|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 30, 2014 19:37:13 GMT -8
You won't pay for my hamburger therefore you are forcing me to be as vegetarian. "Doc, I have health insurance through work, can I have this medication I need?" "No, I'm sorry, your corporation has decided that that medication doesn't conform to their moral code." That happens all the time. Insurance doesn't cover everything.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2014 19:58:55 GMT -8
"Doc, I have health insurance through work, can I have this medication I need?" "No, I'm sorry, your corporation has decided that that medication doesn't conform to their moral code." That happens all the time. Insurance doesn't cover everything. You're claiming that before today, corporations decided and provided medical coverage based on moral beliefs "all the time"? That's what you just said.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2014 20:58:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jul 1, 2014 2:09:27 GMT -8
Thanks. More later but when fid contraceptives become a "health right?" In my day, we were careful and/or used a rubber or she had a contraption or pill. If we still failed, we'd scrape up money for an abortion or decide to carry it. It was never a right. That underpins the rest of your argument. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards Is Viagra a health right? Is blood pressure medication or insulin a health right? It seems you are okay allowing your employers moral code to determine which particular conditions they'll insure. So be it, if that's what you're comfortable with. Of course, this ruling doesn't really affect your choices, so you don't mind. What if the new drug needed to save your life was the result of stem cell research? Could your employer say "nah, sorry"? Conservatives get blinded by their views on abortion and miss what this ruling is really saying. And really, conservatives thoughts on abortion shouldn't mean much anyway - don't want an abortion, don't have one, but stay out of other's lives and don't bring the government into doctor's offices. Pretty big strawman and leap of logic there. I never spoke on other meds but since you brought it up, life saving drugs like insulin? Please. Huge strawman there. Viagra and contraceptives aren't in the same discussion and neither should be mandated. As for stem cell research, that is completely, talking about research behind meds that isn't even part of this discussion and plays into your hysterics. Your strawman really takes the argument well beyond the issue. Perhaps after work I can add to my earlier comments and respond more. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2014 9:40:16 GMT -8
I find it ironic that liberals are all up in arms because a corporation is acting with moral beliefs when it is the liberals who are always up in arms because corporations don't act with morals. They are always the ones who place human morals on corporations. They are greedy. They don't care. They support this or that because they this or that. Now the liberals are crying that it is a corporation and it shouldn't have morals...or at least only morals they they decide are correct.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 1, 2014 9:41:52 GMT -8
Is Viagra a health right? Is blood pressure medication or insulin a health right? It seems you are okay allowing your employers moral code to determine which particular conditions they'll insure. So be it, if that's what you're comfortable with. Of course, this ruling doesn't really affect your choices, so you don't mind. What if the new drug needed to save your life was the result of stem cell research? Could your employer say "nah, sorry"? Conservatives get blinded by their views on abortion and miss what this ruling is really saying. And really, conservatives thoughts on abortion shouldn't mean much anyway - don't want an abortion, don't have one, but stay out of other's lives and don't bring the government into doctor's offices. Pretty big strawman and leap of logic there. I never spoke on other meds but since you brought it up, life saving drugs like insulin? Please. Huge strawman there. Viagra and contraceptives aren't in the same discussion and neither should be mandated. As for stem cell research, that is completely, talking about research behind meds that isn't even part of this discussion and plays into your hysterics. Your strawman really takes the argument well beyond the issue. Perhaps after work I can add to my earlier comments and respond more. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards You don't like the conclusion, so you dodged and said my argument is a strawman? Remember, it isn't up to you or me to determine which drugs or treatments are in the same category - it is now up to your employer. If that employer determines that a drug created through stem cell research is immoral, you are now subject to that discretion. If an employer thinks soft dicks should stay that way because it's god's will for old people to stop having sex, you are now subject to that moral view. It isn't a strawman - it is what the SCOTUS just ruled.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2014 9:43:30 GMT -8
That happens all the time. Insurance doesn't cover everything. You're claiming that before today, corporations decided and provided medical coverage based on moral beliefs "all the time"? That's what you just said. I never said anything about moral beliefs. I said corporations decided what to cover and not cover.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2014 9:48:24 GMT -8
Thanks. More later but when fid contraceptives become a "health right?" In my day, we were careful and/or used a rubber or she had a contraption or pill. If we still failed, we'd scrape up money for an abortion or decide to carry it. It was never a right. That underpins the rest of your argument. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards Is Viagra a health right? Is blood pressure medication or insulin a health right? It seems you are okay allowing your employers moral code to determine which particular conditions they'll insure. So be it, if that's what you're comfortable with. Of course, this ruling doesn't really affect your choices, so you don't mind. What if the new drug needed to save your life was the result of stem cell research? Could your employer say "nah, sorry"? Conservatives get blinded by their views on abortion and miss what this ruling is really saying. And really, conservatives thoughts on abortion shouldn't mean much anyway - don't want an abortion, don't have one, but stay out of other's lives and don't bring the government into doctor's offices. That is so much bull. If my employer did not cover me at all, I would not be upset in the least. It would just be part of my calculation on total reimbursment. If I could find a job where I got a better return, I might change jobs.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 1, 2014 9:50:54 GMT -8
I find it ironic that liberals are all up in arms because a corporation is acting with moral beliefs when it is the liberals who are always up in arms because corporations don't act with morals. They are always the ones who place human morals on corporations. They are greedy. They don't care. They support this or that because they this or that. Now the liberals are crying that it is a corporation and it shouldn't have morals...or at least only morals they they decide are correct. Shouldn't a "Christian" corporation acting on "morals" not import Chinese products made through slave labor? Or do morals only count when forcing beliefs onto women employees?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2014 10:05:34 GMT -8
I find it ironic that liberals are all up in arms because a corporation is acting with moral beliefs when it is the liberals who are always up in arms because corporations don't act with morals. They are always the ones who place human morals on corporations. They are greedy. They don't care. They support this or that because they this or that. Now the liberals are crying that it is a corporation and it shouldn't have morals...or at least only morals they they decide are correct. Shouldn't a "Christian" corporation acting on "morals" not import Chinese products made through slave labor? Or do morals only count when forcing beliefs onto women employees? This proves my point. You want corporations to act morally.
The government doesn't force companies to import products derived slave labor. That is the issue.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 1, 2014 10:25:09 GMT -8
Shouldn't a "Christian" corporation acting on "morals" not import Chinese products made through slave labor? Or do morals only count when forcing beliefs onto women employees? This proves my point. You want corporations to act morally.
The government doesn't force companies to import products derived slave labor. That is the issue. That is not the issue, no matter how much you want it to be. The issue is, and the law has now been interpreted as, corporations being allowed discretion to make health choices for (female) employees based on judgement of morality. That is the only issue. It has yet to be seen how far they are allowed to creep into other issues under the guise of religion. My point on Chinese labor is only to bring the obvious hypocrisy that 95% of Christians suffer from these days. Stand up in front of the SC and say you're Christian - so you can't provide birth control - while importing products made from slave labor. This is the most human characteristic of a corporation - following religious tenets only when convenient.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2014 10:32:24 GMT -8
This proves my point. You want corporations to act morally.
The government doesn't force companies to import products derived slave labor. That is the issue. That is not the issue, no matter how much you want it to be. The issue is, and the law has now been interpreted as, corporations being allowed discretion to make health choices for (female) employees based on judgement of morality. That is the only issue. It has yet to be seen how far they are allowed to creep into other issues under the guise of religion. My point on Chinese labor is only to bring the obvious hypocrisy that 95% of Christians suffer from these days. Stand up in front of the SC and say you're Christian - so you can't provide birth control - while importing products made from slave labor. This is the most human characteristic of a corporation - following religious tenets only when convenient. Corporations have always been allowed to make decisions on a moral issue effecting their company. The question is, should the government fine them huge amounts of money for not doing something that they feel is morally wrong based upon religous beliefs of the owners. The government can't force them to cover those women, it just fines them for not doing it. That is what the court found to be wrong. A large part of the finding was based upon a religous freedom law that Clinton signed into law. This is a simple first amendment right that is being infringed versus a simple law that has no constitutional rights behind it. Opps...I was wrong. It is not the law. It is only a secratary's plan to implement a piece of legislation. The law says nothing about this. So it is a whim of a cabinet member versus the first amendment.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 1, 2014 10:37:35 GMT -8
That is not the issue, no matter how much you want it to be. The issue is, and the law has now been interpreted as, corporations being allowed discretion to make health choices for (female) employees based on judgement of morality. That is the only issue. It has yet to be seen how far they are allowed to creep into other issues under the guise of religion. My point on Chinese labor is only to bring the obvious hypocrisy that 95% of Christians suffer from these days. Stand up in front of the SC and say you're Christian - so you can't provide birth control - while importing products made from slave labor. This is the most human characteristic of a corporation - following religious tenets only when convenient. Corporations have always been allowed to make decisions on a moral issue effecting their company. The question is, should the government fine them huge amounts of money for not doing something that they feel is morally wrong based upon religous beliefs of the owners. The government can't force them to cover those women, it just fines them for not doing it. That is what the court found to be wrong. A large part of the finding was based upon a religous freedom law that Clinton signed into law. Should a Mormon company be able to pay African Americans 3/5ths what they pay everyone else and publicly state it without consequence, since that could be a decision based on moral and religious issues?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2014 10:38:48 GMT -8
Corporations have always been allowed to make decisions on a moral issue effecting their company. The question is, should the government fine them huge amounts of money for not doing something that they feel is morally wrong based upon religous beliefs of the owners. The government can't force them to cover those women, it just fines them for not doing it. That is what the court found to be wrong. A large part of the finding was based upon a religous freedom law that Clinton signed into law. Should a Mormon company be able to pay African Americans 3/5ths what they pay everyone else and publicly state it without consequence, since that could be a decision based on moral and religious issues? No.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 1, 2014 10:39:47 GMT -8
That is not the issue, no matter how much you want it to be. The issue is, and the law has now been interpreted as, corporations being allowed discretion to make health choices for (female) employees based on judgement of morality. That is the only issue. It has yet to be seen how far they are allowed to creep into other issues under the guise of religion. My point on Chinese labor is only to bring the obvious hypocrisy that 95% of Christians suffer from these days. Stand up in front of the SC and say you're Christian - so you can't provide birth control - while importing products made from slave labor. This is the most human characteristic of a corporation - following religious tenets only when convenient. Corporations have always been allowed to make decisions on a moral issue effecting their company. The question is, should the government fine them huge amounts of money for not doing something that they feel is morally wrong based upon religous beliefs of the owners. The government can't force them to cover those women, it just fines them for not doing it. That is what the court found to be wrong. A large part of the finding was based upon a religous freedom law that Clinton signed into law. This is a simple first amendment right that is being infringed versus a simple law that has no constitutional rights behind it. Opps...I was wrong. It is not the law. It is only a secratary's plan to implement a piece of legislation. The law says nothing about this. So it is a whim of a cabinet member versus the first amendment. Thinking this is truly a first amendment rights decision is a joke. It must be.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 1, 2014 10:40:56 GMT -8
Should a Mormon company be able to pay African Americans 3/5ths what they pay everyone else and publicly state it without consequence, since that could be a decision based on moral and religious issues? No. Why not? That is part of the tenets of Mormonism that blacks are not equal and should not be treated the same as whites. Who are you / who is the government to tell them their religious view should be set aside?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2014 11:43:47 GMT -8
Why not? That is part of the tenets of Mormonism that blacks are not equal and should not be treated the same as whites. Who are you / who is the government to tell them their religious view should be set aside? Aside: That is not their current position. It is different. That comes down to a balance of rights. This a right versus the whim of a cabinet member of the current administration. The draft was not enforced for conscientious objectors. That is something that is similar.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jul 1, 2014 11:47:38 GMT -8
Why not? That is part of the tenets of Mormonism that blacks are not equal and should not be treated the same as whites. Who are you / who is the government to tell them their religious view should be set aside? Those are modern day tenets of the Mormon Church? Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2014 11:48:17 GMT -8
Thinking this is truly a first amendment rights decision is a joke. It must be. I am sure if the government was fining you huge amounts because you refused to do something the you are unable to do because of your Moral Compass, you would be real happy if the SCOUS told the government to back off. You wouldn't think it was a joke.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jul 1, 2014 14:17:00 GMT -8
Pretty big strawman and leap of logic there. I never spoke on other meds but since you brought it up, life saving drugs like insulin? Please. Huge strawman there. Viagra and contraceptives aren't in the same discussion and neither should be mandated. As for stem cell research, that is completely, talking about research behind meds that isn't even part of this discussion and plays into your hysterics. Your strawman really takes the argument well beyond the issue. Perhaps after work I can add to my earlier comments and respond more. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards You don't like the conclusion, so you dodged and said my argument is a strawman? Remember, it isn't up to you or me to determine which drugs or treatments are in the same category - it is now up to your employer. If that employer determines that a drug created through stem cell research is immoral, you are now subject to that discretion. If an employer thinks soft dicks should stay that way because it's god's will for old people to stop having sex, you are now subject to that moral view. It isn't a strawman - it is what the SCOTUS just ruled. Not at all. Complete strawman and I pointed it out, starting with the notion that certain contraceptives are a "right." It isn't yet you build on that false premise. You then suggest valid health medications are threatened such as diabetes meds. I guess you could call that a red herring but the strawman concept fits better. They ruled on a simple question, not the hysterical direction that you have taken this. Be honest, one could draw out all sorts of slippery slope conclusions from any decision. Your emotional response seemingly blocks critical thinking. In my day and now we pay for many "medical" issues, whether it be abortions or condoms, the government is not in the job of mandating what should be required and what isn't. I've reluctantly paid for things I wish my insurance covered. Alas, as Bill points out, I'll chose if an employer's employment package and conditions are up to the competition and conversely, if I am a competitor, I may use this against them in ads, in hiring, in keeping my staff. Sent from my SM-G900V using proboards
|
|