By that logic, there is a universal requirement if you just define who it actually applies to.

Finally, a rational response. But I'm not sure about the tax implications for a group of nuns. Presumably it's a tax exempt organization. And "reasonable" is a subjective word. Which is why this is ending up in court.

Which may not be an argument you want to make. It's a pretty finite list of what employers cannot fire someone for. Behavior is generally not one of them. You can be legally fired for belonging to the wrong political party. Contraception might be legal grounds for termination. So can you work for someone who can fire you for buying contraception, but force them to pay for it?

Just so we are clear, you do understand that the objection isn't to taxes that are used to pay for subsidies under ACA, right? The contributions to the Treasury aren't at issue. They don't have to make the same contribution either way. Some companies are choosing to not offer any health coverage. A tiny fraction of those that want to also have moral qualms.

Right or wrong, I'd be disappointed if they didn't stand up for what they believe. e.g. I may not agree, but will defend their right to say it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying it. I am saying that that appears to be their argument.

Please argue with the right people.

No difference, if you believe the government and insurance companies are the same. Paying taxes is a universal requirement. Providing insurance to your employees is not a universal requirement.

It's recognized that it is possible to join the army and not carry a weapon. For instance, medics. An exemption for pacifists. So exemptions do have precedent, including volunteer situations.

You can argue government and insurance companies are the same, in which case there is precedent for exemptions. Or you can argue they are different, in which case there are also examples of exemptions. Your choice. I don't really care.

Slight difference. Taxes are spent by the government. Pacifists are not being asked to directly pay soldiers. Insurance payments are made by the employer, not through the government.

In a striking parallel, pacifists are exempted from certain provision of serving in the military that would conflict with their moral belief.

That's what they are arguing: Those that think contraception is wrong shouldn't have to buy it. As employers, they are being told to pay for something they believe is morally wrong. They believe that by being complicit, they risk hell. So they wish to simply not do it. They want to decide what is best for themselves. They don't like that others are dictating to them what they may or may not do.

Sometimes the rights or responsibilities of two people or two groups conflict and has to be hashed out in court.

"Lead additive manufacturing engineers." What a great title for gun makers.

Yes, I know they don't mean Pb. But it would be so much funnier if they did.

I'm hoping they become a third party software and support house for phone manufacturers. Obviously the manufactures don't want to be bothered keeping software updated, but might be willing to offload the work to CM. CM then gets a lump sum to provide OS and updates for x number of years and the manufacturers get to look like heroes to their customers.

Alternately, they become the equivalent to after-market car parts source. For a low cost, you get the replacement parts/software you need soup up your stock car/hardware.

hoping. I said hoping.

You'll laugh, but I'm doing CAD work in the US ... outsourced from China.

Historically, that has a flaw as well. Take a look at public funding of health research vs incidence or prevalence. Completely skewed towards groups that can apply the most pressure on congress (orders of magnitude out of whack). Funding becomes politically motivated rather than "ensuring the well being of the public."

The codes were changed in 1977. WOPR was installed in 1983.

On interesting figure is that in China there are 1.2 billion in China so lots of room for growth as phones come up for replacment

Growth may be not be that great as your stats also show the population has recently shrunk by 150 million.

Maybe they're both less important than not freezing in the dark.

The silver lining to global warming: not freezing in the dark.