Interesting article. The author doesn’t seem to recognize that he’s bumping the controversy up a notch.
AFAIK all the claims that this is a violation of religious liberty have been with regard to religious organizations other than those that are specifically churches. Hospitals, schools, shelters, colleges, etc.
This article claims that the personal religious beliefs of the owners of a completely secular business should receive similar privilege. While perhaps a valid position, it is certainly an expansion of the issue.
I wonder how the author would react to the Jehovah’s Witness business owner who buys an insurance policy for his employees that won’t cover blood transfusions.
Or how about a Christian Scientist business owner who buys an insurance policy for his employees that will only cover prayer for medical conditions?
Why the hell does an employer have to provide health insurance anyway? It is a perk that should be up to the employee and the employer to work out without government mandates that force part time work or contractor status on people.
“I wonder how the author would react to the Jehovah’s Witness business owner who buys an insurance policy for his employees that won’t cover blood transfusions.”
It’s still an employee benefit. What’s wrong with an employer choosing to voluntarily go above and beyond what they are required to do?
Actually no, you got it backwards and seem to buy into the false premise the left pushes.
The supposed expansion is actually a God given Constitutionally guaranteed individual right (religious liberty) -a right that naturally extends to control of property e,g business...
It is the government overlords that suggest ONLY government recognized religious organizations get exemption. In essence the government is attempting to limit religious freedom...
I will be disappointed (not for the first time) if the free exercise of religion is restricted in what used to be the United States of America. If a JW wants to offer a limited health plan, I don't see why that is the government's business. Private individuals can choose whether to work there or elsewhere. If a Catholic individual refuses to participate in murdering innocent babies (which is exactly how the Church and many Catholics view abortion), attempting to compel that individual to pay for a gravely evil act is a disgusting overreach by a government that has chosen evil both in the particulars of compelling abortion and more generally in violating the God-given rights of those who used to be free citizens of a free country.
This command from HHS is shockingly arrogant, inherently un-American, and evil. If this leads to unrest, I will not be on the side of those who not only support the killing of innocent unborn children but also attempt to force others to participate in that crime against the innocent. The only answer is to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a free market solution. Socialized medicine can only lead to higher costs for worse service and a dramatic slowdown in the rate of medical advancements. Socialized medicine can only lead to arrogant commands like this one, in which an amoral bureaucrat issues decrees without regard to the needs, desires, and values of individual subjects of our Dear Leader.
That has been the issue all along. For the same reason that it is unjust to make a Catholic hospital facilitate selling contraception, it is unjust t make anyone Catholic to facilitate selling contraception.
The same, mutatis mutandis, applies to a Jehova's Witness being forced to facilitate blood transfusions, or a Jew being forced to sell ham sandwiches, or a Baptist to serve a bar.