Government 'forcing' II
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
In response to Peg Bittner's letter “Forcing their beliefs” : Peg, are you so confused about the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) that you believe employers will ask about a prospective employee's need for contraceptives, sexual preferences and religious beliefs before considering that person's qualifications? Contraceptives, sterilization and abortions are part of the insurance coverage mandated by the United States government via the ACA.
It is not America's employers who are attempting to force their religious views on prospective employees; rather, it is the government, via ObamaCare, that is forcing employers to violate their religious beliefs and surrender their constitutional rights. Yes, Peg, the mandate does violate the religious beliefs of some corporate or private employers, who have the Constitution's guarantee of the right to exercise their religious beliefs.
You equate benefits of ObamaCare to a large buffet line that allows people to pick and choose what benefits they want. The problem is that the buffet was prepared by government mandate instead of selective choices by the employer. If you do not like what the employer is offering, find one who will satisfy your demands.
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.
- Tragedy sensationalized
- Consequences in space
- Valley musical superb
- Tragedy’s ramifications II
- Deer Lakes drilling OK
- Tragedy’s ramifications I
- Tragedy’s ramifications III
- Resurrection is real
- Dingell’s lesson
- Bike lanes welcome
- Resurrection? Really?