Skip to main content

View Diary: Keep Your Religion Out Of My Bloody Life (357 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, none of those makes the employer (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stagemom, VClib, emelyn, nancyjones

    buy a product that directly violates his religious beliefs.  

    Here's the difference.  Suppose  the government passed a law that said, every employer with 50 or more employees must provide an on-side cafeteria, and in that cafeteria, they must serve pork once a week because we think pork is healthier than beef.  A Jewish employer absolutely would have a Free Exercise claim there, because he is forced to buy pork.  (As I said, the complicating factor is whether using his business to buy the pork is essentially the same as buying the pork himself.)  But if the government said you have to pay the employee $5 a day stipend for meals, and the employee goes out and spends it whatever way she wants (gambles it away if she wants, but can buy pork if she wants) that would not be a Free Exercise violation.  

    The problem here is that the government forced the employer to buy the product directly.  

    It's one more reason why the system of tying health insurance to employment makes no sense, because it, by definition, involves the employer in the employee's health care.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site