Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

[Deplorable Yankee]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

What aren't you left wing fags outraged when it furthers your sicko hepatitis agenda

It's time to take action! Lol

Comrades The issue is never the issue

 

[Stann]

What aren't you left wing fags outraged when it furthers your sicko hepatitis agenda

It's time to take action! Lol

Comrades The issue is never the issue

I'm an elderly gay man and I'm fully vaccinated against hepatitis.

 

[Couchpotato]

AIDS isn’t a Gay Disease and as you stated it can be transmitted many other ways including usage of needles during drug usage.

Only a idiot ( we have many ) would attempt to label AIDS as a Gay disease and use religious bigotry to deny someone the expensive medication to keep the person alive.

Wouldn't being an intravenous drug addict be a good reason to terminate someone's employment?

 

[Couchpotato]

It is still discrimination any way you cut it

If they aren't providing treatment for HIV to anyone I fail to see how it's discriminatory.

 

[Couchpotato]

It is still discrimination any way you cut it

Would it be discriminatory if the business said it wasnt going to provide heathcare for illness due to tobacco use? Drug use? Obesity? As long as they are upfront about it and apply that standard across the board I dont see how it's discriminatory.

 

[flan327]

Should employers be required to provide medical coverage for major anal trauma as well?
Are the employers not allowed to choose the plans they want to provide to employees or should the govt force them to cover everything?

Not everything can be covered under a medical insurance plan, not even with socialized medicine like Obamacare.
It is cost prohibitive

Prevention is ALWAYS cheaper than treatment

 

[flan327]

Would it be discriminatory if the business said it wasnt going to provide heathcare for illness due to tobacco use? Drug use? Obesity? As long as they are upfront about it and apply that standard across the board I dont see how it's discriminatory.

Good for you!!

 

[bravoactual]

So in order to prove "Christian" they are, this company is going against the teachings of "Christ" they claim to believe. Jesus called on his followers to care for sick...fuck all you phony fuck faced so-called "Christians".

 

[miketx]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

Dude, is perversion all you ever yap about?

 

[miketx]

Anal on your mind I see. Are you anal retentive or anal expulsive? I would think retentive. Kind of uptight

There are various causes for anal trauma including crazy shit that heterosexuals do. Should employers, insurance carriers be able to decide coverage based on cause? THINK!

You need serious help.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wouldn't being an intravenous drug addict be a good reason to terminate someone's employment?

If you are trying to argue that it is ok to deny health coverage to someone with HIV who may or may not be a drug user, because it is OK to fire someone for being a drug user, you are engaging in a non sequitur logical falacy. Your premis does not support your conclusion

If you are trying to argue that it is ok to deny health coverage to someone with HIV who is gay because it is OK to firesomeone for being a drug user, it is a false equivelance logical fallacy

Either way you are not accomplishing anything with this stuff

 

[miketx]

If you are trying to argue that it is ok to deny health coverage to someone with HIV who may or may not be a drug user, because it is OK to fire someone for being a drug user, you are engaging in a non sequitur logical falacy. Your premis does not support your conclusion

If you are trying to argue that it is ok to deny health coverage to someone with HIV who is gay because it is OK to firesomeone for being a drug user, it is a false equivelance logical fallacy

Either way you are not accomplishing anything with this stuff

Is there anyone that has a gay translator they can run this through?

 

[Couchpotato]

That’s not even close to what I said. Thanks for playing

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Would it be discriminatory if the business said it wasnt going to provide heathcare for illness due to tobacco use? Drug use? Obesity? As long as they are upfront about it and apply that standard across the board I dont see how it's discriminatory.

Ah, here we have another logical fallacy. A shit load of Red Herrings. The subject is the denial of health care to people with HIV who may or not have contracted the illness as a result of gay sex. And they may or may not be singling out gay people with HIV as opposed to others- it is not clear.
But to answere your question, it would probably not be discrimination. Life insurance companies have turned down people for those reasons. People have been denied organ transplants for refusing to get a Covid shot and liver transplants for being an alchoholic

BUT those are behaviors. They are choices (although not so for all obese people ) On the other hand, being gay is intrinsic to who a person is . And spare us the crap about sex being a behavior. Sex is part of being human. Hell, it is part of being any living thing. Being gay is not a choice, and for many, having sex with those who you are attracted to is not a real choice either.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That’s not even close to what I said. Thanks for playing

Are you talking to me? Try using the "reply "button.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If they aren't providing treatment for HIV to anyone I fail to see how it's discriminatory.

First of all, it is not clear exactly who they are denying health coverage to. But what is clear isthat it is aimed at gay people with the intent of punishing them in the name of Jesus, who would disaprove of what the empoyer is doing. And even if it were all people with HIV, it is still discrimination - discrimination against people with HIV. And clearly un-Christian

 

[Stann]

Wouldn't being an intravenous drug addict be a good reason to terminate someone's employment?

The only good reason to terminate someone from their employment is if they didn't do a good job. All other reasons are bigotry and prejudice at work. And a place like that is not a good place to work.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That’s not even close to what I said. Thanks for playing

In case you are talking to me, I find it interesting that you state that is not what you're saying but offer no clarification. Makes me think that you do not actually know what you want to say. I am not playing. This is for real

 

[Moonglow]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

What about the non-homersexuals with AIDS?

 

[Stann]

Would it be discriminatory if the business said it wasnt going to provide heathcare for illness due to tobacco use? Drug use? Obesity? As long as they are upfront about it and apply that standard across the board I dont see how it's discriminatory.

You're poorly trying to defend discrimination. America isn't supposed to work that way. It only serves to put people against other people and we're the United States of America. Hatred, ignorance and bigotry is trying to make us the divided States of America.