It is obvious to
Rick Garnett that "very short shrift" was given by the Administration to religious liberty in the recent tweak of the contraceptive mandate, that is, if you ignore the concerns of the employees with both religious liberty and health concerns. "I'm afraid" you have a blind-spot if you cannot even see my p.o.v. I see yours; it's wrong, but I see it.
4 comments:
I wonder if they think they can quiz their employees about possible use of contraceptives and dock their pay the cost of them should they admit to such use. Religious freedom, you know.
I'm afraid I don't understand why if an "employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees" in this fashion, it is a problem. [U.S. v. Lee] It's so confusing.
That sort of thing very well be okay for a teacher at a religious school. Not so much at Hobby Lobby.
I think that the point is that people insisting on the employer's religious freedom ignore the fact that they are talking about the employees' compensation and the employer really has no rights over how that is formulated or spent by the employee. Putting it perhaps more clearly, are we going to allow Jehovah's Witnesses to prohibit work coverage for their hospital employees' blood transfusions or vaccinations or fill in the blank? The employees of course have no obligation to use the coverages provided just as they have no obligation to spend their wages on any particular medical procedure, treatment or prescription.
I'm with you but what really rankles is that the concern for religious liberty is so one-sided.
What about the liberty of the employee, including those who thinks it immoral to not use birth control? The employer is only making tangential contributions at best here. The liberty of the employee, including to make health choices with a religious aspect is much more direct.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!