That’s not accurate either. The feds are trying to mandate conditions that organizations affiliated with the RCC must follow. The RCC itself (and other churches) are not subject to the rules.
Why not? His objection was to federal regulations that come between workers and employers. Seems a bit capricious to focus on benefits exclusively.
Its not backwards, you simply refuse to look at things objectively. The RCC is making a demand of government exemption just as they claim the government is doing to them. For there to be a government mandate, there must exist an opposition. From my perspective, it is the RCC who are demanding, since they claim special rights that shouldn’t exist, whereas the government wants all religious organizations to be equally obligated to pay for contraception. Only one side is demanding special treatment here and its not the one you think
Because equating all federal regulations as the same is simply a strawman. We’re talking about a benefits package, not working conditions. Or taxes. Or clean air. Or any other federal requirement that you can come up with.
It’s difficult to see the difference because an individual’s refusing an entire job because they don’t like the coverage in the insurance seems comparable to most people, to a company’s refusing to enter a market because they don’t like the regulations involved.
If the regulations in a market have terms a company or its management find objectionable, they are free to sell their goods in other markets. For example, the Catholic insurance company owner could market Medicare supplemental insurance which presumably, being marketed exclusively to the elderly, would not need to worry about birth control implications at all. Or they could market homeowners insurance. This seems comparable to the teacher having to take a job at a public school or Unitarian school instead of the Catholic one.