|

Why should Jewish companies be forced to cover illnesses caused by consumption of pork?

freedom_religion_l

At the heart of the so-called Hobby Lobby case before the U.S. Supreme Court is the argument that companies owned by Christian opponents of abortion should not be forced to provide insurance covering certain forms of contraception. It’s a matter of religious freedom, they say.

But there are two fundamental problems with this argument:

1. The claim that certain forms of contraception are abortifacients is not supported by most medical experts.

2. More to the point, why should Christian opponents of abortion be granted an exemption from law on the basis of their religious beliefs? After all, abortion is legal, despite all the arguments that it shouldn’t be.

David Atkins argues HERE that the logic advanced by religionists in the Hobby Lobby case raises these issues:

No Muslim or Jewish employer gets to demand that their employees not get coverage for, say, illnesses resulting from eating pork. No Hindu employer gets to restrict health coverage for people who eat beef or were born to the wrong caste. If I found a religion stating that guns are the Devil’s tools, I still don’t get to restrict medical coverage for my employees based on their gun ownership–even if they shoot themselves.

 

Share:

8 Comments

  1. Neftali

    As usual, the liberals have it backward, which is no surprise because their entire thinking process is backward and usually wrong.

    First, the direct correlation between illnesses and pork consumption is far from conclusive. So that entire argument is mute.

    Second, it’s more about the government taking away religious freedom, not corporations who seek to embrace it.

    Besides, it’s not like this administration is completely intolerant to adhering to religious views. After all, they changed the military dress code to allow beards for those of Sikh faith. So why do they insist on denying religious freedom to certain entities who provide health insurance?

    Seriously, why the hell are Democrats so obstinate? So Hobby Lobby and a few other organizations don’t want to pay for contraceptive drugs. Big Deal. The vast majority of health insurance providers will provide it, and the vast majority of the public will benefit from having the contraception subsidies. As for me personally, I want my health insurance to provide coverage for health insurance drugs, as do most people. However, those health insurance companies that don’t want to provide contraceptive drugs should have that option. Why do liberals insist on limiting choice?

    • Rob callis

      Boy are you ignorant. Look up equality and read the constitution instead of your bible.

  2. Neftali: What’s this crap about obstinate liberal Democrats? Antonin Scalia is no liberal, but writing for the court majority in a case of 24 years ago, he said this:

    “[T]he right of free exercise [of religion] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability…[A]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy…

    “The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind, ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.”

    During oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby case, Justice Elena Kagan threw those words in Scalia’s face, but that won’t likely prevent him from hypocritically siding with the Hobby Lobby crowd. After all, his son is a priest. And besides, we’re talking about the rights of women here.

    • Neftali

      Bah. In trying to use that argument Kagan sounds just a bad as the far right kooks who think that just because we legalize same sex marriage that we’ll legalize sex with children and animals next. It’s ridiculous. Allowing the Hobby Lobby crowd to have their way in what they feel is a pro-life issue isn’t going make this country go bezerk in the name of religious freedom. This is all about the left and their quest to have government run as much as of our daily lives as possible.

      Besides, the best way to resolve this issue would be to get government out of the picture entirely, meaning make all contraceptive drugs available over the counter.

  3. Neftali: You are really naive. Supreme Court rulings have consequences. They don’t just happen in a vacuum. They’re invariably based on certain kinds of legal reasoning, and they invariably establish precedents that influence future court rulings. The court prides itself on respecting precedents. It’s institutionally averse to zigging and zagging all over the place. If the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, it will run the same risks Scalia mentioned 24 years ago. It will be, as Scalia put it, “courting anarchy.”

    • Neftali

      There is a difference between legal precedent and outright silliness. In this case, Scalia’s quote, and Kagan’s reference to it, falls under the latter.

      People were already trying to exempt themselves from military service, child safety, and compulsory vaccination laws all in the name of religious freedom before the passage of the PPACA. In some cases, attempts at invoking religious freedom over the safety of another human being was denied. For example, couples who tried to pray for their sick child to get better instead of taking the child to a hospital were found to be negligent, as they should. In other cases, such as the right to privately pray in public school, was granted.

      There is zero harm to allowing a small number of far religious right businesses to have their way with not providing contraceptive drugs. Again, this is just the liberals on a big ego boosting power trip, nothing more.

  4. JRM_CommonSense

    People need to go back and study the effects of religious beliefs in history. More wars have been fought and more people killed in the name of religious beliefs than any other beliefs. Hobby Lobby, and companies of their ilk, have a very simple solution to their artifical conundrum. Stop offering publically acquired insurance to their employees and pay the tax penalties. That is the choice that is available to every single person who has some problem with the PPACA. This is not the first law ever passed that imposes taxes and/or penalties on those who decide that they are “above the law”, for what ever reason.

  5. I think we should force Chik-fil-a to be open on Sundays. What right do they have to deny me my chicken just because they are a bunch of religious zealots?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>