There is so much grey here. I guess the labour laws are more black & white, those laws designed to protect employees from abuse (unsafe working conditions, unfair wages, inequality in the workplace, excessive work hours, etc) and they are fairly sensible and acceptable for most people.

A little grey seeps in with the "rules" specific to a company. If you work in a bank you must adhere to a dress code. If you work as a receptionist you may have to refrain from wearing a big nose ring or dying your hair lime green or getting a tattoo on your forehead and so on. One can fight against these rules but how far will they get? Would they go all the way to the Supreme Court?

And then a big grey paintbrush comes in with religion. Your boss at the bank tells you that you are not permitted to wear a niqab to work. Is this an infringement on your religious freedom? Does your boss have a legitimate reason for disallowing it? Down the street at the hospital is a doctor who takes a prayer break while on the clock. Should his employer have the right to withhold pay for such a purpose? And when should the courts step in? Perhaps none of that matters right now because the issue isn't whether or not you can wear a certain garb or read a certain book, it's about whether or not the owner of a private, for-profit company has the right to deny covering the cost of a birth control method that his/her religion considers sinful. And also, whether or not the courts should have the final say.

Refusal to cover an employee who wants the morning after pill doesn't fall under the heading of "abuse", does it? I don't believe so. It may not even be considered an inconvenience if the drug is going to be paid for by the insurance company/government if the business owner chooses not to pay for it. No harm done to the employee.

I believe the court made the right decision. But I also believe it's a step in the wrong direction.

danimorg62 wrote:Refusal to cover an employee who wants the morning after pill doesn't fall under the heading of "abuse", does it? I don't believe so. It may not even be considered an inconvenience if the drug is going to be paid for by the insurance company/government if the business owner chooses not to pay for it. No harm done to the employee.

I believe the court made the right decision. But I also believe it's a step in the wrong direction.

It's not abuse perse, but it's an infringement of one's personal rights. Infringement is just as wrong as abuse in my opinion.

If it's a step in the wrong direction, how can it be the right decision?

Movie Nerd wrote:

danimorg62 wrote:Refusal to cover an employee who wants the morning after pill doesn't fall under the heading of "abuse", does it? I don't believe so. It may not even be considered an inconvenience if the drug is going to be paid for by the insurance company/government if the business owner chooses not to pay for it. No harm done to the employee.

I believe the court made the right decision. But I also believe it's a step in the wrong direction.

It's not abuse perse, but it's an infringement of one's personal rights. Infringement is just as wrong as abuse in my opinion.

If it's a step in the wrong direction, how can it be the right decision?

Is in infringement? Are the employees being denied the morning after pill altogether, or can they still have it covered by either the insurance company or the government?

In Canada, "Taking Christ out of Christmas" is a big deal. People are up in arms about it every year. Many of the public schools that used to put up Christmas trees no longer do. There are less and less faith-based decorations in government buildings. In fact, it is forbidden. Many of the schools here at home emphasize all-encompassing phrases such as "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas". Two friends, both teachers at a Catholic school, were notified last year that the greeting must be secular. We talk about removing "God" from national anthems and out of print in currency. Feathers are ruffled by the crucifix hanging at the hospital. How long has it been since a bible was used to swear on in a court room? The radio plays a myriad of Christmas music that never mentions God or angels or holy and no one bats an eye. Fifty years ago, things were quite different. Marching forward.

So for the courts to hear and rule on the Hobby Lobby case feels like a step in the wrong direction, from my perspective. Belief in the supernatural should not be an "out" in a court of law, in my opinion.

However, I believe the court made the right decision based on the law as it stands today.

danimorg62 wrote:Is in infringement? Are the employees being denied the morning after pill altogether, or can they still have it covered by either the insurance company or the government?

The businesses are refusing to offer insurance which covers for birth control. When they're being denied the insurance because of this, it's an infringement.

danimorg62 wrote:In Canada, "Taking Christ out of Christmas" is a big deal. People are up in arms about it every year. Many of the public schools that used to put up Christmas trees no longer do. There are less and less faith-based decorations in government buildings. In fact, it is forbidden. Many of the schools here at home emphasize all-encompassing phrases such as "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas". Two friends, both teachers at a Catholic school, were notified last year that the greeting must be secular. We talk about removing "God" from national anthems and out of print in currency. Feathers are ruffled by the crucifix hanging at the hospital. How long has it been since a bible was used to swear on in a court room? The radio plays a myriad of Christmas music that never mentions God or angels or holy and no one bats an eye. Fifty years ago, things were quite different. Marching forward.

So for the courts to hear and rule on the Hobby Lobby case feels like a step in the wrong direction, from my perspective. Belief in the supernatural should not be an "out" in a court of law, in my opinion.

Nobody's taking out a belief in the supernatural for the individual; the problem is, you can't establish one reigning faith over all other faiths in the public sector, whether it be a school or in the courthouse. Our First Ammendment grants everyone the right to follow whatever religion they choose, or even not to follow one. In America at least (I am using America because that's where I live), the Happy Holidays and secularizing of things is more for the protecting of all rights than for ridding the world of Christianity.

I am a little confused as to why you're bringing Christmas and God out of schools into this. That's a different issue I think.

danimorg62 wrote:However, I believe the court made the right decision based on the law as it stands today.

I still don't know how you think it's both bad and good. Either it's a good decision or it's not.

Movie Nerd wrote: Nobody's taking out a belief in the supernatural for the individual; the problem is, you can't establish one reigning faith over all other faiths in the public sector, whether it be a school or in the courthouse. Our First Ammendment grants everyone the right to follow whatever religion they choose, or even not to follow one. In America at least (I am using America because that's where I live), the Happy Holidays and secularizing of things is more for the protecting of all rights than for ridding the world of Christianity.

I am a little confused as to why you're bringing Christmas and God out of schools into this. That's a different issue I think.

danimorg62 wrote:However, I believe the court made the right decision based on the law as it stands today.

I still don't know how you think it's both bad and good. Either it's a good decision or it's not.

I believe the court ruled according to the laws of the act. Doesn't mean it was a good decision and it doesn't mean it was a bad decision, really... I just don't see how they could have ruled another way. I'm quite willing to be enlightened if I've misunderstood.

I brought Christmas and God into the conversation to highlight a point. I wrote that I think it's a backward march, the fact that today, when "secular" is all the rage (as opposed to fifty... thirty... twenty? years ago), "religious freedom" is a reason to forbid insurance coverage for certain birth control methods, a reason approved by the courts.

Am I naïve to believe that one day, it won't be?

Dani wrote:Am I naïve to believe that one day, it won't be?

reminded me of that tune...

You may say I'm a dreamer (naive)
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us...

danimorg62 wrote:

Movie Nerd wrote: Nobody's taking out a belief in the supernatural for the individual; the problem is, you can't establish one reigning faith over all other faiths in the public sector, whether it be a school or in the courthouse. Our First Ammendment grants everyone the right to follow whatever religion they choose, or even not to follow one. In America at least (I am using America because that's where I live), the Happy Holidays and secularizing of things is more for the protecting of all rights than for ridding the world of Christianity.

I am a little confused as to why you're bringing Christmas and God out of schools into this. That's a different issue I think.

danimorg62 wrote:However, I believe the court made the right decision based on the law as it stands today.

I still don't know how you think it's both bad and good. Either it's a good decision or it's not.

I believe the court ruled according to the laws of the act. Doesn't mean it was a good decision and it doesn't mean it was a bad decision, really... I just don't see how they could have ruled another way. I'm quite willing to be enlightened if I've misunderstood.

I brought Christmas and God into the conversation to highlight a point. I wrote that I think it's a backward march, the fact that today, when "secular" is all the rage (as opposed to fifty... thirty... twenty? years ago), "religious freedom" is a reason to forbid insurance coverage for certain birth control methods, a reason approved by the courts.

Am I naïve to believe that one day, it won't be?

I'm still a little confused about what you wrote regarding the law, but I think that's keeping us from other, more important issues so I'm letting that one go.

Really I think the Christmas and the birth control issues are two different matters altogether. Nobody's leeping you from saying Merry Christmas or having Christmas or religious-themed stuff in or around your homes, or even around a private business or church or whatever. What people are saying is, when you're in a public-funded place, like a library, the courthouse or a school, you cannot favor one religion over the others. When everyone's taxes support that place, not just the Christians, they have to all be represented in that school. It's either all or nothing, if that makes sense.

I think the courts have a right to exempt persons or businesses from receiving covereage that infringes on their religion, but they shouldn't allow them to force their workers into the same thing just because they work for them. Does that make sense?

Movie Nerd wrote:

I think the courts have a right to exempt persons or businesses from receiving covereage that infringes on their religion, but they shouldn't allow them to force their workers into the same thing just because they work for them. Does that make sense?

Movie Nerd, is it that cut and dry? The owner cannot force his female employee to agree and abide by his religious... rules. She has other means to get the pill - less restrictive means would be the insurance company or the government. I think the key is who pays for it and the courts decided they cannot force the business owner to pay for it.

I tried to imagine myself a business owner with an employee who is demanding I pay for something that goes against my "convictions", such as a uniform that includes the jilbaab. It would seem outrageous to me if a court of law sided with my employee.

I know it's a poor example but it's the way I put it in my head and it made sense.

I'm adding a disclaimer here: I don't know the proper way to write many things. I wouldn't know if "the act" (the one that provides the public with religious freedom. Or any other act.) is to be written, "The Act". I am uneducated and I'm aware it shows in my writing. I mean no disrespect and I just want to make that clear. Many times I've logged in and started typing and then thought to go look up the proper wording and the proper way to put it down in print but I don't have enough time and then I lose what I want to say. This wonderful site is filled with people with sharp minds, high intellect and keen insight and I'm sure many wince when they read what I write but until I'm told to go stand in the corner I'm going to keep at it because it is so very stimulating.

danimorg62 wrote:

Movie Nerd wrote:

I think the courts have a right to exempt persons or businesses from receiving covereage that infringes on their religion, but they shouldn't allow them to force their workers into the same thing just because they work for them. Does that make sense?

Movie Nerd, is it that cut and dry? The owner cannot force his female employee to agree and abide by his religious... rules. She has other means to get the pill - less restrictive means would be the insurance company or the government. I think the key is who pays for it and the courts decided they cannot force the business owner to pay for it.

I tried to imagine myself a business owner with an employee who is demanding I pay for something that goes against my "convictions", such as a uniform that includes the jilbaab. It would seem outrageous to me if a court of law sided with my employee.

I know it's a poor example but it's the way I put it in my head and it made sense.

I'm adding a disclaimer here: I don't know the proper way to write many things. I wouldn't know if "the act" (the one that provides the public with religious freedom. Or any other act.) is to be written, "The Act". I am uneducated and I'm aware it shows in my writing. I mean no disrespect and I just want to make that clear. Many times I've logged in and started typing and then thought to go look up the proper wording and the proper way to put it down in print but I don't have enough time and then I lose what I want to say. This wonderful site is filled with people with sharp minds, high intellect and keen insight and I'm sure many wince when they read what I write but until I'm told to go stand in the corner I'm going to keep at it because it is so very stimulating.

If the employee is paying for the insurance, then the business owner will not be paying it--just because an employee's insurance comes through their company where they work does not mean that the business owner is paying it; it's part of their benefits package and like a retirement fund a chunk of their money is going towards it.

Movie Nerd wrote:

danimorg62 wrote:

Movie Nerd wrote:

I think the courts have a right to exempt persons or businesses from receiving covereage that infringes on their religion, but they shouldn't allow them to force their workers into the same thing just because they work for them. Does that make sense?

Movie Nerd, is it that cut and dry? The owner cannot force his female employee to agree and abide by his religious... rules. She has other means to get the pill - less restrictive means would be the insurance company or the government. I think the key is who pays for it and the courts decided they cannot force the business owner to pay for it.

I tried to imagine myself a business owner with an employee who is demanding I pay for something that goes against my "convictions", such as a uniform that includes the jilbaab. It would seem outrageous to me if a court of law sided with my employee.

I know it's a poor example but it's the way I put it in my head and it made sense.

I'm adding a disclaimer here: I don't know the proper way to write many things. I wouldn't know if "the act" (the one that provides the public with religious freedom. Or any other act.) is to be written, "The Act". I am uneducated and I'm aware it shows in my writing. I mean no disrespect and I just want to make that clear. Many times I've logged in and started typing and then thought to go look up the proper wording and the proper way to put it down in print but I don't have enough time and then I lose what I want to say. This wonderful site is filled with people with sharp minds, high intellect and keen insight and I'm sure many wince when they read what I write but until I'm told to go stand in the corner I'm going to keep at it because it is so very stimulating.

If the employee is paying for the insurance, then the business owner will not be paying it--just because an employee's insurance comes through their company where they work does not mean that the business owner is paying it; it's part of their benefits package and like a retirement fund a chunk of their money is going towards it.

If the employee is paying the insurance the employer has no say in what is covered and what isn't. True or false?

If the employer is paying the insurance the employee has no say in what is covered and what isn't. True or false?