Debating a person of the Left is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Contradictory assertions, circular logic, refusal to consider opposing arguments or deliberate misinterpretation of opposing arguments are among the characteristics of a Leftist screed in search of utopia.
Today’s latest exercise is the mind-numbing musings of Nat Frank at HuffPo. Entitled Belief Alone Is No Basis for Public Policy, Frank attempts to make an argument against bitter-clinger godbotherers on a basis they’ve never taken.
Conservatives have spent generations accusing liberals of moral relativism and “anything goes” indulgence in their feelings or whims. But is a belief — no matter how ennobled by the protective mantle of institutional religion, historical longevity or broad popularity — any less arbitrary of a foundation for the giving or taking away of people’s rights? In order to be a legitimate basis for public policy, does the assertion of a belief need to be paired with an empirical argument about the impact of the proposed policy that the belief is being cited to justify?
With the Blunt amendment, as with religious exemptions that let people avoid LGBT non-discrimination laws, we’re not talking about just leaving someone alone to revel or wallow in their beliefs; we’re talking, sound bites notwithstanding, about citing a personal belief — absent any other argument for the utility, wisdom, soundness, fairness, benefit or value of a proposed policy — to justify a law that’s binding against others. […]
The freedom of belief is, to be sure, a cherished American principle, deeply rooted in our history and law. Our founders made the very first amendment to the Constitution a protection of that belief from government force. But the historical context, and thus the real meaning, of that protection is often misunderstood. For the founders, protecting the freedom of religious belief was, first and foremost, an empirical assertion, on the level of the “self-evident” assertion of human equality. Their view was that forcing someone to believe something she does not, in her heart, believe, was a mutual charade. If you don’t believe in God, no law can make you, any more than a law could force you to love your wife or like peas. […] But the revelation was descriptive, not prescriptive. The point was not that people should be allowed to do (or not do) anything they said their beliefs mandated, but that no one could profess to tell another person what he believed in his heart.
For Frank, religious belief needs to be confined to one’s heart — but the exercise of one’s religious faith is of no matter and should never be the concern of [Frank-approved] policy makers. Godbotherers will just have to line up and do what they’re told.
Of course Frank argues that the godbotherers never make any argument “for the utility, wisdom, soundness, fairness, benefit or value of a proposed policy” — it’s all because Jesus appeared on my steamy bathroom mirror and told me so!
Besides Frank’s Left-typical bad faith argumentation is his studied lack of irony. If the religious argument is to be dismissed out-of-hand for being religious, how are his stated beliefs any less arbitrary and any more legitimate? E.G. There’s no empirical or historical evidence in support of a radical change in the definition of marriage. Thousands of years of human history and not once has there been same-sex marriage. But Frank asserts his belief is a done-deal.
Just who is channeling the steamy mirror, now?
That’s never stopped the leftists before.
“how are . . . more legitimate?”
Very good question. Still. And likely? Will remain so.
Long story though. How many lifetimes are available in which to learn it?
Where the hell does he find that in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”?
This is not about belief, this is about behavior. These people are insane.
He’s wearing those X-ray glasses you used to be able to order from the back of comic books, Pablo.
And yes: They are insane.
…we’re talking, sound bites notwithstanding, about citing a personal belief — absent any other argument for the utility, wisdom, soundness, fairness, benefit or value of a proposed policy — to justify a law that’s binding against others. […]
Which, as noted above, is exactly what they are trying to impose. Force religious institutions to provide services and coverages antiethical to their core beliefs? Sure. Because someone feels they deserve it. Never mind that law is binding on others. They’re just Godbotherers.
Progressives have their own system of belief. They have foreseen that all of humanity is moving toward a perfected state of existence. This “revelation” guides all of their public policies. They are aimed at that perfection of society.
That their whole basis for their “rational” system is based on “revealed truths” is ignored, glossed over. They seem impervious to seeing that just because they have no, believe in no, God does not make their revelations superior to those that do and who see their own revelations as coming from their God.
The main difference is that their belief system takes it as a given that they and they alone may use conversion by the sword, aka State power, and see it as a normal, indeed absolutely necessary thing to advance their “religion”.
Yeah. About that:
Cake: having and eating, visited recently in another context. But then, that’s where it was learned in the first place.
Atheism is not a faith but many people who proclaim themselves atheists have constructed a religion, morale code, style, and teaching based on it and expect others to follow it or kowtow to it in exchange for their respect. They proselytize it and try to extend it into multiple areas of life to build an acceptable “superstition free” philosophy, politics, and lifestyle. They come up with a system of values, preferences, a list of supported and rejected philosophers, elaborate cosmological theories, odd notions and theories of historiography, and defend these precisely as a religious man would defend a religion. They seem to have no qualms in condemning other atheists who disagree with them on these side issue beyond a rejection of thesim. They fall in love with humanity and grow to hate PERSONS and they become enamored with a sense of historical destiny driven by physics and materialism and forces of so-called history. They associate progress with movement that they infer to be towards this sense of destiny instead of merely being forward even if forward leads off a cliff. They come up with preposterous ideas of preserving the natural world in stasis through human efforts without even being able to model the natural world well enough to predict aspects of it.
For many people atheism has nothing to do with liberty but with imposing a new religion that they feel is better designed and useful. It may not have any gods in it but it is still an irrational faith in something bigger than mankind that set a cosmic order. It turns science into a sycophant that can be edited and revised by consensus to the benefit of man (if not men). It leads to a false meritocracy caste system that can be circumvented if you know the right people. It leads to little people who eat and obey and are taken care of similarly to livestock, and servants who watch over them, and big idea people who do what they want absent any controls because the rules are for the little people.
Atheists simply don’t believe in god and leave things at that.
But Atheists(TM) believe in prophecy, pure reason (so long as it supports their aesthetics) , historical actors who make things change, demonic influences (false consciousness), fixed potential in individual human beings that can be gauged by how well they agree with the right ideas, destiny, science that transcends evidence, moral superiority of minds that travel in the same direction as history which mechanistically works towards utopia because certain people are supposedly getting better and better.
Brilliant:
Cough Drops – The Mandate
It should be apparent not if it has not been already that they’ve come to treat the First Amendment in much the same way that they’ve always regarded the Second Amendment – an obstacle to be overcome or, when possible, ignored. It shouldn’t scare you, but for the fact that plenty of powerful people who wield the power of the state believe just that. I wonder how long it will take before they decide to feed us to the lions.
This is pretty simple. You get to practice your religion. I get to practice mine. If “practicing your religion” means that you need to try to make decisions for me, then we’ve got a problem.
If making your decisions involves forcing me to surrender my beliefs, then yes, we do have a problem.
For instance: if you want an insurance plan that covers contraceptives, get one. But don’t expect a Jesuit school to provide it. Not all plans offer dental. Or optometry. That’s the nature of competition and choice. You don’t have a “right” to tell me what I have to give you. That’s not me making a decision for you. That’s forcing you to make a decision.
In other words, “I’m not free unless I can choose for myself – and you.”
We have different ideas about freedom and liberty.
And dental and optometry aren’t the same thing. And you know that.
“This is pretty simple” seems to me wrong to start with. Politics isn’t simple now, nor has ever been. On the other hand, since before people gathered into cities politics or something very like it needed doing, which in turn means making decisions based on necessarily imperfect information (see why it isn’t simple?). The newer question, nicely, seems to be, decisions constrained by what, to where and by whom (so to speak)? Which, if we don’t miss our guess, was the point of that whole Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Constitution kerfuffle.
Can’t argue with that.
They are in that they’re options. And choosing not to offer those options isn’t choosing that you can’t have them. Plenty of dentists out there. Plenty of optometrists. Plenty of drug stores. Knock yourself out.
All that religion stuff is weird and unhelpful when it comes to implementing public policy, that is, until we decide to use it to promote said public policy:
“On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293068/pray-mandate-yuval-levin
Logic fail. There is no way to turn anything Jeff said into this. It is in fact the opposite of what Jeff said.
In other words, “I’m not free unless I can choose for myself – and you.”
Aren’t we talking about “I’m not free unless I can make you pay for it against your beliefs?”
Dental and optometry are generally more expensive and not sold OTC like the contraceptive sponge or condoms. You’re failing. Badly.
When I owned a 25 person consultancy, I shopped for group health plans. I compared plans based on the benefits they offered, and the cost. I wanted the best benefits for the lowest cost. I’m not sure why I would want anything else for my employees. So in the end, we ended up with 3 different plans that my employees could choose from. We paid a certain amount for their coverage, and the employees picked up the rest.
I didn’t go line by line through those plans and decide what should be stricken – for everyone – based on my Christian faith. If there was anything in the plan that I didn’t think was moral (like coverage late term abortions), well, there was nothing that compelled me personally to use that coverage. As an employer I can’t imagine going through the plan and asking, “Could Joe use this coverage to sin? I need to strike this from the plan,” because (1) it’s none of my goddamn business what Joe does outside of work, and (2) I only (and should only) concern myself with things that effect the employees ability to do their job.
What a wonderful story. Other people or institutions may view the matter differently. Enter – Freedom.
So in the end, we ended up with 3 different plans that my employees could choose from. We paid a certain amount for their coverage, and the employees picked up the rest.
I didn’t go line by line through those plans and decide what should be stricken – for everyone – based on my Christian faith.
So you picked health plans based on what worked for you in your business …
So why do you want to deny the same choice to another employer?
Well, none of your business other than that you were the one providing it, and it was your consultancy.
So, by none of your business, you mean entirely your business. Though you chose to treat it as if it weren’t, which is of course your right.
Because you made a certain choice — and now you want to foist your choice on everyone else because it’s the choice you’ve determined is appropriately moral for your religious beliefs. The Catholic Church and others don’t happen to agree with you.
Tell you what: when you die and come back and somebody starts a religion using you as the figurehead, they can go ahead and follow your lead. Meantime, I’d just as soon stick to the First Amendment.
I’m not sure how you got there from anything I said. I can’t choose for you. I can choose for me, and if you want to work for me, or attend my school, you can either accept my terms (this being my business, and me being the one doing the providing), make your own separate arrangements, or choose another employer / school.
Clearly. Yours seems to involve an awful lot of coercion in the effort to remedy a problem that doesn’t exist.
No, actually I don’t. Dental, optometry, birth control — these are some of the services some plans cover and others don’t. Just because my employer doesn’t cover eyeglasses doesn’t mean I’m being compelled to stay nearsighted. It means I have to get my own glasses. Or else take a job, or enroll in a plan, that makes such coverage available.
Turns out there’s plenty of plans out there that do. And if not, there are plenty of stores that will make me a pair of eyeglasses in an hour for like $100.
Competition!
One thing that I find just really neat is that my employer compensates me with health insurance and money, so I can use the money part of my compensation to buy stuff I want or need and my employer doesn’t have to be there and quibble with my choice of Scotch. Have we considered this option?
Right. My business made *business* decisions. Making it a harder for employees to sin on their personal time is not a business decision.
Here’s what makes it different, and again, I’m sure you know this.
If your employer doesn’t pay for (or partially pay for) an optometry plan because of the expense, that’s a business decision. If your employer goes to their insurer and says, ‘I’d like you to remove optometry from a plan, even though it probably normally covers it, because I’m concerned that my employees would use this coverage to get glasses, which is a sin. Oh, and I’m not expecting to pay any less for this plan once you remove this coverage.” That’s not something I’d classify as a business decision.
Normally one does not go to work for an institution that has “Catholic” in its name and expect that it will cover one’s birth control needs.
Why are we even having this argument?
“Yours seems to involve an awful lot of coercion in the effort to remedy a problem that doesn’t exist.”
Well, to be fair, when you’re talking about a religious non-profit with the charter of glorifying a living God, which very existence is a project of conscience the first Amendment tells Congress they may pass no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and they don’t believe what johntaylor the christian consultant believes , ya gotta use a lot of coercion.
Your consultancy was a Non-Profit entity, like a Catholic school, University, or Hospital? Hmmm . . .?
Your consultancy was a Non-Profit entity, like a Catholic school, University, or Hospital in furtherance of its religious injunction and mission? Hmmm . . .?
Whoops.
And you consider it your right to require that everyone else make their business decisions according to your metric. In other words, you’re not free unless you can choose for yourself — and for everybody else.
Enabling sin is a sin. I think that’s the logic.
We should ask a priest.
Course, those dumb old founding fathers didn’t reckon on the president passing laws, but hey, you have to break a few constitutional eggs to make a delicious fascist omelet, right?
Because Barak Obama can’t run on “You think I suck? Wait ’til you see how bad the next guy sucks!
Didn’t work for the GOP in ’06. Didn’t work for the Democrats in ’10. Won’t work for Obama in ’12.
My question was (obviously) to johntaylor who seems to be acting rather thick-headed about this whole issue.
Not to say that you are incorrect about Obama, because you are not.
OT: Someone at my local paper has a sense of humor. When they reported the election results from SuperTuesday, Obama was spelled O’Bama. About seven times.
Oh. So we need to peer into their hearts to see why they don’t want to provide glasses, and if it’s because they simply don’t want to provide glasses as a matter of business, that’s okay; but if they don’t want to provide glasses because it’s a matter of personal conscience, that’s a problem. Because business decisions are secular, and matters of conscience tend to be religiously based.
Interestingly, the Constitution seems to have gotten it completely backwards. You may want to lodge a complaint with the framers and ratifiers.
Because of the way wage and price controls were structured during WWII.
So, it’s like ration books?
Is this trip really necessary?
I guess here’s how I look at it. It depends on what business you’re in.
If you’re a church, and you’re in the business of spreading your faith and tending to your flock, then sure, you can make sure that you only hire priests that are Catholic. You can probably make sure that *everyone* you hire is catholic, from the organ player to the church office workers. You can provide services (basketball camp, VBS or whatever) you can make people’s personal life your business as much as you want. You can pray before the game. You can talk about waiting until you’re married, all kinds of stuff.
But if you open a hospital, and you are hiring people of any faith, and your treating people of any faith, then you’re not in the faith business, you’re in the hospital business. At this point, what your employees do outside of work is none of your business. And the notion that you’d go through the health plan and have things removed because they might sin on their personal time seems kinda strange.
Is it okay if I believe “johntaylor” is the pseudonym of yet another progressive (and probably someone who has commented here before under some other handle) trying to argue the point from “our side?”
If not, let me explain it to you, “johntaylor.” Liberty is paramount. Every time you do something that will encroach on liberty, you need to balance that loss of liberty with what you gain from that encroachment.
Forcing all insurance policies to cover contraception (meaning I have to pay for other people’s voluntary behavior) doesn’t even come close to passing the sniff test.
So, fail.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that johntaylor is not Catholic, knows no practicing Catholics and thinks of himself as progressive.
Obviously you’re not familiar with the concept of “corporal acts of mercy.”
What I want to know is, how can the church get away with demanding a vow of chastity from nuns? Talk about denying reproductive rights! I think that cutey in the sound of music shoulda testified to the highest authority in the land about having to give up her job as a nun to marry that nice Von Trapp fellow. Pretty outrageous if you ask me.
It’s not only that, Lee, but some Orders demand a vow of proverty! What’s up with that?
I think that’s actually how it works.
I can say, “If you can’t work Saturdays, then I can’t hire you.”
I can’t say, “I your Jewish, I can’t hire you.”
Sorry this is how the world works, but it does. And it’s not a bad thing.
It seems strange to you, because it isn’t important to you, and it doesn’t seem to trouble your faith.
To me, an agnostic, it seems strange that you think that by not actively providing birth control, a religious institution is interfering with what your employees do outside of work. When it fact, they way I see it, the church is actually making it more “none of their business” by not promising to provide it in the first place, allowing employees to make the choice to buy it themselves, or find a different coverage plan, etc. Meanwhile, nobody’s unalienable rights are being affected by the religious group’s decision — and the right to practice your religion as you see fit (and the hospitals are considered an extension of the Church’s mission) aren’t being infringed upon.
Win win!
*poverty*
I’d describe myself as center-left, and I’m not arguing from your side. I started by disagreeing, so let’s assume you’re on one side and I’m on the other. That said, I am enjoying the discussion. And I’m not a Catholic, I’m a Lutheran, so my knowledge of Catholicism is limited.
’cause it’s a church
’cause it’s a church
So here’s something that just occurred to me. If a Catholic church wants to run a vacation bible school, they wouldn’t think of bringing in a Lutheran to run it. It’s about spreading the faith and a Lutheran wouldn’t be qualified.
So if a Catholic hospital exists for the same reason, they wouldn’t hire anyone to work there who wasn’t Catholic. Because once again, they simply wouldn’t be qualified. The fact that they hire people of any faith – and even no faith – seem to indicate that they’re in the hospital business much more than the faith business.
Johntaylor’s blind spot about his own effort to impose his morality on everyone else kind of makes it impossible to explain to him why his position isn’t logical.
It’s not a bad thing that, as a business, you can’t determine who you hire based on when you need those employees to work?
If you’re an orthodox Jew and the job requires working on Saturdays, that’s not a job you can take, so why apply for it in the first place? And as the business owner, the reason you aren’t hiring this person is not because the applicant is Jewish, but rather because the applicant can’t work when you need someone to work.
I’d actually like to see a day when insurance and employment aren’t connected. I’d honestly like to just buy my insurance on the open market and have my employees do the same, and I just pay them more rather than pay their coverage.
Be sure to steadfastly ignore the individual at whom the goods of the Constitution and Bill of Rights aim.
And let the God bless the poor retard who doesn’t divide the world up into personal time and government time, business time and play time, swimming time and drowning time, thinking time and drinking time, instead, taking his time as time, whether he’s holding hands with his wife and child or swinging a mallet at the carcass of an old chair driving an arm and leg together. Right? ‘Cause that simpleton needs some help seeing his way past the unity in his life.
And while he’s at it, getting out of the way of someone else’s Wudu, no doubt.
Johntaylor, whom they’re hiring isn’t relevant to the argument. The question is why it’s any of your business why another employer decides not to provide a benefit you do provide.
You should look at it like this: if your decision to provide contraception coverage is really a better business decision, recruit your new employees from among those at the other place where they don’t have the coverage. You benefit, the disgruntled former employees of your competitor benefit, and you make your point to the competitor.
And the government has nothing to do with it.
Making it a harder for employees to sin on their personal time is not a business decision.
The employer isn’t making any determination of what a person is doing on their own time. The employer is only saying “I am not going to participate.”
Somehow that “freedom of association” thing went right by you, too.
No. It indicates that they don’t use a religious test for hiring hospital workers. It doesn’t mean they then have to provide those workers with contraception, just as it doesn’t mean they can force those workers to take communion.
They are offering jobs to non- Catholic workers. No one is being forced to accept the job or the terms, and no one’s unalienable rights are being violated.
The fact that they hire people of any faith – and even no faith – seem to indicate that they’re in the hospital business much more than the faith business.
Either you’re saying that out of ignorance of the Christian call to serve, or you’re just plain bigoted.
I’m not sure universal (and eventually, single payer) health care is the horse to back, then, Mr Taylor.
Got called away before I could add that the treatment of health insurance provided by an employer in the tax code reinforced employer coverage with steel.
Then Medicare becoming the dominant player and so getting deals where it paid less than the cost to providers led to the insurance rates going up faster than even the improved care would account for which in turn caused the “crisis” that Obamacare is to “fix”.
Short version, Democratic-progressives use government power to cause crises which they blame on private parties and propose new government solutions which cause new crises……….. repeat till government control is total.
Health insurance is only one of the many places this has been happening since the rise of the Progressive ideology over a hundred years ago.
The purpose of a Catholic hospital, Catholic homeless shelter, Catholic soup kitchen, Catholic thrift shop, or other Catholic charities is not necessarily about spreading the faith. It’s about doing good works in Jesus’ name, because that is what the Gospels tell us to do. (I’m lapsed Lutheran myself, and you shouldn’t be surprised to know that Marty Luther was pretty big on the whole “deeds over words” thing, himself.)
To the extent that the sick, the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the old, and the downtrodden are Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Confucian, doesn’t really enter into the equation, to the extent that those providing the charity are driven to tend to all of God’s children, even those who haven’t yet found the Light and the Way. Similarly, many of these charities will accept the work of those outside the faith, so long as they are willing to further the mission of the charity.
What I would like you to explain to me is this: If I am a deeply devout Catholic, who has taken to heart the teachings of the Gospels and devoted my life and my fortune to those less fortunate than I, do I lose my First Amendment rights if I dare to help a Jew or employ an agnostic? Does their voluntary agreement to accept my wages or my charity somehow strip me of my conscience?
It’s that competition model I keep referring back to.
It’s almost like it might could work!
Look, all I’m saying (and yes, this is just my opinion) is that it’s better for employees and employers when each is concerned with performing the job at hand.
I don’t really want a world where guys like me think it’s their business to sit in an interview and ask:
So, you have kids? Thinking about having kids? You know, kids can be a big disruption, and I’d appreciate knowing if its something you’re planning.
Also, what religion are you? Because I’m a Lutheran. And, btw, if I ever found out you guys had a 3rd trimester abortion, I’d have to fire you. You should just know that up front.
And I also don’t want Sally showing up wearing a photo of a fetus with “Abortion is murder!” on it and telling me she has a 1st amendment right, in the workplace, to express any opinion she wants and there’s not a damn thing I can do about it.
I just think it’s a better world if I, as a boss, concern myself with aspects of my employees that relate to their ability to do the job, and stay out of anything that’s unrelated. And I also think it’s better if they exercise their 1st amendment rights outside of the workplace.
That’s pretty much the way it is today, and I’m cool with that.
“I can say, “If you can’t work Saturdays, then I can’t hire you.”
I can’t say, “I your Jewish, I can’t hire you.””
You also can’t say “I don’t care if you are Muslim, you must by law sell bacon at your grocery store because bacon is yummy .”
On one side, we have this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
And on the other side, we have this: “And the notion that you’d go through the health plan and have things removed because they might sin on their personal time seems kinda strange.”
A clearly-stated stricture against the government that was important enough to be included as the opening words of the first clause of the First Amendment, versus something that “seems strange” to a guy on the Internet.
We’re doomed, fellas! Might as well give up now!
John, if you really believe that not offering abortion coverage is remotely the same thing as firing an employee because she got one, then you should go back to reading Nat Frank at HuffPo.
Keep up that kind of brilliant employment-law argument, and I might start to think that you’re not the small employer you claim to be.
The thing I’m more interested in is state run exchanges where anyone can buy insurance and there’s no pre-existing condition disqualifications. I’m honestly not super hot on the idea of the feds dictating what should and should not be covered. I’m not all that in favor of employers doing it either – hence me liking, “I’ll pay you more, go buy whatever insurance works for you.”
And guys like Alito have made it clear that religious beliefs don’t let you bypass laws – such as drug laws.
Look, I’d be on your side if the question was, “Should the feds be getting into line items of insurance coverage.” I agree that they should not.
But when we get to the notion that you can tune your employees coverage based on your religious beliefs, we disagree.
Back to the original article: …we’re not talking about just leaving someone alone to revel or wallow in their beliefs; we’re talking about citing a personal belief to justify a law that’s binding against others.
What’s really cute is that Nat would like his readership to believe that the law is somehow “binding” against the people who receive benefits. Of course, he knows that the truth is nothing of the sort. The law binds those who offer benefits, and it is their freedom — their religious beliefs — that he desperately tries to convince himself (and his readers) is not being trampled.
What a loathsome little weasel.
But when we get to the notion that you can tune your employees coverage based on your religious beliefs, we disagree.
I can tune my employee benefits to whatever I fucking want to, John, and for whatever reason. It’s my business, in the literal and the figurative senses. My employees can look for employment elsewhere if they don’t like the compensation package I’m offering. This problem began the day the State decided it could mandate coverage for another health issue every time some new sob story showed up in the newspapers. The problem ends today, because the State has decided to take on the Bill of Rights head-on, and contrary to what you might hear from Soledad, there’s still quite a lot of us who think the founding documents mean something.
I’m off for a pint and a pie. Have a good weekend, all!
I’d say there’s a bit more to it than “we disagree.” It seems to me it’s more like, “no skin off my nose.” Since you’ve already decided to do what the government proposes to force those who disagree as a matter of conscience to themselves do, and thus it doesn’t affect you.
I can tune my employee benefits to whatever I fucking want to, John, and for whatever reason.
And that attitude is why I’m happy that there’s laws on the books that let employers concern themselves with an employee’s ability to do the job – and little else.
And that’s also why I’m hoping for a day when insurance and employment are disconnected. ’cause Squid, I don’t want you making any decisions about anyone’s insurance except your own.
Oops. Farked up the blockquote
And that attitude is why I’m happy that there’s laws on the books that let employers concern themselves with an employee’s ability to do the job – and little else.
And that’s also why I’m hoping for a day when insurance and employment are disconnected. ’cause Squid, I don’t want you making any decisions about anyone’s insurance except your own.
What does providing them birth control have to do with the way they do their jobs?
“The law binds those who offer benefits, and it is their freedom — their religious beliefs —that he desperately tries to convince himself (and his readers) is not being trampled.
What a loathsome little weasel.”
I’d like to know if the insurance johntaylor offered his employees really covered birth control. I bet not.
Also, if insurance does, a man I should get to pay less because they hardly ever get abortions or estrogen therapy. Like how women and old people pay less for car insurance.
Also, and no disrespect towards anyone ntended, this thread has evolved (devolved?) into a demonstration of exactly what Lebedoff was talking about. Nobody can talk johntaylor out of his position, logic, reason and constitutional tradition notwithstanding, because nobody has a better argument —seeing as how one argument is just as good as another these days.
Oops, ignore the quote, it’s a leftover from an aborted comment.
Is there anything medical john doesn’t think the insurane he offers his employees should cover?
Addadictomies, for example?
Johnyaylor, you’re still missing the point that has been made to you repeatedly in this thread. I’ll make yet another effort: You know those intrusive question you dont think employers should be allowed to ask? Well, I can tell you exactly what I do when I am asked intrusive questions that the government hasn’t yet decided are illegal — I say, “I’m sorry, but I’ve decided to offer my services elsewhere. I wish you the best of luck finding someone to fill your vacancy and if I hear about someone who might be a better fit for you I’ll send him your way.”
Likewise, if the failure to offer some particular coverage is a deal-breaker for me, I DON’T TAKE THE JOB.
Ernst, I think johntaylor also echo’s a past fruitless discussion here. Along the lines of, it takes a consensus of “reasonable” men to decide your religious beliefs validity.
You might have to cup your ear.
Free, mandated gender reassignment surgery. I believe that’s another part of Ms Fluke’s call for a redefining of what comes to count as a “right,” too, is it not?
Missing the point IS the point, because THERE IS no point, ALL POINTS BEING EQUAL.
Shit Zarathustra said.
Or rather, shit Nietzche thought he heard, as the syphilis turned his cerebral cortex into swiss cheese.
The thing that bothers me is the notion that an insurance plan covers birth control, and the employer asks the plan to remove birth control coverage for no business benefit and no cost savings.
This whole notion of employers tailoring coverage based on the moral set of the employer seems like a bad way to go. I mean, where does that go?
I’m a vegan, so our agreement with Blue Cross is that if they believe your condition is a result of meat eating, they can deny your claim.
Again, my opinion is that its far better if the relationship between the employer and the employee is solely about the requirements of the job and the employee’s ability to perform them. And an employer provides a number of forms of compensation (salary, bonus, insurance, vacation time) and the employee can use those benefits as they see fit.
It is. And as long as it doesn’t have anything to do with how you do your job….
Really, I think johntaylor came in here thinking he had an unassailable position, but has discovered just how little thought he had given it.
If he hangs around he might evolve to the classical liberal position simply by being made to think more deeply than he’s used to.
“johntaylor” is a lying leftist mendoucheous twatwaffle.
Johntaylor, read my lips: IT’S NONE OF YOUF BUSINESS why another employer makes the choices he makes.
Spelling errors prove I’m sober.
Of course all this brings up another important aspect. What about unconscious religious beliefs that prejudice the way you should compensate your employees. Like giving out Christmas bonuses that are only a card saying ‘a donation has been made in your name’?
That’s not right.
Me too. And that is what we should be arguing, instead of letting the left frame it in religious terms.
Why would what another business chooses to do bother you? If anything, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, it helps you with those to whom the removed item is important. Because you are willing to provide it.
That employers have freedoms, too?
Is that stipulated up front in the employment agreement? Is that decision protected by the First Amendment?
In most cases it is; in limited cases, when the employer happens to be tied to a religious institution, it isn’t. So why the need to force the religious institution to follow your model when they don’t insist you follow theirs?
This is exactly what happens now. Only some religious organizations don’t include, as part of their compensation package, an insurance plan that provides for those things their religious doctrine doesn’t allow.
This is not about birth control. This is about the desire of the government to exert authority over its competitors. If the Catholic church out of conscience is forced by these kinds of rulings to get out of the ministry business — no more hospitals, charities, homeless shelters, adoption agencies, etc., — the state is more than happy to step in and take over all of those functions. This is how it grows, and how it simultaneously crushes anything standing in the way of that rapacious growth.
The Constitution is structured to prevent such a powerful centralized authority. But through the years, special pleading, political judicial rulings, sophistry, and rank emotionalism have weakened the checks placed on government. And our individual sovereignty has suffered as a result.
That isn’t what’s happening. The government is attempting to force all insurance companies to provide the coverage whether or not their customers agree.
Even if there were a plan that did provide such coverage without the government forcing the issue, why is it a problem if the employer asks for it to be removed? Employers are not obligated to provide any benefits at all. Employers are only obligated to honor their contract with their employees with respect to wages for work.
As I said before, this is a question of liberty. Liberty is being violated for no good reason.
“The thing that bothers me is the notion that an insurance plan covers birth control, and the employer asks the plan to remove birth control coverage for no business benefit and no cost savings.”
When did the Catholic Church do that? Stop the birth control coverage I mean. Last week?
By the way, if you remove some service that is covered by insurance for the full cost of that service, the cost of the policy would likely go down.
And that attitude is why I’m happy that there’s laws on the books that let employers concern themselves with an employee’s ability to do the job – and little else.
And that’s also why I’m hoping for a day when insurance and employment are disconnected. ’cause Squid, I don’t want you making any decisions about anyone’s insurance except your own.
They never fail to let their inner fascists out.
And an employer provides a number of forms of compensation (salary, bonus, insurance, vacation time, vibrators, rubbers, double headed rubber dongers)
There, fixed that for ya
That was somebody practicing performance art. That was actus-grade asshattery.
Ace made a good point in a recent post. It’s probably been said here but I’m too dumb to remember. If insurance is forced by the government to provide a bunch of regular services at no cost, services that involve voluntary behavior rather than injury or illness, isn’t that just a back-door way to increase the level of socialism?
If we’re all required to have health insurance (and while it isn’t a requirement I certainly wouldn’t do without it), and we’re all required to pay for coverage of birth control and gender changes and whatever, how is that different from all of us just being taxed more and the government providing those services “for free?”
I think JD has the right of it.
I doubt “johntaylor” would ever change his mind, but perhaps some lukers will, or at least understand the why of our position.
What’s funny is, in order to get a predictable response, the left always turn to something to do with sex, because it’s a way to divide out the socicons by cartooning their positions and factionalizing the right. So in this, the year of our decline, with all the crucial challenges facing the Nation, we are having to argue actual constitutional rights vs. the right to birth control, and having to defend the position that contraception is not a National health crisis. Or even a real problem.
The country’s imploding, and some punk-ass activist is occupying our highest levels of government with her employee benefits package.
Play it again, Nero!
I’m guessing the reason why, today, there are some insurance plans that cover contraception just like any other prescription, and some that provide no contraception coverage, is because institutions went to the providers and asked that contraception be removed – not because companies like Google went and asked that it be included. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m guessing that Catholic institutions did go out of their way – for no cost benefit – to have a coverage item removed that would have otherwise been included.
Wanting insurance and employment to be disconnected makes me a fascist?
I’m pretty sure that most people would like to be able to pick whatever plan they want rather than choose from a very limited number offered by their employer. And, most employers would love to be completely out of the business of having anything to do with health insurance.
And, if Catholic hospitals were able to simply pay their employees more, and the employees were able to pick whatever plan they want, it also gets rid of the whole moral objection issue. (unless Catholic institutions think they should get to approve what people spend their salary on.)
I mean, no one is clamoring to have their employer involved in choosing what home owners insurance or auto insurance plans they can choose from.
You’re guessing?
DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH AND FIND OUT.
We don’t have time for your pull-it-out-of-your-ass guesses.
I’m guessing
Then you should stop right there.
but I’m guessing that Catholic institutions did go out of their way – for no cost benefit
Guessing has progressed to asspulls.
Did you read what you wrote about Squid? Fascist.
Your straw people are increasing in numbers. And flames.
It’s very actus-like in ignoring the main points in favor of peripheral issues.
WTF does a hypothetical cost benefit have to do with infringing on people’s 1st Amendment Rights?
WTF does a hypothetical cost benefit have to do with infringing on people’s 1st Amendment Rights?
Nothing, JD. He couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the First, or any other, Amendment.
Squid, I don’t want you making any decisions about anyone’s insurance except your own.
Because Squid doesn’t agree with you. Because squid believes in the 1st Amendment. And liberty. And you are a fascist, in your facile passive-aggressive manner.
SW – no doubt.
Just for you SW. Great training video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1m6Qct68wo
Why are you capitalist pigs always trying to tie everything to money. Look what happened to Tucker, a man and his dreams…!
There we agree. But going to a single payer model is not the way toward that end, I can assure you, just as government mandates have nothing to do with expanding rights and everything to do with contracting liberty.
how do you know that catholic hospitals are not paying the market rate for employees?
Hey, good idea. So basically many plans did *not* provide contraception coverage. Then, the states and federal government started passing legislation requiring them to.
Then the Catholic Charities sued saying they should be exempt and the California supreme court had this to say:
Again, if we’re able to disconnect health insurance from employment, this whole issue goes away.
Eternal misrepresentation of the Catholic position won’t do anything to change the actual Catholic position. You know that, right?
or repeal obamacare
A California court declared one of it’s own state’s constitutional amendments unconstitutional. So I don’t much care what they have to say. Besides, their ruling is pure sophistry. No one is requiring people to work for a Catholic institution. But the fact that non-Catholics work there doesn’t change the fact that the institution is still Catholic, eg.
But anyway, there you have it: the government passed laws requiring groups to pay for things they didn’t want to pay for — essentially, commanding they buy things they don’t want to buy and give those things to others, under orders from the state.
And you seem okay with that.
I don’t.
Impasse.
Luckily, I have the US Constitution and First Amendment law on my side. And you have Sandra Fluke, who went to Georgetown just to demand the filthy discriminatory Jesuits meet her demands.
I heart how fascists like “johntaylor” and the CA Supreme Court feel empowered to define what is, and what is not part of the Catholic Church’s ministry.
But anyway, there you have it: the government passed laws requiring groups to pay for things they didn’t want to pay for — essentially, commanding they buy things they don’t want to buy and give those things to others, under orders from the state.
This will make no sense to the troll.
“But the fact that non-Catholics work there doesn’t change the fact that the institution is still Catholic, eg.”
How many non Catholics will work there when the church decides to turn the hospital into a Cathedral?
If I have johntylor’s argument right, he would prefer that employers not provide insurance at all, but since they do, the government has the authority to dictate employers provide the Cadillac plan. No exceptions.
Actually, I think McGehee had it right way up there at 3:58pm (When do we get numbers back?).
If you put the word “state” in front of government then yeah, I agree. Because if the majority of citizens in a state don’t agree with their regulations there’s recourse.
JD, you’ve yapped a number of times about how the Catholic’s first amendment rights have been abridged. How?
Last time I checked, Catholics in California could build churches, collect offerings, pray, take communion, baptize babies, make confessions, read the bible, etc. So exactly what part of their religion are they no longer allowed to practice?
For reference, here’s the first amendment:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ”
johny that might be an important part of catholic institutions and their relationship with their employees.
“JD, you’ve yapped a number of times about how the Catholic’s first amendment rights have been abridged. How?”
Strange. You seem to have some desire to enter into a conversation about these very claims, yet have no idea what the one side of the issue is talking about, yet persist with your specious arguments nevertheless? That’s just goofy.
Last time I checked, Catholics in California could build churches, collect offerings, pray, take communion, baptize babies, make confessions, read the bible, etc. So exactly what part of their religion are they no longer allowed to practice?
If Obama has his way, the part that tells them not to support – through their insurance premiums – procedures and practices they do not morally approve of.
It’s not really following the churches teaching if you are indirectly paying for someone else’s abortion. Or birth control pills.
And newrouter, what can a Catholic no longer do? What religion practice is now forbidden?
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ”
Are you really just that dumb?!
“johntaylor” cannot get it’s tiny little pea brain around the idea that forcing a religion to do something contrary to their doctrine doesn’t sit well with the free exercise thereof thingie
Apparently the Pope considered the war in Iraq to be wrong and yet Catholics were still compelled to pay taxes to support it. It seems a little broad view these kinds of things as prohibitions on free exercise.
[quote] (1) it’s none of my goddamn business what Joe does outside of work, and (2) I only (and should only) concern myself with things that effect the employees ability to do their job. [/quote]
And how far does that extend? If you find out that your most exemplary employee is an axe murderer, are you going to continue to employ him because it’s none of your business what he does outside of work, and it clearly doesn’t affect his ability to do his work well?
Does this also extend to other companies you do business with? What if one of your suppliers turned out to be using slave labor, or one of your consulting clients was using his company’s profits to support the KKK? Are you just going to ignore it because it doesn’t affect your supplier’s ability to provide you with good products, or because you’re not compelled to use your client’s products?
Even with the medical plans–if one of those choices you offered your employees came to you and said, “Great news! We’ve cut your co-pays on transplants 50%! You know how we do it? We send your employees to clinics that use organs harvested from orphans they kidnapped from India!”, are you just going say, “Well, I won’t personally use that plan, but if my employees do, I don’t care?”
[quote] And I also don’t want Sally showing up wearing a photo of a fetus with “Abortion is murder!” on it and telling me she has a 1st amendment right, in the workplace, to express any opinion she wants and there’s not a damn thing I can do about it. [/quote]
Precisely. Similarly, the Catholic hospital doesn’t want their employees showing up and demanding that the hospital pay for their contraception because they have–Lord, I don’t know, some socialist’s fevered interpretation of a penumbra of a 4th amendment right and there’s nothing the hospital can do about it.
[quote] Look, all I’m saying (and yes, this is just my opinion) is that it’s better for employees and employers when each is concerned with performing the job at hand. [/quote]
And I suspect that many of the people on this board would basically (though not necessarily totally) agree with you–as long as we are confining ourselves to the field of employee management practice. The problem is, you seem to be implying that your preference should be enshrined in law, which is where most of us feel the need to jump off this crazy roller-coaster.
a self insured catholic institution must pay for services that are against it’s teaching and those teachings are well known to the employees of said institution.
Apparently the Pope considered the war in Iraq to be wrong and yet Catholics were still compelled to pay taxes to support it. It seems a little broad view these kinds of things as prohibitions on free exercise.
Straw people and apples to aardvark comparisons are the go-to rhetorical tricks for “johntaylor”. And serial asshattery. And fascism.
dperry – in your hypothetical, am I a privately held company or publicly held company?
the pope is only infallible in matters of faith not political questions
what difference does it make to a citizen of this country?
– newrouter – I would interpret prohibitions on free exercise be things like:
Government outlaws baptism
Government outlaws church construction
Government outlaws prosthelytizing
There are lots of countries where the free exercise of religion is prohibited, and that prohibition looks nothing like the nuances of healthcare coverage.
I guess it’s just a philosophical disagreement. I don’t see anything wrong with saying if you’re going to open a hospital (not a church) and hire people, you’re subject to the same regulations as everyone else. You don’t get to pick and choose laws to get an exception from.
Because the answers to dperry’s questions are markedly different depending on whether you’re asking a public or private company.
This is where the difference between “Freedom of Worship” and “Freedom of Religion” comes in.
Here, here, here, here, and the whole post, here.
Thankfully the Bill of Rights and the Constitution don’t have a clause that allows “johntaylor” to define religion, or the free exercise thereof. Because in a rational world, free exercise thereof does not include being forced to act in a manner contrary to their own doctrine.
“You don’t get to pick and choose laws to get an exception from.”
So, “shall make no law” means nothing to you then? There being no need to take exception to a law never made. And excepting the injunction to “make no law” means simply “make a law restricting religious freedom”. Man, that is some replete density right there.
So, “shall make no law” means nothing to you then? There being no need to take exception to a law never made. And excepting the injunction to “make no law” means simply “make a law restricting religious freedom”. Man, that is some replete density right there.
A concept far too complex for “johntaylor”
It’s gotta be actus.
Yup, this is actus, back for more “fun.” He just likes to argue. There is little point in engaging him.
However, the remnant might see this exchange. It’s worth it to continue for their sake, if one desires to.
so if your religious mission is to help the sick the gov’t can trump your “free excercise of religion”?
“Because the answers to dperry’s questions are markedly different depending on whether you’re asking a public or private company.”
a.) Do you mean “public” in the sense of government-owned, or merely in the sense of trading stock on the open market?
b.) If the latter, what difference does it make?
c.) But for the sake of cutting through to the main point of the argument, whatever kind of company you owned.
“Last time I checked, Catholics in California could build churches, collect offerings, pray, take communion, baptize babies, make confessions, read the bible, etc. So exactly what part of their religion are they no longer allowed to practice?”
This part:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
If you need the citation, it’s here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NIV
I believe you’ll find that the speaker is considered an authority on the Christian religion. :-)
Well, it’s a whole sentence, and it’s not the “shall make no law” part we’re arguing about. We’re really quibbleing over what free exercise means.
And it seems you guys are arguing for a very broad interpretation of “free exercise” to mean whatever any religion wants it to mean.
Geez, leave to take care of some errands and miss all of the fun.
Cranky-d is absolutely right: johntaylor just likes to argue. He must know he’s losing since he’s starting to throw in bullshit that has nothing to do with his original argument.
Johntaylor, don’t give us that “last time I checked…” hedge. You’ve never checked. Ever. You wouldn’t have made the ridiculous statements that you have about the Catholic Church and its institutions and how they should abide by the law if you had made an effort to understand both the laws of the land and the laws of the Church.
You haven’t taken the trouble to inform yourself as to the stance of the Catholics yet, have you? No, didn’t think so. Yet, you seem to have some notion that the Catholic stance involves just making up what their religion intends willy-nilly? You, oh densest of men, have far too great an estimation of your own grasp.
Well, it’s a whole sentence, and it’s not the “shall make no law” part we’re arguing about. We’re really quibbleing over what free exercise means
We are not quibbling over it. You are being a sophist and ignoring that which does not conform to your fascist douchey mindset.
And it seems you guys are arguing for a very broad interpretation of “free exercise” to mean whatever any religion wants it to mean.
And it doesn’t seem, because in fact you are arguing for the right for government being able to force the Church to act contrary to it’s doctrine, and for the right of you to define what is, and what is not a Church’s ministry.
kinda of limits the fed gov’t actions in the civil society dontcha think. it be limited gov’t central in these parts proggtard.
oh i hope using proggtard doesn’t get me banned
I know from the ACLU that “respecting an establishment of religion” means two kids in a public school saying “Jesus” or a cross on land which used to belong to the government but doesn’t anymore. The rest of the language – I have no idea what it means.
In another post, Darleen makes the point more succinctly:
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=36607#comment-31330
If I have this right, the agnostic Jew is defending Holy Mother Church against the anti-Constitutional aggression of a progg who suffers from a sort of vestigial Lutheranism insofar as it doesn’t interfere with that little whiff of superiority he feels in the company of the Reader’s Digest crowd.
There is a room in my father’s house for you, Jeff, whether you believe it or not. For you are a righteous man.
Step Two of our plan is to kidnap innocent, unsuspecting soft-butch coeds minding their own slutty, dirty, slutty business on Fridays and force-feed them Mackerel like geese for foie gras. The First Amendment! Bwaa haa haa haa!
In the land of the mendoucheous twatwaffles, “johntaylor” is the Sec of Asshattery.
“What’s funny is, in order to get a predictable response, the left always turn to something to do with sex, because it’s a way to divide out the socicons by cartooning their positions and factionalizing the right.”
And the problem is, we fall for it. For example, one of the reasons (not the only reason, but one of the reasons) Obama won was because a certain number of libertarians voted for him because McCain was going to usher in the theocracy, or something.
(We won’t even get into the question of whether things going on in the rest society have an effect on things on things going on in politics. For instance, do you think the decline in marriage and the rise in single motherhood might just have a teensy bit to do with the expansion of the welfare state?
That doesn’t necessarily mean that government should enforce every moral credo, but it does mean that libertarians ought to start thinking about ways to discipline themselves, lest they be disciplined by others instead.)
And nothing’s stopping the Catholics from providing all the care they want. Nothing.
Actually, I take that back. There’s all kinds of laws that regulates a hospital – how it’s constructed, how it’s run, the certifications doctors have to have. The FDA regulates the medicines that can and cannot be provided. I’m assuming that none of this is in dispute – i.e. No one’s saying, “Jesus wasn’t board certified. We should be able to call anyone a doctor and have them do whatever care we decide.” No one considers building codes to be a prohibition on the free exercise of religion – but under the broad interpretation being posited here, a religion could certainly say that building codes prohibit their free expression and get a pass.
Now back to some of your hypotheticals. First, I really appreciate you posting these, and although the discussion seems to be going negative, I’ve really enjoyed the dialog.
I think that as a business owner it’s pretty easy to decide that the second you find out an employee is an axe murderer, you call the police and you have people keep a look out for him. They’re dangerous to you, to your employees, customers, etc. Their propensity to kill people – ever – makes them a risk to your company. You’d be negligent – as a business owner – to keep them on the payroll. Also, there’s nothing that keeps you – as a citizen – from reporting someone who breaks the law. In fact, you have an obligation to as a good citizen.
Here’s where I asked if I was talking about a public company (company with public stock) or private company. If you’re an exec in a public company, you don’t really get to make these decisions based on right and wrong. You have a legal obligation to do what’s in the interests of your shareholders. The main reason for deciding to not do business with one of these companies is because if it went public it would be a PR disaster. Customers could boycott. Consider this before you take that VP/CxO – your personal beliefs have to take a back seat to fiduciary responsibility. If you decide, for example, to pull out of China because you don’t want to turn over information on dissidents to the government, your shareholders can sue you for passing up the burgeoning Chinese market. It doesn’t happen all that often, but it is the law.
Now private companies wrestle with these kinds of questions all the time. “I don’t want to close my US plant and use some sweatshop in China, but if I don’t I simply can’t compete on price.” Now in the case of a supplier using slave labor, you’ll find that for most of these really egregious scenarios you can imagine, there’s already a US law against it. For example, there’s federal and state laws that prevent companies from using contractors that use slave labor. As a business owner, you want these regulations and prohibitions because, mark my words, you’ll have a competitor who’ll do whatever the law allows and won’t think twice about it.
Again, not legal. In all the thousands and thousands of business regulations that get passed every year, this stuff gets outlawed.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say that (1) the state requires that organizations of your size must provide health coverage, and (2) every plan must cover organ transplants with organs harvested from kids kidnapped from India. (sounding ridiculous? But I’ll imagine that the director of a Catholic hospital who knows that contraception is on the insurance plan may feel it’s equally abhorrent.)
Well, what are you going to do? You can either not run a business, or you can run a business, comply with state law, and pray that none of your employees actually use this benefit.
And then you could say, “Well how could you sleep at night knowing that your company paid insurance premiums that caused kids in India to get kidnapped and have their organs harvested. You Monster!”
Well, my money paid to drop bombs on Iraqis (which is right up there with kidnapping Indian orphans to harvest their organs, and i have a religious objection to) So what did I do? I gave unto Cesar, and I voted for a different Cesar.
Well, shit. Takes me all evening to get un-sober and I come late to this party. Not to denigrate Mr. “Taylor”, but let’s keep it simple for the lowest common denominator: I have a job to fill. In consideration for you working for me, I offer you payment and certain benefits. Those benfits include what I see fit to offer. You don’t like my offer? Counter-offer or take a hike.
— But Government says you have to commit what your religion tells you is a venal sin, too bad. Them’s the breaks, bitterclingers.
Once again, the fact that somebody chooses not to carry a health plan that provides contraception coverage does not deny anyone contraception. It just means that they have to secure it in some other way. Like, walk into a drug store. Or walk into a Planned Parenthood location. Or pull out, like I did all through college.
It is curious how abortifacients and sterilization get dropped so early in the public relations campaign, but not from the material publish in the Federal register.
yea civil engineering and the viability of a fetus is =. fuck you proggtard . fuck your bill maher autographed strap on and lube.
FYI: abortion is a cardinal sin, as it is the taking of a human life.
fuck you and your fascist “state”
Since when did it come to the gov telling me what I had to do, versus what the gov is required to do for We The People?
I know, I know. Wilson and later.
I was going to say mortal sin, but leigh beat me too it.
Credit where credit’s due: johntaylor hasn’t tried to hide behind the Great Wall of Separation of Church and State.
I was never any good at that, selfish misogynist that I am. I couldn’t even realistically promise not to come in your mouth. There are certain moments when your concern for others abandons you. That’s one of them, for me.
Whoomp, there it is. Google has on-site healthcare and massages and day care, what I hear. You might want to check them out. Or, you might want the paycheck I have on offer. Your call.
About a decade after We the People decided that gov’t was in fact required to do things for us instead of limiting government to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, give or take an election cycle or two.
Really it was inevitable.
that’s when you think of making babies and all that entails . baaling amerikkka.
This “We The People” just wants the gov to Raise Armies, Coin Money, etc. In other words, I pay my taxes, you keep me and mine secure; otherwise, leave me the fuck alone.
I know, I’m simple, not nuanced. So, I’d best cork the bottle and go to bed. Tomorrow is another day. Until it’s not.
Wow, that sounded sort of nihilist. I think.
Johntaylor is a drooling imbecile. He has no problem with the government dictating to a Church that they must violate one of the tenets of their religion.
Just for you SW. Great training video.
Thanks, JD. I love seeing Hoppes 9 in action.
Johntaylor certainly wasted no time proving my optimism about him misplaced.
Also left out: it was’t until this year when the Obama administration mandated contraceptives be covered by insurance that this bacame an issue so no one has been lining contarception out of anyone’s coverage.
The dishonest troll finally slinked away, crawled back under it’s rock.
Johntaylor wins the Douchenozzle of the Week award, by acclimation.
Ever notice that the trolls come over here one at a time to try their stuff. Must be like belling the cat.
The Blunt Amendment would have allowed employers to choose what healthcare services would be included in their employees’ private healthcare plans solely on the basis of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” They would not have had to provide a rational or empirical argument. They could have simply stated, “I don’t want to follow the rules because it offends my religious sentiments,” and they’d be exempt from following rules that exist to protect other people’s access to healthcare.
So, for example, if a doctor recommends a hormone pill to slow the growth of an ovarian cyst, and it is the same pill typically used for birth control, the healthcare plan can refuse to cover that pill because the substance offends the religious sensibilities of the woman’s employer. And so the woman doesn’t get her medicine and winds up with a cyst the size of a tennis ball and crippling pain. This is not lefty speculation. It is real discrimination that happens all the time. It was in Sandra Fluke’s testimony. I’ve also personally known more than one woman who has taken the pill known as “birth control” for reproductive health reasons unrelated to contraception.
I didn’t read Frank as saying that religious people are generally irrational, nor that faith and reason generally coexist in a bifurcated way. He seemed instead to point out that the Blunt Amendment would have created a dangerous loophole in the hands of those who would restrict other people’s access to healthcare, and would not have required them to provide so much as a rational argument for it. This is a problem whether those people are few or many.
not paying $9/month out of pocket expense is niggardly behavior
These people remind me of idiot potheads extolling the virtues of hemp.
Since when is any medication or procedure offered up with out a co-pay? Are doctor’s supposed to work for free? They’re already getting screwed (sorry) over by Medicare and Medicaid as it is.
In the example of a woman with an ovarian cyst, she is certainly free to work with her doctor on a payment plan or if sexual health is her biggest concern in life, go to work for someone else who offers a different all-inclusive plan.
These people remind me of idiot potheads extolling the virtues of hemp.
The same people who are always going on about how the founding fathers grew hemp so, of course, they must have smoked weed? I used to run into those idiots in high school.
Here’s what the Blunt amendment did: it kept the status quo.
The status quo was defeated.
End.
Y’all forgot one basic tenet of the proggy employer/employee relationship – once you take a job it is “your job” not the employer’s position that you have been hired to fill until the employer no longer needs your employment.
As such, your rights are paramount in the relationship and supersede any rights the employer may think apply to him. There’s a reason progs hate “right to work” states and employment at will contracts.
Progs turn the employer employee relationship on its head.
In the trolls mind the employees wishes trump the employers rights.
Just a tip, I know that phrase seems real catchy to you guys, but when you repeat it to someone with an actual intellect you sound like a Stone Fucking Idiot.
Isn’t that the job of the various government panels that Obamacare creates?
The same people who are always going on about how the founding fathers grew hemp so, of course, they must have smoked weed?
That’s true, too. But I mean arguments for hemp are to the pot legalization cause what secondary uses for birth control pills are to the cause of subsidizing the neutralization of baby batter.
aspirin between the dame’s knees works that way too. at no cost to anybody but the user.
..arguments for hemp are to the pot legalization cause what secondary uses for birth control pills are to the cause of subsidizing the neutralization of baby batter.
Gotcha.
Stone Dead comes in to try to bell the cat. Didn’t make it very far, even with the diminished ranks of the weekend PWers who aren’t out on the town tonight. Present company included.
“Restrict people’s access to health care”? You are certainly shitting me, Stoner. “Access” and me paying for it don’t even belong in the same sentence.