Judge allows religious company to reject Obamacare contraceptive coverage

[Serephino]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/judge-allows-religious-company-to-reject-obamacare-contraceptive-coverage-for-time-being/2012/11/16/fe408904-3051-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_story.html

And so it starts.  They may donate money to charity, but they are a business that makes profits.  I'm afraid of what will come next.

[Moraline]

And this is why Canada has Universal Health Coverage.

[LunarSage]

Good for that judge.  Just because the employer has certain beliefs does not mean that their employees must be forced to the same.  I personally find it sickening when a company's owners try to force their religion and beliefs on their employees. 

EDIT:  Wait... approves?  o.O

That's not Hobby Lobby?  I heard they were denied rather harshly.

[Lux12]

Good for that judge.  Just because the employer has certain beliefs does not mean that their employees must be forced to the same.  I personally find it sickening when a company's owners try to force their religion and beliefs on their employees. 

EDIT:  Wait... approves?  o.O

That's not Hobby Lobby?  I heard they were denied rather harshly.

This exactly. This person has no right to try and press their convictions onto their employees. If they so desire they should be able to obtain what they desire.This man does not have to use the stuff personally, so why should he care?

Unfortunately the bastard didn't get told off and forced to do so...

[LunarSage]

Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers “should be free to do business according to the book that they publish.”

So... if a publisher puts out a book based on genocide, they should be free to practice their business in that manner?

An extreme analogy, but I feel it's a valid one.  I'm Christian and I wonder what's so freaking special about the Bible that these for profit companies shouldn't have to abide by federal law.

[Oniya]

Unfortunately, the fact that they are a Bible publishing company means that I can't threaten to take my business elsewhere - I already did that.

[Lux12]

I say convince someone to buy a ton of bibles from them and then have them threaten to take their business elsewhere if they straighten their brains out. :p

[Callie Del Noire]

I find myself wondering if I work for a company run by a Christian Scientist.. does that mean HIS beliefs limit MY options for the company plan?

[Serephino]

Apparently it does.  What is scaring me is that if one person gets away with it, anyone else will be able to use it as a precedence.  Next you'll have people claiming to be religious because they're cheap. 

[TaintedAndDelish]

He added: “The Obama administration is not entitled to disregard religious freedom.”

The have a funny concept of freedom.  I call that restriction.

I don't get how those who ran this company think that they should have any say in what coverage their employees choose to exercise. Likewise, would their religious freedom argument protect the religious freedom of their employees if it differed from their own? If an employee 's religion was Voo Doo, how concerned would they be about that employee's religious freedom?

Sometimes people just suck.

[Lux12]

The have a funny concept of freedom.  I call that restriction.

I don't get how those who ran this company think that they should have any say in what coverage their employees choose to exercise. Likewise, would their religious freedom argument protect the religious freedom of their employees if it differed from their own? If an employee 's religion was Voo Doo, how concerned would they be about that employee's religious freedom?

Sometimes people just suck.

Indeed. This also doesn't take into consideration the religious beliefs of those working for them and thus infringes on their own religious freedom. That sad truth is if it were a person of another religion they would likely have been greeted by a less than favorable response when compared with a Christian's.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The most simple solution is for the employer to stop paying for the healthcare package.  Employees would then be free to purchase the type of coverage they find better suited their needs.  The employees could try and convince the employer to cough up what they would have spent and give it to the employees. 

The employees could also approach the coverage provider for additional coverage they could pay for out of pocket.

The needs and beliefs of both sides need to be considered equally.

[Valerian]

Tyndale is a very, very religious publishing company.  As in, they publish only religious and inspirational books, with a few heavily religious-themed novels here and there.  I've always gotten the impression that most people who apply there are also religious (the two reps from there that I've met both were), though that's hardly a guarantee, especially given the scarcity of jobs these days.

Part of the problem in these early days might also be people misunderstanding the details of the act and perhaps filing lawsuits in a panic.  Something really needs to be done to fix that.  :/

[TaintedAndDelish]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they are failing to separate business from religion. Likewise, how does it effect them if an employee chooses to have an abortion, for example? Its not like they are making the choice themselves. If they only hire /attract religious folks with similar values, then that option will not be exercised anyway.

As for not providing healthcare, I don't think that's an option? I thought that Obama made it so that all employers MUST provide healthcare?

[Lux12]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they are failing to separate business from religion. Likewise, how does it effect them if an employee chooses to have an abortion, for example? Its not like they are making the choice themselves. If they only hire /attract religious folks with similar values, then that option will not be exercised anyway.

As for not providing healthcare, I don't think that's an option? I thought that Obama made it so that all employers MUST provide healthcare?

Indeed.It's not only apparently going against the law in some ways, it's disturbing that they would link two things that should not be tied together so closely, religion and business.

[Torch]

As for not providing healthcare, I don't think that's an option? I thought that Obama made it so that all employers MUST provide healthcare?

No, that's incorrect. Employers with less than 50 employees do not have to provide healthcare. Employers with more than 50 employees will have to pay a penalty if they do not provide employer sponsored health care.

The problem lies in that many employers will simply choose to pay the penalty because doing so will be cheaper for them than paying for coverage. It will come down to costs vs. benefits.

[LunarSage]

Aren't the penalties like up to 1.3 million dollars a day?

[vtboy]

So, by this judge's reasoning, then, if an employer (or, more accurately, the employer's owner, since most businesses of any size are some form of juridical entity) is a member of one of those cornflake sects that preaches blood transfusion is an abomination in the eyes of god, the employer can refuse to provide health insurance which would cover transfusions. Am I missing something?

[Serephino]

That seems to be about it.  It's an infringement on their religious beliefs to pay for insurance that would save your life in a way that violates their religion's rules.  It's completely stupid because, no, what I would chose to do with my body has nothing to do with them.  I am not Christian, and completely fine with anything that prevents unwanted pregnancy.  It's like, women need jobs, but if they want birth control they're going to have to ask during the interview if the employer is a Christian that is against birth control or not. 

[Torch]

Aren't the penalties like up to 1.3 million dollars a day?

Not sure where you heard that. The penalty is $2000 multiplied by the number of employees in excess of 30. The penalty will increase over time, but nothing even close to 1MM.

[Missy]

Which would be an infringement on religious freedoms.

You don't hire or fire your employers based on your religion, you don't tell tell them what kind of healthcare you will offer to pay for based on your religion either.

As long as the company offers public hiring applications then they ought to be expected to behave towards their employees like every other company, the personal political, religious, philosophical or any other leanings of the owners should have no bearing on the expectation between employee and employer.

[Serephino]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/20/us-usa-healthcare-oklahoma-court-idUSBRE8AJ05420121120?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FhealthNews+%28Reuters+Health+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

I knew more challenges would be coming, but at least this judge saw some sense and denied the ridiculous challenge.

[Funguy81]

The most simple solution is for the employer to stop paying for the healthcare package.  Employees would then be free to purchase the type of coverage they find better suited their needs.  The employees could try and convince the employer to cough up what they would have spent and give it to the employees. 

The employees could also approach the coverage provider for additional coverage they could pay for out of pocket.

The needs and beliefs of both sides need to be considered equally.

You know...the second idea is a hell of an idea. It does serve that both sides keep their beliefs in place while providing what is needed.

[vtboy]

You know...the second idea is a hell of an idea. It does serve that both sides keep their beliefs in place while providing what is needed.

I'm sure there are many far better approaches than the ACA to expansion of health care coverage. But, the real worry here is the quality of the jurisprudence of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton and those of his ilk who somewhere got the misbegotten notion that individuals may constitutionally exempt their secular activities from the requirements of law by claiming some religious scruple. The principle at stake strikes at the very capacity of a government to govern and is by no means limited to the tension over reproductive issues.

My antipathy for organized religion aside, I've got to say I just don't see the other side of this issue. The law does not require the employer to use contraception or to put it in its employees' drinking water. All the employer is required to do is pay money and leave the decisions to others. If only the law could also relieve this judge of making decisions....   

[LunarSage]

Not sure where you heard that. The penalty is $2000 multiplied by the number of employees in excess of 30. The penalty will increase over time, but nothing even close to 1MM.

I read it on Snopes, actually.  It was in regards to a different company (Hobby Lobby), but the exact same circumstances.

Hobby Lobby faces a January 1 [2013] deadline to comply with the mandate to provide all FDA-approved contraceptives. Failure to do so would entail a penalty of up to $1.3 million per day.