[Vision2020] Amen!

[Paul Rumelhart]

So, correct me if I'm wrong here.

There is absolutely nothing stopping employees of these companies from 
buying and using contraception, right? All they have to do is pay for it 
themselves.  If they think that is too onerous a burden, they can switch 
jobs to a company whose owners do not have strong religious views on the 
subject.

Why should an employer have to pay for something they find objectionable 
on religious grounds?  I admit I skimmed the ruling, but they seemed to 
be talking about family-owned for-profit private corporations that 
professed to following a religious ideology and that they objected to 
the "morning after" pill which in their view is equivalent to abortion 
(and therefore murder) because they believe that life begins at conception.

I don't see whose rights are being trampled here.  Is there a right that 
states that people who want to use contraception should be able to make 
someone else foot the bill for it?

I get that having contraception more freely available is a good thing, I 
really do, but I can also see the point made by those who think that 
some kinds of contraception are morally wrong.

Look, I hate the Windows 8 operating system with a passion.  If someone 
was forcing me to pay for people to install it on their machines, I 
would object.  If the court sided in my favor, would you really construe 
this as me forcing my operating system prejudices on everyone else?  It 
would strike me as being the exact opposite.

Paul


On 06/30/2014 06:49 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:
> "The Supreme Court made a grave error today. The balance between 
> religious freedom and other compelling interests has always been 
> tenuous, but we may very well remember today's decision as the moment 
> that balance was radically recalibrated. Not only has the Court, for 
> the first time in history, expanded the definition of religious 
> freedom to include for-profit corporate entities, it has determined 
> that the free exercise of those employers outweighs that of their 
> employees. The First Amendment is at its best when it is used to 
> protect the rights of minorities from the whims of the powerful. 
> Today's decision, which gives the powerful the right to force their 
> religious beliefs on those around them, is a far cry from the best 
> traditions of religious freedom."
>
> - Interfaith Alliance president Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy (June 30, 2014)
> http://www.interfaithalliance.org/the-news/press-releases/603-interfaith-alliance-says-the-supreme-court-made-a-grave-error-in-hobby-lobby-decision
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
> =======================================================
>   List services made available by First Step Internet,
>   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                 http://www.fsr.net
>            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140630/cedbc8a7/attachment-0001.html>