Not when it’s aimed at a specific target.
But the people who’d be getting the insurance are employees, not priests or nuns or acolytes or monks or whatever, and as such they should get the same legal protections and privileges as other employed persons in Missouri.
Can you cite that this particular group expouses what you claimed in their doctrine? Or more specifically the person/persons who is/are outraged believing that?
Thank you Brian, this is the problem I have. The employer can already dictate my behavior outside of work, inasmuch as they can test me for substances which could be used outside of work, but have lingering markers. I believe using their religion to prohibit me, even further, from choosing how I relate to my wife, girlfriend, concubines, or whatever seems like a severe overstepping of bounds on their part. As an employee, I should not be required to subscribe to your religious, political or any other doctrine. If I perform within the required guidelines of my employment, my personal beliefs should be off limits. We can disagree on many things which will not prohibit us from reaching our mutually understood goal. The idea that their right to worship is being infringed upon by my significant other practicing birth control is ludicrous. Keep in mind, these are the people who also want to make you carry rape babies to term. I apologize if this is sounding like a manifesto, I am just really angered by this whole course of events. The good thing is, that other than a few yard signs and billboards, I’m hearing very little from the local bastions of conservatism(talk radio, etc). I hope the wingnuts will continue to be kept on the fringe.
Did you read the OP? 
I did. You and I are talking about generalizations(painting an entire group with similar beliefs due to what a few do). From your post I gather that you think the same of all Christian religious sects. Apparently their “all” a bunch of bigoted zealots who force their beliefs on other people. If you are soley saying that because of the OP specifically and not because of your pre-determined disposition then I apologize. What I’m saying is that to them, these laws are forcing them to embrace contraception by having the costs pushed onto them. Maybe not immediately, but the exemptions are going to end sometime. I believe that’s what the outrage is about.
They are not being"forced embrace contraception, they are trying to use their religion as an excuse to deny others the right to medical care.
No, I speaking of the St Louis Arch-Diocese.
Are they trying to claim that everything else they pay for is OK with their interpretation of their religion? :dubious:
Correct. If an employer is a Jehovah’s Witness, should he be allowed to deny coverage for blood transfusions? If the employer is a Christian Scientist, should he be allowed to deny coverage for medical procedures, period?
Thank you jayjay, his was my point.
I mean this was my point.
NM.
Then I apologize as I said I would. My mistake. (The heavy religious bashing on this forum leaves a bad taste in my mouth even though I myself think they are misguided. They have the right to believe what they what as long as they are in accordance with the law.)
Not sure if you are asking if they are okay with other laws that in your opinion they shouldn’t be according to what they preach. Or if you are asking if they think it’s ok to not follow the law simply because it conflicts with their religion. To the latter(as I previously stated), no. However this isn’t a black and white issue in my opinion. There has to be some middle ground that can be reached. If that effort is exhausted and one can’t be reached then they would just have to suck it up like everyone else.
So it’s a God Dam?
Notre Dam, surely.
The problem is that when they get chased out of your children’s bedroom they usually just get sent to another diocese where they find some other children’s bedrooms.
The issue is that as an employee of this organisation, one will be aiding them in this endeavour, even if only to a minor degree. They expect more benefit than loss from every hire. That said, I understand how difficult it is to find alternative employment and support worker control of hiring processes…
If an employer doesn’t want to supply coverage at all, they aren’t forced to. Where is this concept that providing limited coverage is suddenly an assault on religious freedom coming from?
The complainers, and they’re not alone in this, have redefined religious freedom as the freedom to swing their arms past where others’ noses begin. If you ask them, God gave us religious liberties, but man granted us civil liberties, so fuck those.
If I understand you correctly, Boozahol, no one is saying that they are violating my religious freedom by not covering birth control. The people complaining are saying that your religion as an employer, if it differs from mine, should not affect the quality or spectrum of covered health care, or any condition of my employment, for that matter. I, as an employee, am not infringing on your freedom of religion by asking the health insurance you provide to cover any condition covered by any other health plan. I understand that the Catholic Church sees birth control as wrong, but providing coverage for reproductive system ailments(many of which can be remedied by the use of hormones) should not be a decision made by an employer that comes between me and my doctor. Isn’t that what’s always said? , “I don’t want (insert fashionable boogeyman) coming between my doctor and me!”. Why is it okay for the church to come between a doctor and patient? If the patient feels that strongly about his/her/their religion, shouldn’t that decision be left between them, God, and their doctor?