Forcing their beliefs
Before the U.S. Supreme Court hears the cases on private corporations, religious organizations and ObamaCare's contraception-coverage mandate for employers, I would like a different side to be examined.
First of all, when potential new employees go for interviews, will they have to be more concerned about their personal opinions on use of birth control than about their credentials for the positions they are pursuing? Are companies going to start hiring based solely on people's religious standing and not on their competency for jobs? The quality of the nation's work will take a downward spiral when employers hire based on beliefs instead of skill and ability.
Think of this as a very large buffet line. You have all those benefits; you and everyone else gets to use whatever benefit you need. That decision is made by you and your situation, not the employer, and not the clergy at church. You decide on your personal care!
Why is this responsibility being turned over to people who have no business being that involved in your personal life? Why then are the Catholic Church and private employers forcing their beliefs on us, when all we want is to provide for our families?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Wolf is the right choice
- Watson in 33rd
- Gross in 45th
- Don’t fall for Wolf’s tax scheme
- Deepening divide
- Positive promise
- ObamaCare solution