marks2065 0 #101 April 4, 2014 kallend******QuoteThe ACA would have employers pay for a bit over 30 different kinds and types of birth control That is not entirely factually correct. Employers are already paying for it through insurance plans, or contributions to insurance plans howsoever structured within each company. And even if the '4' that they claim are removed, they will still be paying for it and I bet $100 that the premiums that the companies pay will not actually be reduced by one nickel over these four forms of birth control. So this is an ethical/moral, not a financial argument - I get that. So stop bringing up the issue of 'companies do not want to pay for it - I will argue that paying for it is not relevant to the case. Your (their) religious objections to it are relevant to the case, and exactly why they will lose this one. Your religious beliefs end where they impose on my rights. rights for birth control are not constitutional, but they are well established case law. This case, while divisive to the country, much like the pro-slavery arguments will die in favor of women having the right to control their reproductive systems. You can turn this argument against yourself as well Employees are forcing their beliefs on the comany here So, there religious rights end where they attempt to impose their beliefs on the company owner It is NOT like the slavery issue in any way The women can still get any product or procedure they want At any time The issue is who is being FORCED to pay for it Tell us, Marc, how will you feel when a company owned by Muslims decides to enforce Sharia Law on its employees under the guise of "religious freedom"? What religious beliefs are they imposing on the employees? they have not forced any employee to believe as they do. They have not imposed any religious beliefs on the employees, the employees are free to get any treatment they want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #102 April 4, 2014 normiss It actually has everything to do with this topic. Ok sharia law takes all rights from women They have now choice The wormen cant go to school or drive Tell me oh wise one WHAT is taken from women here? They still can get these 5 or 6 kinds of abortion drugs and the like if they wish now cant they Nothing is stopping them is there The ONLY question is who pays for them Next"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #103 April 4, 2014 rushmc They still can get these 5 or 6 kinds of abortion drugs and the like if they wish now cant they Nothing is stopping them is there The ONLY question is who pays for them Next Indeed, you nailed it. It's ALL about the corporate profit margin, since they have no hesitation in outsourcing their production to China, the abortion capital of the world.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #104 April 4, 2014 kallend*** They still can get these 5 or 6 kinds of abortion drugs and the like if they wish now cant they Nothing is stopping them is there The ONLY question is who pays for them Next Indeed, you nailed it. It's ALL about the corporate profit margin, since they have no hesitation in outsourcing their production to China, the abortion capital of the world. the only thing that was nailed was a damn stupid argument NOTHING is taken from the Women YOU cant say that regarding sharia law BUSTED!!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #105 April 5, 2014 So you don't deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all. Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #106 April 5, 2014 kallend So you don't deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all. Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. The only thing i do not deny is you making crap up and putting words in others mouths You do not know the motivation Cause even the great kallend can't Regardless They have the RIGHT to make the claim They are denying nothing to the women who would use those drugs Getting those drugs is NOT a right Sharia denies women basics rights Why do you hate women? You cant stand it You refuse to refute my points so you just make shit up Just like you denying you would ban guns if you could sheesh...."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #107 April 5, 2014 So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #108 April 6, 2014 >They said corporations can donate to and influence politics and elections based on >the beliefs of the board or owners, therefore that allows the beliefs of the board >or owners in regards to religion to be expressed in how they handle the >purchases of the business based on religious freedom. Not when those expressed beliefs discriminate against people based on their gender, race or sexual orientation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #109 April 6, 2014 kallendSo you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead. Your argument is pathetic I will not debate your strawman But how about this You and others have said that what happens in the bedroom should be private But now you think that should not be the case Because you think that companies should pay to help offset decisions people make in the bedroom So, since you think that companies should pay for stuff that happens in the bedroom, should that company now have say what happens? should that money come with string attached? Fed dollars do! Just think of your HC insurance regarding smokers and the obese Which way do you think this should all go John?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #110 April 6, 2014 rushmcBecause you think that companies should pay to ... Companies don't "pay" for anything here except their share of the insurance. What you are suggesting is companies should have the right to dictate how employees decide how insurance is regulated and how employees can spend their compensation packages. THAT is ridiculous. It's like saying companies should be able to dictate how you spend your retirement money. It's stupid.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #111 April 6, 2014 quade***Because you think that companies should pay to ... Companies don't "pay" for anything here except their share of the insurance. What you are suggesting is companies should have the right to dictate how employees decide how insurance is regulated and how employees can spend their compensation packages. THAT is ridiculous. It's like saying companies should be able to dictate how you spend your retirement money. It's stupid. Stupid? What you express here is exactly what the government wants to do."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #112 April 7, 2014 >What you express here is exactly what the government wants to do. So you are saying that people should be free to spend their healthcare/wage/retirement money on whatever they like? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #113 April 7, 2014 billvon>What you express here is exactly what the government wants to do. So you are saying that people should be free to spend their healthcare/wage/retirement money on whatever they like? What I am saying is the government is playing in a sand box they have not right to play in"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #114 April 7, 2014 billvon>They said corporations can donate to and influence politics and elections based on >the beliefs of the board or owners, therefore that allows the beliefs of the board >or owners in regards to religion to be expressed in how they handle the >purchases of the business based on religious freedom. Not when those expressed beliefs discriminate against people based on their gender, race or sexual orientation. How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it themselves. they did not single out any one or group. the only one being discriminated against is Hobby Lobby for their religious beliefs which are protected in our bill of rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #115 April 7, 2014 marks2065***>They said corporations can donate to and influence politics and elections based on >the beliefs of the board or owners, therefore that allows the beliefs of the board >or owners in regards to religion to be expressed in how they handle the >purchases of the business based on religious freedom. Not when those expressed beliefs discriminate against people based on their gender, race or sexual orientation. How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it themselves. they did not single out any one or group. the only one being discriminated against is Hobby Lobby for their religious beliefs which are protected in our bill of rights. this is the angle the left keeps using in it's arguments here It is also based on the premise that HC insurance is a right"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #116 April 7, 2014 rushmc***So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead. Your argument is pathetic I will not debate your strawman So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #117 April 7, 2014 kallend******So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead. Your argument is pathetic I will not debate your strawman the is nothing to rebut You start from a stupid premise So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement. the is nothing to rebut You start from a stupid premise"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #118 April 7, 2014 rushmc*********So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead. Your argument is pathetic I will not debate your strawman the is nothing to rebut You start from a stupid premise So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement. And you STILL haven't figured out how to use the quote function in this forum.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #119 April 7, 2014 kallend************So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead. Your argument is pathetic I will not debate your strawman the is nothing to rebut You start from a stupid premise So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement. And you STILL haven't figured out how to use the quote function in this forum. Still grading the paper instead of debating the issue. I guess when you don't have a good argument you need something to fall back on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #120 April 7, 2014 >How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they >said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it >themselves. Let's take the two parallel cases in the post above. ========= Company B does not provide medical coverage for Bidil because they do not think blacks deserve it. How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that blacks are undeserving, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny blacks cardiac medications; they just said that if blacks want that particular medical care they have to pay for it themselves. Company C provides maternity and paternity leave for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals. How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that gays should not raise children, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny gays time off; they are free to quit and take as much time as they want to raise their kids. ========== Still think it's not discrimination? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #121 April 7, 2014 billvon>How are they discriminating? they did not deny anyone any treatment, all they >said was that all people that wanted the treatments listed would have to pay for it >themselves. Let's take the two parallel cases in the post above. ========= Company B does not provide medical coverage for Bidil because they do not think blacks deserve it. How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that blacks are undeserving, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny blacks cardiac medications; they just said that if blacks want that particular medical care they have to pay for it themselves. Company C provides maternity and paternity leave for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals. How are they discriminating? It is their religious belief that gays should not raise children, and they are entitled to it. They didn't deny gays time off; they are free to quit and take as much time as they want to raise their kids. ========== Still think it's not discrimination? they did not pick out one race or gender, since all insurance policies have to have all coverage (mean have to carry maternity and birth control) and they deny it to all then they did not discriminate. so tell me again who they are discriminating against? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #122 April 7, 2014 marks2065***************So you are UNABLE to deny that this case is all about the money and not really about morality at all and that Religion is just a flimsy pretext for the case. So as a distraction from your failure you go on a rant instead. Your argument is pathetic I will not debate your strawman the is nothing to rebut You start from a stupid premise So you still haven't figured out the correct use of "strawman", and you still can't rebut my statement. And you STILL haven't figured out how to use the quote function in this forum. Still grading the paper instead of debating the issue. I guess when you don't have a good argument you need something to fall back on. It's rushmc who keeps changing the subject because he has NO REBUTTAL to the issue I raised. Since all he does is throw dust in the air, it's perfectly legitimate to criticize his throwing ability.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #123 April 7, 2014 >they did not pick out one race or gender Ah. So they are denying certain kinds of reproductive health care to men as well? If so I agree; the above analogy would not be valid since they are applying similar limitations to both sexes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #124 April 7, 2014 billvon>they did not pick out one race or gender Ah. So they are denying certain kinds of reproductive health care to men as well? If so I agree; the above analogy would not be valid since they are applying similar limitations to both sexes. yep, no one will get the 4 or 5 drugs they list Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #125 April 7, 2014 >yep, no one will get the 4 or 5 drugs they list Which of those drugs are for male reproductive healthcare? I didn't see any such drugs (like Viagra, Cialis etc) on the list. Are they denying something else? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites