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.
To Bill Deacon
That a boy, retreat for the night, restore your silly faith and try again tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, try again tomorrow, jesus is just a dream away....
Sounds to me like Molaghan has control issues vs religious. I read his employees could not have facial hair and had to dress a certain way. Is that in the bible? My opinion
Tommi Mohaghan should have a beef with providing the pills ONLY if his employees are having a 'good' time on the clock at his expense. Otherwise, Tommie why stick your nose inside other people's beds ???
Bill Deacon says:
"You are aware that other non-religious groups have been granted exemptions from the AHCA aren’t you? DO you oppose these exemptions?"
Please tell me what companies have claimed an exemption from the contracetptive mandate, and their reason why, so I can look it up and give you an opinion.
Why do you want your gubmint god, by default, in charge of everything? Think it'll work out?
lol?? is a troll , ignore??????is all you will get.
Was I TALKING to you lol??? No, I wasn't. Why don't you GFY? No contraception needed.
Intresting that, The Bill Deacon flees the scene and who enters, the troll lol??, this also happens with his eminence the "CHAD"
poor widdle aki-ra. maybe yer "wegod" can help. vote on it.
Poor little lol. Didn't your mommy breast-feed you? Is that why you're so needy?
lol?? troll much
Monaghan should have noted the following as reasons not to support purchasing Pills and condoms for stupid people:
Only for the new members of this blog:
The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:
: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
The pope says condoms are bad.
To hell with the pope.
If it is acceptable to FORCE people of FAITH to pay for things that they believe will send them to hades:
Will it also be acceptable to FORCE women to undergo abortions?
Will it also be acceptable to FORCE medical personnel to perform abortions?
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
"The congress shall make no law respecting (giving special consideration or privilege to) an
establishment (a belief or practice) of religion, or prohibiting the free (voluntary; un-coerced) exercise therof;"
The INSTANT you FORCE someone to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs, they have lost their freedom to the free exercise of those beliefs.
There is no need for the government to force people of faith to violate their beliefs. BHO has twice proven that he can raise a trillion dollars in one year. That should be more than enough money to pay for all the "women's health care" that violates ANYONES religious beliefs.
Uh...a business is not a church. Peoople who own businesses hire lots of people who don't believe what the owner believes. Too bad. If you don't like the laws, don't do business.
My dear, the employees pay for their benefits with their labour in lieu of compensation. It is the employee's money and the employee's benefits. You do not seriously think employers offer heath care benefits as some sort of gift do you?
Jenny, If that is true why can't the employees get the coverage without involvement of the employer?
Bill, you disgusting piece of stunted slime, they are employment benefits and are part of an employees pay.
You are trying to tell employees how to spend their money. You fail.
You ran away from my question. Did the RCC dump the 2nd commandment into the cathecism so they could sell jesus on a stick, with various colored beads, to the sheepies with a large mark up and nice profit margin. Ka ching.
They are called wages and BENEFITS.
Unless an employer pays WAY over the standard for that job, he's not going to get any long-term employees.
Large employers are wise enough to realize this.
I also wasan't aware that the ACA paid for abortions at all, either; making blank's post rather moot...and the beliefs are USING the meds, not paying for them.
But, whatever, kids.
I'm out of here.
Finally found a RCC church that told it like it is, they had a disclaimer on all entrances "Children entering this facility may be buggered by the clergy, we claim no responsibility for these actions, call Ratzinger in the vatican, if you have a complaint."
Surprise you've been teetering on the edge of decent correspondence but finally fell into the pit of your own filth
"Surprise you've been teetering on the edge of decent correspondence but finally fell into the pit of your own filth"
pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot.
Thanks Billy, was wondering when you would get around to noticing. I thought you might have noticed when I stated that it is a basic instinct of all mamals to reproduce the species. Now what kind of strange belief would make that basic instinct a sin, or a requirment to join the fraternity? Keeping the wealth and power of the scam going, is my opinion, what is yours? After all, the vicar of christ on earth wears gucci, rides in a mercedes, has a butler (how well did that work out), eats fresh fish on Friday, I could go on, but why bother.
Got to tell you Billy, that in the real world even among you christians, there has not been a lot of turning the other cheek, it is all myth. Slaughter the heathen, kill the heretics, burn the witches, I am probably missing a few in the history of ever so loving christians. So we come to the modern day, discriminate against gays (unless they are RCC ordained gays) can't let them guys and gals get married, abortion and the killing of an embryo is forbidden but when asked when an in vitro embryo can be killed, no reasonable explanation. Get your sh it together Billy, why would you believe if you are not brainwashed beyond redemption?
We force pacafists to pay for wars they don't believe in, we force people who don't believe in public education to pay for public schools, we force environmentalists to pay for roads they don't believe should be built. If we tried to run society on a voluntary payment system we wouldn't get far.
Bill Deacon...A scenario...
Your Eminence... another of our Deacon's has been associacted with a child por nography ring here is a copy of the evidence they have against him, let me play it for you.
His Eminence... Oh yes..oh ..jes...
Also, I'm pretty sure we're all paying for all these wars of the past decade and many find war to be morally reprehensible. So cry me a river.
Funny how convenient Billy D's convictions are. He's all het up over his notion that the Consti tution is being ignored when it comes to this issue, but he wants to force women to get pregnant and give birth.
Just a bit of a cognitive dissonance there, Billy.
Do you always wear a rubber, Billy? Do you expect women to do without any contraception? Why shouldn't health insurance cover such a basic need when 98% of women use contraception at some point in their lives, and spend 75% of their reproductive years trying NOT to have more children than they can afford to raise.
I don't care whether the owners have a bug up their asses about this medication or any other. They can either shut up and swallow it or get out. This country doesn't operate under religious law. Their religious freedom is NOT being infringed upon. They can continue not to use contraception. They cannot use their beliefs to justify breaking the law.
If you can make an argument about it, Billy, go do so in front of the SCOTUS.
Tuti, Tommy sayz, ".........Do you always wear a rubber, Billy?........." Not to worry. The Big O is one step ahead of ya, toots, with his shovel ready jobs corp. He on a hiring binge and is gonna make a subsidiary of the FDIC called the FD(R)ubberC. With the idea of capturing the synergistic progressive proactive prophylactics firmly at the forefront of Athena's birthplace always in remembrance, he is bound to succeed. The management model of having a parent guarantees his interest and maybe a little fun on the side, like past presidents you see on yer bills. There is room for volunteers (must be neighborly) for his Civil Rubber Patrol, modeled after the Civil Air Patrol, for people with a keen eye on what happens in OP's bedrooms. Unlimited budgets are the order of the day.
Good morning all. Thanks for all the attention while I was away. Anyone care to discuss the American Pulverizer case? It's a great day for freedom in America
Why is da gubmint afwaid to take on the AMA for controlling the supply of doctors? Kickbacks perchance? It's easier to bully the little guy.
I'm pretty sure that 'kickbacks' is the answer to every question unfortunately. Especially when it comes to why the government does what they do lol. I could be the giant super computer in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy haha
It is the states that control the licensing of doctors. You really should read up on stuff you want to talk about.
Guess no atheist will call you out. There aren't enuff to take the test, silly.
Where you go wrong is to start with the christian philosophy of worker's rights. The christian philosophy of anything has no place in this discussion, I understand it is where you derive your personal beliefs, but your personal beliefs are not enough for the entire population and you require something other than biblical ideals or christian philosophers to justify something as good for all.
Forget about the cost of birth control.. this could be about any health care procedure that a religious groups doesn't like or agree with.
The employer is offering compensation. Dollars. Be it in a benefits plan or money. How those dollars are spent by those who earn it has NO bearing on the employer in the LEAST. It does not give the employer the right to redefine terms established by the medical community based on their own ideals. Your lunchroom scenario is only analogous if you are offering lunch in lieu of compensation. What if I offered you a benefits plan that included lunch, but my own definition of lunch is a steaming pile of you know what. Am I giving you lunch? Do you deserve to have your salary reduced because I'm going to provide you with my own definition of lunch? Isn't my definition of lunch fair compensation for a reduction in salary that correlates with the cost of an actual hot lunch?
Well you are free to strike the word Christian from it but that is, in fact, where worker's rights thought stems. The concept applies nonetheless. Your argument presupposes that the benefits package is the property of the employee and not the employer. While the actual benefits may be, I'm not convinced that the choice of plan is. I also agree with your description of how a lunch might deteriorate. But, by the same token, should you be allowed to order filet, lobster and caviar because the government decides it's good for you? My main objection remains, that employers should be free to offer what ever compensation package they deem attracts suitable employees and that the government has no stake in determining the terms of those arrangements beyond a reasonable oversight especially when they religious convictions of one party are jeopardized.
I wonder what a good lawyer would think about putting the whole argument into the "wages and compensation" category would thing strategically. I can't quickly find anything that tells me when my benefits transfer into my property. IN any case, I thank you for one of the best and politest discussions I've ever enjoyed on this board. We'll take it up again after I've done a little homework.
Bill, the employees are paying for the benefits. You don't get to tell the employees how to spend their wages.
You don't have a choice about any other paycheck deductions, like unemployment insurance, Medicare, and Social Security.
Those are also paid by the employee, yet you have no problem with those? You are so stupid.
Then why isn't there a AHCA window on my paystub and a government agency administering the benefits?
Because you are getting paid by a hate group and probably don't get a paystub.
Please, Bill, is there ever a time when you won't lie?
You lie all over the place, not just "mein herr there are no jews here" crap.
No one is hunting Jews here, Bill, yet you keep lying.
You have no defense against the truth, Bill. Lying is not a defense.
So if by excluding business' from covering these options based on the owners belief system aren't they violating the freedom of religion in the US by not providing these options to their employees that have a different system or do they discriminate and only employee those of the same system?
No, they would be guilty if they were preventing their employees from acquiring such a product. They are not. They are merely declining to pay for it directly through the company provided plan. You can agree that no one is keeping people from getting access to birth control can't you?
Bill is a liar, don't bother answering. You'll just get more twisted lies.
Nana, it is absolutely using their beliefs, and that is one of the reasons it will lose, because he is deciding what medications to cover, based on his religious beliefs. He states it in his plaintiff's case.
So then it's perfectly sound for an insurance company to provide coverage based upon THEIR PLANS?
Oh, do let me rephrase:
You are going to define who are "really and truly religious?”
In any case, this is between those women and their God, and none of your business; it does put to rest you blanket statement about atheists, because these women could have easily identified themselves as such, and didn’t.
And, as I illustrated above, 83% of women getting abortions identified themselves as Christians, MEANING, the other 17% identify themselves as other religions, or atheists.
Stop the blanket generalizations.
I do assure you, plenty of those good old fashioned church going, God-fearing wimmins are popping the pill.
Akira, "In any case, this is between those women and their God"
That is a problem, "their God" is. Our God dares be the determining factor of monotheism therefore my God and "their God" should be the "same God"! Do you really 'think' that a God of all ages would see fit for any woman to willingly abort one of God's buildings or even temples which are our bodies? Therefore IF a woman aborts a God-conceptualized building of a body solely based upon material necessity or financial concerns, should such a choice not be reconciled by God's judgment? The mind ia easily persuaded thru conscious thoughts on what others do infer a pregnant mother for deciding to abort based upon financial and/or material concerns and also upon a to be child's up-rearing.
It has always been about Our God and not your or my God!
Liony, please elaborate.
I don't get what you mean.
@Bill, In the US, unless you are young and have no pre-existing conditions you cannot get independent health insurance at a price most people can afford. So for all practical purposes, a provider that doesn't provide adequate insurance is denying it to their employees. It may not matter in the case of birth control which is relatively inexpensive, but if this were a life saving cancer treatment it would matter a lot, and the principle is the same.
Lionly, let me rephrase once again, since you insist on being disingenuous and willfully misinterpreting what I am saying.
It is between them and God, not them and YOU.
YOU don't GET to decide what is truly religious, except for yourself.
I'm done with your deliberate misdirection.
Yes, a woman's issue regarding abortion and God is a woman's right and IF a woman desires to abort one of God's building/child, it is her prerogative and said person has to live with their decision. Our society has become bereft of conscience and heartless when women treat a new life soon to be as immaterial clumps of flesh. The deed weighs in more than the potential consequences of the Act. Yes, I've been celibate and have no desires of fleshly concerns anymore.
That does not mean I am not concerned with people's Acts. The pre-zygote day-after pills seems the way for women to go and even the contraceptives of monthly pills as well. But for an abortion of an after-zygote conception seems very disheartening to the very natures of Life's creative prowess!
So, I've been on here all day and no one has offered a response to my question:
What is the philosophical justification for extracting a benefit, which is affordable and readily available, from a group who is morally opposed to that benefit and conferring onto another group?
The justification is that employees are paying for the benefits plan from their labour, in lieu of monetary compensation. So why would the religious beliefs of anyone that is not paying for the plan have any bearing on how the term health care is defined and how the person who paid for the plan via their labour uses it?
"which is affordable and readily available, from a group who is morally opposed to that benefit and conferring onto another group?"
Why don't you think about civil rights that might help you answer your question. Many people were morally opposed to blacks getting their freedom and rights but the laws changed, pushing this belief onto those that opposed it.
1)Because HE is deciding it, noit the employees it covers, and
2) He is not a church or a non-for-profit organization.
It's been answered many times; you just don't like the answer.
You right Akira. I do not like the answer which sounds like Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Jenny, thank you, I think you have posted the most reasonable response. I don't agree with it, but at the moment, I don't have a counter argument. I think I could support your argument if the employer had the option not to participate and was offered an alternate method of compliance that balanced his need for religious conviction with the employees demand for the benefit. Even so, I frankly see no place for government intervention in setting the terms.
Philosophical justifications upon a people who do not seem fit enough to parlor toward justifiable philosophies seems to me to be the issue at hand. Societal leveraging via federalist compensatory actions is making our nation into being a socialistic capitalist country wherewith rights of the individual are based more and more upon social issues leaving the individual to choose between their socialized rights and not individualist rights.
HAHAHA LL And people call you crazy.
Bill Deacon is a lying traitor who thinks he is above the laws. He also hates the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Bill is a sleaze.
Hey, I'll be the first to agree that the government is FAR too involved in every aspect of society and we are too used to being babysat by authority and have forgotten true freedom. But, currently, it is what it is, and I don't enjoy special rules for special groups.
Also, I replied to our other conversation and it ended up at the top of this page for some reason. Probably operator error :p
You are aware that other non-religious groups have been granted exemptions from the AHCA aren't you? DO you oppose these exemptions?
I oppose all exceptions that violate anyone's Constltutional rights. This healthcare act doesn't violate your rights, Bill.
You keep lying and refuse to stop. You are one of the lowest forms of scum on the planet.
Only atheists congenially wrapped with a smattering of social cynicisms will coagulate their clotting of perverseness and ridicule upon the political meanderings of socialized healthcare issues. The more socialists dare rise up the least measures of individualized choices will there be. The USA seems to be on the path to socialistic capitalism where freedoms of choices cannot be the resolve of one's individualism regarding their owned rights of freedom weighed choices but rather communal based choices meant to be socialistic and not individualistic in naturalistic considerations of individualisms as once recognized by our country's founders.
Uh oh. Someone threw up their word salad again. Look like they had some Domino's pizza as well.
Well, that's not quite true, because:
Women who obtain abortion represent every religious affiliation. 43% of women obtaining abortion identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic; and 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians.
Stop generalizing. You're wrong.
LL is the belief blog idiot because of their drivel ramblings.
If and that's IF women who have abortions or use contraceptives, are they really and truly religious or,,, ?
The bread-N-butter says they are not truly religious yet are only atheists in drag of religious orientations.
You are going to define what is "truly religious?"
In any case, this is between those women and their God, and none of your business; it does put to rest you blanket statement about atheists, because these women could have easily identified themselves as such, and didn't.
I wrote, "are they really and truly religious or,,,?" but you chose to tap my wordage via singling out "truly religious" leaving out "really" and "or". I am well aware "some" women want to choose their child rearing times by aborting those who do not fit in the program of their life wants. The suffrages of child-birthing determinations does weigh mightily heavy upon a woman's mind whenever the unwanted one's rear up unexpectedly due their promiscuities of wanton Acts and actions known to be a creative conscript for life. :-(
I plan to choose pizza from other restaurants rather than Dominos – I do not wish to patronize organizations who do not support women's healthcare needs as decided between the woman and her health care provider.
What is to stop any company owner from converting to christian science and offering a christian scientist health care plan that includes nothing but prayer?
Nothing. It's called "no employer paid benefits"
And they'll be right back into court because they will be breaking the law if they have 50 or more employees and are a business that makes profits.
Others on this board have agreed that "Because we said so." is not a justifiable reason
Neither is "because my church said it was wrong."
a very good point, and they are not the only ones who believe in prayer over medicine. If it is a secular company, a for-profit company – they need to comply to the health care bill.
Akira do you really not understand that it may be right for you but wrong for me? In that case, I would rather not have to pay. But you have never offered any argument other than "we are going to force you to pay"
These are not employer-paid benefits. They will come out of the employees pay as usual.
It won't hurt any employer a bit. This is a bribery scheme and Monaghan is going to prison.
I agree FedUp and that is one of my main points, the employees are truly paying for it, it is not a gift from employers because they are so nice. It is compensation for employment. How employees use their compensation for employment should not be up to the religious definition of the employer. As well it should not affect the employer's morals any more than how employee's spend their regular cash income does.
One of these days the religious right is going to have to understand that it's called 'not getting your way', not a war on religion. Living in a society means having to compromise, and they're choosing to nitpick the crap out of something they don't even understand. They 'believe' the morning after pill may cause abortions. They're wrong. But because they've convinced themselves and believe they're right, we get grandstanding BS like this.
The laws are trying to provide the broadest equal coverage to everyone. That's not going to work for everyone. That's what happens.
Domino's founder Tom Monaghan sold the company in 1998 and today has no active affiliation with our company. The media often neglect to note this fact. 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. This lawsuit does not involve Domino's Pizza.
Monaghan is still controlling the company. He appears in their commercials, he is the landlord for many Dominos pizza buildings, and he OWNS a 7 percent STAKE in Dominos Pizza AT THIS VERY MOMENT!!!
Why lie about this? Let me guess: You are a Catholic apologist who loves to lie. A pathological liar. That's you.
this is very disturbing. so would this judge rule that a biz owned by someone who belongs to a religious group that does not believe in any medical care could then assert they have the right to deny any medical insurance to their employees because their religious beliefs would be interfered with?
If so, if your religious beliefs indicate girls should not be educated, are you then exempt from paying any local or state taxes specifically designated as, for example, mil levies for schools that educate both boys and girls- because it interferes with your religious practice?
this is a bad decision.
Bill, the argument is, it is health care. Whether religious groups like it or not, something dealing with women's bodies is about their HEALTH. If you let religious groups define what health care is.. there will be employees not able to get their insulin because they have a muslim employer who is against consuming pork. What if I am a rastafarian and decide that pot is an essential part of health care.. can I demand it be covered?
I will never defend anything under the guise of 'because its the law'
What religious rights are being lost by the employer? Are they forced to take birth control themselves? What is the difference to the employer between an employee using their benefits as compensation to access the health care they see fit, and an employee just taking some money they earned from the employer and purchasing birth control?
You're making the argument "because its good" If the employees think it is good, they have every right to provide it for themselves. There is no compelling reason to make someone else pay for it.
" If the employees think it is good, they have every right to provide it for themselves. There is no compelling reason to make someone else pay for it."
Then ALL of health care should be payed by individual people and not the employer. Privatize it all.
Now you sound like an American
I don't think I'm making that argument. I'm making the argument that it is more of an infringement to allow religion to redefine terms affecting the public, that should be left to the medical community, than it is to allow people to use their own compensation as they see fit. There is no loss of religious right for employers to allow employees to use the compensation they earned as they want.
I still haven't heard an argument about what makes an employer more personally invested in an employee's use of their own compensation when it is in the form of benefits, compared to straight money used by the employee.
Maybe that would be a good question to pose to the supporters of the AHCA Jenny. Why can't the employers just pay a little more wages and allow the employee to provide their own coverage?
"Now you sound like an American"
And you're clueless about the cost of health care and the fact that the cost is out of reach for most Americans, it's why small companies don't offer it. Now use your brain and ask yourself why Obama Care became necessary in the first place.
"Why can't the employers just pay a little more wages and allow the employee to provide their own coverage?"
The fact you have to pose the question shows you don't understand the issue.
So your argument is "I can't afford it but you can. So give it to me."?
That's not my question, it's Jenny's
Employers had a chance to do that Bill. They were free at any time to pay employees enough to arrange their own healthcare. However, when the world's largest employers are unwilling to pay their employees enough to have the basics in life of food, shelter and medical care, the employees turn to the taxpayers, while the company owners rail against the 'socialism' that is tax payer funded medical care. It wasn't sustainable. There isn't enough tax money to pay for profitable employer's costs of employment.
Just answer me this one question that I keep asking and perhaps I missed your response...
Why does what employees spend their own compensation on matter to the employer's immortal soul when it is in the form of a benefits plan, but does not matter in the form of cash money?
"So your argument is "I can't afford it but you can. So give it to me."?"
Again, your showing you don't understand the issue. Why did the health care issue go to congress in the first place?
Jenny, I've tried a couple of different ways to answer that but here is another. Under the Christian philosophy of workers rights, when you provide labor to another person, you are entiitled to compensation which becomes your personal property. What you do with that property is your business and no one elses., including the governments. It's a little disingenuous to say that American businesses don't pay enough wages for people to buy their own birth control but we'll let that slide. The difference being that an employer proved health care plan is furnished at the employers behest. Therefore, the content of that plan is dependent on the value judgments of the employer. Just like if your employer offered a lunch court they would be responsible for the food they provided , but you are free to eat what you want when you pay for your own.
huh, I have no idea where your heading but if you would care to make statement, I'd be glad to take a look at it. I suppose the quick answer is Obama offered his best approximation of national health care in order to gain political favor from liberals and popular support from people who think someone else is going to pay for their benefits.
Bill, your Christian bullsht philosophy has nothing to do with our laws. Your religion DOES NOT trump any law here in the USA.
I suggest you quit lying or go somewhere else. You suck.
Bill, yet again you're trying to make it 'either/or'. That's not going to work.
The laws are trying to provide the broadest equal coverage to everyone. That's not going to work for everyone. That's what happens. Not everything that doesn't conform to someone's beliefs is 'liberal'. The religious right can kick and scream all they like, but the law of the land is not built just for any one group.
Suck it up, buttercup!
If you are a christian i want no part of christianity. My opinion and thank you!
No more purchases from Domino's for this family.
A person's health insurance coverage is something that is deducted from their pay...it is wages and as such should purchase the insurance they need...not what is the employers religion. I look for this to fail as it moves through higher courts.
yeah the pizza sux too
Look carefully at that picture. That's what a sack of human refuse looks like. Smiling that he doesn't have to pay slightly more for employees to work for him.
He looks like the smug, self-righteous little prig he is.
Birth control actually saves money. If it were for public image, insurance companies would charge companies more for not covering bith c ontrol or abortion.
Well, time never to order dominoes again.
Not only didn't read the article, hasn't read the posts correcting others.
Bill Deacon is a bald-faced liar. He knows Monaghan still owns a 7 percent stake in the company, knows Monaghan's property-holding company is the landlord to many Dominos Pizza buildings, and knows that Monaghan still appears in Dominos Pizza commercials.
Bill Deacon is a Catholic liar who loves lying to cover up any crimes of other Catholics. An apologist. A liar.
So your landlord determines your beliefs?
"So your landlord determines your beliefs?"
Many influence your beliefs you can't smoke in some places, can't have a BBQ, can't have pets, have to show proof of insurance, can't paint the walls, can't remodel it, etc. So yes it would impose on some peoples beliefs, just like city ordinances do and judicial laws.
So if we allow landlords to require conformity on some issues why shouldn't we on this one?
So what hate group are you a part of, Bill? Why not share it with us so we can move on to better things?
I hate buying poison for people to put in their bodies
I hate children being raised without both parents in the home
I hate the seexual objectification of women because it's "safe and easy"
I hate the enslavement of workers by the inflationary power of fiat currency
I hate the fact that some people mayl never know the love of Jesus because of something I may say or do
"I hate children being raised without both parents in the home"
I think you needed a coma in that sentence. You do realize the divorce rate is highest among Christians.
Okay, Bill, two questions for you:
1. Why do you think lying is okay?
2. What is the name of your group?
I think lying is okay when it serves a higher purpose than telling the truth would. As in "No mein herr there are no Jewish people in the basement." Or some derivative.
It's no secret that I am a devout Catholic, American tax paying citizen and political libertarian with a job who lives within my means. Oh and as I've admitted to TT on this blog, my wife has had an abortion against my wishes and she passed way this past Thanksgiving.
Now could you please remove the lamp from my face?
But what is the hate group's name that you are a part of, Bill?
You haven't answered my second question.
For that matter, Bill, you haven't answered my first question, either.
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;
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.