Aids Treatment? Circumcision? Moral Objections?

[HockeyMom]

An employer could object to these based on their moral objections. An employer believe gays are immoral and can refuse to pay for Aids treatment? Yes, I know not just gays get Aids, but under that Blunt/Rubio bill ANY employer could refuse to cover treatments for anyone.

Then there is circumcision. We saw this in SF a while ago. With this one whose morals, religion, or medical treatment, trumps WHOSE?

Don't EMPLOYEES have their right of relligious beliefs, and MEDICAL TREATMENTS, too? Just from a legal basis what makes this law so bad, it is that it is TOO BROAD.

Employers can play DOCTOR. Oh, just imagine the LAWSUITS on this.

[The Blue Flower]

1. No legal justification

Why should employers rights trump those of an employee?

[valerief]

2. Cuz they got the $$$$ and what are rights against $$$$ in America, Land of the McGreedy? nt