conscience protection
Replies
-
Hey, since religious people seem so intent on forcing their beliefs on businesses, do any of the holy rollers here care if I marry someone in your church without converting, or is that against your rules? What if I wanted to stop the drinking of wine during communion because little kids were be given alcohol? Hey, if I was a private investigator, could I force a priest to divulge secrets given during confession?
Nope, I can't do any of that because you have the complete freedom of religion. Owners of a company have the freedom of religion as well. And if they want to start a business and sell rubbers, your freedom of religion does not trump theirs. You are free to start your own company and hire employees of the same value system.0 -
Nope, I can't do any of that because you have the complete freedom of religion. Owners of a company have the freedom of religion as well. And if they want to start a business and sell rubbers, your freedom of religion does not trump theirs. You are free to start your own company and hire employees of the same value system.
I will ignore the immaturity of your name calling, and address this last paragraph. You have said nothing new here. We agree that owners of businesses have the "right" to do whatever they want. Our issue is "IF" said employer hires someone with an understanding and agreement to honor the employee's rights, what protection should the employee have if the owner changes his mind? You say none, so fine. That's your opinion on this topic. No need to jump in, name call, and ridicule.
(some of us have also granted that if you know a business does something you are opposed to religiously, don't go work there!)0 -
Like if they sell birth control an you think it's "sinful" don't get a job there in the first place. Yup, totally agree.(some of us have also granted that if you know a business does something you are opposed to religiously, don't go work there!)0 -
Nope, I can't do any of that because you have the complete freedom of religion. Owners of a company have the freedom of religion as well. And if they want to start a business and sell rubbers, your freedom of religion does not trump theirs. You are free to start your own company and hire employees of the same value system.
I will ignore the immaturity of your name calling, and address this last paragraph. You have said nothing new here. We agree that owners of businesses have the "right" to do whatever they want. Our issue is "IF" said employer hires someone with an understanding and agreement to honor the employee's rights, what protection should the employee have if the owner changes his mind? You say none, so fine. That's your opinion on this topic. No need to jump in, name call, and ridicule.
(some of us have also granted that if you know a business does something you are opposed to religiously, don't go work there!)
Calm down Patti. The reason that the employer has the right to change policy is because it's his business. I'm not reiterating the same point, I am saying that if you legally bind an employer to honor a employees religious beliefs in this way, than you are trampling on the employers rights to convert/alter his religion. If Walgreens, for instance, suddenly finds that it's President or CEO or committee decides they want to align the company with a more traditioal Christian value set and forbids the sale of condoms, any agnostics, atheists, christians of another belief, or wiccans have no right to sell the condoms against their wishes.0 -
Calm down Patti. The reason that the employer has the right to change policy is because it's his business. I'm not reiterating the same point, I am saying that if you legally bind an employer to honor a employees religious beliefs in this way, than you are trampling on the employers rights to convert/alter his religion.
Not sure why you think I'm worked up over this. My exclamation point was the point where I was actually agreeing with you and some other posters on here. Just used the exclamation point to express that.
Anyway...Let's remove religion from the argument. If I hired someone knowing they could not work overtime, and I hired them under the agreement that they would not have to, I feel it unjust to fire them if the need for OT arises and they cannot work any. My only issue is if an employee is hired with an agreement to honor the terms of their contract, then fired later.0 -
Calm down Patti. The reason that the employer has the right to change policy is because it's his business. I'm not reiterating the same point, I am saying that if you legally bind an employer to honor a employees religious beliefs in this way, than you are trampling on the employers rights to convert/alter his religion.
Not sure why you think I'm worked up over this. My exclamation point was the point where I was actually agreeing with you and some other posters on here. Just used the exclamation point to express that.
Anyway...Let's remove religion from the argument. If I hired someone knowing they could not work overtime, and I hired them under the agreement that they would not have to, I feel it unjust to fire them if the need for OT arises and they cannot work any. My only issue is if an employee is hired with an agreement to honor the terms of their contract, then fired later.
But that is another argument. Hourly wages, shifts, schedules, contracts must be honored in those cases. But in the case of religious freedom, I don't see how we can justify taking the employers freedom to honor the employees.
Look at this in reverse. You are the owner of a successful book store chain. You have been an agnostic for the last ten years. You sell a wide variety of books including sections on Hedonism and the ancient love making techniques like the Kama Sutra. I am a General Manager for your Indy store, and love the job because I am a Hedonist. For what ever reasons, you are born again, or return to the the Church. You decide profits be damned, you are only selling Christian Books and getting rid of all the smut. I say no, I refuse to sell exclusively Christian books and I wish to continue selling Hedonist material.
What happens? I'm not making an anti-christian argument here. In my example, I would be on the Christian's side. Everyone has the freedom of religion, but since the owners of a business are the ones who invest and take all the financial risks, I think they should get the final say, not the employee in this case.0 -
You don't go to the Doctor for moral advice. That's something that is personal and should be kept to oneself unless asked. There are Jehovah's Witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusions. If you needed one, but your doctor was a Jehovah's Witness and denied you that, would that be okay? Could they claim "conscience protection?" Of course not, because it's completely ridiculous, just like denying someone birth control. It's not their body.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're already in need of a blood transfusion, wouldn't you be the emergency room? I sincerely doubt a true Jehovah's Witness would even be working there in the first place.
Completely missed the point.
Nope. But thanks for assuming I did! You posed a situation that wouldn't happen, so how else am I to respond?0 -
Things change. I worked as an accountant at a company. A while later the bookkeeper quit and I was told I'd have to file my own paperwork. Should I have been able to say no and expect them to either let the files pile up or have someone else (who also wasn't hired to do that) do the job?Calm down Patti. The reason that the employer has the right to change policy is because it's his business. I'm not reiterating the same point, I am saying that if you legally bind an employer to honor a employees religious beliefs in this way, than you are trampling on the employers rights to convert/alter his religion.
Not sure why you think I'm worked up over this. My exclamation point was the point where I was actually agreeing with you and some other posters on here. Just used the exclamation point to express that.
Anyway...Let's remove religion from the argument. If I hired someone knowing they could not work overtime, and I hired them under the agreement that they would not have to, I feel it unjust to fire them if the need for OT arises and they cannot work any. My only issue is if an employee is hired with an agreement to honor the terms of their contract, then fired later.
Target employees recently protested that they had to work on Thanksgiving. It wasn't part of their original hiring contract. I assume you gave them your full support right?
Actually, in thinking about it I can't think of a single person who hasn't ever done something for their job that wasn't originally part of their job. Companies make cuts, lay someone off and give that job to 2 people who are still working all the time, especially in this day and age.0 -
Look at this in reverse. You are the owner of a successful book store chain. You have been an agnostic for the last ten years. You sell a wide variety of books including sections on Hedonism and the ancient love making techniques like the Kama Sutra. I am a General Manager for your Indy store, and love the job because I am a Hedonist. For what ever reasons, you are born again, or return to the the Church. You decide profits be damned, you are only selling Christian Books and getting rid of all the smut. I say no, I refuse to sell exclusively Christian books and I wish to continue selling Hedonist material.
What happens? I'm not making an anti-christian argument here. In my example, I would be on the Christian's side. Everyone has the freedom of religion, but since the owners of a business are the ones who invest and take all the financial risks, I think they should get the final say, not the employee in this case.
This is where contract or insurance protection would be helpful. As the GM, you cannot continue selling goods the company is no longer purchasing. If my company is now only selling Christian books, you'd have to sell them or find a new job. If you choose to find another job, you'd have whatever your insurance protection provides (salary until another job is found, or maybe a lump sum settlement).
I do not think it is just for a company to force a person to do something against their religion if it was made clear up front.0 -
Things change. I worked as an accountant at a company. A while later the bookkeeper quit and I was told I'd have to file my own paperwork. Should I have been able to say no and expect them to either let the files pile up or have someone else (who also wasn't hired to do that) do the job?
Target employees recently protested that they had to work on Thanksgiving. It wasn't part of their original hiring contract. I assume you gave them your full support right?
Actually, in thinking about it I can't think of a single person who hasn't ever done something for their job that wasn't originally part of their job. Companies make cuts, lay someone off and give that job to 2 people who are still working all the time, especially in this day and age.
Most employment contracts say "all other duties as assigned". If my boss asks me to mop the bathroom floor, even though that is not my job, I'm going to do it. That is completely different than asking someone to perform an act against their religion when it was made clear from the beginning.0 -
You don't go to the Doctor for moral advice. That's something that is personal and should be kept to oneself unless asked. There are Jehovah's Witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusions. If you needed one, but your doctor was a Jehovah's Witness and denied you that, would that be okay? Could they claim "conscience protection?" Of course not, because it's completely ridiculous, just like denying someone birth control. It's not their body.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're already in need of a blood transfusion, wouldn't you be the emergency room? I sincerely doubt a true Jehovah's Witness would even be working there in the first place.
Completely missed the point.
Nope. But thanks for assuming I did! You posed a situation that wouldn't happen, so how else am I to respond?
It was hypothetical, not an ACTUAL situation, ffs. You're straying from the original point of this entire thread, which is "conscience protection," which is a LUDICROUS idea.0 -
Look at this in reverse. You are the owner of a successful book store chain. You have been an agnostic for the last ten years. You sell a wide variety of books including sections on Hedonism and the ancient love making techniques like the Kama Sutra. I am a General Manager for your Indy store, and love the job because I am a Hedonist. For what ever reasons, you are born again, or return to the the Church. You decide profits be damned, you are only selling Christian Books and getting rid of all the smut. I say no, I refuse to sell exclusively Christian books and I wish to continue selling Hedonist material.
What happens? I'm not making an anti-christian argument here. In my example, I would be on the Christian's side. Everyone has the freedom of religion, but since the owners of a business are the ones who invest and take all the financial risks, I think they should get the final say, not the employee in this case.
This is where contract or insurance protection would be helpful. As the GM, you cannot continue selling goods the company is no longer purchasing. If my company is now only selling Christian books, you'd have to sell them or find a new job. If you choose to find another job, you'd have whatever your insurance protection provides (salary until another job is found, or maybe a lump sum settlement).
I do not think it is just for a company to force a person to do something against their religion if it was made clear up front.
But there can be no contractual obligation for the employer in areas of religion. I'm with you on everthing else. If a contract is signed on everthing from wage, overtime, insurance, pension, then it should be honored. But contractually binding and employer is unconstitutional, or at least should be. Telling someone that has invested their time, money, and risked their financial well being that they are contractually obliged to honor their employes religious beliefs is telling the employer that if they themselves ever decide to change their religion, they are now contractually obliged to betray their new values or shut down. The point is, both the employee and the employer has freedom of religion. But since this is the employers business, property and investment, I think it is wrong to bind someone in that way. Mind you, once again, that I am not making a anti-christian argument.
I understand about the insurance. But then it becomes another issue that the government by the authority of the court will not be penalizing a US citizen for changing religious beliefs, which is wrong.0 -
You just aren't getting it. Let's try it this way. The bottom line is that by refusing to sell such in-demand products as birth control you are hurting the profits of the store. Not only will people start taking their money for birth control elsewhere but they also won't be buying other things that the normally would have. The employer may figure that if Sue won't sell birth control that's OK because Mary will. Then Mary finds a new job. Now it's just Sue. If Sue's job description doesn't change, the company is hurt.
My dad was also an accountant. He started in the pre-computer age handwriting numbers into physical ledgers. One day he was handed a computer and told to report to some seminars on how to use it. If he refused you really think he should have been abe to keep his job? Why?
A company can change it's policy on anything at any given time. You can be fired because the boss doesn't like the joke you told, you won't work Thanksgiving (you never did say if you were supportive of those Target employees), or you won't adapt to changes they want to make. If those changes are new computers or a new product it doesn't matter.
Also, I've never known anyone to have an actual work contract (which in itself isn't the norm) that says that no changes will ever be made to their current job description.0 -
You don't go to the Doctor for moral advice. That's something that is personal and should be kept to oneself unless asked. There are Jehovah's Witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusions. If you needed one, but your doctor was a Jehovah's Witness and denied you that, would that be okay? Could they claim "conscience protection?" Of course not, because it's completely ridiculous, just like denying someone birth control. It's not their body.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're already in need of a blood transfusion, wouldn't you be the emergency room? I sincerely doubt a true Jehovah's Witness would even be working there in the first place.
Completely missed the point.
Nope. But thanks for assuming I did! You posed a situation that wouldn't happen, so how else am I to respond?
It was hypothetical, not an ACTUAL situation, ffs. You're straying from the original point of this entire thread, which is "conscience protection," which is a LUDICROUS idea.
I have no idea what "ffs" means.
BTW--I believe you're the one who is now straying from the original point of this entire thread, by pinpointing me out to argue with.
Especially since I replied to your post with a genuine response. But here, I'll break it down for you: A comparison between a Jehovah's Witness working in an emergency room doesn't work, since a Jehovah's Witness most likely would not WORK in an emergency room, unless they're so loose in their faith that they're alright with doing the transfusion, in which case it wouldn't matter if they're working there or not, and even then one could argue "They aren't a true Jehovah's Witness, then." If a Jehovah's Witness worked in the emergency room and refused a blood transfusion when necessary, then they face some pretty steep consequences for their actions...one of which, I would think, would be the termination of their employment. Unless it's strictly a Jehovah's Witness-run hospital, in which case, you'd know it when you got there, your comparison is what's ludicrous.
Bahet--You make a good point about them losing profits because of one employee refusing service. That sort of thing happens every day, due to employees at stores not being consistent, and it definitely does irritate customers.0 -
FFS = For *kitten*'s Sake
0 -
Ok, I am going to dispel the JW in the ER thing for you guys.
Blood transfusions happen all over the place in a hospital. They are far more often NOT emergent situations.
Everyone; with very few exceptions, must sign a consent to receive blood or blood products BEFORE any transfusion is administered. It is the law. Everyone has the legal right to refuse medical treatment offered. The biggest exception to the consent is in an emergent condition; massive trauma with death expected, or if the victim is unable to be advised of the risks/benefits of transfusion. These situations require two physicians to sign off on giving the transfusion.
In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, there are specialty products available that are similar to blood products, but do not contain actual blood products. I have given these many times.
I have had several coworkers/employees that were JWs. They were; like many others in Nursing, caring, competent professionals, never putting their own beliefs over the call for help. As a manager; I was glad to have people of this faith on my staff, because they would usually request to work all of the major holidays, freeing another staff member to observe the holiday.
Nurses are trained to care for the sick and wounded. We are trained to look past everything else and see the human being in need of care, no matter what. I believe that the best Healthcare Professionals consider their practice more of a calling than a job or profession.1 -
Exactly!!!
So I guess if I open a bakery, I need to put a sign up that says "This is an atheist-run establishment" as a disclaimer? So that no one tries to order cakes for religious-themed celebrations?
You say it's a stupid choice--that's your opinion. Personally I feel it's a non-lucrative choice, depending on where they're at, too. But it still should be THEIR CHOICE. And they aren't discriminating against anyone. Choosing not to sell something is not discrimination, nor is it them forcing their beliefs. YOU are choosing to look at it that way. If they have a sign that says "Atheists not welcomed" or "No Muslims allowed"...then that is discrimination. It's also not their fault that you dislike Christians to the point that you wouldn't patronize their business should you find out their religious affiliation. All of those = your own personal issues, not theirs. It's not like they would be holding a gun to your head and telling you that you MUST get your son's medication there, or you MUST buy your over-the-counter items there.0 -
You don't go to the Doctor for moral advice. That's something that is personal and should be kept to oneself unless asked. There are Jehovah's Witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusions. If you needed one, but your doctor was a Jehovah's Witness and denied you that, would that be okay? Could they claim "conscience protection?" Of course not, because it's completely ridiculous, just like denying someone birth control. It's not their body.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're already in need of a blood transfusion, wouldn't you be the emergency room? I sincerely doubt a true Jehovah's Witness would even be working there in the first place.
Completely missed the point.
Nope. But thanks for assuming I did! You posed a situation that wouldn't happen, so how else am I to respond?
It was hypothetical, not an ACTUAL situation, ffs. You're straying from the original point of this entire thread, which is "conscience protection," which is a LUDICROUS idea.
I have no idea what "ffs" means.
BTW--I believe you're the one who is now straying from the original point of this entire thread, by pinpointing me out to argue with. Especially since I replied to your post with a genuine response. But here, I'll break it down for you: A comparison between a Jehovah's Witness working in an emergency room doesn't work, since a Jehovah's Witness most likely would not WORK in an emergency room, unless they're so loose in their faith that they're alright with doing the transfusion, in which case it wouldn't matter if they're working there or not, and even then one could argue "They aren't a true Jehovah's Witness, then." If a Jehovah's Witness worked in the emergency room and refused a blood transfusion when necessary, then they face some pretty steep consequences for their actions...one of which, I would think, would be the termination of their employment. Unless it's strictly a Jehovah's Witness-run hospital, in which case, you'd know it when you got there, your comparison is what's ludicrous.
Bahet--You make a good point about them losing profits because of one employee refusing service. That sort of thing happens every day, due to employees at stores not being consistent, and it definitely does irritate customers.
Nice snarky little smiley there. I never mentioned an emergency room to begin with - that's something you made up all on your own.0 -
You're not understanding. If I was hired under full discolsure of my religious beliefs, whose fault is it?You just aren't getting it. Let's try it this way. The bottom line is that by refusing to sell such in-demand products as birth control you are hurting the profits of the store. Not only will people start taking their money for birth control elsewhere but they also won't be buying other things that the normally would have. The employer may figure that if Sue won't sell birth control that's OK because Mary will. Then Mary finds a new job. Now it's just Sue. If Sue's job description doesn't change, the company is hurt.
Your dad can go take a computer class. Quite different than asking someone to perform an act contrary to their religious beliefs. But I think you know that.My dad was also an accountant. He started in the pre-computer age handwriting numbers into physical ledgers. One day he was handed a computer and told to report to some seminars on how to use it. If he refused you really think he should have been abe to keep his job? Why?
I certainly did give my position on the Target employees. If they were hired knowing they'd have to work those hours, then they need to shut up. Adapting to a changing work environment is one thing. Having to do something against your religion becaus the owner changes their position is unjust. The owner has the RIGHT to change their religious position, but then the employee should have some protection.A company can change it's policy on anything at any given time. You can be fired because the boss doesn't like the joke you told, you won't work Thanksgiving (you never did say if you were supportive of those Target employees), or you won't adapt to changes they want to make. If those changes are new computers or a new product it doesn't matter.
Exactly. And that's why the issue of conscience protection has come about.Also, I've never known anyone to have an actual work contract (which in itself isn't the norm) that says that no changes will ever be made to their current job description.0 -
You're not understanding. If I was hired under full discolsure of my religious beliefs, whose fault is it?You just aren't getting it. Let's try it this way. The bottom line is that by refusing to sell such in-demand products as birth control you are hurting the profits of the store. Not only will people start taking their money for birth control elsewhere but they also won't be buying other things that the normally would have. The employer may figure that if Sue won't sell birth control that's OK because Mary will. Then Mary finds a new job. Now it's just Sue. If Sue's job description doesn't change, the company is hurt.
Your dad can go take a computer class. Quite different than asking someone to perform an act contrary to their religious beliefs. But I think you know that.My dad was also an accountant. He started in the pre-computer age handwriting numbers into physical ledgers. One day he was handed a computer and told to report to some seminars on how to use it. If he refused you really think he should have been abe to keep his job? Why?
I certainly did give my position on the Target employees. If they were hired knowing they'd have to work those hours, then they need to shut up. Adapting to a changing work environment is one thing. Having to do something against your religion becaus the owner changes their position is unjust. The owner has the RIGHT to change their religious position, but then the employee should have some protection.A company can change it's policy on anything at any given time. You can be fired because the boss doesn't like the joke you told, you won't work Thanksgiving (you never did say if you were supportive of those Target employees), or you won't adapt to changes they want to make. If those changes are new computers or a new product it doesn't matter.
Exactly. And that's why the issue of conscience protection has come about.Also, I've never known anyone to have an actual work contract (which in itself isn't the norm) that says that no changes will ever be made to their current job description.
Conscience protection wouldn't be constitutional. Any contract between two people about religion would have to be settled in government courts. Any verdict would be taking away one persons religious freedom to give to another. You cannot possibly tell an employer that he must be locked into a moral position due to his past.
So it doesn't matter if all religious beliefs were disclosed at the time of hiring, because the employee has no right to tell the employer how to manage his business or that if he has a religious conversion, tough, because I have this contract. The employee still has rights, the right to change jobs, the right to start their own business, what ever they feel like doing.
Also, the disclosure of religious beliefs is in no way binding in the area of religion since it inheritantly claims a superiority due to length of commitment. In the eyes of spirituality, (especially christianity), a life long christian is not viewed as any better than a person that converted yesterday. So saying that religious beliefs were disclosed at the time of hiring means that the employee is protected opens up pandoras box, because we can not say that those long held beliefs are anymore valid than the recent converts. And if they are not more valid, then a recent convert could also theoretically demand his employer to accomodate his/her new religious beliefs.
Lastly, if the issue of conscience protection has become so impotant, large and powerful churches like the catholics would be well within their rights to start an insurance program for their parish who are worried about these issues. Have the member of the church pay a small premium, and if the member is fired or forced to quit, the insurance pays out. That is completely reasonable.0 -
I don't understand why you keep saying this. I've never said that the employer couldn't change thier religious preference. We're not talking about an employee suing an employer. We're talking about insurance protection.Any verdict would be taking away one persons religious freedom to give to another.
Who said anyone's religious rights were more valid than someone else's? The employer can change his religious beliefs, change how he wants his company to be run, and the employee can choose to do what his employer wants or leave. I've granted this. I've never said that any type of insurance protection should force the employer to keep the employee in all situations, either. I've added that in some cases, the insurance may just provide the employee with some type of salary until he finds another job.So saying that religious beliefs were disclosed at the time of hiring means that the employee is protected opens up pandoras box, because we can not say that those long held beliefs are anymore valid than the recent converts. And if they are not more valid, then a recent convert could also theoretically demand his employer to accomodate his/her new religious beliefs.Lastly, if the issue of conscience protection has become so impotant, large and powerful churches like the catholics would be well within their rights to start an insurance program for their parish who are worried about these issues. Have the member of the church pay a small premium, and if the member is fired or forced to quit, the insurance pays out. That is completely reasonable.
I never said this issue has become "so important". I said it's been discussed. Most of this topic (as with many others in this group) is hypothetical, and merely asking what our opinions are.0 -
I don't understand why you keep saying this. I've never said that the employer couldn't change thier religious preference. We're not talking about an employee suing an employer. We're talking about insurance protection.Any verdict would be taking away one persons religious freedom to give to another.
Who said anyone's religious rights were more valid than someone else's? The employer can change his religious beliefs, change how he wants his company to be run, and the employee can choose to do what his employer wants or leave. I've granted this. I've never said that any type of insurance protection should force the employer to keep the employee in all situations, either. I've added that in some cases, the insurance may just provide the employee with some type of salary until he finds another job.So saying that religious beliefs were disclosed at the time of hiring means that the employee is protected opens up pandoras box, because we can not say that those long held beliefs are anymore valid than the recent converts. And if they are not more valid, then a recent convert could also theoretically demand his employer to accomodate his/her new religious beliefs.Lastly, if the issue of conscience protection has become so impotant, large and powerful churches like the catholics would be well within their rights to start an insurance program for their parish who are worried about these issues. Have the member of the church pay a small premium, and if the member is fired or forced to quit, the insurance pays out. That is completely reasonable.
I never said this issue has become "so important". I said it's been discussed. Most of this topic (as with many others in this group) is hypothetical, and merely asking what our opinions are.
Then I really don't understand the debate. If a private insurance company wants to cover these policies, then how can anyone stop that?0 -
Then I really don't understand the debate. If a private insurance company wants to cover these policies, then how can anyone stop that?
Well, initially the OP was just referring to conscience protection for healthcare providers. I think that is the issue that began the debate.0 -
You don't go to the Doctor for moral advice. That's something that is personal and should be kept to oneself unless asked. There are Jehovah's Witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusions. If you needed one, but your doctor was a Jehovah's Witness and denied you that, would that be okay? Could they claim "conscience protection?" Of course not, because it's completely ridiculous, just like denying someone birth control. It's not their body.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're already in need of a blood transfusion, wouldn't you be the emergency room? I sincerely doubt a true Jehovah's Witness would even be working there in the first place.
Completely missed the point.
Nope. But thanks for assuming I did! You posed a situation that wouldn't happen, so how else am I to respond?
It was hypothetical, not an ACTUAL situation, ffs. You're straying from the original point of this entire thread, which is "conscience protection," which is a LUDICROUS idea.
I have no idea what "ffs" means.
BTW--I believe you're the one who is now straying from the original point of this entire thread, by pinpointing me out to argue with. Especially since I replied to your post with a genuine response. But here, I'll break it down for you: A comparison between a Jehovah's Witness working in an emergency room doesn't work, since a Jehovah's Witness most likely would not WORK in an emergency room, unless they're so loose in their faith that they're alright with doing the transfusion, in which case it wouldn't matter if they're working there or not, and even then one could argue "They aren't a true Jehovah's Witness, then." If a Jehovah's Witness worked in the emergency room and refused a blood transfusion when necessary, then they face some pretty steep consequences for their actions...one of which, I would think, would be the termination of their employment. Unless it's strictly a Jehovah's Witness-run hospital, in which case, you'd know it when you got there, your comparison is what's ludicrous.
Bahet--You make a good point about them losing profits because of one employee refusing service. That sort of thing happens every day, due to employees at stores not being consistent, and it definitely does irritate customers.
Nice snarky little smiley there. I never mentioned an emergency room to begin with - that's something you made up all on your own.
Yep, I sure did. But that's because I asked a legitimate question, and posed it with a scenario, since I honestly was not sure. That's why I wrote "correct me if I'm wrong." Which you didn't. You just instead chose to be rude and snarky yourself.
TDGee--thank you for clearing that up.
I honestly had no idea about Jehovah's Witnesses' stance on that issue. Admittedly, the only Jehovah's Witnesses I know just mostly post articles online about the evil's of blood transfusions.
0 -
Then I really don't understand the debate. If a private insurance company wants to cover these policies, then how can anyone stop that?
Well, initially the OP was just referring to conscience protection for healthcare providers. I think that is the issue that began the debate.
Then I don't understand the argument still? Who provides the insurance. If it is privately purchased by the employee, who could stop it? Is it an issue of trying to get the employer to pay?0 -
I'll use myself as an example: I buy individual insurance and do not have contraception, sterilization, etc. covered under my plan. In 2013 (or is it 14) ALL health insurance policies are mandated to cover contraception, sterilization, etc. I don't want to pay for that, I don't want that coverage because it goes against my religious beliefs. Don't I have a right to not pay for that? Now expand that to a religious organization that employees and/or serves those of different beleifs, but they don't want to cover contraception, etc. Don't they have that right (by law, they will not have that right in a few years)?Then I really don't understand the debate. If a private insurance company wants to cover these policies, then how can anyone stop that?
Well, initially the OP was just referring to conscience protection for healthcare providers. I think that is the issue that began the debate.
Then I don't understand the argument still? Who provides the insurance. If it is privately purchased by the employee, who could stop it? Is it an issue of trying to get the employer to pay?0 -
I'll use myself as an example: I buy individual insurance and do not have contraception, sterilization, etc. covered under my plan. In 2013 (or is it 14) ALL health insurance policies are mandated to cover contraception, sterilization, etc. I don't want to pay for that, I don't want that coverage because it goes against my religious beliefs. Don't I have a right to not pay for that? Now expand that to a religious organization that employees and/or serves those of different beleifs, but they don't want to cover contraception, etc. Don't they have that right (by law, they will not have that right in a few years)?Then I really don't understand the debate. If a private insurance company wants to cover these policies, then how can anyone stop that?
Well, initially the OP was just referring to conscience protection for healthcare providers. I think that is the issue that began the debate.
Then I don't understand the argument still? Who provides the insurance. If it is privately purchased by the employee, who could stop it? Is it an issue of trying to get the employer to pay?
interesting. I never really thought about it. I think you have the right to take your business else where. This sounds like a conversation I had with my wife, but not about religious beliefs. I have to pay all this money for basic bable when 90% of the channels are crap and I don't want them. But they won't let me pay for single channels, I have to get the whole thing. Sounds like we have monopolized because not a single company offers what we want. I do not think we have anything worthy of a lawsuit ( and I am not insinuating your religious beliefs are in any way equal to my cable problems, the religious aspect makes this more serious), but I don't see how you can force a company to make special accomodations for a person because of religion if they decide it's unprofitable for them.0 -
I'll use myself as an example: I buy individual insurance and do not have contraception, sterilization, etc. covered under my plan. In 2013 (or is it 14) ALL health insurance policies are mandated to cover contraception, sterilization, etc. I don't want to pay for that, I don't want that coverage because it goes against my religious beliefs. Don't I have a right to not pay for that? Now expand that to a religious organization that employees and/or serves those of different beleifs, but they don't want to cover contraception, etc. Don't they have that right (by law, they will not have that right in a few years)?Then I really don't understand the debate. If a private insurance company wants to cover these policies, then how can anyone stop that?
Well, initially the OP was just referring to conscience protection for healthcare providers. I think that is the issue that began the debate.
Then I don't understand the argument still? Who provides the insurance. If it is privately purchased by the employee, who could stop it? Is it an issue of trying to get the employer to pay?
interesting. I never really thought about it. I think you have the right to take your business else where. This sounds like a conversation I had with my wife, but not about religious beliefs. I have to pay all this money for basic bable when 90% of the channels are crap and I don't want them. But they won't let me pay for single channels, I have to get the whole thing. Sounds like we have monopolized because not a single company offers what we want. I do not think we have anything worthy of a lawsuit ( and I am not insinuating your religious beliefs are in any way equal to my cable problems, the religious aspect makes this more serious), but I don't see how you can force a company to make special accomodations for a person because of religion if they decide it's unprofitable for them.0 -
I'll use myself as an example: I buy individual insurance and do not have contraception, sterilization, etc. covered under my plan. In 2013 (or is it 14) ALL health insurance policies are mandated to cover contraception, sterilization, etc. I don't want to pay for that, I don't want that coverage because it goes against my religious beliefs. Don't I have a right to not pay for that? Now expand that to a religious organization that employees and/or serves those of different beleifs, but they don't want to cover contraception, etc. Don't they have that right (by law, they will not have that right in a few years)?Then I really don't understand the debate. If a private insurance company wants to cover these policies, then how can anyone stop that?
Well, initially the OP was just referring to conscience protection for healthcare providers. I think that is the issue that began the debate.
Then I don't understand the argument still? Who provides the insurance. If it is privately purchased by the employee, who could stop it? Is it an issue of trying to get the employer to pay?
interesting. I never really thought about it. I think you have the right to take your business else where. This sounds like a conversation I had with my wife, but not about religious beliefs. I have to pay all this money for basic bable when 90% of the channels are crap and I don't want them. But they won't let me pay for single channels, I have to get the whole thing. Sounds like we have monopolized because not a single company offers what we want. I do not think we have anything worthy of a lawsuit ( and I am not insinuating your religious beliefs are in any way equal to my cable problems, the religious aspect makes this more serious), but I don't see how you can force a company to make special accomodations for a person because of religion if they decide it's unprofitable for them.
Well I see both sides of it. People SHOULD have contraception etc covered under health insurance plans---to me, that's an essential that should be covered especially when half the time stuff like Viagra is covered. But I can see how people would want to 'opt-out' of that as well if they won't use it. I guess it depends on how much your plan costs will go up because of the new inclusions.
And I TOTALLY agree about the cable! Hubby and I have been saying for years how we want cable a la carte. We don't watch the majority of the channels we get, but still get the package b/c of the few channels that we do watch. It's stupid.0 -
Patti, you said my dad should just take the computer class. What if he's Mennonite? They use SOME technology but not any that they deem unnecessary. They'll have lights and drive but they don't use computers.
Regmama, I also don't want my insurance to cover birth control. Hubby had a vasectomy 10 years ago so I don't need it. We pay for it anyhow. I also don't want my taxes going to fix the freeway north of Richmond because I never go there. I don't want my taxes going to send spy planes into Iran. I don't want my money going to pay for a lot of cable channels or unlimited long distance or a myriad of other things. You don't always get to choose. If everyone got to choose where their money went there would be poor people dying in the streets. I do think it would be nice if you could opt out of birth control coverage the way you can opt out of dental, etc. But if that's not the way the plan is set up then so be it.0
This discussion has been closed.