Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Tell me how paying a portion of insurance costs either A makes a law respecting the establishment of religion or B prohibits the free exercise of religion.
BTW it doesn't.
No it's about religion and arguments based on religious beliefs don't hold up.
Yeah cause murder isn't murder if the law approves of the act.
The law says abortion isn't murder just like the law says killing in self defense isn't murder.
The whole "sin" thing falls apart because even the most religious of you people can't tell me you live a life free from sin and you only want to cherry pick the sins you don't want to be party to.
Again...
Tell me how paying a portion of insurance costs either A makes a law respecting the establishment of religion or B prohibits the free exercise of religion.
BTW it doesn't.
You kidding?
Really? You make the argument for their case and ask why they have a case.
Not what I would consider proof.Forget it, edge. All he ever does is post an article from another leftist blog (the New York Times) saying the same thing he says, which also doesn't provide any actual scientific evidence.
He seems to be hoping that repeating a lie often enough, makes it the truth.
That blog is the health section of the New York Times. Thanks for admitting I provided proof and then you scampered away before truth can get into your bubble
We want to bring back discrimination because we oppose you discriminating against religious people?
Oh, please climb down from your cross. Blacks were not forced to eat at lunchcounters.
What on earth are you talking about? No one mentioned Blacks or lunch counters.
We are talking about you discriminating against religious people. (Not really a shocker though is it since you are the same people who didn't let blacks eat at lunch counters).
Hey I disagree with obamacare across the board. the "sin" argument just doesn't hold up.
Yeah cause murder isn't murder if the law approves of the act.
The law says abortion isn't murder just like the law says killing in self defense isn't murder.
The whole "sin" thing falls apart because even the most religious of you people can't tell me you live a life free from sin and you only want to cherry pick the sins you don't want to be party to.
Abortifacient - that which will cause a miscarriage. If you give an abortifacient to a pregnant woman against her will, watch how fast you get charged with murder or attempted murder.
The law permitting a woman to kill her child by will alone is against the constitutional rights of the unborn child, why does the mother get to be the judge, jury, and conviction-er of the helpless child. What evil did the child commit? What jury ruled that the child is guilty of harming the mother and thus must be put to death? Where is the due process for the unborn child?
In fact, they are being forced to pay someone else to give them that pill, aren't they?No it's about religion and arguments based on religious beliefs don't hold up.
Yeah cause murder isn't murder if the law approves of the act.
Abortifacient - that which will cause a miscarriage. If you give an abortifacient to a pregnant woman against her will, watch how fast you get charged with murder or attempted murder.
Yeah it's the "against her will" part that makes it illegal
The employers are not giving or being forced to give anyone a pill now are they?
The law says abortion isn't murder just like the law says killing in self defense isn't murder.
The whole "sin" thing falls apart because even the most religious of you people can't tell me you live a life free from sin and you only want to cherry pick the sins you don't want to be party to.
Abortifacient - that which will cause a miscarriage. If you give an abortifacient to a pregnant woman against her will, watch how fast you get charged with murder or attempted murder.
The law permitting a woman to kill her child by will alone is against the constitutional rights of the unborn child, why does the mother get to be the judge, jury, and conviction-er of the helpless child. What evil did the child commit? What jury ruled that the child is guilty of harming the mother and thus must be put to death? Where is the due process for the unborn child?
This is not an argument on abortion.
Personally I don't care if a woman has an abortion or not.
Tell me how paying a portion of insurance costs either A makes a law respecting the establishment of religion or B prohibits the free exercise of religion.
BTW it doesn't.
You kidding?
Really? You make the argument for their case and ask why they have a case.
I am trying to explain to you people why the religious argument is not a good one.
Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?
Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?
Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?
Actually better questions are?
WHY should the US government compel a private company to do anything?
If you don't like your employer's policy why the fuck don't you resign?
.
You mean like dumping garbage in the river? Throwing used medical supplies into the nearest playground?
Yeah, why should govt do anything? *fog horn*
Tell me how paying a portion of insurance costs either A makes a law respecting the establishment of religion or B prohibits the free exercise of religion.
BTW it doesn't.
Example:
I'm an employer
Supporting abortion in any way is contrary to my religion.
The law forces me to pay my money which I labored for to pay for abortion contrary to my religious beliefs.
Being forced to pay for arbotion takes away my ability to freely oppose supporting abortion.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE HERE.
In fact, they are being forced to pay someone else to give them that pill, aren't they?Yeah cause murder isn't murder if the law approves of the act.
Abortifacient - that which will cause a miscarriage. If you give an abortifacient to a pregnant woman against her will, watch how fast you get charged with murder or attempted murder.
Yeah it's the "against her will" part that makes it illegal
The employers are not giving or being forced to give anyone a pill now are they?
What is wrong with an individual just going out and getting the extra coverage for things not covered by the employee?
And please, don't say a fucking word about why should they be inconvenienced by having to expend effort on their own behalf......
As I have said more than once now the employee contribution for insurance premiums most likely more than pays for the itemized insurance costs of the "sinful" coverage so again the argument falls apart.
Tell me how paying a portion of insurance costs either A makes a law respecting the establishment of religion or B prohibits the free exercise of religion.
BTW it doesn't.
Example:
I'm an employer
Supporting abortion in any way is contrary to my religion.
The law forces me to pay my money which I labored for to pay for abortion contrary to my religious beliefs.
Being forced to pay for arbotion takes away my ability to freely oppose supporting abortion.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE HERE.
I've given you the perfect rationalization for that. Religious people rationalize all the time and cherry pick the sins they wish to take a stand on.
The employee premium contributions more than cover the "sinful" coverage so the employer is not funding them the employee is.
If an employer has no issue with paying a gay adulterer money that supports his life style why would that employer have a problem letting the employee's premium contribution pay for the sinful coverage?
No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.
Heres the rub tho. What if more employers start imposing more "beliefs"? And a few turn to hundreds? The rule still applies that no one HAS to work there but many will have to work somewhere which means some will be exposed to it.
Does the worker lose their right to the CEO's belief?
You are stupid, you realize the constitution applies to government and not private life, right? Which is why a business can ban a gun while the government cant.
Well see it works the other way as well, the govt cant impose religion while a private company can.
For example why would a christain bookstore hire an atheist?
As I have said more than once now the employee contribution for insurance premiums most likely more than pays for the itemized insurance costs of the "sinful" coverage so again the argument falls apart.
Again, lying will not salvage your assault on civil liberty.
You have no legal authority to force a private company to pay for abortion. I don't care how much you love abortion, I don't care if you think Obama is god - you have no legal authority to force your beliefs on Hobby Lobby.
Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?
Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?
Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?
Actually better questions are?
WHY should the US government compel a private company to do anything?
If you don't like your employer's policy why the fuck don't you resign?
.
You mean like dumping garbage in the river? Throwing used medical supplies into the nearest playground?
Yeah, why should govt do anything? *fog horn*
Example:
I'm an employer
Supporting abortion in any way is contrary to my religion.
The law forces me to pay my money which I labored for to pay for abortion contrary to my religious beliefs.
Being forced to pay for arbotion takes away my ability to freely oppose supporting abortion.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE HERE.
I've given you the perfect rationalization for that. Religious people rationalize all the time and cherry pick the sins they wish to take a stand on.
The employee premium contributions more than cover the "sinful" coverage so the employer is not funding them the employee is.
If an employer has no issue with paying a gay adulterer money that supports his life style why would that employer have a problem letting the employee's premium contribution pay for the sinful coverage?
Wage vs employer contribution insurance coverage. Apples and oranges
Actually better questions are?
WHY should the US government compel a private company to do anything?
If you don't like your employer's policy why the fuck don't you resign?
.
You mean like dumping garbage in the river? Throwing used medical supplies into the nearest playground?
Yeah, why should govt do anything? *fog horn*
Yeah cause not wanting to kill children is the same as illegally polluting water ways.
