This is exactly what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Bill of Rights: an air conditioning and heating company should be exempt for religious reasons, at least when it comes to womens health:
WaPo – Hercules v. Sebelius is a case brought by Hercules Industries, a Colorado-based air-conditioning company. The four siblings who own the business say they oppose contraceptives — such medications are not included in their current health coverage plan — and “seek to run Hercules in a manner that reflects their sincerely-held religious beliefs.”
The health-care law’s required coverage of contraceptives without co-pay is slated to come into effect next week, on Aug. 1. Religious institutions that primarily serve individuals are exempt from the requirement. Those that are faith-driven but tend to have workers outside their faith must comply, but got a one year reprieve. Hercules, as an air-conditioning company, does not fall into either category.
This is great, because pretty much anything can be ginned up into a religious objection. For example I don’t particularly care for tongue piercing or Cornish game hens, and paying for accidents resulting from piercings or hunting could be expensive. I’m sure there’s a religion somewhere that has an edict or two that could be twisted into meaning flesh is sacred, in some way, that would get me and my insurance policy off the hook.
13 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
steve84
July 30, 2012 at 7:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It’s a business. A business can’t practice religion FFS!!
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
July 30, 2012 at 8:07 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Hmmm. Well, let’s see.
On the one hand,
While vastly improving and/or protecting the health of their female employees. Who likely out number the four “sincerely” religious brothers.
On the other hand, many happy women would make these four “sincerely” religious brothers sad, because conveniently-discriminatory-Jesus.
In America.
Yeah . . . . I can see why Judge Kane would have such a hard time with this. The health of many women is inconvenient to the “sincerely” religious four dudes who own a company. Well, we can’t have that! Won’t someone think of the Corporation-People. Stop focusing on the Human-People, you bigots!
machintelligence
July 30, 2012 at 8:07 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It doesn’t seem to be a corporation, so they can’t use the corporations are people argument.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
July 30, 2012 at 8:09 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
machintelligence – butbutbut Jesus! He said “blessed are the company’s religious belief over the bitches”, right?
Stephen "DarkSyde" Andrew
July 30, 2012 at 8:12 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I believe it is well known that Jesus addressed a group of business leaders in Babylon and told them “When in doubt, pimp my Divine ass out.” Not sure if it made the final cut in the Council of Trent or whatever.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
July 30, 2012 at 10:12 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Clearly, it made only the King Bigot version of the bible. You know, the version that only libertarians and teabaggers get to read.
amethyststarling
July 30, 2012 at 11:24 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I would guess that *ahem* men’s health is fully covered under their health plan.
Rike
July 31, 2012 at 12:01 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Does this mean that a business owned by Seventh Day Adventists can provide health insurance that does not pay for blood transfusions?
In other words, when I apply for a job, I will have to determine the religious preference of the company so I can figure out what will be covered (or not) in their health insurance?
starfoster
July 31, 2012 at 5:07 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Naming your “Christian” company after a Greek demi-god should invalidate your argument. What’s wrong with Samson?
StevoR
July 31, 2012 at 6:36 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@ ^ starfoster : Copyrighted already?
ahcuah
July 31, 2012 at 7:41 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Here’s what I don’t get. Jesus very specifically and plainly says that remarriage after divorce is adultery. Why isn’t there some religious group (especially Catholics, who still mainly adhere to it) refusing to pay for spousal insurance in those cases?
d cwilson
July 31, 2012 at 10:13 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You don’t have to look very far. Leviticus forbids marking your flesh. Surely, you can interpret that as being against tongue piercings.
W. Kevin Vicklund
July 31, 2012 at 10:50 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
For a fundie perspective on the Bible and piercings, look here.