Except federal courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, and even a Mormon gym in regards to Title VII exemptions. I mean, if you have examples of court cases where the Title VII exemption wasn't upheld for a religious employer, I'm more than willing to read the briefs.

It isn't flouting the law if it is encoded in the law. The exception exists to avoid conflicts like say, a person working at a mosque who doesn't believe they need to keep halal and brings baconators into lunch every day. Maybe eating baconators is part of their affiliations and beliefs, but it doesn't mean that the…

What a commercial entity does in regards to employees and what a religious organization does, are two very different things. Which is why Title VII makes exceptions for such organizations.

You're referring to Title VII, but you don't seem aware that religious organizations are exempt from Title VII. Which means that A&E, since they do commerce, could not fire Duck Dynasty Dude based on his religious affiliation, but the Catholic church can.

What they should do and what they should be legally required to do are very different things. Some would argue that A&E should fire that Duck Dynasty guy whose name I refuse to waste my energy on remembering the name of. Some people think that an employer shouldn't have the power to fire somebody for their…

That's a good point, and complicates the matter considerably. However, it complicates the matter in a lot of ways, including the firing of people whose values don't represent the organization's values, viz a viz A&E's (former?) values of inclusiveness for LGBT people.

Honestly, if the employee in some way goes against the employer's values, then why not? That's the exact reasoning I (and many of the people who are replying to me) had when approaching the topic of A&E firing the Duck Dynasty guy whose name I refuse to remember.

Nobody forces anybody to work for the Catholic church. I think it is within their rights to not pay for medicines or procedures that are against their faith. The solution isn't to force them to do that, it's to promote a public option that we should have had decades ago.

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of employees of the Catholic church are laity or non-Catholics. That's why nuns are chiming in, because their employees are the ones who will be covered by (and use) this coverage.

You say you're of two minds, but I think both are compatible. Allow religious organizations to not pay for things which are against their faith and, instead, give Americans a public option like we should have had when Clinton was in office.

That's not really a fair comparison. There's a huge difference between paying for a thing that is against your faith and hiring a person who engages in something against your faith which you do not have to financially support explicitly.

That's sort of what the court does. If it were a body which just went along with the laws that the rest of the government apparatus passed, then sodomy and miscegenation might still be illegal.

Anyone up for forming a religion that states that one is not allowed to employ or provide any benefits or assistance to someone of the christian faith?

I don't think the nuns mentioned in the article are going to be purchasing birth control for themselves, but are concerned about the Catholic church buying birth control for the numerous employees of Catholic schools, universities, and charity organizations who are non-Catholics or members of the laity who take no vow…

I can't imagine many non-Scientologists or non-JWs working for the Church of Scientology or the Jehovah's Witnesses, respectively, but I don't see a problem with either organization not paying for those services for their employees. I'm staunchly in disagreement with them on those things, which is why I would never…

Except you can play as Lara Croft or Samus and Elizabeth is a non-playable character who hides while the man does the fighting.

There's a whole bunch of white, class, and educational privilege up in Jezebel's comment section. A bunch of neoliberal feminism too, which is usually touted by white, class, and educationally privileged feminists.

Of what consequence is it to you? And what's angry about it? I had a professor who celebrated Kwanzaa and there was nothing angry about it for him.

I would also wager that a much larger percentage of Kotaku readers haven't bought a next-gen console.

It's difficult to put a color lens on these accusations when we don't know the race of the accuser.