General Discussion

riqster

(13,986 posts)

50. They offer "help" to their employees so they can live by biblical principles.

Reply to ancianita (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 04:34 PM

Nov 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On November 21st, 2012, I wrote about a potential pitfall of the Hobby Lobby case [View all] riqster Nov 2013 OP

I hadn't thought it through to the point of all those Christian Science & faith healer conversions, Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #1

All these years of working for business people has made me very cynical nt riqster Nov 2013 #3

Then Jewish-owned businesses will drop maternity coverage unless JaneyVee Nov 2013 #2

Possible. Or requirements to cover multiple spouses, for some faiths. riqster Nov 2013 #4

No. madaboutharry Nov 2013 #5

Thank you. n/t dragonlady Nov 2013 #17

+1 eggplant Nov 2013 #42

I agree. But birth control is only something that applies to Catholics. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #44

No, wrong again. madaboutharry Nov 2013 #45

Where exactly in the bible does it mention birth control? JaneyVee Nov 2013 #47

Oh, now, don't be silly. Fundamentalists don't really focus on the fundamentals. riqster Nov 2013 #48

I think they claim it falls under the "be fruitful and multiply" provision. madaboutharry Nov 2013 #51

WTF? PCIntern Nov 2013 #18

Don't be appalled. I'm half Jewish. It was snarkasm. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #43

There is an app for that. ;) madaboutharry Nov 2013 #46

I had a snarkgasm once. riqster Nov 2013 #49

Why would those employees not buy from the exchange instead? lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #6

Not all employees can. I can't, for instance. riqster Nov 2013 #7

The OP suggested that employers would become Christian Scientists as an excuse to cancel coverage lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #21

The problem is, until it becomes a government function, those workers will not have health care. riqster Nov 2013 #26

Either your OP was badly written or you're moving the goal posts. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #30

The employers were denying coverage for items they found objectionable. riqster Nov 2013 #34

Because they'd still have employer-provided "health insurance". jeff47 Nov 2013 #9

I don't think you're thinking large enough. jeff47 Nov 2013 #8

Oh, wow. Brilliant. riqster Nov 2013 #10

Wait until my exciting revelations that forbid the minimum wage and 40 hour week. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #11

"And upon his head was the mark of the EEOC" riqster Nov 2013 #13

The mormons will probably beat you to it n2doc Nov 2013 #14

Yes, but I won't include any of that inconvenient "morality" stuff. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #16

Not like Rmoney bothered with that either- morality is for the little people n/t n2doc Nov 2013 #19

Yes, but I can make it so getting your second mistress is required to reach heaven. (nt) jeff47 Nov 2013 #20

Joseph Smith already beat you by a mile BrotherIvan Nov 2013 #57

Reason #3967 why it's creepy to have your employer involved in your health care. arcane1 Nov 2013 #12

Yeah, the Supremes will regret taking this one. Lots of worms in that can. riqster Nov 2013 #15

The problem is we have at least four justices who believe Lochner was rightly decided. last1standing Nov 2013 #22

These employers have to register their businesses as actual members of said churches, though. ancianita Nov 2013 #23

That is not the case with Hobby Lobby. riqster Nov 2013 #27

Even so, Hobby Lobby still has to prove that IT is a registered member of a church, with charter ancianita Nov 2013 #36

Perhaps. Although I din't believe they are arguing in that manner. riqster Nov 2013 #38

That's not what they're arguing. WillowTree Nov 2013 #53

In that case, they shouldn't likely win unless they can show that hirees agreed in advance to their ancianita Nov 2013 #55

I agree with your points. riqster Nov 2013 #56

Missing entirely from this argument randr Nov 2013 #24

Absolutely. Unless following church teaching is somehow conditional to their employment which, ancianita Nov 2013 #41

They offer "help" to their employees so they can live by biblical principles. riqster Nov 2013 #50

$cientology would presumably deny its employees mental health coverage KamaAina Nov 2013 #25

This has already happened for the individual mandate wercal Nov 2013 #28

5-4 against is my prediction. Burf-_- Nov 2013 #29

Good points. I would add this : riqster Nov 2013 #32

Rastafarian owned businesses Mr.Bill Nov 2013 #31

OK, so there's a few cases where it could work out well. riqster Nov 2013 #33

First problem with this scenario is that... TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #35

No, I said the owners of the hypothetical business were Christian Scientists. riqster Nov 2013 #37

That's kinda my point-- commercial enterprises open to the public... TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #39

Agreed. Hobby Lobby wants to change that. riqster Nov 2013 #40

first ammendment plays no favorites Burf-_- Nov 2013 #52

Were it not for a slew of pro-corporate personhood rulings, I'd relax. riqster Nov 2013 #54

i know bro Burf-_- Nov 2013 #58

It would be a treat to see. riqster Nov 2013 #59

To me, it's pretty cut and dry. jazzimov Nov 2013 #60

Yah, that is my opinion. riqster Nov 2013 #61