Well, that’s their choice. It’s quite possible to do these things and employ co-religionists.
I taught for five years at an evangelical Christian college, which only hired people - right down to the cafeteria staff and the buildings and grounds crew - who shared the faith that was central to the college. That college would have the right to buy insurance that didn’t include contraception. I hope they’re not interested in doing so.
But if you hire mostly people who don’t share your faith, then whatever beliefs you espouse, you’re basically secular in your capacity as an employer. If you’re going to hire without respect to faith, then why on earth should faith suddenly come back into play with respect to health insurance benefits? You’ve already gone secular with respect to employment; it’s a little bit late to stuff that genie back in the bottle.
This argument may be moot after today’s events, but I’m still curious as to what the counterargument would be.
Holy guacamole – prediction blown to smithereens by a classy response. All I can say is:
Hey there! Also, wow – not only have you looked at the facts and reconsidered, you’ve been polite to a stranger who barged in with abrasive snarkitude. Good on ya! A lot of people would have taken a far less admirable course. My metaphorical hat (mostly cat hair and horse dander) is doffed to you.
Women who work for the Church and cannot afford birth control still have as much choice to use birth control as does someone who does not work for the Church and cannot afford control.
If the Church refuses to give their employees food, is the Church forcing them to starve? Does not doing so constitute taking away their choice to eat?
Whether or not they can afford it is not the Church’s problem, nor should it be, nor does it affect one’s choice to use birth control.
Seems that way to me. Seems like he let people bitch, then gave them what they wanted but in the process got what he wanted anyway. That’s good politicking, IMO.
I really don’t understand this Republican war on contraception. Does anybody think railing against birth control is going to help them come election time?
You should watch the Maddow video; she patiently explains that the vast majority of people, even conservative people, use and want to use birth control. Yet for some inexplicable reason, EVERY Republican candidate has hung their hat on the “birth control is wrong” hook.
Republicans are against birth control, education, reducing taxes on the poor (if the wealthy have to make up the difference), eating healthy, affordable healthcare… if a Democrat is for it, Republicans are agin’ it. I honestly don’t understand why Republican voters are so brand-loyal as to vote against their own self-interest.
"After Mississippi rejected ‘personhood’ and its threat to contraception, after Colorado rejected it twice, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul attended (Paul by satellite) a Personhood USA candidates forum in South Carolina. All signed a pledge to pursue ‘personhood’ at the federal level. Mitt Romney did not attend the event, but when asked on Fox News before the Mississippi vote last year whether he would have supported such a measure as Massachusetts governor, he replied, ‘Absolutely.’
I’d also like to note that this is taken from a not-very-long piece, and it is easily found by anyone who glances at it more than very casually. (The quotation is the entire fourth paragraph.) IOW, while **John Mace ** is technically 100% within his rights, and seems reasonable, in asking for a quotation to be pulled out of the article for his convenience, it’s also obvious he’s seeking to make some point about the dubiousness of the claim that simply isn’t true. It’s not dubious, it’s plain–if it were a fox terrier, you’d notice it because it was biting your ankle.