- This topic has 105 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 6, 2014 at 1:07 AM #776068July 6, 2014 at 1:09 AM #776069Allan from FallbrookParticipant
[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Scaredy: And I respect that belief, sincerely. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that, in previous postings, you’ve actually argued the opposite, to wit, that moral relativism and ambiguity isn’t such a bad thing.
So, doesn’t that put you in the somewhat slippery position of picking and choosing, along the very same lines of what you’re accusing Hobby Lobby of?
Like I said, I have no ax to grind here. The type of Christianity as practiced by the proprietors of that company is not my own and I have no truck with foisting my beliefs on others, which is why I generally hugely appreciate the government staying the fuck out of my business.[/quote]
look, if i ahve to remember what i argued recently, im never going to be able to say anything, because i have no idea what i actually believe.[/quote]
Other than that bit earlier about the nefarious nature of Big Pharma, right?
July 6, 2014 at 7:12 AM #776073UCGalParticipantAs mentioned above. What if a private corp is owned by a Christian Scientist. Are they allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and offer NO medical care?
Or Jehovah Witnesses – refuse to cover blood transfusions?
What about Catholics? They believe any birth control is a sin, right? So can Catholic business owners insist that the employer provided insurance provide not birth control – even if it’s being used for non – birth control purposes?
I find it interesting that the precedence for this decision was the one that allowed (vs restricted) the use of peyote for religious purposes. The precedence was expanding the ways to practice your beliefs (without impacting those around them.) This case is a twist on that – the religious rights of the owners trump the religious rights of the employees. They are allowed to restrict access to something that is legal and should be between a woman and her doctor. They are basically putting the employer/owners in the position of parent, and the employees in the position of child.
July 6, 2014 at 7:25 AM #776074scaredyclassicParticipant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Scaredy: And I respect that belief, sincerely. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that, in previous postings, you’ve actually argued the opposite, to wit, that moral relativism and ambiguity isn’t such a bad thing.
So, doesn’t that put you in the somewhat slippery position of picking and choosing, along the very same lines of what you’re accusing Hobby Lobby of?
Like I said, I have no ax to grind here. The type of Christianity as practiced by the proprietors of that company is not my own and I have no truck with foisting my beliefs on others, which is why I generally hugely appreciate the government staying the fuck out of my business.[/quote]
look, if i ahve to remember what i argued recently, im never going to be able to say anything, because i have no idea what i actually believe.[/quote]
Other than that bit earlier about the nefarious nature of Big Pharma, right?[/quote]
No. I just said I believe that for emphasis.
July 6, 2014 at 7:26 AM #776075scaredyclassicParticipantI’m going to start an automobile religion and opt out of car insurance.
July 6, 2014 at 7:29 AM #776076scaredyclassicParticipantIt’s cheaper for most people to opt for bankruptcy than buy catastrophic ins. Not to mention the people who can’t get the catastrophic insurance due to preexisting conditions.
In terms of running roughshod over u it doesn’t seem tthat much more oppressive than car ins. Given how mandatory car ownership is around here.
July 6, 2014 at 7:34 AM #776077scaredyclassicParticipant[quote=UCGal]As mentioned above. What if a private corp is owned by a Christian Scientist. Are they allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and offer NO medical care?
Or Jehovah Witnesses – refuse to cover blood transfusions?
What about Catholics? They believe any birth control is a sin, right? So can Catholic business owners insist that the employer provided insurance provide not birth control – even if it’s being used for non – birth control purposes?
I find it interesting that the precedence for this decision was the one that allowed (vs restricted) the use of peyote for religious purposes. The precedence was expanding the ways to practice your beliefs (without impacting those around them.) This case is a twist on that – the religious rights of the owners trump the religious rights of the employees. They are allowed to restrict access to something that is legal and should be between a woman and her doctor. They are basically putting the employer/owners in the position of parent, and the employees in the position of child.[/quote]
I think one of the more important factors determining how you feel about the decision is whether or not you have a uterus not political affiliation.
July 6, 2014 at 7:40 AM #776078scaredyclassicParticipantI don’t know. Maybe it is awful to have you not have catastrophic ins. I’m sorry. If I had to balance it against preexisting conditions being covered, and I had to decide how I Wang the system to be without knowing in advance which class I’d fall into I think I’d want a larger more inclusive ins. Pool.
Maybe that “COLLECTIVIST BULLSHIT” is another way of saying I’d prefer to see us care for one another. As a matter of principle. Not that Obama care does thst. But it’s an impulse that doesn’t seem evil to me.
July 6, 2014 at 8:04 AM #776079scaredyclassicParticipantIf you had that weird condition where your testicles swelled up to 50 lbs and I worshipped at a religion that venerated male genitals I’d let you get your damn testicle surgery even if I thought it were morally wrong.
Cause they’re your testicles.
July 6, 2014 at 8:06 AM #776080scaredyclassicParticipantEnd time religions definitely should not be covering any obgyn/childbirth stuff.
July 6, 2014 at 8:14 AM #776081SK in CVParticipant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.
Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?
This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.[/quote]
It IS hypocritical. They claim that can’t be part of paying for those 4 birth control devices because they claim (incorrectly) that those products lead to abortions. And then they invest in companies who make abortion products. How is that not hypocritical?
Do you really believe that there is no war on women?
July 6, 2014 at 8:18 AM #776082Allan from FallbrookParticipant[quote=UCGal]As mentioned above. What if a private corp is owned by a Christian Scientist. Are they allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and offer NO medical care?
Or Jehovah Witnesses – refuse to cover blood transfusions?
What about Catholics? They believe any birth control is a sin, right? So can Catholic business owners insist that the employer provided insurance provide not birth control – even if it’s being used for non – birth control purposes?
I find it interesting that the precedence for this decision was the one that allowed (vs restricted) the use of peyote for religious purposes. The precedence was expanding the ways to practice your beliefs (without impacting those around them.) This case is a twist on that – the religious rights of the owners trump the religious rights of the employees. They are allowed to restrict access to something that is legal and should be between a woman and her doctor. They are basically putting the employer/owners in the position of parent, and the employees in the position of child.[/quote]
UCGal: You’re engaging in an overly broad reading of an extremely limited decision of narrow scope.
But if we follow the bouncing ball, and? If I read the decision correctly, an employee is eligible for recompense, regardless.
July 6, 2014 at 8:22 AM #776083Allan from FallbrookParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.
Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?
This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.[/quote]
It IS hypocritical. They claim that can’t be part of paying for those 4 birth control devices because they claim (incorrectly) that those products lead to abortions. And then they invest in companies who make abortion products. How is that not hypocritical?
Do you really believe that there is no war on women?[/quote]
SK: I never said it wasn’t hypocritical. What I said was that I found comparing investment in a pharma company to investment in South Africa during apartheid to be something of a false equivalence.
As to the “War on Women”: Are we discussing the actual war on women, or the vote-getting scheme as practiced by the Democratic Party?
July 6, 2014 at 8:24 AM #776084Allan from FallbrookParticipant[quote=scaredyclassic]If you had that weird condition where your testicles swelled up to 50 lbs and I worshipped at a religion that venerated male genitals I’d let you get your damn testicle surgery even if I thought it were morally wrong.
Cause they’re your testicles.[/quote]
Scaredy: Thank you. You just made my point for me! Yes, they’re MINE, so what I choose to do with them is my business and everyone else, including the government, can fuck off.
July 6, 2014 at 8:25 AM #776085HobieParticipantHow many expresso’s this morning scaredy? 🙂 you are on a roll!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.