Authored by: jjs on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 06:01 AM EDT |
Since faith based organizations (churches) are already
exempt, what is really being debated is at what point does
the move of an exempt organization's activities AWAY from
their clearly exempt activities become "commercial" (thus
subject to the rules) and no longer "faith" (exempt from the
rules). Where do you draw the line? And how?
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
It is well established in the US that religious organizations, apart from bona
fide churches employing bona fide ministers, have no right to force their
non-coreligionist employees to follow their religious strictures. The employer
can believe that Social Security is immoral, but the employer still has to pay
social security tax.
This lawsuit, therefore, should be thrown out with extreme prejudice, and the
people suing should be fined for frivolous arguments.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
The EEOC ruled in 2000, based on the Civil Rights Act, that firms over 15
employees could not deny contraception in medical coverage, and that it applied
to religious organizations whose primary focus is not religious education, i.e.
hospitals and charities were subject to the law. Bush consistently backed this
position his entire Presidency whenever the issue presented and I never heard a
squeak. That it is an issue today, when this same interpretation is formally
codified, is ill informed, disingenuous, demagogic, or some combination of them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|