decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
There may be other challenges ... | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
There may be other challenges ...
Authored by: jjs on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 06:01 AM EDT
Since faith based organizations (churches) are already
exempt, what is really being debated is at what point does
the move of an exempt organization's activities AWAY from
their clearly exempt activities become "commercial" (thus
subject to the rules) and no longer "faith" (exempt from the
rules). Where do you draw the line? And how?

---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The "faith based" argument has no merit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT
It is well established in the US that religious organizations, apart from bona
fide churches employing bona fide ministers, have no right to force their
non-coreligionist employees to follow their religious strictures. The employer
can believe that Social Security is immoral, but the employer still has to pay
social security tax.

This lawsuit, therefore, should be thrown out with extreme prejudice, and the
people suing should be fined for frivolous arguments.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

There may be other challenges ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT
The EEOC ruled in 2000, based on the Civil Rights Act, that firms over 15
employees could not deny contraception in medical coverage, and that it applied
to religious organizations whose primary focus is not religious education, i.e.
hospitals and charities were subject to the law. Bush consistently backed this
position his entire Presidency whenever the issue presented and I never heard a
squeak. That it is an issue today, when this same interpretation is formally
codified, is ill informed, disingenuous, demagogic, or some combination of them.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )