takoma wrote:Remember the slippery slope? It apparently goes the other way. Marco Rubio has introduced a bill that would allow any employer who opposes contraception on religious grounds (i.e., any employer who feels like it) to deny coverage.

Sounds like establishment to me - what if I oppose contraception for secular reasons? Not that this kind of establishment ever bothers the courts. Endorsement of Christianity and of theism in general is all over our legal system, but the Christians still cry persecution.

Remember the slippery slope? It apparently goes the other way. Marco Rubio has introduced a bill that would allow any employer who opposes contraception on religious grounds (i.e., any employer who feels like it) to deny coverage.

takoma wrote:The question is: (a) Does a Church-owned business exercise religion, and (b) is denying money to others trying to exercise their individual rights constitute such exercise?

You can keep on reminding them that this is the question, and they'll keep on ignoring you. They know that they have no argument if they acknowledge the simple fact that there's a difference between a church and a religion-owned business.

Anonymous wrote:The question and issue isn't about contraception. It is about the government reaching further and further and now defining religion.

Really? Maybe you should review what the rule does-- which is require contraception coverage for employees, except for religious organizations that primarily employ members of their faith-- and what it doesn't do, which is define religion for anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

The true issue is money, not the use of BC.

Yes, and whether religious institutions can be forced to spend money to provide a service that is in direct conflict with their basic theological views, which the Constitution forbids.

If this was a legitimate constitutional issue, they would have challenged it in one of the 28 states that already have similar laws. Under the constitution, the states have no more power over religion than the federal government, so the legal issues would be the same.

The question and issue isn't about contraception. It is about the government reaching further and further and now defining religion.