When you get car insurance, do you expect to get oil changes free?

Just a way to illustrate - that this health stuff is NOT INSURANCE.

Yes, this is very amusing.

He passed a rule that he must have known would piss off a lot of religious people. (Maybe he thought he would divide and conquer.)

Then, when a group shows a little bit of backbone (or the resolve to live by their principles), he has to go to Plan B.

Make the insurance companies pay. Because, of course, THEY won't stand up for themselves. (And, insurance companies are evil corporations, anyway.)

-Jut

What birth control solution costs $600 a year?

@insuffiecient poison: When I was on Ortho Tri Cyclen Low, it was $90/month at CVS. So, $1,080/year. (I switched to something cheaper.)

Why should contraceptives be free when blood pressure medication or asthma medication is not?

==============================

I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I don't want to hear about it and I don't want to pay for it.

Does this mean I can get my trojans for free! Hoooray. Oh, wait, this doesn't cover that, does it? What does it cover for me? NADA.
so the elephant that just stepped on your foot...

is that this is much ado about famale contraception that in theory only applies to the small subset of women who are in committed relationships and can take the pill. I wonder if it covers IUDs? Anyone else should be using barrier protection which it won't cover... and yet. Everyone subsidizes the pill?

Interesting discussions I've had with women over the last few days really revolve around how this should be free for them, or somehow they are being denied dignity or something.

Wait, what? I've had to procure my own protection since I was old enough to use it, why should women be treated differently JUST BECAUSE there is some kind of expensive pill they CAN take if they want to?

I guess I missed the PC Memo on all this.

We are paying for this one way or another, but I honestly believe it would be cheaper for us to pay for birth control for every woman who wanted it than it would be to pay for the consequences of the lack of birth control.

Look, people are going to have sex ... even poor people who can't afford condoms or birth control. These poor people are going to have babies that they cannot take care of. Those babies are going to be dependent on you and me throughout their whole lives. They are going to be poor and uneducated. They are going to have more unsupportable babies. It won't end.

WOJO, do yoiu think there's the slightest possibility that someone too poor and ignorant to be using condoms is going to have a job that provides inruance, at a religious organization? I find those odds pretty slim. It's not like this law is saying the Pill has to be covered for everyone in the country.

wojo, this isn't about poor people, this is about forcing religious organizations to fund contraception against their religion in their insurance policies. Por people can usually find health services that will provide free trojans, should they wish to do so, so this isn't about that.

The way you talk about it, the best answer to all this is to dart women walking down the street with some kind of protection. "well it's for their own good, and so I don't have to pay..." The people you describe: "These poor people are going to have babies that they cannot take care of." how do you think that will be changed by having the pill for free? Using the pill requires responsibility to take it at the same time every day and so forth, and to go get the prescription.

What makes you believe that a person that won't protect themselves normally or abstain, will suddenly decide to do so?

(1):  Team Obama is spreading the idea that providing free contraceptives reduces overall cost, because babies are much more expensive to pay for. We are asked to believe that academic theorists know more about costs than insurance companies which analyze this every year.

If the amounts paid by insurance companies would go down overall by offering free contraceptives, the insurance companies would already do this. The same is true for preventive screenings, which would be offered "free" if they lowered costs overall. According to Obama, hundreds of analysts in the real world have not discovered something which government specialists believe is obvious.

Who are you going to believe? Altruistic scientists supported by government grants, or selfish businessmen who have no problem cutting costs to be more efficient and make more money.

(2):  It is depressing that Team Obama lies and distracts to achieve a supposed Utopia just beyond our reach. Why do we have to respond repeatedly to the government that "There Is No Free Lunch". If the food seems to be free at some location, it is because robbery, slavery, or sometimes charity is providing it.

An analogy: Why are health insurance rates going up faster than inflation?
Health Insurance Thirst Mandate. Excerpt:

=== ===
His Benevolence: I have decided to banish thirst from the land. All health insurance will henceforth include unlimited purchases of refreshing drink, like Coke, Pepsi, and 7-Up. The peasants will slake their thirst and be reimbursed by the insurance companies. No co-pay.

Advisor: Your name will be legend. Sire, will you be paying for this bounty?
His Benevolence: The insurance companies will pay.
Advisor: Sire, will not the peasants have to pay the insurance companies?
=== ===

Making birth control available and relatively free for women IS actually going to save money in the long run. Consider how many unwanted children are born to people who cannot afford to have them and then rely on welfare? Wojo already made this point. Unwanted children is not only costly to taxpayers, but is also linked to child abuse. It is cyclical and contributes to global overpoulation, sustained poverty, and economic strife.

Believe it or not, when Iran was experiencing an economic downturn, they changed their policies to provide free birth control (and sterilizations) to its citizens, and emphasized in public broadcasts the importance of limiting reproduction. Surprisingly, religious leaders within Islam even encouraged the use of contraception in their sermons. Strange, but look it up. Iran subsequently saw the fastest birth rate decline ever known falling from 5 births per woman in 1989 to 2 in 2000. (Of course, President Ahmadinejad wants to reverse the policy of "2 is enough" and neglects to see how scarcity of resources has anything to do with it... he would rather just outnumber Westerners but that's beside the point.)

As far as I'm concerned, religious organizations should not be given privileges like opting out of this measure, which is beneficial for a host of reasons, but also because it may even further their own goal of fewer abortions:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110223092408.htm

However, it is true that women would need a larger supply on hand, rather than month by month. A non-hormonal option would also be advisable.

If I was a church entity paying for insurance for my employees, that covered contraception, I would be buying or partially buying contraception for my employees.

If I view that contraception is a sin, how is a middle man making this any less of a sin? If I paid a man to kill someone else, does that make me any less of a murderer if I was to do it myself?

And whether or not I believe in these things, how is this not a direct threat upon the freedom of religion for every one in this country? And why are we letting a man in a fancy suit and tie, distract us, as he takes away one right after another?

"Look, people are going to have sex ... even poor people who can't afford condoms or birth control. These poor people are going to have babies that they cannot take care of. "

The problem is, most poor people are poor because they consistently make bad choices. They aren't going to use contraceptives even if they are free.

Making birth control available and relatively free for women IS actually going to save money in the long run. Consider how many unwanted children are born to people who cannot afford to have them and then rely on welfare? Wojo already made this point.

Yes, and she made it very badly.

This is not about people on welfare, or are too poor to pay for their own reproductive decisions.

Rather, this is socialism in action: the destruction of independent civil organizations. This mandate aims directly at the heart of Catholic moral teaching

I'm not religious, but in this regard, we are now all Catholics. (Well, all of us that is, who believe that freedom of conscience is out of governmental bounds.)

---

There are a couple secondary issues here. First, although I'm a big believer in free speech, journalists should be prohibited from using the word "free" within 1000 feet of an article on economics.

Second, why the heck is it that the pill is so expensive -- why isn't the pill available over the counter?

Sally,

Birth control and abortion are both low cost. I have never seen a news report titled "I only had my child because I was poor; I couldn't afford an abortion."

Our society supports poor children and their parents. At best, this supports the children which people want. At worst, this supports uncaring parents who have children to get the support payments. Teenage girls see a baby as a path to independence in their own apartment.

Everyone who wants contraceptives is buying them now. A program to make them "free" merely shifts a private cost onto group insurance. A side effect is to (seem to) give free stuff to a large section of the public, so they will vote Democrat.

By the way, the contraceptives will not really be free. Insurance premiums will go up for everyone, hidden in lower cash salaries, made lower to pay the higher costs which employers will pay for health insurance.

how is this not a direct threat upon the freedom of religion for every one in this country? -Cat

Because churches in america are CORPERATIONS. And as such as subject to the same laws as every other buisiness

They could get around these rules very simply by not paying a salary to employees and either demand people work for them for free for credit in the afterlife or pay them as contractors

So ask yourself this Cat, given the two monumentally easy soultions to get around this, why are they asking for special dispensation?

Now what if I run a resturant and I am a christian scientist - I dont beleive in medical intervention of any kind so why should I be forced to buy any sort of health insurance for any of my employees?

Wouldnt that be the same supposed violation of my religious beliefs?

Now what if I run a resturant and I am a christian scientist - I dont beleive in medical intervention of any kind so why should I be forced to buy any sort of health insurance for any of my employees?

No employer "buys" health insurance for their employees; rather, employees buy insurance in lieu of salary.

Tax law is the reason employers take a portion of employee's salary and spend it on a particular form of insurance. That is insane, and one of the ways that insanity manifests itself is in employer's being faced with problems such as this, which have nothing to do with the employment itself.

FWIW, here's what one well-known columnist said:

http://www.thenation.com/article/165978/obama-stands-bishops-finally

Excerpts:

".......For some reason, women’s health is never just about women’s health, the well-being of the 52 percent of the population that spends around thirty years trying not to get pregnant. Someone else is always more important: in December it was licentious children; now it’s the anti-contraception clergy. 'This egregious violation of religious freedom marks the first time in our history that the federal government is forcing religious people and groups to ante up for services that violate their consciences,' writes Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, in the Huffington Post. According to Walsh, religious freedom is reserved for 'anybody but Catholics.' Nonsense. Are Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other pacifists exempt from taxes that pay for war and weapons? Can Scientologists, who abhor psychiatry, deduct the costs of the National Institute of Mental Health? As an atheist, a feminist, a progressive, I ante up for so much stuff that violates my conscience, the government should probably pay me damages. Why should the bishops be exempt from the costs of living in a pluralistic society? Walsh cites the Amish, who are exempt from buying health insurance because they have a conscientious objection to it, but the Amish are a self-isolated band of would-be nineteenth-century farmers; they don’t try to make others read by kerosene lamps or demand the government subsidize their buggies. The Catholic church, by contrast, runs institutions that employ, teach and care for millions of people, for which it gets oceans of public money. A great many of those employed and served aren’t even Catholic: at Jesuit universities, almost half the students aren’t in the church; at Notre Dame, almost half the faculty is non-Catholic, and that is not unusual. The vast majority of Catholics long ago rejected the Vatican’s ban on contraception. Catholic women are as likely to use birth control as other women. What about their consciences?

"When 98 percent of members of the church reject the official dogma, you have to ask: who does the church belong to? Theologian Daniel Maguire, arguing for the doctrine of probabilism, says the widespread dissent of theologians from 'Humanae Vitae,' the 1966 papal bull declaring birth control immoral, frees Catholics to follow their conscience. But, he adds, 'the bishops have a terrific amount of scare power for politicians,' and for the media too. The Washington Post has published two editorials against the narrow exemption. Columnist E.J. Dionne agrees: 'Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings.' I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question? Now there’s a ringing defense of women’s health and rights! There is someone who really gets the situation of the Georgetown student, profiled in the New York Times, who lost an ovary because her insurance plan wouldn’t cover the Pill to cure an ovarian cyst. Dionne proposes a compromise in which women would get referrals to places that provide affordable birth control. (Like Planned Parenthood, which the church is busily trying to defund?) How about the compromise at work in eight states that offer no exemptions from requirements that contraception be covered in all plans that cover drugs? There Catholic institutions have acquiesced. In California, NPR reports, Catholic Healthcare West has covered birth control since 1997. And there’s always the compromise in which the church gets no state funds and pays for its own conscience—you know, like the Amish......"

(snip)

There are more than 100 comments so far.

No employer "buys" health insurance for their employees; rather, employees buy insurance in lieu of salary.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn

Totally missed my point Jeff, and I'm hoping someone who sees this as an affront to their religious autonomy can bother to explain who my example is any differnt then the real life examle of the catholic churches secular institutions.

But as to your point, if the employee is the one 'buying' the insurance then what right does the employer have to edit what can be bought?

lujip:

No, I got your point perfectly well. You posed a seeming conundrum, which is propelled solely by the consequences of idiotic decisions by post-WWII Congress.

What we have here is Progressives determined march to destroy independent civil institutions. The government increasingly fosters dependence upon government, rather than civic charity, thereby forcing organizations that once were charity based to take government funding.

Then, using the funding the requirement for which the government created as a pretext, the government then directly attacks a central (and discrepant from Progressive orthodoxy) tenet of the civic organization.

I can' help but note a couple barking idiocies in the quoted article:

Why should the bishops be exempt from the costs of living in a pluralistic society?

In every preceding instance, the contentious costs cited were expenditure of tax proceeds.

Here, in stark contrast, a seemingly private organization is being told how it must spend its money.

When 98 percent of members of the church reject the official dogma, you have to ask: who does the church belong to?

The official dogma is what it is, regardless of how many of its members adhere to it. Let's say 98% of Catholics cheat on their spouses. Does that statistic impel the Catholic Church to change its position on the sanctity of marriage?

But as to your point, if the employee is the one 'buying' the insurance then what right does the employer have to edit what can be bought?

When I said "buying", I clearly meant to demonstrate that the insurance is not somehow free to employees. The insurance comes in lieu of salary (just as employers do not pay 6.5% of your social security taxes either--a bald faced lie that the Social Security Administration peddles with every annual statement it sends our way).

Progressives are insisting that the Catholic Church purchase on behalf of all its employees contraceptive methods that are anathema to Catholicism. Individual employees--I know I'm going out on a limb here, but at least some of whom are Catholic--don't even have the opportunity to opt out of subsidizing reproductive services they wouldn't think of using for themselves.

And all of this is even before considering the idiocy underlying the whole schlamozzle. One of the primary reasons that "health" care costs are growing so rapidly is the same that college costs are escalating: the government is shoveling huge piles of money at it.

I am an atheist. There is a great deal I don't like about Catholicism in particular, and organized religion in general. But this boils down to freedom of conscience, which the Catholics are defending, and Progressives wish to crush (see also Komen Foundation v. Planned Parenthood).

Which means that all of us who don't suffer the Progressive Disease (all ideas that occur to Progressives are good ideas simply by having occurred to Progressives) are now Catholics.

But if the employee is the one 'buying' the insurance then what right does the employer have to edit what can be bought?

The right of the one subsidizing the purchase.

Employers pay a major chunk of the costs of health insurance provided through the plans they offer.

Here, in stark contrast, a seemingly private organization is being told how it must spend its money.

How is a private orginzation which hires and fires employees and different then a private buiness? And please note this 'seemingly private business' known as the catholic church recives millions of dollars of tax money - they've also been sexually abusing boys for more than 1500yrs, were responsiple for some of the worlds most horrifc humans right abuses under the Inquisition(which was never disbanded, merly renamed), helped the Nazis murder Jews, oversaw the kidnapping of hunderads of thousands of infants, and only admited that the earth revolves around the sun a little more than fifty years ago

Progressives are insisting that the Catholic Church purchase on behalf of all its employees contraceptive methods that are anathema to Catholicism.

So then I as a christain scientist can use my beleifs and demand the right to not buy any insurance for my employees in violation of my religious beliefs, right?

And should the Jehovas Witnesses ever open a hospital they can refuse to give anyone blood transfusions, right?

Look you want to make the argument that insurance shouldnt be tied to jobs , I'm with you, but thats a whole other ball of wax. Churches especially those the size of the mormon church and the catholic church are businesses. And as such they must abide by the same laws as Denny's, and Kinko's, and Arizona State University.

Employers pay a major chunk of the costs of health insurance provided through the plans they offer.

Then why cant employers refuse to cover organ transplants?

They arent fighting this on the grounds that they shouldnt have to fund it on the basis of religious ethos

Then why cant employers refuse to cover organ transplants?

Haven't looked into it but, if true, it may have something to do with a transplant being considered lifesaving care.

... they've also been sexually abusing boys for more than 1500yrs, were responsiple for some of the worlds most horrifc humans right abuses under the Inquisition(which was never disbanded, merly renamed) ...

And who knows, they may even be inveterate nose pickers to.

Doesn't matter. Freedom of religion and conscience matter. Except to progressives.

So then I as a christain scientist can use my beleifs and demand the right to not buy any insurance for my employees in violation of my religious beliefs, right?

Obviously. Of course, since the health insurance was in lieu of salary, the employees will see more take home pay.

With which they can do whatever their conscience dictates.

Fair enough then, but given the numbers showing nearly 3/4 of sids death might acctually be murder plus all the abortions peple get, wouldnt contreception also fall under the category of saving lives?

Cant get murdered if the egg never stuck to the uterine wall

So then I as a christain scientist can use my beleifs and demand the right to not buy any insurance for my employees in violation of my religious beliefs, right? -lujlp

Obviously. Of course, since the health insurance was in lieu of salary, the employees will see more take home pay.

With which they can do whatever their conscience dictates. - Jeff Guinn

So you are suggesting that while the catholic church shouldnt be forced to buy birth control directly for their employees as it violates their collective conscience(in a way rape, castration and mured apparently dont), they should be forced to pay everyone an increase in salary so as to allow those who want to purchase it may?

Tell me what, do you think, is the ethical and moral difference between being forced to buy something directly for a third party and being forced to give said third party enough money to buy it themselves?

You are making at least a couple serious errors in logic here.

First, false dichotomy. The choice is not between contraception and SIDS or abortions. That you pose it in such a way means you either don't know, or don't understand the Church's position regarding contraception.

I'm old enough to remember when the pill first became available. It caused the Church to emphasize its original stance against contraception: that by divorcing sex from reproduction, we will dehumanize sex, treat women even more as self-propelled sex toys, lead to much more out of wedlock births and breakdown of the nuclear family.

Whether you or I agree with the Church's reasoning is beside the point. Whether you or I like the Church is also beside the point. What is the point is that the Church has taken the spiritual and material position that contraception has very negative consequences, a position that is well within the realm of religious belief.

Despite that (and despite trends illegitimacy, abortion, divorce etc not exactly contradicting the Church), Progressives are bound and determined to force the Church to explicitly enable an activity to which it is diametrically opposed. That is the point. Progressives always aim to destroy any institution or point of view that contradicts Progressive orthodoxy.

So you are suggesting that while the catholic church shouldnt be forced to buy birth control directly for their employees as it violates their collective conscience(in a way rape, castration and mured apparently dont), they should be forced to pay everyone an increase in salary so as to allow those who want to purchase it may?

There is no such thing as free. Employer purchased health care is part of the total compensation package. Employees who have it take home less money than they would otherwise; those who don't take more. There is no such thing as free, which is yet another concept that Progressives cannot comprehend.

Contraception is not free. Health care plans will get more expensive because of it, therefore, people who are the beneficiaries of them will take home less money. Including those who do not need, or strenuously object to, it.

BTW, "(in a way rape, castration and mured apparently dont)" counts simultaneously as both the most obnoxious and irrelevant stretch of words I have suffered through in quite some time.

counts simultaneously as both the most obnoxious and irrelevant stretch of words I have suffered through in quite some time

I know, how tedious to be remided that the chuch cares less about it millenia long regin of terror then it does about its congregents.

And in comparison to your having to suffer thru my mentionng of it what is the pian of a 12th cenurty child who had his nuts cut off because the chuch wanted a lifetime male alto for the chior? And being burned alvie at the stake, what is than in compariosn to your having to suffer thru reading NINE WHOLE WORDS, on a computer screen no less in a warm home with ore food in your kitchen then those crisy bitches would see in a week.

Yes, poor, poor, put upon you.

ANd now back to the subject at hand.

If, 'moraly' the church should not be forced to pay for conreception either directly thru the insurance plan or (a you side stepped my question I am assuming this is your position) or by paying an increase in salary so those who want BC can purchase it, then why would my hypoteical christian science resterauntur have to pay a salary bump for his employees?

And while were on the subject - regarding the presidents 'compromise' where the churches SECULAR BUISINESS INTERESTS wouldnt have to pay for the birth control, but if the employees wanted it the insurance companies would have to give it to those who ask for 'free' - why did the church reject it?

Under the proposal they wouldnt have to pay - which is what they staked their objection on. So a deal comes alog where they dont have to pay, but it still isnt good enough; why?

Because it was never about them having to pay for BC, its about limiting the access to BC for everyone regardless of whether or not they are even catholic.

For a bucnh of child molesters complaining about haveing others beliefs thrust upon them, they sure dont seem to mind thrusting their beliefs(and their penies? peni?) upon others who dont want it

First paragraph should have read

I know, how tedious to be remided that the chuch cares less about it millenia long regin of terror then it does about its congregents sex lives

Judging people of 800 years ago by the standards of today is so pointless and obnoxious as to beggar belief. It would be just as accurate, and completely ridiculous to assert that the US Gov't has no standing to insist people pay for contraception because 200 years ago slavery was legal.

Or fifty years ago that Jim Crow was practically the law of the land.

On top of that, the prize for tedium goes to this: but if the employees wanted it the insurance companies would have to give it to those who ask for 'free'.

There are no such things as sparkly purple unicorns, or free.

On the other hand, the tedium award could just as justifiably be awarded to or by paying an increase in salary so those who want BC can purchase it, then why would my hypoteical christian science resterauntur [sic] have to pay a salary bump for his employees?

Your restaurateur is going to pay the minimum in total employee compensation that he can manage and still get the kind employees he wants.

Only a fool would think that he should magically pay more for something that his employees will continue to not get.

But since you have missed that point by a mile every time it has been made, I'm not optimistic you will now.

So maybe I'll try a different tack. Sexual behavior is a personal choice; people should pay for their own behavioral choices, not rely upon state funding.

Along that same line, insurance is the pooling of risk, not the subsidization of certainty.

god you are stupid, why the hell do you think I put fake quotes around free dumbass.

You keep dancing around the issue because you are incapable of providing an answer which doesnt rely on your favored brand of christianity being 'better' then others.

I ask what the differecne in the catholic church refusing to pay for BC vs a christian scientist doing the same.

You answer that the chritian scientist should be forced to pay more salary so his empolyees can by insurance directly.

I ask you if the catholic church should also pay more salary to allow their employees to buy somthing the employer finds immoral

No answer from you

I ask what you think the moral difference is between buying something you find immoral for someone else vs giving them the money directly to buy it

Again no answer from you

I point out the president proposed a deal where technicaly the churches wouldnt have to pay for BC but the insurance companies would still have to offer it to their empolyees at no cost to the churches - which was still rejected. I ask you why they would reject a deal which effectivly made their objections moot

NO ANSWER FROM YOU.

Somehow I doubt I am the one 'not getting it'

Oh also regarding sexual activity as a personal choice, please keep in mide the catholic and many other churches hospitals and clinics feel they have the right to deny emergency contreception to rape victims

I ask what the differecne in the catholic church refusing to pay for BC vs a christian scientist doing the same.

And I keep saying none. I most certainly did not say "You answer that the chritian scientist should be forced to pay more salary so his empolyees can by insurance directly." That your profound inability to grasp basic economics provides you with insuperable antibodies to the obvious is no fault of mine.

I point out the president proposed a deal where technicaly the churches wouldnt have to pay for BC but the insurance companies would still have to offer it to their empolyees at no cost to the churches - which was still rejected. I ask you why they would reject a deal which effectivly made their objections moot

You need to put scare quotes around "technicaly" [sic].

The Church rightly rejected this nonsense as the sham it is.

"No cost" is every bit a mythical a creature as "free" and "unicorns". Money is fungible.

Although I don't expect you to do any better with that basic concept than any of the others.

Oh also regarding sexual activity as a personal choice, please keep in mide the catholic and many other churches hospitals and clinics feel they have the right to deny emergency contreception to rape victims

That is because, just in case you are as badly informed on this as everything else so far, that the Church views all abortion as murder.

It doesn't matter one whit whether you agree with that, or not. That is the Church's position, and in a society that believes in freedom of conscience and religion, the Church gets to make that choice.

Of course, such choices must be stamped out wherever they disagree with Progressive Orthodoxy.

Here is the rub though Jeff, the church doenst hire only catholics or provide services to only catholics.

They own secular busineses like schools and hospitals which empoly, treat, and service non belivers in part with taxes collected from non believers.

Unless they are willing to refuse to hire, service, and take money from non belivers they should be subject to the same laws as every other business in america.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Equality under the law does not come with a religious waver.

What is so hard to understand that in a free economy, people are able to make their own bargains.

Don't like the compensation package on offer from the Church affiliated organization?

Work somewhere else.

Equality under the law does not come with a religious waver.

Oh, yes it does.

Google ["Where’s the Contraception Compromise?" Volokh]

It is a legal blog with a lot of lawyers commenting.

The discussion is ongoing, and is well worth reading.

(Full disclosure: I have nothing to do with the blog, and don't comment there.)

What is so hard to understand that in a free economy, people are able to make their own bargains

REally? Explain then why marrige, a legal secular contract is denied to homosexuals in over 40 states on the basis of a religious objection? Explain why non religiously afflitaed buisnesses are not allowed to opt out.

Equality under the law does not come with a religious waver. - lujlp

Oh, yes it does. - Jeff Guinn

Really? So if I see you disrecpecting your parents I can kill you and calim a religious waiver to prosecution? I as a parent can dey my child life saving medical care under religious waiver?

That hasnt worked out so well for the muslims being convied of honor killings or the parents conviced of manslaughter.

You cant allow religious waivers to equality under the law. To do so negats the very concept of equality under the law.

If an employer offers health care as part of a compensation pakage, and the employee selects the option that includes BC it is none of the employeers business

If my secular business doenst get a pass why should a secular buiness owned in part by a church get a pass?

This is about freedom of religion v. coerced transactions in a market economy, not about gay marriage. Sorry.

And, like it or not, the law often makes exceptions for religion. Not on everything, all the time, but there are plenty of them. Sorry.

If an employer offers health care as part of a compensation pakage, and the employee selects the option that includes BC it is none of the employeers business

Yes, it is. It shouldn't be, but it is. Which points out the fundamental problem: employers shouldn't be purchasing any form of insurance for their employees. Stupid congressional decisions and an idiotic tax code lead to results like this.

Read post and thread at Volokh before commenting again. It will save us both a great deal of time.