Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Offering insurance isn't against anyone's religion.
Which you surely know better than they, not being a member of their religion or anything.
Making employees accept your personal precepts shouldn't be protected under the 1st amendment.
Then don't work for them.
If that is put out there upfront, you might have a point.
For instance, I was once offered a job by a company that was run by a devout Jewish guy who closed down on Fridays for the Sabbath. (His religious devotion obviously did not extend to making sure everyone working for him was legally here. "If there papers look good enough, that's good enough for me.")
I felt this was a high enough level of religous stupidity and hypocrisy where I didn't take the job.
I think it would be different if you work for a company, your COBRA has just run out, and then you get your first day of new insurance, and find out, "Oh, we don't cover your wife's progestrone for Ovarian Cysts because of religious objections by your employer".
Offering insurance isn't against anyone's religion.
Which you surely know better than they, not being a member of their religion or anything.
Making employees accept your personal precepts shouldn't be protected under the 1st amendment.
Then don't work for them.
The Catholic Church already has an exemption from their no birth control policy when it's needed for medical reasons, so your argument is invalid.
Furthermore, no employer is required to provide you with health insurance, even under ObamaCare. It's a fringe benefit and if you have a serious medical condition then one would think you'd take the initiative to ask such an important question before taking the job.
You're trying to abdicate people from their own responsibilities.
What would you know about my religion? Don't work for them? That's a matter for labor law, not unilateral fiat. Maybe you want to throw out 100+ years of advances for working people, but that's just crazy, IMO.
For it being equally at fault you sure blame soldiers a lotIf there is any tyranny here, the guilt is born absolutely equally between Republican and Democratic parties, representatives and administrations. This is simply a facet of central government, state or federal.
There is no difference between not wanting to pay taxes because of religious beliefs about human biology and conscientious belief that war is wrong. If one refuses to pay taxes because they are used to kill helpless foreign poor, consequences ensue. That is the meaning of 'choice'. One does what one feels one must. Some choose to conform, others, to resist.
Those who become soldiers and kill under orders to do so are thus not exonerated from the crime.
Those who refuse accept the results.
Just because in this case the people's belief happens to be a sect of Christianity doesn't make it any more severe. If we want to make an exception to the laws in this case, the exception will immediately become the norm.
Actually, it was technically the idea of the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney. "Conservatives" only started being against it when Obama adopted it.
On this particular issue, there is no issue for the insurance companies, because birth control is cheaper than paying for maternity costs.
If you are against birth control, don't practice it. But don't go around telling other people they can't.
Nobody has told anyone that they can't use birth control, Joe. Any other lies you'd like to tell in your feeble attempt to bolster your failed argument?
No, they are just being told that insurance won't cover it, which is kind of the same thing.
If someone was such a fanatic about birth control that they won't pay for it, somehow, I don't think they'd look upon me kindly as an employee if they knew I was practicing it out of my own pocket.
This is why I think these people need to be slapped down- hard. Keep your religous stupidity to yourself.
It's astonishing to me that "conservatives" side with big corporations against their own interests because they can push a few religious buttons and make them act stupid.
Offering insurance isn't against anyone's religion.Which you surely know better than they, not being a member of their religion or anything.What would you know about my religion?
Making employees accept your personal precepts shouldn't be protected under the 1st amendment.
Then don't work for them.
Don't work for them? That's a matter for labor law, not unilateral fiat.
Maybe you want to throw out 100+ years of advances for working people
but that's just crazy, IMO.
You do know there's a difference between birth control pills and abortion, right?
Christians and have a moral objection to abortion and birth control their church teaches them that.
They're not being asked to practice birth control or abortion, just provide access to insurance coverage. That position makes as much sense as allowing Muslim cab drivers to refuse to pick up fares that have been drinking.
Offering insurance isn't against anyone's religion. Making employees accept your personal precepts shouldn't be protected under the 1st amendment. It'd be no different than enforcing shariah law.
Actually, it is against the doctines of several religions. But you're not one to let 'facts' get in the way of bullshit.
Why does that make a difference?
No one should be involved in that disussion but the patient and the doctor. If you are offering health coverage in leiu of compensation, that should be the end of the matter.
The Catholic Church already has an exemption from their no birth control policy when it's needed for medical reasons, so your argument is invalid.
Except they have to jump through a hoop to get that exemption. Even if they aren't Catholic or work for an organization that is only tangental to the church like a school or hospital.
Furthermore, no employer is required to provide you with health insurance, even under ObamaCare. It's a fringe benefit and if you have a serious medical condition then one would think you'd take the initiative to ask such an important question before taking the job.
You're trying to abdicate people from their own responsibilities.
More to the point, responsibility would be having universal health coverage that doesn't go through employers at all, which is how every other industrialized country in the world does it.
You guys are the ones who fight that tooth and nail, probably because if the only issue between employers and employees was wages, business wouldn't be able to push them around as much.
Christians and have a moral objection to abortion and birth control their church teaches them that.
They're not being asked to practice birth control or abortion, just provide access to insurance coverage. That position makes as much sense as allowing Muslim cab drivers to refuse to pick up fares that have been drinking.
Cab drivers refuse to pick up fares all the time, whether Muslim or not.
What would you know about my religion? Don't work for them? That's a matter for labor law, not unilateral fiat. Maybe you want to throw out 100+ years of advances for working people, but that's just crazy, IMO.
Sadly, they do, not because they are of the monied class, but they hope some day to be, and the last thing they want is a wage slave insisting he has rights.
"And no one should be paying for it except the patient."
But others could pay for it if they desired.
If there were enough charities to aid poor people to live a decent life, it would never devolve to the government to do so.
When the poor are not aided, problems become much more severe.
That upsets governments and societies.
Redistribution of a violent kind takes place.
Intelligence would dictate another route.
You're missing the point. We're talking religious reasons. The right was all up in arms, when people were refused service by Muslim cab drivers. What's the difference? Unlike cab drivers, the RCC doesn't even have to be in the presence of the "sinners".
