You ask: “As an employer cannot compel a person to do something against their religious beliefs, are you saying the government should not be held to the same standard as the other institutions?”

I answer: Apples and oranges. As noted above, here is the law under the First Amendment as explained by the courts: The First Amendment precludes the government from enacting and implementing a law aiming at a particular religion, but DOES NOT preclude the government from enacting a law generally applicable to everyone and enforcing that law on everyone, INCLUDING THOSE WHO MAY OBJECT ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. So the answer its “yes,” the government can enforce the law’s anti-discrimination provisions against even those with religious objections.

The only question we are now discussing is whether the government ought, as a favor, provide an exemption or otherwise adjust the law so conscientious objectors are not obligated to act contrary to their beliefs. The government sometimes does this if it can do so without compromising the primary purposes of the law. Here, my point is that there is no need for a special exemption because the law already provides conscientious objectors with a way to both follow the law (i.e., refrain from offering health plans and pay assessment instead) and not act contrary to their beliefs.

Some, though, are working themselves into a lather in the mistaken belief that the law forces employers to do something contrary to their religious beliefs.

Contrary to your assertion, the law has worked just fine for the last 230+ years while recognizing the government cannot infringe on the rights of people to practice a held and established religious belief.

As an employer cannot compel a person to do something against their religious beliefs, are you saying the government should not be held to the same standard as the other institutions?

You keep trying to say there is no problem with the institution failing to cover certain parts of the mandated care simply because they can not provide the care and then pay a fine.

What you fail to realize is that is not a solution. It puts the institutions in the unconscionable and unConstitutional position of being forced to do something against their religious beliefs or paying for someone else to do something against their religious beliefs. Either way the institution is forced to act in a manner that is contrary to their deeply held, well established and widely recognized religious beliefs.

If the government can do that, then there is no limit to what the government can do in forcing people of faith to go against their religious beliefs.

You seem to suppose that we’re talking about the employers’ constitutionally protected “rights” or “freedom of religion.” We’re not. As explained in my initial comment, the law establishes that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning traffic, pollution, taxes, contracts, fraud, negligence, crimes, discrimination, employment, and on and on) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Were it otherwise and people could opt out of this or that law with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate. Thus, the government lawfully can forbid discrimination against specified people and apply that law even to those who say their religion allows or requires them to discriminate.

What we’re talking about now is whether and to what extent the government should, as a matter of policy, choose to accommodate conscientious objectors by fashioning the law so as to avoid or minimize the prospect that they may be forced to act contrary to their beliefs. The government is under no legal obligation to do so.

Here, the law does not force anyone to undergo or accept any medical services, such as abortion or contraception. Nor does it force anyone to provide such services to others. Nor does it force anyone even to provide health plans that afford such services to those who want them. The law allows those with conscientious objections to such services simply to pay money (assessments) to the government. Period. Whew! Success! Conscientious objection avoided. No one is forced to act contrary to their beliefs–unless someone argues, I suppose, that their religion opposes paying money to the government (in which case, I think they are out of luck, as no government is going to let people excuse themselves from paying assessments, taxes, and such with the excuse their religion allows or requires it). All of us pay the government money (that is how it works) and, I dare say, nearly all of us could point to one or more things that the government does that we find objectionable, even immoral; if that alone sufficed to justify each of us to refuse to pay money to the government, well . . . you see that would pretty much be the end of it. So, no, the government cannot and should not go that far to accommodate the ethical qualms of those who don’t like this or that law or government action.

The institutions should not have to provide or fund that which is against their religious and moral beliefs.

It appears to me that you are not willing to see that when a institution has to pay the government for something they choose not to do based on religious objections, you don’t consider that a fine.

Such an assertion is flatly ridiculous on its face.

“Go against your beliefs or pay us a fine” is not a choice at all.

The true answer is to let those who object to being forced to do something or pay a fine to swim in the freedom of market choice and freedom of association. We should allow them to practice their religion and beliefs as they see fit in accordance with the First Amendment.

You aren’t against that, are you?

It appears to me that you are reading burdens into this law that just aren’t there in order to justify the outrage you seem committed to feeling. The law, at the end of the day, affords a conscientious objector the choice not to provide employees with health plans (parts of which the employer finds offensive) and, instead, simply pay money to the government. Whew! Objectors’ moral quandary avoided–that is, unless you’re going to tell me the employer has a religion that opposes paying money to the government.