Yes, the catholic organizations should be forced to cover it. If their employees don't agree with their doctrine, then forcing it on the employees for entirely financial reasons disguised as theological ones (a theological reason which apparently most of their constituents don't even agree with). Certainly this is a far more important issue than some twit who wants to wear a skirt in a kitchen. -- if that girl gets defended to hell and back for her religious beliefs, why wouldn't you also defend sane, rational people who want to be covered by their health care plans as well. You know, an actual issue that has an effect on something other than the enormously inflated egos of religious media.
“It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what youconveyed.”
The president’s comment implies that business owners are ignorant of all the benefits they get from government. And it makes Obama’s supporters look unaware of all that government gets out of businesses and how political decisions affect entrepreneurs. Ask a business owner if they feel like they get more out of the government than they give. Sure, it helps that the city paves the road that was there for 20 years before they opened their business, and maybe they are grateful for that new traffic light. They understand that the local police protect their livelihoods. On the other hand, do politicians not appreciate that business owners match every dollar their employees contribute to Social Security and Medicare? Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation?
If you run a business and you profit margins are so thin that paying your employees another $0.25 an hour will put a strain on your business, then your business is failing.
"I need people to work for me for free" = you have failed as a business owner, were destined to do so from the start, and I am unsympathetic.
Melissia wrote: Yes, the catholic organizations should be forced to cover it.
So their religious rights don't matter?
If their employees don't agree with their doctrine, then forcing it on the employees for entirely financial reasons disguised as theological ones (a theological reason which apparently most of their constituents don't even agree with).
Who's FORCING them to work for this institution? It's a PRIVATE organization ran according to their belief... if an employee disagrees with them, they don't have to work there.
And also, contraception is cheeeeeeap. This isn't about cost, it's about their belief.
Certainly this is a far more important issue than some twit who wants to wear a skirt in a kitchen. -- if that girl gets defended to hell and back for her religious beliefs, why wouldn't you also defend sane, rational people who want to be covered by their health care plans as well. You know, an actual issue that has an effect on something other than the enormously inflated egos of religious media.
2. Clarify or did you miss the part about "remaining poor".
Most academics don't make much money once you factor in student loans, other debt incurred during education (especially PhD education), and the extremely limited job market. It isn't uncommon to find people with advanced degrees working relatively low paying jobs while paying out on debt that is equivalent to holding 2-3 car loans. You can try for work in the private sector, but even then researchers aren't especially well paid (and the job market is extremely competitive), certainly less so than people holding professional degrees who also tend to be sitting on a fair bit of work experience and at least a year of gainful employment (particularly lawyers).
Also, you have to consider what type of science you're actually good at. For example, physics majors have a higher rate of unemployment than political science majors, and math majors (granted, its not really a science) have a higher rate of unemployment than journalism majors. And the kicker? Music education majors have a lower rate of unemployment than just about everyone.
Amaya wrote: Behold the rights of Christians and Christian organizations are inferior to the rights of others.
Government telling 1 business that they cannot refuse to cover something, religious persecution.
A business telling 500 employees that they have to follow the same religious standards as the business and will not get birth control pills, freedom of religion.
If I was a Muslim or Jewish business I would find the most outrageous thing to refuse to my employees based on my holy text, just so that it would force people to really take a look at the issue.
Isn't there a business owner somewhere that is a Pastafarian that could swing something like that?
whembly wrote: It's a PRIVATE organization ran according to their belief... if an employee disagrees with them, they don't have to work there.
Tell that to the idiots who argue that Burger King should have to make accommodations to the girl
whembly wrote: And also, contraception is cheeeeeeap. This isn't about cost [...] THAT argument was really about safety.
I'm not foolish enough to really believe that.
It had nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with a calculated attempt to garner support from the religious base for the sake of attempting to pad Romney's votes in the upcoming election. And that is pretty much blatantly what it is. Just like the stories about Romney's cayman islands yacht are the same thing for the Democrats.
The same general crap that's been going on since the start of hte year, if not sooner. Frankly, I'm running out of feths to give.
So, the Catholic organizations have no rights... that is just wrong.
whembly wrote: It's a PRIVATE organization ran according to their belief... if an employee disagrees with them, they don't have to work there.
Tell that to the idiots who argue that Burger King should have to make accommodations to the girl
Hey... I'm right there with you here... :highfive:
whembly wrote: And also, contraception is cheeeeeeap. This isn't about cost
[...]
THAT argument was really about safety.
I'm not foolish enough to really believe that.
It had nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with a calculated attempt to garner support from the religious base for the sake of attempting to pad Romney's votes in the upcoming election. And that is pretty much blatantly what it is. Just like the stories about Romney's cayman islands yacht are the same thing for the Democrats.
The same general crap that's been going on since the start of hte year, if not sooner. Frankly, I'm running out of feths to give.
They've ALWAYS believed in that... had nothing to do with "objecting this to gather Romney votes"
For as loooooooooong as I can remember, the Catholic Organizations has NEVER covered contraceptives.
I've got family members (and non-catholic teachers!) who works for the Dioceses and it's never been covered.
If anything, those lawsuits will be the one that'll remove the mandate to ACA... which cannot be ruled until 2014 (when most of it goes into effect).
By forcing Christian organizations to provide their employees contraceptives you are infringing on their beliefs. As abstinence has not yet been proven to have killed anyone outside of a few sex addicted followers of Bacchus, I do not see a problem with it. It is as not as if these companies are somehow infringing on their employee's rights.
Why you would go work for a private Christian organization when you are not Christian or at least sympathetic to them is beyond me. Forcing them to hand out contraceptives to them is akin to forcing them to condone sexual promiscuity which is utterly repulsive to their beliefs.
“It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what youconveyed.”
The president’s comment implies that business owners are ignorant of all the benefits they get from government. And it makes Obama’s supporters look unaware of all that government gets out of businesses and how political decisions affect entrepreneurs. Ask a business owner if they feel like they get more out of the government than they give. Sure, it helps that the city paves the road that was there for 20 years before they opened their business, and maybe they are grateful for that new traffic light. They understand that the local police protect their livelihoods. On the other hand, do politicians not appreciate that business owners match every dollar their employees contribute to Social Security and Medicare? Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation?
If you run a business and you profit margins are so thin that paying your employees another $0.25 an hour will put a strain on your business, then your business is failing.
"I need people to work for me for free" = you have failed as a business owner, were destined to do so from the start, and I am unsympathetic.
Dude... where did I imply this?
Talk about strawman...
You implied it right here:
Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation?
Amaya wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Amaya wrote: Behold the rights of Christians and Christian organizations are inferior to the rights of others.
Government telling 1 business that they cannot refuse to cover something, religious persecution.
A business telling 500 employees that they have to follow the same religious standards as the business and will not get birth control pills, freedom of religion.
If I was a Muslim or Jewish business I would find the most outrageous thing to refuse to my employees based on my holy text, just so that it would force people to really take a look at the issue.
Isn't there a business owner somewhere that is a Pastafarian that could swing something like that?
Are those people forced to work at that business? No. If you have a situation where you have a private Christian school they are now forced to provide contraceptives. That is not right and excessive interference.
I don't think you understand this: corporations are not people. Corporations to not have freedom of religion. Only individuals have freedom of religion. That means any individual cannot be forced to practice someone else's religion, but that same individual cannot force someone else to practice theirs. If a corporation is required to provide health care that includes contraceptives to a person, and that person's beliefs do not warrant it, then that person has the right to not take those contraceptive measures. But no private instituation has the right to deny another person access to those contraceptives based on religious grounds. And if that means the private institution is required to pay for health care which includes contraception, then that's the way it goes. Religious freedom does not allow a corporation, lacking in individual rights, to deny things to individuals based upon the corporation's religious beliefs.
Amaya wrote: By forcing Christian organizations to provide their employees contraceptives you are infringing on their beliefs. As abstinence has not yet been proven to have killed anyone outside of a few sex addicted followers of Bacchus, I do not see a problem with it. It is as not as if these companies are somehow infringing on their employee's rights.
Why you would go work for a private Christian organization when you are not Christian or at least sympathetic to them is beyond me. Forcing them to hand out contraceptives to them is akin to forcing them to condone sexual promiscuity which is utterly repulsive to their beliefs.
Religious Freedom means that nobody can force their belief on anybody else.
Nobody is forcing Catholics to take birth control pills. They only thing they are forced to do is stop using their belief to deny coverage to people that don't have the same belief.
Does this sound like religious freedom:
"You are not allowed to get birth control through our insurance to treat your ovarian cysts because I think that women shouldn't take birth control."
d-usa wrote: Is that business forced to operate in the United States? No, they can go to a country that wouldn't force them to provide that service.
Incidentally there are not really that many country out there where they could get away with that.
Can you not see that these religious institutions have grounds on this?
I'm surprise you're not advocating for clarification/expansion of the "consciencs clause" in order to save the ACA mandate.
No, I don't see how a business can force it's religious views on their employees.
Whatever your religious beliefs are, they are yours. And even if you own your business you have zero right to force it onto your employees.
If you can argue that "employees don't have to work for them if they don't like it" then we can also argue that the business has zero right to be in the US and they can always go somewhere else. Nobody forces that business to open in the US, but if they do they have to follow the same rules as everybody else, regardless of religion. Good luck finding a country that lets you get away with not providing the same benefits as everybody else.
Amaya wrote: By forcing Christian organizations to provide their employees contraceptives you are infringing on their beliefs. As abstinence has not yet been proven to have killed anyone outside of a few sex addicted followers of Bacchus, I do not see a problem with it. It is as not as if these companies are somehow infringing on their employee's rights.
Why you would go work for a private Christian organization when you are not Christian or at least sympathetic to them is beyond me. Forcing them to hand out contraceptives to them is akin to forcing them to condone sexual promiscuity which is utterly repulsive to their beliefs.
Religious Freedom means that nobody can force their belief on anybody else.
Nobody is forcing Catholics to take birth control pills. They only thing they are forced to do is stop using their belief to deny coverage to people that don't have the same belief.
Does this sound like religious freedom:
"You are not allowed to get birth control through our insurance to treat your ovarian cysts because I think that women shouldn't take birth control."
How is not providing the same as denying? You are twisting the issue.
How is forcing Catholics to provide a service violating their belief that Catholics shouldn't swallow the pill? You are twisting the issue.
“It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what youconveyed.”
The president’s comment implies that business owners are ignorant of all the benefits they get from government. And it makes Obama’s supporters look unaware of all that government gets out of businesses and how political decisions affect entrepreneurs. Ask a business owner if they feel like they get more out of the government than they give. Sure, it helps that the city paves the road that was there for 20 years before they opened their business, and maybe they are grateful for that new traffic light. They understand that the local police protect their livelihoods. On the other hand, do politicians not appreciate that business owners match every dollar their employees contribute to Social Security and Medicare? Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation?
If you run a business and you profit margins are so thin that paying your employees another $0.25 an hour will put a strain on your business, then your business is failing.
"I need people to work for me for free" = you have failed as a business owner, were destined to do so from the start, and I am unsympathetic.
[/spoiler]
Dude... where did I imply this?
Talk about strawman...
You implied it right here:
Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation?
Great... so anytime I startup a business, it's always so successful that I wouldn't have to worry about that... I demand to know where you hide your meds! I.WANT.SOME.OF.THAT.
Spoiler:
Amaya wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Amaya wrote: Behold the rights of Christians and Christian organizations are inferior to the rights of others.
Government telling 1 business that they cannot refuse to cover something, religious persecution.
A business telling 500 employees that they have to follow the same religious standards as the business and will not get birth control pills, freedom of religion.
If I was a Muslim or Jewish business I would find the most outrageous thing to refuse to my employees based on my holy text, just so that it would force people to really take a look at the issue.
Isn't there a business owner somewhere that is a Pastafarian that could swing something like that?
Are those people forced to work at that business? No. If you have a situation where you have a private Christian school they are now forced to provide contraceptives. That is not right and excessive interference.
I don't think you understand this: corporations are not people. Corporations to not have freedom of religion. Only individuals have freedom of religion. That means any individual cannot be forced to practice someone else's religion, but that same individual cannot force someone else to practice theirs. If a corporation is required to provide health care that includes contraceptives to a person, and that person's beliefs do not warrant it, then that person has the right to not take those contraceptive measures. But no private instituation has the right to deny another person access to those contraceptives based on religious grounds. And if that means the private institution is required to pay for health care which includes contraception, then that's the way it goes. Religious freedom does not allow a corporation, lacking in individual rights, to deny things to individuals based upon the corporation's religious beliefs.
You just don't get it do you?
Those corporations are RAN by people with religious principles!
This is one of the bedrocks that is founded upon this country where people can congregate and live as they choose...
But no private instituation has the right to deny another person access to those contraceptives based on religious grounds.
Amaya wrote:Azazel you fail to recognize that not providing is the not the same as denying.
By forcing all religious organizations to provide contraceptives to their employees you are dictating morality to every institution that has employees be it a church, temple, mosque, school, whatever.
Then you go and cry when someone attempts to dictate morality to you. You can not have it both ways.
If I want to open a business, there are rules that I have to follow. If I don't like those rules, then I am not allowed to open my business. I do not get to ignore the rules because of regligious beliefs. Otherwise, I could open a restaurant, violate every health code in the book, and then claim that my religious beliefs do not allow cleaning products to be used or chicken and pork to be fully cooked.
But I can't do that. Because the laws of society supercede the laws of magic sky men. If you do not like the laws of society, then you are free to not be a part of society. By operating within society, you are tacitly accepting its laws, whether you agree with them or not. You need to read more Hobbes.
whembly wrote: Melissia... I understand your position... I really do.
I believe you.
whembly wrote: So, the Catholic organizations have no rights... that is just wrong.
They have whatever privileges are given to them by the government; not being people, that's all that they can ever have.
whembly wrote: They've ALWAYS believed in that... had nothing to do with "objecting this to gather Romney votes"
I was referring to the media storm surrounding the two incidents, not the belief set. Although I will note, most Catholics don't agree with their church on contraception.
The fact that the media storms are hypocritical and contradictory only adds to my annoyance.
whembly wrote: If anything, those lawsuits will be the one that'll remove the mandate to ACA... which cannot be ruled until 2014 (when most of it goes into effect).
It's already been declared constitutional in the supreme court. It's not likely to get there again any time soon.
Amaya wrote:Azazel you fail to recognize that not providing is the not the same as denying.
By forcing all religious organizations to provide contraceptives to their employees you are dictating morality to every institution that has employees be it a church, temple, mosque, school, whatever.
Then you go and cry when someone attempts to dictate morality to you. You can not have it both ways.
If I want to open a business, there are rules that I have to follow. If I don't like those rules, then I am not allowed to open my business. I do not get to ignore the rules because of regligious beliefs.
Do you not understand that you are arguing that PLACES OF WORSHIP should be FORCED to provide contraceptives to their employees.
And yet you are arguing that having a religious organization making medical decision based on their dogma doesn't equal forging their religious values on their employees
Amaya wrote: It is akin to forcing pacifists to fight a war.
If they are force feeding contraceptive pills to Catholics, then you might have a point.
But forcing Catholic organizations to pay for birth control is no different than forcing pacifists to pay for war. Which is actually happening right now.
whembly wrote: Melissia... I understand your position... I really do.
I believe you.
whembly wrote: So, the Catholic organizations have no rights... that is just wrong.
They have whatever privileges are given to them by the government; not being people, that's all that they can ever have.
whembly wrote: They've ALWAYS believed in that... had nothing to do with "objecting this to gather Romney votes"
I was referring to the media storm surrounding the two incidents, not the belief set. Although I will note, most Catholics don't agree with their church on contraception.
The fact that the media storms are hypocritical and contradictory only adds to my annoyance.
whembly wrote: If anything, those lawsuits will be the one that'll remove the mandate to ACA... which cannot be ruled until 2014 (when most of it goes into effect).
It's already been declared constitutional in the supreme court. It's not likely to get there again any time soon.
Okay... I don't know why I'm agruing so vehemently on this as I'm not Catholic. *shrugs*
I think Our differences is related to the interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment:
What does the establishment clause mean? This is a difficult question that divides legislators, educators and members of the Supreme Court. It clearly means that the government may not establish a national religion. It also means that the government may not pass a law that favors one religious sect or group over another. To many, it also means that the government may not pass a law that favors religion over nonreligion. These individuals believe that the establishment clause erects a “wall of separation” between church and state.
Many agree that the establishment clause erects a degree of separation, but they simply disagree exactly how high that wall should be. Some believe that the government can acknowledge religious influences in public life. Others believe that even “In God We Trust” on money violates the church-state separation principle. Many — including Supreme Court justices — cannot agree on the constitutionality of posting Ten Commandments displays on government property.
Amaya wrote: It is akin to forcing pacifists to fight a war.
If they are force feeding contraceptive pills to Catholics, then you might have a point.
But forcing Catholic organizations to pay for birth control is no different than forcing pacifists to pay for war. Which is actually happening right now.
Just because something is happening doesn't make it right.
Amaya wrote: It is akin to forcing pacifists to fight a war.
If they are force feeding contraceptive pills to Catholics, then you might have a point.
But forcing Catholic organizations to pay for birth control is no different than forcing pacifists to pay for war. Which is actually happening right now.
Just because something is happening doesn't make it right.
Case in point, gay unions still being illegal.
And providing birth control does absolutely nothing to violate the rights of Catholics who choose to make a personal decision based on their faith to not take birth control.
Amaya wrote: It is akin to forcing pacifists to fight a war.
If they are force feeding contraceptive pills to Catholics, then you might have a point.
But forcing Catholic organizations to pay for birth control is no different than forcing pacifists to pay for war. Which is actually happening right now.
Just because something is happening doesn't make it right.
Case in point, gay unions still being illegal.
And providing birth control does absolutely nothing to violate the rights of Catholics who choose to make a personal decision based on their faith to not take birth control.
But forcing the Catholic institutions does violate a tenet of their faith.
I can assure you... they won't do it. If the Government takes them to court, it's a court fight they'll want.
To me, it means that (among other things) the government should treat religious organizations like it treats any other non-profit organization-- and in fact, it should treat several religious organizations as for-profit organizations, too, because that's exactly what they have become, but that's another issue for a different thread.
I have no illusion that this is likely to happen any time soon, however.
Melissia wrote: To me, it means that (among other things) the government should treat religious organizations like it treats any other non-profit organization-- and in fact, it should treat several religious organizations as for-profit organizations, too, because that's exactly what they have become, but that's another issue for a different thread.
I have no illusion that this is likely to happen any time soon, however.
Fair enough...
Plus there's that whole debate of what's really "for profit" and "not for profit".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AgeOfEgos wrote: This thread is starting to generate alerts--let's all take a deep breath.
whembly wrote: But forcing the Catholic institutions does violate a tenet of their faith.
Shrug.
whembly wrote: I can assure you... they won't do it. If the Government takes them to court, it's a court fight they'll want.
At least until they lose. There's no guarantee that they'd win, after all-- even your own quote said that the supreme court justices are split on the issue.
Melissia wrote: To me, it means that (among other things) the government should treat religious organizations like it treats any other non-profit organization-- and in fact, it should treat several religious organizations as for-profit organizations, too, because that's exactly what they have become, but that's another issue for a different thread.
I have no illusion that this is likely to happen any time soon, however.
Religious entities have protections under the First Amendment that other NGOs don't have. Thats the essential and underlying difference.
Is your hatred for all religions such a great and terrible force inside you that it blinds you to reality?
Have you ever been inside a religious thread that included me?
Apparently these institutions not providing a service is somehow akin to denying it.
That is such an illogical assertion that it is mind boggling. You act as if they are actively preventing the use of contraceptives.
The fact you actually want temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques to also be forced to do so shows that you are extremely intolerant of religion.
And apparently having these institutions providing contraceptives is somehow akin to forcing them to take contraceptive.
That is such an illogical assertion that it is mind boggling. You act as if they are actively forcing them to use contraceptives.
The fact you want employees of temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques to be denied a benefit shows that you are extremely intolerant of the employees rights to make their own decisions.
And again, have you ever been inside a religious thread with me in it? Because your "you hate religion" statement aimed at me would probably have most of the atheists and anti-theists in here shake their heads.
whembly wrote: Are you saying that a Catholic institution should be forced to cover it?
Yes, religious organizations should be required to follow federal and state requirements as if they were any other employer. There is a constant negotiation between society and groups religious as to how far their protections extend.
It is relatively common (but not universal) for states to require religious organizations to observe wage parity requirements even if this directly contradicts their beliefs. Federal and state law allows most religious institutions to ignore equal opportunity laws on the grounds of religion, but that is (I believe) the only protected class. A religious organization that was shown to discriminate on basis of sex, even if their doctrine ruled that women were to be subservient to men, would be held liable and would likely suffer fines or repercussions. It's certainly appropriate for a religious group to be able to say they require people of the same faith (otherwise they could be forced to employ diametrically opposed individuals to their own creeds), but religions are not given carte blance by society to fulfill their own agendas. A religion that promoted and followed through with human sacrifice would not be protected; and a Southern Baptist church that participated in slavery would not be protected. Both examples illustrates that many people will acknowledge freedom of religion not as an absolute grant, but a negotiated one.
When the ACA was written into law, it contained an implicit acknowledgement that access to contraceptives for society at large was to be expected. That a particular religious faith objects to contraceptives has to be weighed against the good of each individual's access to contraceptives or other procedures deemed necessary for well-being. Christian Scientists would object to the requirements for certain vaccinations, for instance; and yet, society at large still expects even those children to be vaccinated for the good of the larger populace. There isn't a clear dividing line, and each side has their compelling arguments.
That line is further muddied when you try to place a large umbrella over an organization. Just because the Catholic administration doesn't want to pay for contraceptives, doesn't mean that an individual Catholic should be denied access to them. Most American Catholics actively use contraceptives, despite their religious administration's admonitions. Should a small group of individuals at the top of an organization be the final authority for anybody who ties themselves to the organization, even loosely? Are you primarily a Catholic, or an American? Americans get access to contraceptives (as written into law), Catholics do not. Which association trumps the other?
It is also worth noting that nothing prevents the Catholic church from dropping health insurance coverage on their employees. They could even provide salary adjustments to offset the cost of procuring private insurance for individuals, which would allow the church at large to reconcile their religious beliefs of not supporting contraceptives with the new law. However that would be an expensive addition to their costs, and as such they appear to be ignoring that option (beyond the ethical issue of not providing health care).
Individuals should always be able to practice their faith as they choose, but organizations have different rules. The second you have two people in a group, there are differences of opinion and the obligation under the constitution is to ensure that neither person in the ground is infringed upon. Religious organizations operate within the confines of society at large, and as such have to accommodate our desires as much as we accommodate theirs.
Amaya wrote:Religious Organizations and the Catholic Church are exempt from the portion of the mandate requiring the provision of preventive care (aka contraceptives). The fact you are either unaware of this, do not care, and are yet still arguing that actual religious organizations should be required to violate their tenets shows that you neither respect their right to have beliefs and are intolerant of religions.
Citation please.
Amaya wrote:You routinely fail to counter the fact that employees are entirely capable of seeking contraceptives on their own.
How is me not giving you an apple keeping you from purchasing an apple?
You're sidestepping the point: it's not that I can't get an apple on my own; it's that you are legally obliged to give me an apple and you're refusing to because you think your rules supercede those of society.
Myself and others have been patient enough with you to provide you with lessons that you should have learned in grade school civics and social studies class. Me, not being as familiar with the US laws on the matter as I am with those of my own country, would be appreciative if you would kindly return the favour and save me the time.
Amaya wrote: Unless the government is providing the health care (in which case a business should have no say in how taxpayer money is spent) then the money is being provided by employer as a bonus to whatever salary or wages the employee receives, correct?
Benefits such as discounts, health care, stock options, etc are provided because they are non taxable income that is cheaper for the employer to provide than increased income and as such alluring for both the employer and typically in the case of health care, the employee. Now the employer can simply decide not provide health care if classified as a small business.
So your argument is that religious businesses should be able to have their cake and eat it too? Because what you appear to be arguing is that you believe a business should be allowed to pay for health care and receive said tax benefits while also telling its employees which elements of the health care they are allowed to partake in? I must be interpreting that wrong, because I think you're smarter than that.
Amaya wrote:I have several issues with this.
1) The government is dictating how private benefits/income are being provided. This is intrusive.
If it grants the business a tax break to do so, then such is the price of being given that tax break.
Amaya wrote:2) As small businesses are not required to provide health care they may be disinclined to do so because of religious convictions. This doesn't help anyone.
This is not a factor that can be given consideration. It's like saying that women won't be hired anymore because they are supposed to earn equal pay, so we can't legislate that they should have equal pay in order to avoid the disinclination of small businesses to hire women.
Amaya wrote:3) Larger business are required to pay a fine. A profitable business could just laugh this off since the fine isn't anything significant (something like $2000 yearly for each employee after the first 30 I believe).
If that's true, then the content of the health care doesn't matter.
Amaya wrote:4) This violates religious freedoms in the case of religious businesses. I'm thinking of organizations that are not attached necessarily to a religious entity, but provide only religious based materials such as Focus on the Family. Why any non Christian would work for that business is beyond me especially if they dislike religion.
This point is completely irrelevant. However, just to placate you, I can easily turn this around and say that businesses are currently required to provide health care that includes contraceptives in the US, and why any of these religious businesses would want to set up shop in a country with these regulations is beyond me.
Amaya wrote:5) There is no option to provide contraceptives for medical issues other than as a means to prevent pregnancy.
Amaya wrote:I think simply supplying contraceptives for legitimate medical concerns other than avoiding unwanted pregnancies is entirely reasonable for religious businesses. Better yet, I think instead of having the business provide health insurance have them provide non taxable income of a sufficient amount to purchase health insurance that can only be used for health insurance and medical emergencies. While that might be a little loopy, it avoids the "forcing religious business to provide contraceptives" issue.
So your solution is for religious businesses to provide a paycheque bonus of the cost of prive health insurance, but only if the health insurance doesn't cover birth control? Don't you find it a little hypocritical to talk about infringing on rights, choice, etc. and then suggest that the employees be given a Hobson's choice wherein they can buy any kind of health insurance they want, so long as it's the health insurance the employer says is acceptable?
Yeah, you're gonna hafta explain what you meant. 'Cause I'm just not getting anything different. You complaint is... what? That contraception is given to people for the prevention of pregnancy, but not for other medical reasons? So does that mean your solution is to hand out birth control and say "now, this is for cramps and headaches, and nothing more" and somehow that will placate religious businesses?
And if health insurance costs $180 per month, your solution is to pay employees another $180 per month, but only so they can buy health insurance? Not only can you not control that, but that money becomes taxable income.
There have been a lot of "if you don't know what I mean you are just being obtuse" posts, I decided that there really isnt any point in debating this anymore.
So here's the deal: I'm growing tired of this. Amaya, your points are becoming increasingly frayed. Recently you have begun using shotgun arguments in this thread, and my best efforts to engage them generally get ignored when you have no logical counterpoints. But I've been thus far tolerant of that. However, now you have begun to take the rude position of a snarky adolescent, and thus my patience has begun to wear thin. I'm normally happy to engage in a proper debate, and If I have misinterpreted something you have said and asked for a clarification, then that is all that I can do before continuing our discourse. Unfortunately, "you figure out what I meant to say" is not a part of that, and as such I am done.
For levity, here is a funny animal clip. I feel it is relevant.
Amaya wrote: The fact you actually want temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques to also be forced to do so shows that you are extremely intolerant of religion.
Out of this list, very few of the groups that could be represented by those buildings actually oppose contraception.
Roman Catholics and Orhtodox Jews oppose it, with Islam it varies, and very few other religions have any opposition. So the only objection that many of those groups could have would be the fact that they might have to spend some money.
Why should he? You've said that something is the case, the burden of proof is on you.
If he had said that they legally weren't exempt, you would have asked him for evidence, because he would have to prove that he wasn't making it up.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Yes you do. A representative democracy is still a democracy. There are many kinds of democracy, direct, participative, representative being the big ones. 'Democracy' only means 'rule of the people', and only refer to the ability of the people to have a say in the decisions that affect them.
Pointless pedantry; not worth reading.
Pedantry? Honestly, if you feel ashamed that you've once again been demonstrated wrong, you could simply admit that you do not know anything about what you're talking about. And your time isn't so precious that you can't find the worth in reading 4 sentences.
For crying out loud, you can't even correctly describe the form of power source of your own government. Before throwing out words like pedantry, you should make sure you've assimilated the material of your 5th grade civic classes.
You were probably right on a purely technical level, but your post was (and still is) pointless and pedantic rather than actually relevant to the conversation, so I just failed to care. Ergo, "Pointless pedantry; not worth reading." You're welcome.
Melissia wrote: You were probably right on a purely technical level, but your post was (and still is) pointless and pedantic rather than actually relevant to the conversation, so I just failed to care. Ergo, "Pointless pedantry; not worth reading." You're welcome.
I was right on every possible levels relating to the subject.
The part of the conversation being that a democratic country should or not respond to every whims of the majority, correcting the misconception that a representative government isn't democratic is absolutely relevant. You didn't fail to care, you failed to understand.
Amaya wrote: The fact you actually want temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques to also be forced to do so shows that you are extremely intolerant of religion.
Out of this list, very few of the groups that could be represented by those buildings actually oppose contraception.
Roman Catholics and Orhtodox Jews oppose it, with Islam it varies, and very few other religions have any opposition. So the only objection that many of those groups could have would be the fact that they might have to spend some money.
American Islam especially. I actually wonder what many American Muslims do on the topic, hrm.
Ah, here we go . The stance of modern Muslim scholars is the following:
Contraception is okay, assuming three conditions:
As offspring are the right of both the husband and the wife, the birth control method should be used with both parties' consent.
I did not correct you to generate a popular empathic response. If you fail to care about being right, then that's unto you. Considering this is something just about every 13 years old should know, I would've been surprised if it had generated many responses. Of course, with the exception of your incredulous attempt at diminishing the absurdity of your claims.
the religious minority want to make it the 1930s again
I mean they don't believe in evolution, so they don't want to evolve at all either. They would rather be scared of a book that open their eyes and look at reality
DIDM wrote: the religious minority want to make it the 1930s again
I would posit more that the ultra-religious types want the country to go back to an ideal of the 1950s that didn't really exist in the first place, not the 30s.
Amaya wrote: By forcing Christian organizations to provide their employees contraceptives you are infringing on their beliefs. As abstinence has not yet been proven to have killed anyone outside of a few sex addicted followers of Bacchus, I do not see a problem with it. It is as not as if these companies are somehow infringing on their employee's rights.
Why you would go work for a private Christian organization when you are not Christian or at least sympathetic to them is beyond me. Forcing them to hand out contraceptives to them is akin to forcing them to condone sexual promiscuity which is utterly repulsive to their beliefs.
While abstinance would not kill my wife, not having access to the pill might well do it. She has a hormone disorder where her body doesn't stop her period after 5-7 days, but instead will let it run for months. And that has almost killed her once before.
So, not having accesss to contraceptives CAN kill someone.
Why you would go work for a private Christian organization when you are not Christian or at least sympathetic to them is beyond me. Forcing them to hand out contraceptives to them is akin to forcing them to condone sexual promiscuity which is utterly repulsive to their beliefs.
There are plenty of clerks, secretaries, groundskeepers, and other personnel that work for religious institutions that do not directly share the beliefs of the organization. As for why you would go to work for them? Good pay, lack of other options, a lot of reasons, really.
With the economy in the toilet like it is, very few of us have any real choice about where we work right now.
Which is why things like our local banks hiring MBAs as $8/hour bank tellers can happen. Strictly speaking a bank teller doesn't require anything beyond 2nd grade math; banks are hiring these MBAs for so cheap because they can.
It's the power imbalance inherent to the employer/employee relationship which makes it necessary to have protective rules and laws about what an employer can require and can't do with their employees.
Most folks don't have the luxury of freely walking away from an otherwise-good job because it doesn't offer certain benefits, even if the person needs them. Many people go without coverage for economic reasons, even though it's harmful to them.
Totalitarian in description of any political party is not good. It would be bad to have a man in control who wants to dictate every facet of your life and force you to do everything he decrees or face punishments. Oh wait, we already have that, Herr Obama!
Totalitarian in description of any political party is not good. It would be bad to have a man in control who wants to dictate every facet of your life and force you to do everything he decrees or face punishments. Oh wait, we already have that, Herr Obama!
Totalitarian in description of any political party is not good.
True. However based on the sentence, it looks like he more likely was referring to Totalitarians who are also Republicans, not labeling all Republicans as being such.
Mannahnin wrote: They don't want the real Libertarians. Just the fake Tea Party ones.
I think you're only really a libertarian when you dedicate time and money to defending the right of someone else to do something you personally don't want to do. Until then you're really just a middle class guy who wants to protect his privileges.
A lot of hardcore Libertarians are people who mostly want to be left alone, some of whom have sufficient integrity to eschew using government services as much as they can. They usually wind up living out in the woods.
1. Religious Conservatives do not want to retro-grade society to 1930/1950. They also do not want jump on the slippy-slide to Sodom & Gomorrah either. How awful to want people to act with dignity instead of what passes for pop culture these days.
2. No access to the pill? I can only imagine this misinformation again comes from the recent media propaganda. You want or need the pill, have at it. Just don't expect someone else to pay for it. You want it, you buy it.
