So some inconsistencies pop out at me: first, if the coverage is okay for taxpayers to fund, then presumably the owners of Hobby Lobby, as taxpayers, are still on the hook for some of the cost of the contraceptive coverage they object to, albeit a much smaller proportion.
So paying a smaller amount for that coverage--coverage which it's mandated that *every other for-profit company in the country provide*--is okay?
So if it's cheap enough, religious objections don't matter?
Secondly, why is contraceptive coverage somehow more special than vaccination coverage? The objections to both, I am sure, are equally sincere.
Finally, if one can opt out of paying the government for specific areas where one has a moral objection, I'd like to submit a list of my objections.
A Mennonite couple, Paul and Loretta Leatherman of Lancaster, Pa., have refused to pay war taxes for more than 20 years. While the Court finds objecting to contraceptive coverage is okay, the IRS is always enabled to collect the unpaid war taxes by withdrawing directly from the Leathermans' bank accounts.
Are their objections less real or religious than the owners of Hobby Lobby? After all, Mennonites are one of the groups afforded--by past Court decisions--automatic Conscientious Objector status.
Can anyone help me understand?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to abc_politics_forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment