they are waging a multi-pronged battle against LGBT rights, not on substantive moral grounds but on the premise that equality for gays restricts the religious liberty of Christians to discriminate against them.
Assuming the facts as stated, that is substantive moral grounds. Religious liberty is a political and moral issue.
Its not just religious liberty either. Even assuming for the sake of argument that opposition to, lack of recognition of, or refusal to support or participate in, homosexual marriage/weddings is bigotry; even assuming the great nonsense that refusal to do the same for contraception or abortion is bigotry; bigots have rights too. (And now I'll now toss out those temporary assumptions of bigotry.)
The truth, as the Supreme Court held, is that health insurance is now a kind of tax.
The individual mandate. (Also a big stretch by the court.)
Besides, this is a slippery slope. Suppose a business is owned by Christian Scientists, who object to many forms of modern medicine. Should that business’s employees be deprived of health insurance entirely?
Not providing it for them, isn't depriving them of it, any more than not providing enormous salaries to them can reasonable be seen as "depriving" them of millionaire status.
But answering the question despite the biased distorted wording - Yes, any employer (including totally secular employers) should be able to choose not to provide insurance as part of its compensation, or to provide insurance without certain types of coverage.
Some on the far right may sincerely believe their liberties are being threatened, but they believed that about desegregation too.
It's true now, and it was true of parts of the desegregation effort as well. The current situation provides much less justification for the encroachment on liberty. |
