"You can't be a democrat and go to heaven"

[craner]

A Kentucky teacher is being criticized for writing a politically charged statement on the whiteboard in class.

South Laurel County High School teacher Kendra Baker is drawing complaints from parents and students after she wrote, "You can't be a democrat and go to heaven."

More: Kendra Baker, Kentucky Teacher, Under Fire For 'Can't Be A Democrat And Go To Heaven' Statement

 

[Lakhota]

Better have a doctor look at your clap.

 

[Lakhota]

The link below includes pictures of Kindra Baker.

Parents pull their daughter out of school after teacher writes 'You can't be a democrat and go to heaven' on class whiteboard | Mail Online

 

[Care4all]

And employers or people who do not want to provide them have the right to purchase policies that do not provide them. I should not be forced to pay for something just because some jackass in Washington thinks he is morally or intellectually superior to the rest of the country.

Immie

This is changing due to the ACA. Every employee gets covered or the company pays a fine. The Catholic Church does not have to provide contraceptive coverage for priests and nuns and pedophiles, but does have to provide the coverage for lay employees. They have been for decades.

The controversy is they would not allow university students to have insurance that covered contraception...even if their parents or they themselves bought it.

Banning contraceptive coverage for college age people is not allowed under the ACA. Students can bring their own or purchase that which is equivalent to wwhat Catholic
employees are offered.

That is it- just extend to students what employees have. Hugest priestly pissy fits over that.

Regards from Rosie

It is not up to you to tell the church, a university or even a private business what and who it must cover.

If the church is unwilling to subsidize students wanton sex lives, it is not required to or at least it should not be required to do so, but then Pelosi and Reid believe they are gods and have the right to dictate to others what should be done.

Immie

immie
if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???

The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?

And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation? Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

 

[Lumpy 1]

This is changing due to the ACA. Every employee gets covered or the company pays a fine. The Catholic Church does not have to provide contraceptive coverage for priests and nuns and pedophiles, but does have to provide the coverage for lay employees. They have been for decades.

The controversy is they would not allow university students to have insurance that covered contraception...even if their parents or they themselves bought it.

Banning contraceptive coverage for college age people is not allowed under the ACA. Students can bring their own or purchase that which is equivalent to wwhat Catholic
employees are offered.

That is it- just extend to students what employees have. Hugest priestly pissy fits over that.

Regards from Rosie

It is not up to you to tell the church, a university or even a private business what and who it must cover.

If the church is unwilling to subsidize students wanton sex lives, it is not required to or at least it should not be required to do so, but then Pelosi and Reid believe they are gods and have the right to dictate to others what should be done.

Immie

if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???

The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?

And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation? Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

The employee has the right to move along..

 

[Care4all]

It is not up to you to tell the church, a university or even a private business what and who it must cover.

If the church is unwilling to subsidize students wanton sex lives, it is not required to or at least it should not be required to do so, but then Pelosi and Reid believe they are gods and have the right to dictate to others what should be done.

Immie

if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???

The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?

And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation? Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

The employee has the right to move along..

so the JW owner could have blood transfusion coverage removed from his employees health care coverage????

 

[Lumpy 1]

if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???

The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?

And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?

Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation? Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?

The employee has the right to move along..

so the JW owner could have blood transfusion coverage removed from his employees health care coverage????

If the JW employer had the coverage then changed it, there would probably be an obligation by a reputable employer to offer private coverage at the employees expense.

 

[Care4all]

The employee has the right to move along..

so the JW owner could have blood transfusion coverage removed from his employees health care coverage????

If the JW employer had the coverage then changed it, there would probably be an obligation by a reputable employer to offer private coverage at the employees expense.

Isn't it the employee's compensation? when I worked, my employer sent me a statement of what my TOTAL compensation was for the job I did for them....Included in my total compensation, my employer listed my salary, my bonuses, my stock, what they contributed towards my SS, my life insurance policy, disability insurance that they paid for me, and the portion of my health insurance policy that they paid etc....

so essentially the employee is ALREADY paying the entire policy costs.

and what about birth control? It costs insurance companies NOTHING and the employer nothing and the employee nothing for the coverage....this has been proven to be the case already...the insurance companies come out even in costs...if they cover it or if they don't cover it, and in most if not all policies that cover BC, there is no higher price for the policy.

so, what's the beef? Other than employer's trying to dictate their personal beliefs on to others?

 

[Lumpy 1]

so the JW owner could have blood transfusion coverage removed from his employees health care coverage????

If the JW employer had the coverage then changed it, there would probably be an obligation by a reputable employer to offer private coverage at the employees expense.

Isn't it the employee's compensation? when I worked, my employer sent me a statement of what my TOTAL compensation was for the job I did for them....Included in my total compensation, my employer listed my salary, my bonuses, my stock, what they contributed towards my SS, my life insurance policy, disability insurance that they paid for me, and the portion of my health insurance policy that they paid etc....

so essentially the employee is ALREADY paying the entire policy costs.

and what about birth control? It costs insurance companies NOTHING and the employer nothing and the employee nothing for the coverage....this has been proven to be the case already...the insurance companies come out even in costs...if they cover it or if they don't cover it, and in most if not all policies that cover BC, there is no higher price for the policy.

so, what's the beef? Other than employer's trying to dictate their personal beliefs on to others?

I don't claim to be an insurance pro Darlin..

I was under the impression that the employer paid a share of the insurance and the employee paid a share of it also. In my younger years pre 1995 most of my employers paid for my insurance as a benefit to keep me around.

As far as Birth control benefits, nothing is free, someone ends up paying.

 

[Care4all]

If the JW employer had the coverage then changed it, there would probably be an obligation by a reputable employer to offer private coverage at the employees expense.

Isn't it the employee's compensation? when I worked, my employer sent me a statement of what my TOTAL compensation was for the job I did for them....Included in my total compensation, my employer listed my salary, my bonuses, my stock, what they contributed towards my SS, my life insurance policy, disability insurance that they paid for me, and the portion of my health insurance policy that they paid etc....

so essentially the employee is ALREADY paying the entire policy costs.

and what about birth control? It costs insurance companies NOTHING and the employer nothing and the employee nothing for the coverage....this has been proven to be the case already...the insurance companies come out even in costs...if they cover it or if they don't cover it, and in most if not all policies that cover BC, there is no higher price for the policy.

so, what's the beef? Other than employer's trying to dictate their personal beliefs on to others?

I don't claim to be an insurance pro Darlin..

I was under the impression that the employer paid a share of the insurance and the employee paid a share of it also. In my younger years pre 1995 most of my employers paid for my insurance as a benefit to keep me around.

As far as Birth control benefits, nothing is free, someone ends up paying.

what I meant to say/explain is that it costs the insurance company a certain amount of money in other coverage, such as the pregnancies of more women, when they do not have contraception coverage and their actuaries determined that covering the cost of birth control pills does not add to the insurance policy's cost because they have a reduction in costs for unplanned pregnancies.

and in 1995, when you THINK your employer paid your health care insurance costs, that this was actually part of YOUR total compensation for the job you did for them....so is the portion of SS that they paid for YOU....that is part of your total pay for the work you provided for them....

 

[Lumpy 1]

Isn't it the employee's compensation? when I worked, my employer sent me a statement of what my TOTAL compensation was for the job I did for them....Included in my total compensation, my employer listed my salary, my bonuses, my stock, what they contributed towards my SS, my life insurance policy, disability insurance that they paid for me, and the portion of my health insurance policy that they paid etc....

so essentially the employee is ALREADY paying the entire policy costs.

and what about birth control? It costs insurance companies NOTHING and the employer nothing and the employee nothing for the coverage....this has been proven to be the case already...the insurance companies come out even in costs...if they cover it or if they don't cover it, and in most if not all policies that cover BC, there is no higher price for the policy.

so, what's the beef? Other than employer's trying to dictate their personal beliefs on to others?

I don't claim to be an insurance pro Darlin..

I was under the impression that the employer paid a share of the insurance and the employee paid a share of it also. In my younger years pre 1995 most of my employers paid for my insurance as a benefit to keep me around.

As far as Birth control benefits, nothing is free, someone ends up paying.

what I meant to say/explain is that it costs the insurance company a certain amount of money in other coverage, such as the pregnancies of more women, when they do not have contraception coverage and their actuaries determined that covering the cost of birth control pills does not add to the insurance policy's cost because they have a reduction in costs for unplanned pregnancies.

and in 1995, when you THINK your employer paid your health care insurance costs, that this was actually part of YOUR total compensation for the job you did for them....so is the portion of SS that they paid for YOU....that is part of your total pay for the work you provided for them....

Well.. when religion plays a part it gets a tad more complicated..

first amendment: an overview

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.

First Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Steelplate]

Well, now I'm convinced: ScreamingEagle is a certifiable psycho.

really......? why don't you lay some of that "critical thinking" on me to prove it....

Ooh ...Ooh....I will...pick me!

First off....if you want to be Christian...you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to champion. Read everything in the Bible that relates to greed and the treatment of the poor. There is multitudes on the subject....But you and your kind tend to ignore that....in fact, from what I've read on here....the poor are just leeches who pop out babies, refuse to work, etc...etc.... even the ones that are working and still can't feed their families and keep a roof over their heads because of the lack of good jobs and the proper doth for poor wages are still looked down upon bu you people.

That's why, in my other post....I specifically mentioned sins that don't really affect others....and IMO, Homosexuality and abortion affect no one but the principles involved....the two same sex lovers have to answer to God.....the mother that decides on the horrible decision of terminating a pregnancy has to answer to God(and the father if he encourages it). I don't condone those behaviors....in fact...in the case.of abortion, I would go out of my way to discourage it to a person who asked my advice.

But greed? That's a sin that just keeps on giving...it affects everyone....on the globe. IMO, greed and apathy are our two biggest problems as a nation. Hell, we are indoctrinated into it when we are kids.

It's a much bigger problem than who's boinking who in the bedroom and what scared kids do with the offspring of such unions....believe me....I know that those things are bad and wrong, but in the big picture? they are a molehill compared to the mountain of greed and materialism that infests our nation and that spans the globe.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, now I'm convinced: ScreamingEagle is a certifiable psycho.

really......? why don't you lay some of that "critical thinking" on me to prove it....

Ooh ...Ooh....I will...pick me!

First off....if you want to be Christian...you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to champion. Read everything in the Bible that relates to greed and the treatment of the poor. There is multitudes on the subject....But you and your kind tend to ignore that....in fact, from what I've read on here....the poor are just leeches who pop out babies, refuse to work, etc...etc.... even the ones that are working and still can't feed their families and keep a roof over their heads because of the lack of good jobs and the proper doth for poor wages are still looked down upon bu you people.

That's why, in my other post....I specifically mentioned sins that don't really affect others....and IMO, Homosexuality and abortion affect no one but the principles involved....the two same sex lovers have to answer to God.....the mother that decides on the horrible decision of terminating a pregnancy has to answer to God(and the father if he encourages it). I don't condone those behaviors....in fact...in the case.of abortion, I would go out of my way to discourage it to a person who asked my advice.

But greed? That's a sin that just keeps on giving...it affects everyone....on the globe. IMO, greed and apathy are our two biggest problems as a nation. Hell, we are indoctrinated into it when we are kids.

It's a much bigger problem than who's boinking who in the bedroom and what scared kids do with the offspring of such unions....believe me....I know that those things are bad and wrong, but in the big picture? they are a molehill compared to the mountain of greed and materialism that infests our nation and that spans the globe.

First off....if you want to be Christian...you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to champion. Read everything in the Bible that relates to greed and the treatment of the poor.

What total bull shit you saying people shouldn't pick and choose what part of the bible they should champion but you doing it yourself.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 ESV

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Proverbs 10:4 ESV

A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.

Proverbs 6:9-11 ESV

How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.

 

[editec]

News FLASH

There are very stupid venal and criminal people in the world.

Addendum to the news flash.

Giving us examples of those proves absolutely NOTHING except that there are such people theoretically proving that such people are PARTISANS.

 

[Too Tall]

No it is not. Not celebrating holidays and birthdays and being against blood transfusions are what Jehovah's Witnesses do. So all public school children need to be taught these things are wrong? NO!

You don't like the public school curriculum? Send your kids to private school or homeschool them. Means smaller class sizes for non-fundie kids.

Regards from Rosie

Yes it is stepping on rights. Not celebrating Christmas (a national holiday btw) is what the Secularists do.....so all public school children should be taught Christmas is wrong....? NO!

Public schools do not teach that Christmas is wrong - but keep your carols to your churches and homes. You don't have the right to impose church music on public schools.

MLK's birthday is a national holiday but kids aren't taught to sing "We Shall Overcome" all friggin' day.

Regards from Rosie

"Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" would be OK, but "God Rest ye Merry Gentlemen" would be banned because it has God in the song. Is that your contention? I consider that censorship.

 

[NoNukes]

i am pointing out to you that SECULARISTS are imposing their 'morality' just as much....if not more.....than Christians.....

Obama and the Dems are assaulting our religious freedom everywhere in America...

No, Obama is not. Being the Chief Executive, he is barred from advocating one religion over another. You bitch that he denies you religious freedom and ALSO bitch that he leaves God out of a holiday address. If y'all HAD worthwhile minds to make up.......

As for the Dems and Dem policies? Don't like it? Win elections then, losers.

Regards from Rosie

BO advocates abortion.....and he also advocates that the Catholic Church advocate it....

you bet i bitch about his position....he's anti-religion and pro-STATE.....commie that he is....

the losers voted him in again.....but BO doesn't have carte blanche this time around....

The people who voted him in were the winners.

 

[Too Tall]

I think people thought killing was bad before it was written in the bible along with most of the other bad things prohibited in the concept called morality. Are you actually arguing that only Christians have morals? You have to be joking.

then why is it you think only secularists should have any input into our laws.....?

You can have all the input you like, but our laws should not be made solely to satisfy your sense of decency or protect your faith. Certain things like killing, theft, lying under oath, unprovoked aggression, fraud and so forth will be illegal no matter what as they are pretty much universally seen as bad things but some things that pretty much only matter to blue-nosed busybodies such as yourself like closing the beer store on Sunday or making some kinds of businesses illegal in the city limits is ridiculous.

Situational morality is what you propose. There are local laws prohibiting having a titty bar or a liquor store next door to a Church or a public school. I wouldn't expect you to understand the reasons for these zoning laws.

 

[Too Tall]

Was Jesus a Liberal or a Conservative?

a little bit of both.....and if he was around today he would hate both parties for their hypocrisy and the bullshit they both throw at their fellow citizens....

Jesus does not hate anyone.

 

[NoNukes]

you don't have the right to impose your anti-God Secularism on Christmas......it is a
National Holiday....

And Christmas is a Christian celebration. Public schools are not Christian. You do not have the right to impose Christian practices on non-Christian schoolkids.That is settled law.

Regards From Rosie

yet 99% of America celebrates CHRISTmas.......what a TERRIBLE IMPOSITION.....

anti-God secularists are thin-skinned wimps imposing their minority views on the majority....

I celebrate Xmas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Catholic Church has increased in numbers to the largest plurality of Christians. As more and more Hispanics come to the country, the Catholics will only increasing as will its influence.

This is changing due to the ACA. Every employee gets covered or the company pays a fine. The Catholic Church does not have to provide contraceptive coverage for priests and nuns and pedophiles, but does have to provide the coverage for lay employees. They have been for decades.

The controversy is they would not allow university students to have insurance that covered contraception...even if their parents or they themselves bought it.

Banning contraceptive coverage for college age people is not allowed under the ACA. Students can bring their own or purchase that which is equivalent to wwhat Catholic
employees are offered.

That is it- just extend to students what employees have. Hugest priestly pissy fits over that.

Regards from Rosie

fuck you.....i bet no one has to provide contraceptives for HOMOS either....

Deny deny deny. The Catholic Church is in decline for protecting pedophile priests and moving them around so they could vctimize more children. It will take generations, if ever, to build back up Catholic numbers due to evil being enabled. Pedophilia ain't just
for some offshoot Mormon cult but was EVERYWHERE in American Catholicism.

Tell the TRUTH and the self-proclaimed Christian will curse you. Go figure. Greetings of the season to you, too.

Regards from Rosie