The employer often shops for package deals, so insurance is what they buy. Their considerations should be economical only. How would you feel about an Jewish employer refusing to cover a certain drug that can only be made using non-kosher methods? Or a fundamentalist refusing to cover anything, because what happens is god's will? Where do you draw the line? There shouldn't be a grey area for people's false beliefs.danimorg wrote: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?
-
In total there are 37 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 37 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
-
Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
-
danimorg62
-
Gaining experience
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:33 pm
- 9
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
I would want to challenge them and I would hope the courts would back me up. How could the courts not back me up?Interbane wrote:
How would you feel about an Jewish employer refusing to cover a certain drug that can only be made using non-kosher methods? Or a fundamentalist refusing to cover anything, because what happens is god's will?
-
Movie Nerd
-
Intelligent
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
- 9
- Location: Virginia
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 178 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
The courts didn't back it up in terms of the pill--they said that the companies could be excempt for religious reasons. It's the same thing, and that's our point.danimorg62 wrote:I would want to challenge them and I would hope the courts would back me up. How could the courts not back me up?Interbane wrote:
How would you feel about an Jewish employer refusing to cover a certain drug that can only be made using non-kosher methods? Or a fundamentalist refusing to cover anything, because what happens is god's will?
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
-
Movie Nerd
-
Intelligent
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
- 9
- Location: Virginia
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 178 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
Even though the employer does the shopping around, doesn't the employee in the end do the paying?Interbane wrote:The employer often shops for package deals, so insurance is what they buy. Their considerations should be economical only. How would you feel about an Jewish employer refusing to cover a certain drug that can only be made using non-kosher methods? Or a fundamentalist refusing to cover anything, because what happens is god's will? Where do you draw the line? There shouldn't be a grey area for people's false beliefs.danimorg wrote: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?
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
-
Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
No, the employer pays. It's a requirement for every full time employee they have. The reason is that insurance alone costs half a paycheck for many people. It's cost-of-living quicksand that traps many people. How can you afford college if you're pulling two jobs just for rent and food? Throw in the costs of a single hospital visit, and a decade is lost.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
-
Movie Nerd
-
Intelligent
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
- 9
- Location: Virginia
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 178 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
Oh ok.Interbane wrote:No, the employer pays. It's a requirement for every full time employee they have. The reason is that insurance alone costs half a paycheck for many people. It's cost-of-living quicksand that traps many people. How can you afford college if you're pulling two jobs just for rent and food? Throw in the costs of a single hospital visit, and a decade is lost.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
-
Suzanne
-
- Book General
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:51 pm
- 15
- Location: New Jersey
- Has thanked: 518 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
Suzanne wrote:
Interbane wrote:
What I mean buy operations are the programs companies offer to employees. Many companies do not offer any medical benefits, 401K plans or pension plans. Many companies that do offer these programs require a years worth of work from the employee before they go into effect. These are programs companies pay for and they should be allowed to deny these benefits and choose the coverage. Larger companies with 50 or more full time employees are required to offer medical coverage or face a stiff penalty. What I do not agree with is the malicious withholding of hours preventing employees to make the hourly requirement to receive benefit.
Of course companies should not unfairly treat, abuse or harass their employees.
Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion states, "The court has just opened up a minefield". Someone posted the question about religious zealots who fervently disagree with all medical treatment may use this decision to withhold all medical coverage to employees. This would be a minefield.
What would happen if an unmarried women got pregnant at Holly Lobby? Would she be fired? This would be seen as discrimination in other companies. Boom!
Stores such as Holly Lobby should state on their applications that they are using this ruling, because otherwise I see covertness, and sneakiness. The public should be made aware it is applying for a job or making purchases in a religiously protected establishment. I will never shop at Holly Lobby, but how am I to know which other private companies are using this ruling. It should be public knowledge and I should be given the choice to avoid these stores.
If a wore a shirt with the word atheist in big bold letters written on the front, would Holly Lobby take my money? Or if I tell the cashier that I don't believe in god, would I be thrown out? This would be religious oppression, or oppression by the religious I would think. They would be wielding their right to choose and stripping me of mine similar to the stripping away of rights of female employees.
Suzanne wrote:
I cannot be upset about the decision of the court in this case however much I want to be. The Holly Lobby is not a publically owned company, it is a for profit private company and the owners should be able to make decisions about how the company is operated.
Interbane wrote:
Code: Select all
I don't fully agree with this. The owners should be able to make decisions about how the company is operated, sure. But when they hire other people, they in turn are not allowed to take advantage of them. Treat them unfairly, pay them too little, abuse them, expose them to hazardous materials, etc. Of course companies should not unfairly treat, abuse or harass their employees.
Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion states, "The court has just opened up a minefield". Someone posted the question about religious zealots who fervently disagree with all medical treatment may use this decision to withhold all medical coverage to employees. This would be a minefield.
What would happen if an unmarried women got pregnant at Holly Lobby? Would she be fired? This would be seen as discrimination in other companies. Boom!
The owners should be able to make decisions about how the company is operated, sure.
Stores such as Holly Lobby should state on their applications that they are using this ruling, because otherwise I see covertness, and sneakiness. The public should be made aware it is applying for a job or making purchases in a religiously protected establishment. I will never shop at Holly Lobby, but how am I to know which other private companies are using this ruling. It should be public knowledge and I should be given the choice to avoid these stores.
If a wore a shirt with the word atheist in big bold letters written on the front, would Holly Lobby take my money? Or if I tell the cashier that I don't believe in god, would I be thrown out? This would be religious oppression, or oppression by the religious I would think. They would be wielding their right to choose and stripping me of mine similar to the stripping away of rights of female employees.
Suzanne wrote:
There should be consistency among private companies. The same set of rules and rights should apply to all private, for profit companies unless the store is clearly marked as owned and operated and classified as a religious company giving the public the choice whether or not to spend money there.I cannot be upset about the decision of the court in this case however much I want to be. The Holly Lobby is not a publically owned company, it is a for profit private company and the owners should be able to make decisions about how the company is operated.
-
Movie Nerd
-
Intelligent
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
- 9
- Location: Virginia
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 178 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
All we ask for is consistency of all in terms of treatment of workers Suzanne.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
-
Suzanne
-
- Book General
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:51 pm
- 15
- Location: New Jersey
- Has thanked: 518 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
There needs to be consistency not only for the benefit of workers, but for the fair treatment of business owners as well.Movie Nerd wrote:All we ask for is consistency of all in terms of treatment of workers Suzanne.
-
Movie Nerd
-
Intelligent
- Posts: 560
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
- 9
- Location: Virginia
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 178 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
Nobody is claiming that the business owners don't deserve fair treatment. But when they go against their workers' rights for either profiting or religious/moral purposes, that is wrong and they should be held accountable. We have fair trade and business practice laws in place to protect people.Suzanne wrote:There needs to be consistency not only for the benefit of workers, but for the fair treatment of business owners as well.Movie Nerd wrote:All we ask for is consistency of all in terms of treatment of workers Suzanne.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
