"You can't be a democrat and go to heaven"

[Immanuel]

This is changing due to the ACA. Every employee gets covered or the company pays a fine. The Catholic Church does not have to provide contraceptive coverage for priests and nuns and pedophiles, but does have to provide the coverage for lay employees. They have been for decades.

The controversy is they would not allow university students to have insurance that covered contraception...even if their parents or they themselves bought it.

Banning contraceptive coverage for college age people is not allowed under the ACA. Students can bring their own or purchase that which is equivalent to wwhat Catholic
employees are offered.

That is it- just extend to students what employees have. Hugest priestly pissy fits over that.

Regards from Rosie

It is not up to you to tell the church, a university or even a private business what and who it must cover.

If the church is unwilling to subsidize students wanton sex lives, it is not required to or at least it should not be required to do so, but then Pelosi and Reid believe they are gods and have the right to dictate to others what should be done.

Immie

immie
if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???

The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?

And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation? Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???

Yes, if a JW owns a business and decides to offer health insurance to lure employees to work for her, she has every right to purchase a health insurance policy that does not provide for blood transfusions. Note the word "offer"! An employer offers benefits, employees do not "demand" benefits. The employer offers those benefits in order to tempt employees to work for them. If John Smith applies for the job offered by a JW employer and that job provides health insurance that does not include blood transfusions, then John Smith is free to look elsewhere for employment.

BTW: that is the crux of the matter. Too many people think that the employee has not only a right to the job but a right to demand his/her wages and benefits. It doesn't work that way. The employer offers wages/benefits to entice people to work for them. If they are not offering enough then no one works for them and they must raise the offer. Too many liberals have the entitlement (read that as socialistic) philosophy that says, "it is the employer's responsibility to provide living wages or better". That is simply not the case. The employer offers wages/benefits; if those wages/benefits are inadequate the prospective employee is free to seek employment elsewhere.

The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?

Yes, offered (there is that word again) by the employer. Don't like what your employer offers, go elsewhere. In today's economy that is difficult... blame the Democrats and liberal politicians who have made anti-corporatism a way of life and the cost of providing employment outrageously expensive.

And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?

Yes, it is still okay for the employer to refuse to offer certain objectionable policies. In fact, until the anti-business progressive Democrats passed Obamacare, it was the legal right (and should still be so) of employers not to offer health insurance at all. There is no moral obligation for an employer to do so. Employers offer (there is that word again) it in order to entice good employees. The benefit to employees is that a) employers generally subsidize at least a portion of the policy and b) employers get "group" rates on policies meaning that an employee's policy would be more expensive if he/she had to purchase their own.

Still, it is a BENEFIT not a moral obligation.

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation?

So, with this statement, I assume you believe that a prospective employee at Walmart has the right to set her own wages when Walmart offers her a job. The conversation in your thinking must be like this:

Manager: "Ms. Jones, Walmart number 222543 would be pleased to have you work as a cashier at our store".

Ms. Jones: "Wonderful, I will start a week from next Monday. My wages will be $25.75 per hour. I get four weeks of paid vacation starting the first year increasing to six weeks after two years of service. You will provide a health insurance policy, fully covered by the employer, that provides for contraceptive coverage because my oldest daughter is 10 and I am not ready to be a grandma. You will provide a 401(K) plan in which you will match my contributions up to $25,000 per year. You will contribute to my children's college fund $10,000 per year each child (there are seven currently and one due in May), I get holidays off paid; Christian, Jewish and Islamic holidays as well as Kwanza, my birthday and the birthdays of each child as well as the birthday of which ever man I deem to allow to live with me at any given time. I can't think of anything else at the moment, but I will inform you should I think of something else and I expect you to honor the obligation to provide any future benefits I deem appropriate."

Manager: "Great, we will see you a week from Monday".

In effect, that is what you are stating.

Now, if you were an employer, hiring employees would that be the way you went about it? When you were in the working world, is that how you accepted a position or was it the other way around:

Manager: "Ms Jones, Walmart 222543 would be pleased to offer you a position as cashier at..."

Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

No, what rights? The employee doesn't have the right to demand a job let alone her compensation. She accepts or rejects the offer presented to her. Hell, if I had the right to demand my job, I would be playing starting quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers right now!

Now, if we allow the anti-business politicians in Washington to continue in the direction that they are going things may change, but that would clearly be for the worse.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Isn't it the employee's compensation? when I worked, my employer sent me a statement of what my TOTAL compensation was for the job I did for them....Included in my total compensation, my employer listed my salary, my bonuses, my stock, what they contributed towards my SS, my life insurance policy, disability insurance that they paid for me, and the portion of my health insurance policy that they paid etc....

so essentially the employee is ALREADY paying the entire policy costs.

and what about birth control? It costs insurance companies NOTHING and the employer nothing and the employee nothing for the coverage....this has been proven to be the case already...the insurance companies come out even in costs...if they cover it or if they don't cover it, and in most if not all policies that cover BC, there is no higher price for the policy.

so, what's the beef? Other than employer's trying to dictate their personal beliefs on to others?

I don't claim to be an insurance pro Darlin..

I was under the impression that the employer paid a share of the insurance and the employee paid a share of it also. In my younger years pre 1995 most of my employers paid for my insurance as a benefit to keep me around.

As far as Birth control benefits, nothing is free, someone ends up paying.

what I meant to say/explain is that it costs the insurance company a certain amount of money in other coverage, such as the pregnancies of more women, when they do not have contraception coverage and their actuaries determined that covering the cost of birth control pills does not add to the insurance policy's cost because they have a reduction in costs for unplanned pregnancies.

and in 1995, when you THINK your employer paid your health care insurance costs, that this was actually part of YOUR total compensation for the job you did for them....so is the portion of SS that they paid for YOU....that is part of your total pay for the work you provided for them....

If that is the case, and I don't doubt it, then the insurance company has the right to charge higher rates for policies that do not include contraceptive provisions and here is the killer, the employer has the right to accept or reject the offer of the insurance company. The employer can always shop for better coverage.

Immie

 

[RosieS]

Yes it is stepping on rights. Not celebrating Christmas (a national holiday btw) is what the Secularists do.....so all public school children should be taught Christmas is wrong....? NO!

Public schools do not teach that Christmas is wrong - but keep your carols to your churches and homes. You don't have the right to impose church music on public schools.

MLK's birthday is a national holiday but kids aren't taught to sing "We Shall Overcome" all friggin' day.

Regards from Rosie

"Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" would be OK, but "God Rest ye Merry Gentlemen" would be banned because it has God in the song. Is that your contention? I consider that censorship.

There is all kinds of censorship in public schools. Behavior is tightly controlled. Sub-adults do not have adult rights. Adults can wear offensive shirts, sing offensive rap lyrics, and hang their beltlline below their boxers. Students can do none of that in public school.

And because it is a public school it is a part of local government and cannot demonstrate a preference for one religion over another. Thus there are holiday celebrations - with religious songs and rituals being appropriate for churches and not for public schools..

Tax dollars are not for Christmas carols. Frosty the Snowman is appropriate to be taught for the season.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Barb]

then why is it you think only secularists should have any input into our laws.....?

You can have all the input you like, but our laws should not be made solely to satisfy your sense of decency or protect your faith. Certain things like killing, theft, lying under oath, unprovoked aggression, fraud and so forth will be illegal no matter what as they are pretty much universally seen as bad things but some things that pretty much only matter to blue-nosed busybodies such as yourself like closing the beer store on Sunday or making some kinds of businesses illegal in the city limits is ridiculous.

Situational morality is what you propose. There are local laws prohibiting having a titty bar or a liquor store next door to a Church or a public school. I wouldn't expect you to understand the reasons for these zoning laws.

That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.

 

[BarbaraHavers]

Even if a democrat does not actively practice evil themselves, they approve of the evil practiced by others. Which was the whole point of the Story of Lot. If there is a heaven, democrats certainly won't go there no matter how good a life they lead themselves.

From God's mouth to your ears?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Republicans, according to Katzndogz understanding of the Bible, are the Pharisees who Jesus condemned.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Republicans, according to Katzndogz understanding of the Bible, are the Pharisees who Jesus condemned.

It's not the Republicans that Jesus would condemn like He did the Pharisees, it would be the money changers on Wall St. that He would condemn, since they're the money changers.

Although.............He may condemn the GOP for choosing a Pharisee as their candidate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion

Further information: Thomas Jefferson and religion
Jefferson rejected the orthodox Christianity of his day and was especially hostile to the Catholic Church as he saw it operate in France. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality. As a landowner he played a role in governing his local Episcopal Church; in terms of belief he was inclined toward Deism and the moral philosophy of Christianity, though when he was home he attended the Episcopal church and raised his daughters in that faith. [195][196]
In a private letter to Benjamin Rush, Jefferson refers to himself as "Christian" (1803): "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence..."[197] In a letter to his close friend William Short, Jefferson clarified, "it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."[198]
Jefferson praised the morality of Jesus and edited a compilation of his teachings, omitting the miracles and supernatural elements of the biblical account, titling it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[199] Jefferson was firmly anticlerical saying that in "every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot...they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes."[200]
Jefferson rejected the idea of immaterial beings and considered the idea of an immaterial Creator a heresy introduced into Christianity. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson wrote that to "talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. . . . At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that 'God is a spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the ancient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter."[201]
In 1777, Jefferson drafted Virginia's An Act of Establishing Religious Freedom.[202] Submitted in 1779, the Act was finally ratified in 1786 by the Virginia legislature.[202] The Act forbid that men be forcibly compelled to attend or donate money to religious establishments, and that men "shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."[203] Jefferson initially supported restrictions banning clergy from holding public office, however, later in life he changed this view believing the clergy had the same rights as others to hold public office.[204]

Let's see Jefferson writes that he is a Christian and people say he's not
obama says he's a Christian yet doesn't act like one and people say obama is.

OH and since your source mentioned the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
I thought you should know what is in that document.
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786


Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

Just because I hate when people say Jefferson wasn't a christian when Jefferson writes that he was one and obama says he's a Christian yet doesn't act like one and people say obama is. I'm going to re-post this

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jefferson was a deist. He said he was a member of a sect of one. He did not believe that Jesus was buried and risen. He did not believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin Mother. He did not believe in miracles.

All of this is common knowledge. bigrebnc can say he is a christian, but by his actions you know that he is not. Yet he wants to judge Obama and condemn him, and give the slave owner a pass, who only freed his slave children after his death.

koshergrl gets a pass because she is insane.

bigrebnc is condemned by his own words and actions

 

[Gadawg73]

It is not up to you to tell the church, a university or even a private business what and who it must cover.

If the church is unwilling to subsidize students wanton sex lives, it is not required to or at least it should not be required to do so, but then Pelosi and Reid believe they are gods and have the right to dictate to others what should be done.

Immie

immie
if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???

The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?

And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation? Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

Yes, if a JW owns a business and decides to offer health insurance to lure employees to work for her, she has every right to purchase a health insurance policy that does not provide for blood transfusions. Note the word "offer"! An employer offers benefits, employees do not "demand" benefits. The employer offers those benefits in order to tempt employees to work for them. If John Smith applies for the job offered by a JW employer and that job provides health insurance that does not include blood transfusions, then John Smith is free to look elsewhere for employment.

BTW: that is the crux of the matter. Too many people think that the employee has not only a right to the job but a right to demand his/her wages and benefits. It doesn't work that way. The employer offers wages/benefits to entice people to work for them. If they are not offering enough then no one works for them and they must raise the offer. Too many liberals have the entitlement (read that as socialistic) philosophy that says, "it is the employer's responsibility to provide living wages or better". That is simply not the case. The employer offers wages/benefits; if those wages/benefits are inadequate the prospective employee is free to seek employment elsewhere.

Yes, offered (there is that word again) by the employer. Don't like what your employer offers, go elsewhere. In today's economy that is difficult... blame the Democrats and liberal politicians who have made anti-corporatism a way of life and the cost of providing employment outrageously expensive.



Yes, it is still okay for the employer to refuse to offer certain objectionable policies. In fact, until the anti-business progressive Democrats passed Obamacare, it was the legal right (and should still be so) of employers not to offer health insurance at all. There is no moral obligation for an employer to do so. Employers offer (there is that word again) it in order to entice good employees. The benefit to employees is that a) employers generally subsidize at least a portion of the policy and b) employers get "group" rates on policies meaning that an employee's policy would be more expensive if he/she had to purchase their own.

Still, it is a BENEFIT not a moral obligation.

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation?

So, with this statement, I assume you believe that a prospective employee at Walmart has the right to set her own wages when Walmart offers her a job. The conversation in your thinking must be like this:

Manager: "Ms. Jones, Walmart number 222543 would be pleased to have you work as a cashier at our store".

Ms. Jones: "Wonderful, I will start a week from next Monday. My wages will be $25.75 per hour. I get four weeks of paid vacation starting the first year increasing to six weeks after two years of service. You will provide a health insurance policy, fully covered by the employer, that provides for contraceptive coverage because my oldest daughter is 10 and I am not ready to be a grandma. You will provide a 401(K) plan in which you will match my contributions up to $25,000 per year. You will contribute to my children's college fund $10,000 per year each child (there are seven currently and one due in May), I get holidays off paid; Christian, Jewish and Islamic holidays as well as Kwanza, my birthday and the birthdays of each child as well as the birthday of which ever man I deem to allow to live with me at any given time. I can't think of anything else at the moment, but I will inform you should I think of something else and I expect you to honor the obligation to provide any future benefits I deem appropriate."

Manager: "Great, we will see you a week from Monday".

In effect, that is what you are stating.

Now, if you were an employer, hiring employees would that be the way you went about it? When you were in the working world, is that how you accepted a position or was it the other way around:

Manager: "Ms Jones, Walmart 222543 would be pleased to offer you a position as cashier at..."

Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

No, what rights? The employee doesn't have the right to demand a job let alone her compensation. She accepts or rejects the offer presented to her. Hell, if I had the right to demand my job, I would be playing starting quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers right now!

Now, if we allow the anti-business politicians in Washington to continue in the direction that they are going things may change, but that would clearly be for the worse.

Immie

Very well said!

 

[Gadawg73]

Jefferson was a deist. He said he was a member of a sect of one. He did not believe that Jesus was buried and risen. He dead believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin Mother. He did not believe in miracles.

All of this is common knowledge. bigrebnc can say he is a christian, but by his actions you know that he is not. Yet he wants to judge Obama and condemn him, and give the slave owner a pass, who only freed his slave children after his death.

koshergrl gets a pass because she is insane.

bigrebnc is condemned by his own words and actions.

Koshergirl is insane.
Bigreb is one that has flexibility at times, he is one we can work with. He is one that I would bet has changed his mind before on issues such as interracial marriage which used to be frowned upon here in the south ten times more than being gay.
Koshergirl is insane, once again.

 

[PratchettFan]

really......? why don't you lay some of that "critical thinking" on me to prove it....

Ooh ...Ooh....I will...pick me!

First off....if you want to be Christian...you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to champion. Read everything in the Bible that relates to greed and the treatment of the poor. There is multitudes on the subject....But you and your kind tend to ignore that....in fact, from what I've read on here....the poor are just leeches who pop out babies, refuse to work, etc...etc.... even the ones that are working and still can't feed their families and keep a roof over their heads because of the lack of good jobs and the proper doth for poor wages are still looked down upon bu you people.

That's why, in my other post....I specifically mentioned sins that don't really affect others....and IMO, Homosexuality and abortion affect no one but the principles involved....the two same sex lovers have to answer to God.....the mother that decides on the horrible decision of terminating a pregnancy has to answer to God(and the father if he encourages it). I don't condone those behaviors....in fact...in the case.of abortion, I would go out of my way to discourage it to a person who asked my advice.

But greed? That's a sin that just keeps on giving...it affects everyone....on the globe. IMO, greed and apathy are our two biggest problems as a nation. Hell, we are indoctrinated into it when we are kids.

It's a much bigger problem than who's boinking who in the bedroom and what scared kids do with the offspring of such unions....believe me....I know that those things are bad and wrong, but in the big picture? they are a molehill compared to the mountain of greed and materialism that infests our nation and that spans the globe.

First off....if you want to be Christian...you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to champion. Read everything in the Bible that relates to greed and the treatment of the poor.

What total bull shit you saying people shouldn't pick and choose what part of the bible they should champion but you doing it yourself.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 ESV

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Proverbs 10:4 ESV

A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.

Proverbs 6:9-11 ESV

How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.

I do keep hearing this same old argument, over and over and over again. The assumption is that anyone who receives governmental assistance must be lazy. That is so very easy to say so long as you don't have to deal with specifics, actually think of people as people rather than just some cartoon image. So let me give you a specific.

My wife's father died at a young age as a result of injuries he received during WWII as a combat engineer. This was not a clean death and it took years of disability before he finally passed. After that, my mother-in-law was faced with raising three children on her own, on the salary she got in retail sales. Her youngest child had his own disability which required special schooling, requiring her to work two jobs. She received social security survivor and disability benefits, and that is how she made it. Which meant my wife was able to stay in school and eventually graduate from a university. She didn't have to go to work in some factory when she was 13 to help feed the family, like in the good old days.

Explain to me just how my mother-in-law fits into your quotes.

 

[Care4all]

It is not up to you to tell the church, a university or even a private business what and who it must cover.

If the church is unwilling to subsidize students wanton sex lives, it is not required to or at least it should not be required to do so, but then Pelosi and Reid believe they are gods and have the right to dictate to others what should be done.

Immie

immie
if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???

The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?

And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation? Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

Yes, if a JW owns a business and decides to offer health insurance to lure employees to work for her, she has every right to purchase a health insurance policy that does not provide for blood transfusions. Note the word "offer"! An employer offers benefits, employees do not "demand" benefits. The employer offers those benefits in order to tempt employees to work for them. If John Smith applies for the job offered by a JW employer and that job provides health insurance that does not include blood transfusions, then John Smith is free to look elsewhere for employment.

I disagree on the above because the Insurance company should be able to include what they feel is necessary to save the lives of the people who want to purchase coverage at the least amount of expense to them....and the customer (the employer) can choose to buy or not buy it

BTW: that is the crux of the matter. Too many people think that the employee has not only a right to the job but a right to demand his/her wages and benefits. It doesn't work that way. The employer offers wages/benefits to entice people to work for them. If they are not offering enough then no one works for them and they must raise the offer. Too many liberals have the entitlement (read that as socialistic) philosophy that says, "it is the employer's responsibility to provide living wages or better". That is simply not the case. The employer offers wages/benefits; if those wages/benefits are inadequate the prospective employee is free to seek employment elsewhere.

blah blah blah blah rhetoric, thanks for the bull crap session...

the states have dictated to insurance companies what coverage should or should not be mandatory for decades....and insurance companies have dictated what would be available in their coverage for decades to the employers or future customers....the employer or customer doesn't get to choose whether an insurance company covers a life or death transfusion or not...the employer/customer can then choose to buy the policy or not...unless they live in Massachusetts with Romneycare....
​

Yes, offered (there is that word again) by the employer. Don't like what your employer offers, go elsewhere. In today's economy that is difficult... blame the Democrats and liberal politicians who have made anti-corporatism a way of life and the cost of providing employment outrageously expensive.

again blah blah blah blah blah rhetoric....yes, but offered by the insurance company...the employer/customer can choose or not choose to accept the coverage offered by the insurer....why are you giving all these rights to the employer being able to dictate their wishes upon the insurance companies, and not to the insurance company, the business that is offering the plans? Isn't that the opposite of your rhetoric of anti-corporatism?

Yes, it is still okay for the employer to refuse to offer certain objectionable policies. In fact, until the anti-business progressive Democrats passed Obamacare, it was the legal right (and should still be so) of employers not to offer health insurance at all. There is no moral obligation for an employer to do so. Employers offer (there is that word again) it in order to entice good employees. The benefit to employees is that a) employers generally subsidize at least a portion of the policy and b) employers get "group" rates on policies meaning that an employee's policy would be more expensive if he/she had to purchase their own.

blah blah blah blah blah rhetoric talking points....boy oh boy you really learned the rhetoric of your masters well immie!!! maybe you forgot who you are talking to? bravo for you to know the talking points of your master!

have you forgotten Romneycare? that was a dictate from the government upon employers.

Still, it is a BENEFIT not a moral obligation.

it was a benefit and still is a benefit, employers can still choose not to give coverage....of course, there is a fine for it, just as there is a fine for it in Romneycare.

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation?

So, with this statement, I assume you believe that a prospective employee at Walmart has the right to set her own wages when Walmart offers her a job. The conversation in your thinking must be like this:

i was just trying to make the point that healthcare insurance is part of the employee's compensation and no this has nothing to do with the employee's setting their own wages....just a bunch of bull crap rhetoric from you, once again.

Manager: "Ms. Jones, Walmart number 222543 would be pleased to have you work as a cashier at our store".

Ms. Jones: "Wonderful, I will start a week from next Monday. My wages will be $25.75 per hour. I get four weeks of paid vacation starting the first year increasing to six weeks after two years of service. You will provide a health insurance policy, fully covered by the employer, that provides for contraceptive coverage because my oldest daughter is 10 and I am not ready to be a grandma. You will provide a 401(K) plan in which you will match my contributions up to $25,000 per year. You will contribute to my children's college fund $10,000 per year each child (there are seven currently and one due in May), I get holidays off paid; Christian, Jewish and Islamic holidays as well as Kwanza, my birthday and the birthdays of each child as well as the birthday of which ever man I deem to allow to live with me at any given time. I can't think of anything else at the moment, but I will inform you should I think of something else and I expect you to honor the obligation to provide any future benefits I deem appropriate."

Manager: "Great, we will see you a week from Monday".

In effect, that is what you are stating.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah rhetoric.....

Now, if you were an employer, hiring employees would that be the way you went about it? When you were in the working world, is that how you accepted a position or was it the other way around:

Manager: "Ms Jones, Walmart 222543 would be pleased to offer you a position as cashier at..."

Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

No, what rights? The employee doesn't have the right to demand a job let alone her compensation. She accepts or rejects the offer presented to her. Hell, if I had the right to demand my job, I would be playing starting quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers right now!

sheesh you are really getting off on your blah blah blah tangents aren't you? Who the heck is demanding a job and demanding an employer to hire them? Why you have decided to go off on this kind of rhetoric crap is beyond me?

Now, if we allow the anti-business politicians in Washington to continue in the direction that they are going things may change, but that would clearly be for the worse.

Immie[/quote]so much for thinking I could get a decent conversation going with you on the topic....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jefferson was a deist. He said he was a member of a sect of one. He did not believe that Jesus was buried and risen. He did not believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin Mother. He did not believe in miracles.

All of this is common knowledge. bigrebnc can say he is a christian, but by his actions you know that he is not. Yet he wants to judge Obama and condemn him, and give the slave owner a pass, who only freed his slave children after his death.

koshergrl gets a pass because she is insane.

bigrebnc is condemned by his own words and actions

.

Koshergirl is insane.
Bigreb is one that has flexibility at times, he is one we can work with. He is one that I would bet has changed his mind before on issues such as interracial marriage which used to be frowned upon here in the south ten times more than being gay.
Koshergirl is insane, once again.

 

[Immanuel]

Care,

The crap is all coming from you. I never said insurance companies could not offer such policies. They can and should offer them to anyone who will buy them. However you are pushing crap trying to remove the right of the buyer to purchase what he wants to buy and then claiming the employer is the servant of the employee.

What universe do you live in? It surely Isn't this one.

Oh and by the way, forgive me for not succumbing to your anti-freedom bullshit.

Immie

 

[ABikerSailor]

Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion

Further information: Thomas Jefferson and religion
Jefferson rejected the orthodox Christianity of his day and was especially hostile to the Catholic Church as he saw it operate in France. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality. As a landowner he played a role in governing his local Episcopal Church; in terms of belief he was inclined toward Deism and the moral philosophy of Christianity, though when he was home he attended the Episcopal church and raised his daughters in that faith. [195][196]
In a private letter to Benjamin Rush, Jefferson refers to himself as "Christian" (1803): "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence..."[197] In a letter to his close friend William Short, Jefferson clarified, "it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."[198]
Jefferson praised the morality of Jesus and edited a compilation of his teachings, omitting the miracles and supernatural elements of the biblical account, titling it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[199] Jefferson was firmly anticlerical saying that in "every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot...they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes."[200]
Jefferson rejected the idea of immaterial beings and considered the idea of an immaterial Creator a heresy introduced into Christianity. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson wrote that to "talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. . . . At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that 'God is a spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the ancient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter."[201]
In 1777, Jefferson drafted Virginia's An Act of Establishing Religious Freedom.[202] Submitted in 1779, the Act was finally ratified in 1786 by the Virginia legislature.[202] The Act forbid that men be forcibly compelled to attend or donate money to religious establishments, and that men "shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."[203] Jefferson initially supported restrictions banning clergy from holding public office, however, later in life he changed this view believing the clergy had the same rights as others to hold public office.[204]

Let's see Jefferson writes that he is a Christian and people say he's not
obama says he's a Christian yet doesn't act like one and people say obama is.

OH and since your source mentioned the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
I thought you should know what is in that document.
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786


Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

Just because I hate when people say Jefferson wasn't a christian when Jefferson writes that he was one and obama says he's a Christian yet doesn't act like one and people say obama is. I'm going to re-post this

Hey...............Little Retarded Rebecca....................wikipedia is your friend.............

Jefferson rejected the orthodox Christianity of his day and was especially hostile to the Catholic Church as he saw it operate in France. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality. As a landowner he played a role in governing his local Episcopal Church; in terms of belief he was inclined toward Deism and the moral philosophy of Christianity, though when he was home he attended the Episcopal church and raised his daughters in that faith. [195][196]

In a private letter to Benjamin Rush, Jefferson refers to himself as "Christian" (1803): "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence..."[197] In a letter to his close friend William Short, Jefferson clarified, "it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."[198]

Jefferson praised the morality of Jesus and edited a compilation of his teachings, omitting the miracles and supernatural elements of the biblical account, titling it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[199] Jefferson was firmly anticlerical saying that in "every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot...they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes."[200]

Jefferson rejected the idea of immaterial beings and considered the idea of an immaterial Creator a heresy introduced into Christianity. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson wrote that to "talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. . . . At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that 'God is a spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the ancient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter."[201]

In 1777, Jefferson drafted Virginia's An Act of Establishing Religious Freedom.[202] Submitted in 1779, the Act was finally ratified in 1786 by the Virginia legislature.[202] The Act forbid that men be forcibly compelled to attend or donate money to religious establishments, and that men "shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."[203] Jefferson initially supported restrictions banning clergy from holding public office, however, later in life he changed this view believing the clergy had the same rights as others to hold public office.

Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cammmpbell]

A Kentucky teacher is being criticized for writing a politically charged statement on the whiteboard in class.

South Laurel County High School teacher Kendra Baker is drawing complaints from parents and students after she wrote, "You can't be a democrat and go to heaven."

More: Kendra Baker, Kentucky Teacher, Under Fire For 'Can't Be A Democrat And Go To Heaven' Statement

Screw that teacher. I wouldn't want to float around on gossimer wings and sing hymns all day anyway. I'd rather be in hell getting reacquainted with all my old friends.