers also helped open hundreds of Adult Bookstores and Strip Clubs in the 1970s. The people had nothing to do with it. I was there and no one viewed any of this as some sort of new social norms.

This is another attempt at social engineering.

God bless,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top