*shaking head*

[henry quirk]

"Surely the benefit they offer is healthcare insurance?"

Yep, but the owner is the contractor of service, not the employee.

As the 'owner', he or she or they should decide the nature, depth, and breadth of services offered.

#

"The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees."

I disagree.

The issue boils down to: can employees force an employer to provide a benefit said employer finds morally repugnant?

#

"The Court has said yes in general."

Nope.

All the SC said is that a closely held company (one not publically traded; one owned by one or a few) cannot be forced to offer a product or service the owner(s) of the company find morally reprehensible.

#

My own view (again): 'Never saw how the whole HL thing was a religious issue (was disingenuous to frame it as such). Seems to me: HL (as business) is the property of the owners who can use their property as they see fit (including deciding how much to pay employees and/or deciding what benefits to offer). That is: it's a property rights issue.'

I believe a bad precedent was set (though, obviously, not for the same reason you folks think).