Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Can a company be "Christian"?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 2474064" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>They're too busy endorsing co-ops.</p><p></p><p>I personally don't do business with companies that feel a need to advertise their religious beliefs in a manner to assert that they are somehow superior due to their beliefs (for example, "a Christian-owned company", "...our Christian principles...", "we'll treat you the Christian way", religious symbolism in logos, etc.). My purely anecdotal experience is that if a business feels a need to make a point of their religious beliefs, I'm 10x more likely to get screwed.</p><p></p><p>Since this centers around Hobby Lobby... I think an important question to ask if if the government has a compelling interest to protect the <em>statutory</em> rights of a company's employees, and if access to all forms of contraception fall under the heading of "statutory right". Remember, the requirement to cover all forms of contraception is <em>not</em> in the Affordable Care Act - it is part of a policy that Department of Health and Human Services developed under delegated authority to determine the specific preventative services to be covered. Because Congress did not specify this coverage in the Act, Congress did not view this coverage as a compelling interest of government. Additionally, HHS is directed by Congress in the ACA to grant religious exemptions, and HHS has interpreted religious exemptions to extend to for-profit corporations (<a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-21/html/2012-6689.htm" target="_blank">http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-21/html/2012-6689.htm</a>). HHS also does not consider contraceptives to be a "particularly significant protection" that grandfathered policies must be modified to cover (<a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/2010-14488.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/2010-14488.pdf</a>).</p><p></p><p>One argument being made is that religious accommodations cannot impose a burden on a third party's statutory rights. That's simply not the case. The SCOTUS has held previously that religious accommodations can shift burdens (<a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/398/case.html" target="_blank"><em>Sherbert v. Verner</em>, 374 US 398 (1963)</a>) and unanimously held that religious organizations can fire employees for reasons that would normally run afoul of anti-discrimination laws (<a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-553/" target="_blank"><em>Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC</em>, 565 US __ (2012)</a>). HHS has not offered an argument that a for-profit business whose core values includes its religious beliefs is distinguishable from a purely religious organization. (I think they should be, but apparently the government doesn't believe it to be important to argue.)</p><p></p><p>Interestingly, while arguing that Hobby Lobby's failure to cover Plan B imposes a significant burden on Hobby Lobby's employees, the government argues that Hobby Lobby should drop it's insurance plans completely for all 13,000 employees, pay a $2K fine per employee, and force it's employees to get coverage through the exchanges in order to avoid a burden on it's religious exercise. Which one of these plans imposes the more significant burden on employees - requiring employees to pay for certain contraceptives out of pocket, or requiring employees to buy admittedly lesser quality health insurance out of pocket? Also consider that such a recommendation undermines the government's argument that employer-provided insurance is an essential element of the ACA and therefore a compelling interest of the government.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 2474064, member: 5151"] They're too busy endorsing co-ops. I personally don't do business with companies that feel a need to advertise their religious beliefs in a manner to assert that they are somehow superior due to their beliefs (for example, "a Christian-owned company", "...our Christian principles...", "we'll treat you the Christian way", religious symbolism in logos, etc.). My purely anecdotal experience is that if a business feels a need to make a point of their religious beliefs, I'm 10x more likely to get screwed. Since this centers around Hobby Lobby... I think an important question to ask if if the government has a compelling interest to protect the [I]statutory[/I] rights of a company's employees, and if access to all forms of contraception fall under the heading of "statutory right". Remember, the requirement to cover all forms of contraception is [I]not[/I] in the Affordable Care Act - it is part of a policy that Department of Health and Human Services developed under delegated authority to determine the specific preventative services to be covered. Because Congress did not specify this coverage in the Act, Congress did not view this coverage as a compelling interest of government. Additionally, HHS is directed by Congress in the ACA to grant religious exemptions, and HHS has interpreted religious exemptions to extend to for-profit corporations ([url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-21/html/2012-6689.htm[/url]). HHS also does not consider contraceptives to be a "particularly significant protection" that grandfathered policies must be modified to cover ([url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/2010-14488.pdf[/url]). One argument being made is that religious accommodations cannot impose a burden on a third party's statutory rights. That's simply not the case. The SCOTUS has held previously that religious accommodations can shift burdens ([URL="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/398/case.html"][I]Sherbert v. Verner[/I], 374 US 398 (1963)[/URL]) and unanimously held that religious organizations can fire employees for reasons that would normally run afoul of anti-discrimination laws ([URL="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-553/"][I]Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC[/I], 565 US __ (2012)[/URL]). HHS has not offered an argument that a for-profit business whose core values includes its religious beliefs is distinguishable from a purely religious organization. (I think they should be, but apparently the government doesn't believe it to be important to argue.) Interestingly, while arguing that Hobby Lobby's failure to cover Plan B imposes a significant burden on Hobby Lobby's employees, the government argues that Hobby Lobby should drop it's insurance plans completely for all 13,000 employees, pay a $2K fine per employee, and force it's employees to get coverage through the exchanges in order to avoid a burden on it's religious exercise. Which one of these plans imposes the more significant burden on employees - requiring employees to pay for certain contraceptives out of pocket, or requiring employees to buy admittedly lesser quality health insurance out of pocket? Also consider that such a recommendation undermines the government's argument that employer-provided insurance is an essential element of the ACA and therefore a compelling interest of the government. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Can a company be "Christian"?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom