By Bill Mears, CNN
(CNN)– The billionaire founder of Domino's Pizza has won a temporary court victory, with a federal judge blocking enforcement of part of the health care reform bill requiring most employers to provide a range of contraception and reproductive health services.
Some business owners and their staff see that as a violation of their religious rights.
Federal Judge Lawrence Zatkoff issued his order late Sunday, saying Thomas Monaghan had "shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion."
"The (federal) government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest," said Zatkoff, a 1986 Reagan appointee. "Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs have established at least some likelihood of succeeding on the merits" of their claim.
Monaghan filed the emergency petition this month, on behalf of himself and Domino's Farms Corp., a Michigan property management firm he operates, not directly related to the pizza-chain empire. Monaghan sold his majority interest in the pizza company in 1998.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
The case will continue to be heard in the federal courts while the stay remains in effect. The Obama administration has the option of appealing the order.
The judge's opinion comes just days after two federal appeals courts in Chicago and St. Louis became the first to rule against enforcement for businesses of the contraceptives mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The policy was set to go into effect Tuesday for many companies whose new insurance year begins on January 1st.
At issue is whether secular, for-profit enterprises– owned and operated by those of a strong religious or personal faith– are exempt from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The separate health care law - dubbed Obamacare - provides such exceptions for religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, of which Monaghan is a member. He argues individually that contraception or abortion does not constitute "health care" and involves immoral practices that destroy "innocent human life."
"Causing death can never be considered a form of medical treatment," said Monaghan in court papers.
Other religious-affiliated groups like parochial schools and church-run hospitals are also temporarily exempted until new final rules are written in coming months.
That followed complaints from a variety of entities over who exactly was covered under the mandates, and who could bring legal objections in court.
The Justice Department, on behalf of the Obama administration, said the 2010 law - upheld this year by the Supreme Court - was designed to provide a range of preventive health services through expanded coverage and lower costs.
Federal lawyers - backed by a range of medical and abortion-rights groups - said economically disadvantaged women in particular need affordable access to reproductive health services contained in the law, which it said was a "compelling governmental interest."
Hobby Lobby faces millions in fines for bucking Obamacare
Under the law, companies with at least 50 employees must provide their female employees of child-bearing age insurance coverage for pregnancy-prevention care, including doctor visits and medicine.
Those firms face daily fines and tax penalties for failure to comply.
Other federal courts - including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor last week– have allowed the new mandates to go into effect. Sotomayor in an order December 26 said the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether individuals or companies can rightfully claim federal mandates under their constitutional rights of religious freedom.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
That case involved Hobby Lobby Inc., and Mardel, Inc. and five family members involved in ownership and control of the corporations, who had protested the requirement.
Those separate companies said they would be required "to provide insurance coverage for certain drugs and devices that the applicants believe can cause abortions," which would be against their religious beliefs.
The petitioners said they would face irreparable harm if forced to choose between paying fines and complying with the requirement.
But Sotomayor - who handles emergency appeals from the 10th Circuit - said the applicants failed to meet "the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief," and that they could continue to pursue their challenge in lower courts and return to the higher court, if necessary, following a final judgment.
There was no indication when or if the high court would ultimately decide the religious freedom question. Several dozen separate lawsuits are pending in various lower federal courts.
The Michigan case is Monaghan v. Sebelius (12-15488).
CNN's Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.
This ruling is a pile of crap. It will be overturned unless the federal governemtn wants to give large corporations rights as an individual, which would make no fucking sense and further push our country back.
Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated groups of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constiitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the most common usage of the word.
Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.
Its funny how people like to scream about choice and personal responsibility, until people get the choice to do something that some one else doesn't like huh?
Which scenario holds more choice and freedom?
DECIDING to enter the public employment sector to make money and allowing employees to DECIDE what healthcare best suits them or
DECIDING to enter the public employment sector to make money, and disallowing their employees to access a full range of health care? Clearly there is more choice when everyone can chose for themselves. No one is being forced to take birth control themselves.
Yeah, yeah, people are going to say 'well the employee can CHOSE not to work there', but the employer can CHOSE not to take on employees as well. Why should the right of one to make a living supersede the right of another to do the same?
Yet a corporation does not have the right to refuse to comply with federal mandates as a religious entity, because it's not. You have avoided this for two weeks, so just shut the fuck up you dishonest tool.
Hawaii, according to the judge in this case, you are wrong my friend.
Actually, you need to fucking learn reading comprehension. The ruling is in favor of the owner, not the corporation. The ruling says that it overburdens the person. A secular for-profit corporation cannot be under a religious exemption. Bill, you were wrong about Romney winning, and you are wrong about this.
@bill... why do you think an employer has more of a right to dictate how an employee uses their duly earned benefits, than the employee deciding how to use their duly earned benefits? Should employers also monitor how employees spend the money they make at the job?
So if a corporation, being treated as a person, can refuse to pay for its employees contraception on the arguement that it is against its religion.. wouldn't that mean that EVERY employee would be the same religion as the CEO ?
Also can I as an individual pay only a portion of my tax becuase in my religion "Thou shall Not Kill" and the armed forces are strickly designed for just that ?
Chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, Morrison Waite, stood up in January of 1886 and said what pretty much everybody in the courthouse thought, which was that corporations were persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.
BLOCK: The 14th Amendment dating from right after the Civil War, the Equal Protection Clause is what we're talking about.
WITT: Yeah, the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons. It provides that all persons have a right to equal protection under the laws.
I don't recall endorsing nor voting for Romney
On the topic of corporate personhood, keep in mind there was once a time that a business only was able to get a corporate charter when they were doing something to benefit society, IE building a bridge. They were then able to receive the benefits of being a corporation. The charter was then revoked after the job was done. These days, it is considered a god given right.
Of course you don't. Anything that you're wrong about obviously can't be remembered because that means you could be wrong about all sorts of things. Keeping the veil of "I haven't been proven wrong on anything" is vital to your own self-esteem, and also to your self-rigtheous posts.
I don't know what you think you're proving, but your just making yourself look completely foolish.
Jenny, I do not believe an employer has the right to determine how employees use their benefits. What i oppose is the government mandating the terms of those benefits beyond some reasonable measure. We require employers to provide basic safety, sanitation and living wages to employees. The difference comes in when the government decides a benefit is essential which reasonable, valid and substantial cause for religious dissent exits. This is a little more lawyerly than I would like to express it but it goes to the core of your rights end where mine begin. As a Catholic, I cannot support coerced payment for medication enabling contraception or any of its subsequent causes because it violates my core tenets, my choice, to be pro-life. You're pro-choice aren't you? Do I get a choice?
So hawaii, you're argument has degenerated to "You voted for Romney"? I guess you showed me.
Jenny, you seem reasonable at the moment. Explain this to me. What is the ethical argument for forcing employers to provide a benefit, which is generally available elsewhere at reasonable or no cost, to their employees?
Allow me to caution you:
"Because it's the law" is not justification it is circular reasoning
"Because the benefit is good" is subjective at best and already stipulated to be available elsewhere.
How do you support government coercion of people to violate their religious beliefs, and extra points if you can reconcile that with exemption made to other groups on non-religious grounds
Bill.. what choice do I have in funding wars I am morally opposed to? What choice do I have when I'd rather smoke a natural plant to ease physical pain rather than line the pockets of some large pharmaceutical company by taking their chemicals? What choice do I have to fund some fat person's cholesterol medication or some smoker's lung machine? There are many things I am not allowed to decide for myself, by virtue of being born into a world that seems to worship authority at every turn. Health care is health care. If an employer or government is going to offer healthcare, why is it better to let them set the terms of what is considered healthcare, why is it not better for it to be up to the patient and doctor? Any employer is certainly more than welcome to raise the wages of their employees to the point where they can arrange their own private insurance that suits them.
The employer compensates the employee, whether it be with a benefits package or straight up money, what is to stop an employer from having a say in the way an employee spends any of their compensation, if they are allowed to dictate how benefits, which are just another form of compensation, are used?
Your choice as a potential employer is to enter the public sphere.
Jenny, the first part of your response is called begging the question I believe. The issues you bring up do not apply to this issue. The second part of your response is one I could support. If the employer wanted to adjust wages and decline to offer medical coverage I would support that, as long as hth employer and employee agreed to it. But that is not what we have. The Federal government is fining companies starting today $100 per employee/day for non-compliance with the ACA.
@bill.. what do you mean they do not apply? You asked me about your choices, my point is, we all have to follow rules that may not be our choice. We can't all go running to daddy government and pay for rule changes to make our lives better.
Again, my largest point, and one you have not answered is the fact that benefits are a form of compensation. The employee earned this compensation. Why is it ok for an employer to give their employees straight up cash to spend on birth control with no apparent loss of the employer's morality, but when compensation is offered as a benefits plan, all of a sudden it infringes on the employer's morality? The employee earned that compensation, whether it is in benefits form or cash... what gives any employer the right to dictate how compensation is used by employees?
I think paying an adequate amount for employees to arrange their own insurance would be great as well, but the problem was, many profitable companies were NOT doing so, and therefore leaving it up to taxpayers to supplement their employment costs. The taxpayers cannot afford to supplement profitable company's employment costs. They brought this on themselves.
I must say however Bill than I am very impressed with your ability to offer cohesive paragraphs while it appears you are debating many people on here.
Also, I am still curious to know how employees using the compensation they worked for to access the health care are they chose are somehow violating the morals of the employer.
Thank you for the compliment. I admit I sometimes take a shortcut which undercuts my argument but my opponents are pretty good at calling that out. I can't address the issues about war opposition because I believe there are legal precedents which I am unfamiliar with. I do know that certain religious groups have been granted exemptions from going to war while not exempted from general taxation to fund it. This actually brings up a good point. The ACA is not a general tax which the government then uses to fund a national health care system. So to me, that is a difference.
The reason the employers morals are compromised is the same as if they mandated that I purchase heroin for you to use. The fact that I do not use heroin does not exempt me from moral hazard.
@bill... it is my belief that the employer is not gifting the benefits to employees.. it is being offered as compensation. When something is provided to employees as compensation, it is actually the employee's money, not the employer's. They employer is offering health care, which includes the reproductive system in men and women as established by the doctors and scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying medicine and the human body, in lieu of increased pay. Religion should not have the right to redefine what health care encompasses for anyone but their own followers who chose to subscribe to that religion. Your heroin example is a fallacy because there isn't a credible scientific body or medical community stating the benefits of the use of heroin as part of any sort of health care, whereas birth control, regardless of your personal opinion, is viewed by the medical community as important to health for a variety of uses and safe.
Why is there then no moral hazard if the employer just gave the employee money and the employee spent it on heroin? Why is compensation offered as benefits considered the employer's money, while compensation offered as money, is considered the employees?
Bad analogy, heroin is not legal, name a form of contraception that is not legal?
This is ridiculous. Domino's is a for profit company. Who cares what his religious views are – business is business. Keep religion out of business!!!
Your views on religion and politics are as confused as the ones you have on who owns Dominos
why dont you try reading the story next time.
this story has nothing to do with dominoes pizza
Well, he still shills their pizza, as he's still making commercials for Domino's pizza...perhaps the pizza company should reconsider the choice of spokesman, as, judging from the comments, Domino's Pizza is going to suffering for Tommy's beliefs.
Like Chik-fil-a suffered?
It has to do with its previous owner – they say no affiliation, but that is doubtful.
Can you please tell me who Domino"s Farm Corp, might sell most of their produce too? Educated guess will sufice.
uh, it's not really a farm. You know that right?
Ya, a property company, my bad but thought I would give it a shot. Thankfully your lot has to forgive me, me, not so much.
Forgiveness has no value without repentance my son. Turn away from your sin and embrace freedom.
The thing is Billy boy, your idea of what passes for the devil has already got me by the balls and my mind and body are sort of enjoying that, not in a RCC kind of way.
Well we all either serve the flesh or the spirit. God bless.
You may want to give that expert advice to your pedophile priests, have you ever got laid Billy boy, with a female, I mean above the age of eighteen?
Ah! c'mon don't run away, tell us why the RCC must make their priests and nuns not follow their basic hunan instinct to reproduce, se x is one of the most powerful instinct of all mamals. Is it simply as*set protection and cash flow protection? While you are at it, why did the RCC dump the 2nd commandment into the cathecism, was it to sell a jesus on a stick to all the sheepies (with a large variety of colored beads) just asking?
A little over a month ago, the UN declared that access to contraception is a basic human right.
From their report:
“The ability to decide on the number and spacing of one’s children is taken for granted by many in the developed world and among elites in developing countries. Anyone who’s been following the news in America over the last year knows that the battle for access to contraceptives is bitter and constant. While access is certainly greater in America than the Philippines, the roadblocks to sufficient access to birth control are similar in both places: Religious leaders and the politicians who cater to them would rather see women raise children they don’t want than provide access to birth control. Rather than a building block of a functioning society, they see birth control as an indication of loose morals.
Religious groups are deeply opposed to ending unwanted pregnancies with abortion, and yet they don’t want women to have access to contraception that could prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and therefore prevent abortions.
Addressing the unmet need for family planning worldwide would avert 54 million unintended pregnancies and result in 26 million fewer abortions. Research also shows that where family planning supplies, information and services are widely available, abortion rates are lower.”
Businesses opposed to paying taxes that enable easier access to birth control are effectively hindering the government's attempt to provide every woman their basic human rights.
The UN does not currently make U.S. law
Is that why the USA was so far behind much of the rest of the civilized wotld in abolishing slavery, and it took a civil war to get the job done, because smoe think the USA was created as a "christian" nation.
some not smoe
That is obvious by the number of times the United States has ignored international consensus as expressed by the United Nations and gone ahead with their own agenda.
The UN does not currently make U. S. law, neither does the RCC as much as they would like too. Just obey the laws enacted and challenge them as you have a right to do in the courts, get it. In the mean time do not interfere with people acting within those laws. You have the right to state your objections and seek legal recourse, that is the way it woks.
I agree surprised. Yes Doc, it is called National Sovereignty.
hey surprise. maybe you would be surprised to find out it was xtians long before the civil war that pushed for the abolition of slavery.
xtians were the only ones who felt it was immoral and were tyring to abolish it. it was the xtians who finally got it abollished
A great line from the Lincoln movie when Abe is talking about Euclid. "Two things equal to the same thing are themselves equal". Lincoln is saying that if two men are equal to God then they are equal to each other. This realization becomes the motivation for delaying the war cessation talks with southern Democrats and pressing forward with the hope of passing the 13th amendment. I see it as a defining moment of Christian awareness and action from our great American President.
Like when the UN condemned ongoing UN santions against Cuba for over 20 years.
The last vote was 188-3.
Or when Nicuragua went to the World Court in the 1980's to get America to stop their campaign of economic and military oppression. The US summarily ignored the World Court's ruling to desist and pay substantial reparations and in fact responded with an immediate escalation of the attack. Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. alone vetoed it.
Or when Dubya decided to attack Iraq despite international opposition, calling any nation who sided with the United Nations a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of America.
So what is to be done when the world's only Superpower uses it's overwhelming might to countermand the "National Sovreignty" of other nations?
I totally agree with your point that it was christian influence that finally did away with slavery, that was not my point. My point was that the USA was far behind other civilized nations, if you prefer christian nations; lets call it 1865 the end of the Civil War and in other nations it did not require a war to achieve the goal
Bill wrote, "The UN does not currently make U.S. law"
And neither does your church.
Dully noted, Good that is a start, now follow the legal options open to your view and see where we end up, agree.
Mark wrote, maybe you would be surprised to find out it was xtians long before the civil war that pushed for the abolition of slavery."
Could you explain why the SBC formed?
Many many churches supported slavery. It's very dishonest to make the claim you did.
I think IT'S A SIN to deny someone birth control...maybe he should be held responsible for unwanted children
No one is denying access to birth control for anyone. At least get the argument straight before you sue.
@bill, this ruling effectively allows a corporation to refuse coverage for anything to which it is ethically opposed. They don't like your $200,000 cancer treatment – not covered. For most people is the same as denying coverage.
And I support the employers right to offer the compensation package they see fit to offer. If i want a heath care policy which covers cancer treatment or contraception or anything else I will either get a job that provides it or obtain it myself. I resent government coercion even if it is on my behalf because what they give to me they took from someone else.
The employers do not have a right to deny healthcare to their employees when it comes out of the employees money.
Time to stop lying, Bill. You apparently have no shame, however. People like you deserve to be banned from speaking.
@Bill, do you really think that everyone is in a position to pick up and move their sick kid when the new CEO decides he doesn't like the treatment?
As for transferring money, do you want to ban public schools? I have no kids and pay for other people's children to attend at about $13,000 a year.
If there actually is a god, this self righteous bibletard is going to burn in hell.
Catholic teaching began to turn towards the abolition of slavery beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537. A number of Popes issued papal bulls condemning enslavement and mistreatment of Native Americans by Spanish and Portuguese colonials; however, these were largely ignored despite the threat of excommunication.
When did catholic teachings turn towards hiding child banging priests?
Since 1962 when then Cardinal Ratzinger released the "crimen sollicitationis", which outlined how the church is to handle accusations of se.xual impropriety against clergy.
The stickiest point for most people is that not only was the doc.ument itself Top Secret for decades, it explictly stated that anybody involved in this type of investigation, including the accuser and potential witnesses, are sworn to secrecy regarding any and all details, upon penalty of excommunication (a fate worse than death for the devout).
The RCC then managed to keep the scandal in house for decades by moving the perp's around and paying off the victims and their famalies or using threats of excommunication or blaming the victims for the crimes. Then you have a sheep like Bill Deacon that will not see the evil of religion, not just his cult, he can excuse anything it seems, through a glass darkly.
I am not blind to abuses within the church. If you will look at my postings, my arguments consistently defend the contributions of the church to western culture and the value of the moral teachings. This in no way excuses the failures whether individually or corporate. I just don't think the abuses rise to the level which condemns the entire Church. It's sort of like what has been said about liberal democracies (classic liberalism), that they are a terrible form of government which are better than anything else we have. Likewise, the Church recognizes that it is itself the human representative of perfection and not perfection itself.
Just for once can you look outside your own little box/world. There was a Munk debate "Is religion a force for good in the world?" Not limited to the RCC/Christianity but the whole sorry bunch. Guess which side won?
The number of abusive priests may not be statistically aberrant, but the ways in which the church tradtionally handled such cases is tantamount to criminal conspiracy.
As the Irish COmmission to Inquire Into Child Abuse stated in 2009, the RCC's "pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child se.xual abuse were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its as.sets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities."
How can you claim that the church abuses "don't rise to the level which condemns the entire Church"? The entire tribe of church leaders on down to the priests and congregations covered it up so well that it was hidden for decades. And if it hadn't been discovered? Guess what, it would STILL be hidden. What if it had been your son or brother that was abused? Would you still defend the corruption and complete disregard for victims and their lifelong battle with emotional issues?
And in the same statement, you say that the church contributed to "the value of the moral teachings"?? You can spin your conscience all you want, but this is delusion at it's finest.
Catholic teachings, thankfully, affect only Catholics, and as such, mean precisely zip in the secular world...and as such, wull never be legislated into laws that affect non-Catholics.
Even JFK was wise enough to know this.
Akira, that is the first thing I've heard you say that I actually support. Please be assured, when I am explaining or defending the Catholic teaching on something or another, I am not advocating theocracy, I am usually either clearing up a misconception or derision of the Church or trying to show how our faith informs our position on topics. Catholics are Americans just like atheist or any other religiously affiliated people and our views have equal footing, not more, not less.
Bill, that is a false equivalency argument. You have already shown yourself to be an apologist, so just die in a fire.
Wouldn't it be easier to build a really big oven and put a bunch of us in there together?
You can't tell the difference between hyperbole and malicious intent? No surprises there.
It's just like the way you can't tell the difference between delusion and reality.
You are seriously messed up in the head, Bill.
Why is birth control against the christian tenets anyway? I can see how the morning after pill could be construed as "murder", but why birth control itself? The logical premise is to keep the sheeple procreating and multiplying, but I'm fairly certain the bible states nothing about it as it didn't exist 2000 years ago.
for Catholics it is. because it says in the bible that its a sin for a man to spill his seed on the ground.
a catholic friend of mine explained it to me.
"for Catholics it is. because it says in the bible that its a sin for a man to spill his seed on the ground'
That's why good Catholic boys swallow. A priests seed is not allowed on the ground
Why do Catholics oppose birth control?
The condemnation of birth control stems from their belief that God wants humans to spew forth as many cro/tch critters as possible in order to populate heaven and to "be fruitful and multiply" (gen 1:28).
To purposely countermand God's will to breed like rabbits is to lie to the Holy Spirit in the same way that Ananias and Saphira did in Acts 5 : 1-11 when they held back a portion of their gift to God. God's slaying of that couple is one of the few instances of divine wrath in the New Testament.
They also believe that many forms of birth control, like IUDs and the pill, are actually forms of abortion and therefore consti.tute murder.
There is also a heavy emphasis on self-denial as a path to righteousness amongst Catholics, this stemming from Matthew 16:24 in which Jesus says "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
For Catholics in terrible marriages, God allows separation (and therefore lifelong abstinence) but not divorce.
It was the apostle Paul's opinion that it was far better to be single and abstinent, but marry if you can't control your loins.
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)
There is also the old fear of witches and warlocks and their ungodly potions which God condemns in Gal. 5:20 and Apoc. 9:21. Today's sorcerers are pharmaceutical biochemists.
But most of all, the scripture cited by Catholics in regards to contraception is Genesis 38:9.
In that uplifting story, God commanded a fellow named Onan to impregnate his sister in law.
They repeatedly got jiggy, but Onan kept pulling out at the critical moment. For this transgression, God killed him.
The extended teaching is that any artificial barrier between husband and wife creates a disruption of the intimacy and communion that seex is purposed for and is acknowledged as life affirming. Artificial birth control frustrates both the male to reach his spouse and the female to receive from hers. This generally leads to emotional and spiritual dissatisfaction between spouses and opens the possibility of seeking fulfillment outside of the marriage by affairs, fantasy or other addictions which constiitutes a sin against the spouse, the marriage and consequently against God himself.
Interesting, since certain members of the bible (back when there was no birth control) did it with everyone and their wife's mother.
And some still do. The point of the teaching is to provide an edified experience.
In other words, Catholics want their women barefoot and preggers, want to bareback it.
No word on what the women's tired uteruses want. Pop those kids out.
Ok, so you reverted back to ignorance.
That was the biggest pile of shit post I've seen today.
"The point of the teaching is to provide an edified experience."
And spouting off what your church told you to say instead of seeing it as it really is, is not ignorance?
Read "Theology of the Body" it will educate you even if you don't subscribe to the beliefs, it is wonderful treatment on our relation to God and creation
I myself don't intend to read a book about the relationship between a man and a woman written by a person who has supposedly never engaged in a se.xual relationship. I was a DEVOUT catholic for 30+ years, I know exactly what that book will say and how ill that book will make me feel.
Then why did you ask the question?
Pardon. Let me rephrase that then:
And spouting off what your church told you to say instead of seeing it as it really is, is ignorance.
No I meant the question about why birth control is against Catholic tenets. If you really have been a Catholic since any time after 1960 you should have already known that. You can call it ignorant if you want that's equivalent to damnation which atheists are so opposed to being reminded of. But I don't take it so seriously since I do not find it ignorant. I find it essential, liberating and life affirming.
For Bill, "essential" means he's getting paid for this, "liberating" means he thinks he is free to rape children and get away with any crime, and "life-affirming", to Bill, means his criminal life feels justified and vindicated because he enjoys treating children and women like shit.
Yeah, Bill, I got your number. You are so transparent everyone can see you are full of crap.
I never got answers because I followed blindly and faithfully without asking questions (weren't I the type they like best?) I'm learning more now and the more I learn, the more I thank my lucky stars that I got out. When you start asking questions, the story really starts to break down.
So basically if this ruling stands – going forward women (and men) of child bearing age will need to ask any future employer if birth control is offered under the company policy.
If it is not – pass on that job offering and keep looking.
If it is – get it in writing from HR.
This whole argument is insane!
Yes, it's a labor negotiations. Just like asking "will a company car be provided?"
Not anymore. Now it's "Federal Law everyone has to follow or pay a penalty." Time to grow up, Bill.
"Not anymore" Indicates to me that at one time free labor negotiations were standard in this country. Can you explain to me how the current situation of "play or pay" is not totalitarian?
And surely you know that not everyone has to comply right?
Yes, you are free to break the law, Bill. Go ahead. Laws don't matter to you, do they? Where'd you hide the bodies, Bill?
Looks like Pizza Hut from now on.
doesn't seem like anyone read the story like you.
this guy has nothing to do with dominoes pizza.
why don't read the story first.
hey Mark you better read it again he still has a SMALL portion of it
Earlier this week, news stories came out that Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan had filed suit against the federal government regarding healthcare. Since that time, the story has been widely misreported to indicate Domino’s was involved in this action, which is completely untrue. Tom Monaghan sold Domino’s Pizza in 1998 and today has NO active affiliation with our company. The media often neglect to note this fact. His views are not our views, nor are his actions in any way related to our actions. Domino's Pizza has made no public statements about health care, as we are still waiting to see how the final rules will affect our network of small business owners. Domino's is not a political company; it is not a religious company – we are a pizza company........From Dominos Pizzas Facebook page
joe what part of he has nothing to do with dominoes flew over your head?
he does not run dominoes. and dominoes did not file this lawsuit. the lawsuit has no impact on dominoes as dominoes is not contesting anything.
please learn to read
Monaghan still owns 7 percent of the company, is a landlord to his old company in many places, and appears regularly in Dominos Pizza commercials.
He still controls the company.
He sold the 93 percent of his stake to BAIN CAPITAL – Mitt Romney's company that he still works for.
He sold his soul to the Beast that lives in Rome.
To the Pope who is head of the largest international criminal org in the world.
He is trying to violate the law and has no legal standing in the case he filed. The judge was bought, it appears.
want birth control........ keep your damn legs closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! end of debate!!
We have good methods of birth control. Why do you believe the should not be used?
And how's that working for you, joe?
Joe: The USA has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the modern world because of people who think like you. It goes beyond the 'sex' part though, birth control does a lot more than prevent pregnancy (used for regulation of menstrual cycles; used for the treatment of endometriosis...to name a few).
Lemme guess - he's all for men receiving coverage for Viagra, right?
II rarely go to Hobby Lobby, but this BS will keep me from shopping there again.
Until he was 40-45, he was one of the big spenders living lavishly, and suddenly he "finds God!" .
Good for him and great success story, but not every one has the same luxury.
Is he against VIAGRA, etc... ?
Sperm used for fun and not procreation is a sin, last time I checked.
Who needs 60 year old men to have kids...?
Can't stand your crappy pizza anyway. You'll get no dollars from me.
I haven't had it in over 20 years but it was pretty gross back then.
@Carpe, the company can say whatever they want but their history of donating to conservative causes and candidates is publicly available information.
Religion continues to be a plague upon mankind. The ability to limit health care because of your religious views is outragious and wrong. We long ago passed the time when each and every religious organization in America should be taxed at the maximum rate allowable. It's not as if they aren't involved in politics... Steve, Secular Humanist.
If you could prove your first statement, which you can't, you would have to prove your second, which you can't. Given those two you might could make a case for your third, but you can't. Nice rhetoric though.
The 'proof' is in the evidence that religion is a plague given little events like the crusades, suicide bombings, and all the other crap done by the religious people since the beginning of human history in the name of their particular invisible friend in the sky. Isn't that enough evidence for you Bill?
It is evidence of your side of the argument but is not definitive or comprehensive of the effects by religion kind. More in depth and unbiased findings have repeatedly shown that religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion has been a boon to mankind.
Bill, quit talking like a fool. Religion has been behind all the worst horrors in human history. Get your facts straight, liar.
I'm sure $$$$ has absolutely nothing to do with it.
As many people have correctly noted, funding contraception costs less than maternity. So, you are right, money has nothing to do with it.
Bill is a liar. A bad one. I would do a criminal investigation of Bill on general principles, if I were a DA.
We are talking about laws that affect the secular workplace. If he wants to stand on a pulpit on Sunday mornings and spew that nonsense, that is his business. However, when you file for a business license you are agreeing to abide by all of the laws regulating that business. You don't get to pick & choose which laws you will obey. The far right is always screaming about liberals "picking & choosing" yet they have no problem doing the same in the name of religion.
I agree completely, Ironman.
And yet he is; this is why it will be struck down when it gets to the SCOTUS, if it makes it that far.
I know! I would assume the choice for the employer is to NOT employ people if they are unwilling to follow the same rules set out for everyone else. Are employers who follow a Muslim faith going to be able to refuse to cover any medication with a gelatin casing? Insulin?
Jenny, what you and others who make similar arguments are doing is not making the case for why Christian employers should be forced to comply. You are making the case for why the law is impractical to begin with. By including potential objections from other religions you are really showing how intrusive the ACA is on it's face. Government should not be allowed to mandate what products free people do or do not buy. Whether you personally support or oppose the product isn't important.
Christian business owner should be forced to obey the law because it won't hurt them in any way to follow the law.
Bill, you really suck at debate. You might as well find something else to do, because you suck at this so bad.
Well, if someone can exercise his right to practice his beliefs by pushing them onto his employees, the I have the right not to support his beliefs by avoiding his products.
Anyone who believes in a persons right to control what happens to his/her own body should boycott Domino's
I've been boycotting them for over 20 years...the company has been donating to dubious causes since as far back as I was following politics.
LOL Losing your business will destroy him!! He sold his share of the pizza franchise in 1998. Boycotts generally are not effective anyway. Try thinking instead of reacting on emotion.
You realize he doesn't own Domino's pizza anymore? He sold the pizza company in 1998.
This is for his property management firm...so protest those and don't rent from him if you want to protest this.
@scotty501, Take a look at the recent Chick-fil-a story...the company changed their policy when there was a big enough uproar. People have been boycotting Dominos for years, however, and the same momentum just hasn't been there.
He still owns a 7 percent stake in the company and continues to appear in their commercials....as well as being their landlord in various places.
Yeah, a boycott will do just fine.
Besides, he sold the company to ****BAIN CAPITAL*****, the company Mitt Romney still works for.
Let's drive them out of business any way we can. They deserve it.
Good catch, Grontius.
Here's Chik-fil-a's company statement. Da Cathey's comments are and always were personal:
"We have no agenda, policy or position against anyone," the statement said. "We have a 65-year history of providing hospitality for all people and, as a dedicated family business, serving and valuing everyone regardless of their beliefs or opinions. The genuine, historical intent of our WinShape Foundation and corporate giving has been to support youth, family and educational programs."
@Bill, are you saying that Chik-fil-a did not make donations to Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council or WinShape groups?
No, I'm unaware of how they use their own money and don't really care. I also have little regard for the Southern Poverty Law Center
Bill Deacon is a member of a hate group. There is no other reason for anyone to hate the Southern Poverty Law Center.
People who think this is OK need to consider that it's not just birth control that's at stake here. An employer, even if it's the only one in town, could theoretically deny coverage for ANY medical treatment they don't like. No blood transfusions, no medicines that were ever tested on animals (meaning no medicines), no treatment that isn't prayer. Whatever...and if you or a child have a pre-existing condition, with our system, there'd be no option. The 25 year old simpleton comes back with “Well, why don’t you just move across the country for a job?” Wait until you are caring for parents with dementia and trying to finish of a mortgage on the house that will no longer sell and get back to those of us in the real world. Many people in this country don’t have an endless supply of choices. It’s up to us as a nation to determine some base values and rights that all will have.
Well said, and I agree.
I agree, we need a set of values we can all live with equitably. We call it the Bill of Rights. It limits the power of government over a free people. Without it, it is possible for the government to mandate anything it can convince itself is needed.
This is what happens when religious whack jobs take over public policy. Religion should not be part of any public thing regardless of the company founders religion. The God Damned Catholic Church is at great fault here and the payback is going to be a bi tc h.
Bill, what you propose?
We know you're against birth control on religious grounds; why do you think that it's a good idea to deny everyone based on your religion?
Those who are opposed do not have to take it, as they weren't forced to in the past; this mandate doesn't change that one jot.
You still don't have to take it if it goes against your religion.
That's covered in the BOR also.
Because something is covered does not mean you have to utilize it; broken arms are covered but that doesn't mean I'm going to break my arm to utilize it...
I do not oppose anyone getting birth control. What I oppose is being required to pay for it by the government. That is my political stance. If you would like to debate the limits of government intervention among free people, I am happy to oblige.
My religious stance is only important in that it informs my conscience and subsequently my vote. It is important to keep religion and politics separate. If you would like to debate birth control, I am happy to inform you of my beliefs which you are free to reject.
@Bill, would you also ague that the government shouldn't fun any healthcare because Christian Scientists oppose it? Shouldn't fund blood transfusions because Jehovah's Witnesses have issues with them?
Bill, you may certainly oppose anything you wish; you do not get to pick and choose which government regulation you comply with when you run a business for profit.
This is why religions cannot be legislated into law, and rightfully.
That should be religious beliefs cannot be legislated into law.
Maybe it would be helpful to delineate between religious beliefs and religious values. A religious belief would be something dogmatic like "The Father, the son and the Holy Ghost..." A religious value would be something like "Individuals have intrinsic value" So while I agree that religious beliefs should not be legislated so that every person enjoy the right to exercise as they see fit, I oppose restrictions on my values, which are formed by religious conscience from entering the public discourse.
Sir, I'm giing to make it as plain as possible: beliefs ot values based on religion isn't to be legislated.
You want to legislate your verion of morality, based upon religion.
Won't fly in a country that doesn't even HAVE an official religion.
So you're opposed to freedom from slavery, fair compensation to workers, personal property and trial by jury? Those are all values rooted in Christian philosophy.
You said, "So you're opposed to freedom from slavery, fair compensation to workers, personal property and trial by jury? Those are all values rooted in Christian philosophy."
Complete fucking bullshit.
Just because those values were co-opted and incorporated into your delusion, doesn't make them yours.
Anyone who denies the origination of western law as Judeo-Christian ethic is A. ignorant of history, religion and poliitcs. B. Doesn't understand the concept behind the Separation Clause. The first, I have neither time nor inclination to correct here. The second is simply put that there be no establishment of a state religion, not that religious values be excluded from the law. That would be plain ignorant. So, people who use that argument to restrict religious values from the formation of thought in the Nation are either A. uneducated ignoramuses or B. Disingenuous secularists intent on commandeering the public debate.
There is a difference between denying western law having been heavily influenced by the then prevailing delusion, and accepting that the values you claim are yours.
You said, "Those are all values rooted in Christian philosophy."
"Rooted" as in "having originated from". Yet, none of the values you claimed as christian are originally, or uniquely christian. You don't get to claim them.
I concede the point Lin. Those were hastily grabbed examples which do find historical support outside of Christianity. Would you concede that they gained little or no traction in western culture until they were advocated by the Church?
You said, "Would you concede that they gained little or no traction in western culture until they were advocated by the Church?"
For almost 2 millennia there was virtually no difference between what some or other christian church advocated and what gained traction in western societies. Good or bad, without the blessing of the church, there was little chance of it gaining any traction at all. The church typically made sure of that. Use of force was often a first resort.
So, yes, the church can take credit for advancing certain social progress. But for anything they take credit for, they should expect to receive blame for a social ill. And if they take credit, they should also accept, or better, take that blame.
And while it may not have been your particular flavor of church that deserves the blame for all ills, blame for most ills lays still securely with some or other christian church. With virtually every social issue, if there is a church to advance it, there are plenty to oppose it. It isn't until there is critical mass in favor of progress will the remaining churches grudgingly accept it, often only publicly.
So, while certain churches work for the greater good and genuinely support progress, you'll also find the fiercest opposition in others. To give you an example of a serious social ill where christians are at the root of evil is the hate and bigotry in defending discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country. The continued war on women is another. So was the opposition against civil rights.
Whether the establishment clause actually prohibits incorporation of religious values in secular law, I'll leave to legal scholars. Although I don't see how it could not prohibit it. Here it is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances." (emphasis mine).
To me that clearly means that religious values are prohibited because they interfere with the free exercise of religion for those that don't follow the one that the values were taken from.
But even if the 1st Amendment somehow doesn't prohibit it, that it is wrong to do is beyond question. Before a law can be fair it first has to be rational. A law based on religion is, by definition, irrational.
Forcing sane people to submit to any religious values discriminates against them. So, even if the establishment clause doesn't ban religious values in secular law, the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment does.
If you wish to incorporate your religious values into secular law, I recommend you find rational bases for them.
Every man with a brain should want his female partner to have her insurance co pay for her birth control....I want to see Mr Pizza shelling out money to support these unplanned children and for him to work on allowing Americans to adopt American babies instead of going to Russia, China, and other countries. He talks the talk to RUNS away from walking the walk.
Actually what he runs to (and supports with his own money) is a set of values which supports the birth of children under the canopy of marriage, hard work and personal responsibility with limited government intervention. You should try it.
Bill, quote what the bible says about abortion, and watch this:
Bill Deacon you should try giving birth. That will help you understand why your parasitic offspring in some incomplete state is not the only celllular mass to be concerned about.
Sharon, BD is an RCC brainwashed acolyte. He firmly believe the bullschit they espouse, inconsistencies and all. He cannot refute that which is blatenly false, and cannot explain that which he believes to be true. He is, in short, a religious fool. He likes to make snide remarks, and can never back up his claims. Get him to explain the 'trinity,' and watch him jump through hoops, like Chad does.
He doesn't get to pick the laws he's going to comply with.
He is also doing the same thing you are accusing the gov't of doing: intruding into the lives of his employees.
Render unto Ceasar...
As near as I can tell, Mr. Monaghan has followed the due process of law and won his case. What's the problem?
Anyone who needs information on the catechism is free to google Catholic catechism and find the heading on trinity
He won a temporary stay.
His case hasn't been won; it's still going to go forward, where hopefully the SCOTUS will uphold the ACA, because he is NOT a religion, and he is NOT a church.
I hope every person he's denying that portion of insurance sues HIM.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.