Consequently, I refuse to accept such payment.
But still...are you comfortable with government being so intrusive, & forcing citizens to surveil each other as a condition of receiving some kinds of income in fields which aren't related to surveilance? Back in the Clinton presidency, his admin argued to the USSC that public housing tenants forfeited their right against warrantless search & seizure by accepting public money. I oppose government's tendrils ensnaring us this way.
I'm comfortable with their being regulations to accepting public money. I disagree that this is "forcing citizens to surveil each other." I think it's "requiring landlords to ensure money they get is being used legitimately." Business owners have extra obligations. Just as a landlord is responsible for the housing being up to code and following the Fair Housing Act.
I would disagree with the Clinton presidency's argument, how did the law settle out? Because people argue lots of things, but to my knowledge you have to have a warrant to search public housing if you're a law enforcement official.
That is just stating the situation. But I reject the situation (requiring someone to provide services which go against their faith, or face high penalties) as unreasonable.
(And I disagree with your rejection.)
If providing health insurance is against their faith - and there are some religions that refuse it as it is gambling or some such - then that's one thing. Unless they're a healthcare provider they're not providing the healthcare services, so they're not doing anything "against their faith." They're providing the benefit of insurance for their employees - which the employees must still pay a portion of.
To be unwilling to provide the service is not the same as denying an employee's right to it. Similarly, if I don't provide tithing funds to an employee, I'm not denying their right to religion. If I don't provide them with housing, I'm not denying their right to it. If I don't feed them....you get the picture.
As I stated, how we have the arrangement in the US is screwed up. But blame the existing insurance companies for the maintenance of the status quo rather than those in the government who wanted single payer. Cause hey, our plan of spending more than everyone else for lower quality care is the best plan, right?
If the government said everyone gets X amount of their salary donated to charity, you would be denying their right to religion if you refused to donate to the charity of their choice. If you decided YOU got to pick what charity they'd donate to and that would be the FSM memorial fund or some such, that would absolutely infringe.
You wouldn't be attributing the underlined portion to me, now would you?
Unless I said you thought that way, I wasn't. I didn't say that. You always presume everything in a post responding to you is about you, it isn't. I often respond to the general topic at hand, not just the single post that provokes an actual response. I'll make it clear if I think
you're suggesting something.
Isn't it weird how it's really only birth control that made a splash and how the SCOTUS decision was like "it's cool to object to birth control but we're not going to let you push this decision to say it's cool to object to blood transfusions."
As I noted, their argument is that IUDs and Plan B cause spontaneous abortions by preventing implantation of the egg. First, Plan B probably doesn't prevent implantation, just as hormonal birth control (of which Plan B is a high dose) was thought to prevent implantation but doesn't, Plan B most likely has little to no affect on implantation. It's hard to say for sure because we can't just shove cameras up there 24/7 and check.
Their argument is flawed because 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (AKA Miscarriage.) Most before they're ever noticed - some before implantation. So IUDs in particular actually PREVENT fertilization which reduces the number of possible pregnancies which reduces the number of miscarriages. Same with Plan B. (And yes, copper only IUDs prevent fertilization too.) So lets say you have 10 potential pregnancies and the IUD causes one spontaneous abortion but prevents 9 pregnancies, on average 5 of those potential pregnanices would have resulted in spontaneous abortion without birth control. So there are actually fewer miscarriages WITH an IUD than WITHOUT.
But this isn't about facts, and it isn't even about faith, it's about what they believe the facts are. You are entitled to your own religion - I would argue a corporation is NOT but individuals ARE- but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Prohibiting Plan B and IUDs increases the number of dead "people" compared to easy access to birth control.
I thought you were European. Haha.