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

[Stann]

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

Drug addiction is a disease. An answer to your question, only if it interferes with their work. That's the only good reason to fire someone.

 

[Stann]

Prevention is ALWAYS cheaper than treatment

Most healthcare concert due to heart and lung conditions. Most of those are caused by human mistakes and unhealthy behavior. If we go down this road of discrimination where does it end. America is better than this. In religion definitely should be better than this. If they are not they become the evil among Us.

 

[Couchpotato]

Drug addiction is a disease. An answer to your question, only if it interferes with their work. That's the only good reason to fire someone.

You are free to do that. Most employers would disagree. This employer is one of those

 

[Couchpotato]

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

I quoted your post is it that hard to follow along?

 

[Couchpotato]

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.

How is it discrimination if the business doesn’t provide coverage for X thing to anyone? Are they discriminating against the disease?

 

[bodecea]

This is an abuse of power if there ever was one. Pure hatred and prejudice, Nothing to base any sane law on.

Scum so-called christians.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What about the non-homersexuals with AIDS?

That is an open question. The policy is not clear. They may be so stupid as to think that everyone with AIDS is gay.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yeah, it is a terrible ruling. But this judge is famous for such things.

Its their business. If the people dont like it they can leave.

See, this is the kind of ruling I could have supported.

Had the judge just said the Fed Govt has no right to tell a company what to cover, period....I would have been on his side.

But to hide behind religion like a punk is wrong

I have to wonder about that, Golfing.

Your first reaction is to say that it is terrible that people who oppose homosexual behavior would not be forced to pay for the consequences of that behavior. But then someone makes a libertarian argument and you do a 180. It's almost like you thought, 'oh, that's right. I claim to be libertarian even though I agree with very single Democratic Party position supporting post.'

I'm not sure when you wanted to pay off our wager. If you want to wait until the special master is actually appointed, that's fine. But remember I specified that this judge would not oppose a special master, even though the DOJ would surely stall the appointing of the Special Master.

Whenever you decide to pay it off is fine. I'd rather you not actually leave the board for a week. Instead I would accept that you - for one week - couch all your arguments from the libertarian viewpoint. Like tell us the libertarian reasons for hating Trump's policy on the border, for example, or the libertarian argument for taking Melania's underwear.

Or . . . option 3 . . . admit that you're not libertarian and I'll consider it fully paid off.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How is it discrimination if the business doesn’t provide coverage for X thing to anyone? Are they discriminating against the disease?

See post # 54,55 and56 before asking any more stupid questions

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I quoted your post is it that hard to follow along?

I am not finding anything hard to follow. You claimed that I misrepresented you but seem to be unable to explain how, or what you actually mean

 

[Couchpotato]

See post # 54.55.56 before asking any more stupid questions

I’ve read you’re posts as usual your emotions on the subject get I the way of your limited thinking.

 

[bodecea]

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

Scum so-called christians.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I’ve read you’re posts as usual your emotions on the subject get I the way of your limited thinking.

Bullshit cop out. That explains nothing and in no way defends your convoluted crap. Interesting how you people always accuse us of being emotional as a way of disguising your intellectual deficiencies

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Your first reaction is to say that it is terrible that people who oppose homosexual behavior would not be forced to pay for the consequences of that behavior.

That is not what I said, not even close.

But then someone makes a libertarian argument and you do a 180.

Nope, did not change at all. The problem is not with me, the problem lies with your lack of understanding

I'm not sure when you wanted to pay off our wager. If you want to wait until the special master is actually appointed, that's fine. But remember I specified that this judge would not oppose a special master, even though the DOJ would surely stall the appointing of the Special Master.

Whenever you decide to pay it off is fine. I'd rather you not actually leave the board for a week.

I had forgotten about that wager. And yes, you did say that.

So, see ya in week!

Enjoy

 

[Couchpotato]

Bullshit cop out. That explains nothing and in no way defends your convoluted crap. Interesting how you people always accuse us of being emotional as a way of disguising your intellectual deficiencies

Stop being so emotional.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Stop being so emotional.

Kid, I offeren a cogent, logical and factual argument. You on the other hand have offered nothing but bizarre, convoluted logical fallacies and irrational, EMOTIONAL reasons why employers should be able to discriminate against gay and/or people with HIV.

I am done with you. And no, do not even bother to accuse me or running away. I will be right here, if and when you are ready to have an adult conversation and offer a rational and coherant argument to support yu position

 

[Seymour Flops]

That is not what I said, not even close.



Nope, did not change at all. The problem is not with me, the problem lies with your lack of understanding



I had forgotten about that wager. And yes, you did say that.

So, see ya in week!

Enjoy

I know he is not reading this, or won't respond if he is in lurk mode. But Golfing Gator is an honest man, no matter how much we may disagree.

 

[Stann]

You are free to do that. Most employers would disagree. This employer is one of those

They'd be breaking the law then. " Under the terms of the ADA, employers cannot fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote someone simply because he or she has a history of substance abuse. Employers also cannot fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote employees merely because they are enrolled in a drug or alcohol treatment program. July 18th, 2022." https://www.samsha.gov>workplace. Federal laws and regulations / SAMSHA

 

[Stann]

I know he is not reading this, or won't respond if he is in lurk mode. But Golfing Gator is an honest man, no matter how much we may disagree.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, fortunately opinions aren't the basis of our laws. In America we have equality and justice under the law.

 

[Stann]

Stop being so emotional.

You confuse emotion with concern.