DOJ to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business

[Quantum Windbag]

For that matter, can you fire an employee for being gay?

Yes.

But the point is, you shouldn't be able to, and the laws should incllude HUGE penalties if you even try it.

The pint is not that you shouldn't be able to, nor is the point that the laws should include huge fines if you do. If you live in a free society, bad things happen. The only way to end bad things is to live in a totalitarian society, which is a worse thing.

I guess that makes the real point is that you are a totalitarian fucktard who wants to take away my freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The verse Funditards cite as to why they think that Birth Control is against God's will is 38:8-10.

To recap this story. Er the son of Judah was offensive to Yahweh. Doesn't say how he was offensive to Yahweh, but he was, so God killed him. Then Judah directed his brother Onan to marry Tamar, Er's widow. Well, old Onan didn't want to father kids on his dead brother's wife, but he had no problem having sex with her. He just pulled out just before the climax. Well, this offended God, too. And God like totally smited that fool.

ANYWHO- the part of the same story the Funditards don't want to talk about. Tamar thought that she should be married to Judah's third son, but Judah wasn't having any of that. This chick is like cursed. So Tamar disguised herself as a hooker, and in a fashion Jerry Springer would be proud of, seduced her father in law. She asked for his seal and rod as payment.

Well, low and behold, she finally did get knocked up - with twins- and Judah wanted to totally burn her alive for it, not realizing he was the father. So much for the "sanctity of the unborn" crap they try to claim when opposing abortion. She had a child outside marriage, she was totally getting burned.

Only when she pointed out the kid was his, did he relent.

Now, this is actually kind of biblically important, because one of these two kids was Pharez, who became an ancestor of David and eventually Jesus.

The only tards in this discussion are the ones that think they know enough about the Bible to dictate other people's interpretation of it.

What I've found is that most funditards don't even know what is in their own bible, and they are often shocked when I point out the stories their ministers keep from them that kind of make Yahweh look like a bit of a dick.

My favorite is still Judges Chapter 11. Absolute comedy gold.

What I have found is that anyone that claims someone else does not know the Bible is a tard that wants to dictate other people's interpretation of it. Just admit you are a tard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You say no one should be involved except the patient and the doctor, yet you insist that the patient should be able to demand some one other than the patient or the doctor pay for it. Can you explain how the person paying for it is not involved?

Very simple. The person paying for it already got what he was paying for. A member of that person's family showing up at work and doing a service for them.

Everything else is part of the deal. And if the deal is "Health coverage" in exchange for work, you don't get a say in what that is.

Very wrong, as usual.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is some justification for state and local government to make laws governing what a business cannot sell such as selling tobacco or liquor to minors or guns to felons, etc. But all such laws should be based on local laws regulating age limits for certain products and disallowing sales of a product that it is illegal for somebody to buy for whatever reason. And when the federal government presumes to impose such laws, it has way overstepped its constitutional authority.

When the federal government presumes to start regulating the products that will be available to us, such as what kind of toilet we can have or what kind of light bulb we are expected to use, or the fuel efficiency of the car we will be allowed to buy, it has also way overstepped its contitutional authority.

And, considering all that, for the federal government to dictate to any business what product it is REQUIRED to sell and/or provide for its employees, how far can we be from a totalitarian government?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

They're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit, period. It's their business and neither the government nor an authoritarian thug like you has the right to tell them otherwise.

Oh, really.

So if they want to store vats of unmarked carcinogens in open containers, and not tell the employees, this is okay by you?

If they want to take the money in the 401K fund and blow it on junk bonds, that's fine by you, too, then?

We have laws telling businesses EXACTLY what they can and can't do for all of our protection. And frankly, that's how it should work.

I said they're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit. I didn't they had a right to endanger their employees' lives or safety, but you already knew that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wingnuts must lie and distort - the truth beats their ass every time.

Agreed, so tell Joe to stop talking already.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes.

But the point is, you shouldn't be able to, and the laws should incllude HUGE penalties if you even try it.

The pint is not that you shouldn't be able to, nor is the point that the laws should include huge fines if you do. If you live in a free society, bad things happen. The only way to end bad things is to live in a totalitarian society, which is a worse thing.

I guess that makes the real point is that you are a totalitarian fucktard who wants to take away my freedom.

If you define Freedom as "being an asshole", I will happily take that away from you.

Koresh style, Baby!

 

[JoeB131]

They're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit, period. It's their business and neither the government nor an authoritarian thug like you has the right to tell them otherwise.

Oh, really.

So if they want to store vats of unmarked carcinogens in open containers, and not tell the employees, this is okay by you?

If they want to take the money in the 401K fund and blow it on junk bonds, that's fine by you, too, then?

We have laws telling businesses EXACTLY what they can and can't do for all of our protection. And frankly, that's how it should work.

I said they're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit. I didn't they had a right to endanger their employees' lives or safety, but you already knew that.

I would submit that if they are making their female employees jump through hoops to get needed medical care, they are endangering their lives and safety.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Oh, really.

So if they want to store vats of unmarked carcinogens in open containers, and not tell the employees, this is okay by you?

If they want to take the money in the 401K fund and blow it on junk bonds, that's fine by you, too, then?

We have laws telling businesses EXACTLY what they can and can't do for all of our protection. And frankly, that's how it should work.

I said they're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit. I didn't they had a right to endanger their employees' lives or safety, but you already knew that.

I would submit that if they are making their female employees jump through hoops to get needed medical care, they are endangering their lives and safety.

Im assuming you're talking about birth control?

 

[JoeB131]

The only tards in this discussion are the ones that think they know enough about the Bible to dictate other people's interpretation of it.

What I've found is that most funditards don't even know what is in their own bible, and they are often shocked when I point out the stories their ministers keep from them that kind of make Yahweh look like a bit of a dick.

My favorite is still Judges Chapter 11. Absolute comedy gold.

What I have found is that anyone that claims someone else does not know the Bible is a tard that wants to dictate other people's interpretation of it. Just admit you are a tard.

Well, only a tard would make that statement.

What I find is that most Funditards don't even read the bible, they take their pastor's word for what's in there. Some of these idiots even think the Left Behind series is biblically accurate.

And it's kind of annoying that we even let these people have a word in policy decisions when they shouldn't be let outside the house without adult supervision.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Oh, really.

So if they want to store vats of unmarked carcinogens in open containers, and not tell the employees, this is okay by you?

If they want to take the money in the 401K fund and blow it on junk bonds, that's fine by you, too, then?

We have laws telling businesses EXACTLY what they can and can't do for all of our protection. And frankly, that's how it should work.

I said they're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit. I didn't they had a right to endanger their employees' lives or safety, but you already knew that.

I would submit that if they are making their female employees jump through hoops to get needed medical care, they are endangering their lives and safety.

Employers are not responsible for making sure you can afford your medical care. You are, so your submission is invalid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The payment of health insurance premiums by employers is a form of compensation, like a wage or salary, and is Constitutionally subject to regulatory policy.

That these health insurance policies may or may not include medical procedures perceived by the employer as contrary to their religious dogma in no way interferes with the employer’s right to religions practice, as the employer himself is not required to participate in any procedure he deems religiously prohibited. It is a private issue between the doctor and employee/patient only.

And one’s religious beliefs are not grounds to be ‘exempted’ from any law enacted to further a legitimate government interest. See: Employment Div. v. Smith (1988).

 

[JoeB131]

I said they're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit. I didn't they had a right to endanger their employees' lives or safety, but you already knew that.

I would submit that if they are making their female employees jump through hoops to get needed medical care, they are endangering their lives and safety.

Employers are not responsible for making sure you can afford your medical care. You are, so your submission is invalid.

When you say, "you can only get health insurance through your job", which is the case for 120 million of us, then, sorry, employers have a responsibility to obey the law.

Again, what everyone forgets is that the reason why we needed the ACA was needed was not only that 46 million of us had no insurance, but that 25 million of us had insurance that was so half-assed that it covered nothing.

Again, you guys on the rights were the ones who insisted we shouldn't dismantle this awful system in favor of single payer like the rest of the sensible world does it, you should at least insist they do it right.

Anything involving "My Magic Invisible Friend in the Sky says that's bad" is not doing it right.

 

[Jroc]

They're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit, period. It's their business and neither the government nor an authoritarian thug like you has the right to tell them otherwise.

Oh, really.

So if they want to store vats of unmarked carcinogens in open containers, and not tell the employees, this is okay by you?

If they want to take the money in the 401K fund and blow it on junk bonds, that's fine by you, too, then?

We have laws telling businesses EXACTLY what they can and can't do for all of our protection. And frankly, that's how it should work.

Where's my Social Security idiot?...

LBJ was running an expensive war in South East Asia while also attempting to launch social engineering through programs which began with his 'Great Society'. Lacking the means to pay for both, he had the Social Security Trust Funds moved into the general fund. As these funds were removed they were replaced with an IOU. Since Social Security was developed as nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, pulling the funds has proved to be particularly disastrous. The political left continuously points at these IOUs as proof that the Social Security system will remain solvent. Which is a joke; paying off old IOUs with new IOUs.

 

[Peach]

And an employer who is a Muslim may prohibit coverage for those who eat pork? Jehovah's Witness refuse to cover blood transfusions? A Baptist employer refuse coverage for alcohol related illnesses? And, it is to be hoped, some faiths refuse to pay the medical costs of gluttony also.

 

[Foxfyre]

Anybody who can only get their healthcare through their employer suggests that we need a whole new set of freedoms so that we can get healthcare anywhere we want. I have lived my entire life without my insurance or my employer furnishing anybody contraceptives and we all seemed to be able to get them really easily just the same.

Also only an idiot thinks that those of us who protest excess and unnecessary and harmful regulation of commerce and industry are saying that we want NO regulation of any kind on commerce and industry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But the point is, you shouldn't be able to, and the laws should incllude HUGE penalties if you even try it.

The point is not that you shouldn't be able to, nor is the point that the laws should include huge fines if you do. If you live in a free society, bad things happen. The only way to end bad things is to live in a totalitarian society, which is a worse thing.

I guess that makes the real point is that you are a totalitarian fucktard who wants to take away my freedom.

If you define Freedom as "being an asshole", I will happily take that away from you.

Koresh style, Baby!

The truth comes out.

 

[Politico]

They are a business trying to get out of the new healthcare law.

 

[Foxfyre]

And an employer who is a Muslim may prohibit coverage for those who eat pork? Jehovah's Witness refuse to cover blood transfusions? A Baptist employer refuse coverage for alcohol related illnesses? And, it is to be hoped, some faiths refuse to pay the medical costs of gluttony also.

No, but if he does not want to provide pork to his employees that should be his right. Pork is not normally medical treatment but a convenience for those who want to have it. Just as contraceptives are not normally a medical necessity but a convenience for those who want it included in their insurance coverage. Abortion as a life saving medical necessity should never be excluded, but nobody should have to cover abortion for convenience if they do not wish to. Anybody should absolutely have the right to choose what will or will not be covered as an optional choice. Blood transfusions would be more problematic as they are almost always critical as a life saving treatment and I can't imagine any insurance company that would be willing to exclude them from coverage.

The operative word here is optional. If it is not necessary, it is optional.

 

[JoeB131]

And an employer who is a Muslim may prohibit coverage for those who eat pork? Jehovah's Witness refuse to cover blood transfusions? A Baptist employer refuse coverage for alcohol related illnesses? And, it is to be hoped, some faiths refuse to pay the medical costs of gluttony also.

No, but if he does not want to provide pork to his employees that should be his right. Pork is not normally medical treatment but a convenience for those who want to have it. Just as contraceptives are not normally a medical necessity but a convenience for those who want it included in their insurance coverage. Abortion as a life saving medical necessity should never be excluded, but nobody should have to cover abortion for convenience if they do not wish to. Anybody should absolutely have the right to choose what will or will not be covered as an optional choice. Blood transfusions would be more problematic as they are almost always critical as a life saving treatment and I can't imagine any insurance company that would be willing to exclude them from coverage.

The operative word here is optional. If it is not necessary, it is optional.

"Optional" is a matter of perspective, isn't it? I destroyed my left knee slipping on some ice, but the insurance company considered it "elective" surgery and fought me every step of the way. Made me waste about six months on physical therapy that was useless.

It's bad enough we let them screw us around on the basis of greed, but now we are going to throw religious stupidity into the mix?