Posted by tecwrg on 7/8/2014 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/8/2014 3:44:00 PM (view original):
Well, ok. I don't have a strong belief in either direction. I'm not religious now but I grew up Catholic.

That's OK.  Jesus still loves you.

LOL.  Since when did BL not have a strong opinion on anything?

He'll mix in a "most of the time" and "probably" to give the illusion that his opinion might not be 100% correct but anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, who has read 15-20 of his posts know he strongly believes all the bullshit he spews.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/8/2014 4:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/8/2014 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/8/2014 3:44:00 PM (view original):
Well, ok. I don't have a strong belief in either direction. I'm not religious now but I grew up Catholic.

That's OK.  Jesus still loves you.

No thanks. I give zero ***** about what some dead cult leader from 2000 years ago thinks.

He's not dead!  Haven't you heard the Good News?  He rose on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures.  He's in heaven now, seated at the right hand of His Father!

Posted by bad_luck on 7/8/2014 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/8/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/4/2014 3:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 7:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 7:18:00 PM (view original):
No one is being forced to take birth control. Everyone is free to exercise whatever religion they want. You just can't force your religion on others who do want to take birth control or get gay married.

Yet you feel it's OK for the government to force people who object to birth control to subsidize it's distribution.

Good job.

You aren't subsidizing anything. You're paying premiums. It's essentially the same as paying salaries and having the employees buy it themselves.

Party A pays Party B. Party B buys birth control

Party A pays Party C. Party C buys birth control.

In which scenario is Party A's religious freedom infringed?

Maybe this hypothetical illustration can answer your question.

Scenario A) An employer offers (as part of its benefits package) an option which deducts X amt of money each week. This money gets paid to some local illegal drug dealers. At any time the employee participating in this (voluntary) program may go to a select number of dealers (in the "network") and get what they need. Just show the membership card to the dealer and you're good to go, because the dealer has already been paid ahead of time through this employer's program.

Scenario B) An employer pays his employee a wage. That employee takes some of that money and buys illegal drugs.

In which scenario is the employer at risk of being found complicit in illegal drug trafficking?

Avoided question by BL.

Didn't see that one.

A is the answer but I don't see how that is relevant. We aren't talking about illegal drugs.

No. But I am illustrating what the difference is, since you kept asking "what's the difference?"

If an employer pays a wage and an employee uses those wages to purchase an abortion pill the company IS NOT complicit.

If they are being FORCED to supply healthcare coverage that provides free abortion pills, then the company IS complicit. 

So you are FORCING the employer to be complicit in something that violates their personal beliefs.

It really isn't any more complicated than that, and yet no one on the left seems to get "how it violates the religious beliefs of the employer".

I disagree. I don't think they are anymore complicit by paying for insurance that covers contraception (they aren't abortion pills) than they aren't paying salary used to buy contraception.

Other people taking a pill does not, in anyway, violate your rights. Even if you indirectly paid for the pill.

Another question would be:

If they are fine with covering MOST contraceptives, why would they cause such a fuss over these few that they do not want to be complicit in providing? 

Just to **** off the left? An obvious attempt to simply violate the imagined rights of others? 

Do you suppose that they really do NOT have a personal belief that these few contraceptives are different and are uncomfortable with the idea that they are being forced to provide easier access to them?

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/9/2014 3:39:00 AM (view original):
Other people taking a pill does not, in anyway, violate your rights. Even if you indirectly paid for the pill.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that it does. It's not the taking of the pill, it is the forcing an employer to be complicit in it that is the problem.

THAT violates rights.

The employee is STILL ABLE TO TAKE THE PILL, EVEN IF THE EMPLOYER IS NOT FORCED TO PAY FOR IT.
So THAT is where there can be absolutely no argument for a violation of rights.

What "right" is supposedly violated by an employer not being forced to be complicit in something they disagree with?

Here, try this:



You'll get a more rational and more consistent argument from the wall than you will from BL.

From a pure monetary viewpoint, of course.    But this is more philosophical. 

It's a religious objection to a specific type of birth control. 

But you know this.

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Can't the employees contribution to the health plan be the monies that pay for the birth control?

Rather than asking yet another question how about answering the ones I ASKED?

Why should the employer be forced to pay for something they do not believe in?

What "right" is supposedly violated by an employer not being forced to be complicit in something they disagree with?