Yea Religious Freedom eye roll 
yes I am trolling
Still a freedom even if you don’t benefit from it, isn’t that better than nothing?
Nah, it’s actually what the Pilgrims sought to escape.
If you look at it in the sense that everything is going to eventually be part of a corporation, and from here corporations hand down what is religiously tolerant to them, you see the problem. But alas few are far forward thinking enough to realize it. Shame, we are too short sighted to realize we gave corporations the right to impose their religious views on medicine. But those big brains in superior court know whats best for our autonomy.
I suppose the next step would be for corporations to adopt religions that are against medicine. Perhaps shareholders would find it profitable to put a CEO like that as a figurehead for the sake of implementing, “religious freedoms” on their medical policies.
=)
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I suppose the next step would be for corporations to adopt religions that are against medicine. Perhaps shareholders would find it profitable to put a CEO like that as a figurehead for the sake of implementing, “religious freedoms” on their medical policies.
[/quote]
What is the problem exactly? None of this was even required before the individual mandate and tons of corporations offered full health insurance. Why didn’t shareholders think of this 50 years ago?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I suppose the next step would be for corporations to adopt religions that are against medicine. Perhaps shareholders would find it profitable to put a CEO like that as a figurehead for the sake of implementing, “religious freedoms” on their medical policies.
[/quote]
What is the problem exactly? None of this was even required before the individual mandate and tons of corporations offered full health insurance. Why didn’t shareholders think of this 50 years ago?[/quote]
Right, I would say not that we gave corporations the right to interfere with medicine, but that the GOVERNMENT took the “right” to interfere with medicine by force (because they have the guns) and political subterfuge. I would say SCOTUS fucked the decision waaaay up as well.
So really, this isn’t new. Status quo before Obamacare was where things were at, now it’s more or less reasserting that status quo after Obamacare.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I suppose the next step would be for corporations to adopt religions that are against medicine. Perhaps shareholders would find it profitable to put a CEO like that as a figurehead for the sake of implementing, “religious freedoms” on their medical policies.
[/quote]
What is the problem exactly? None of this was even required before the individual mandate and tons of corporations offered full health insurance. Why didn’t shareholders think of this 50 years ago?[/quote]
The problem is many choices we are going to be able to make about our bodies is going to be determined by the ethics of whatever corporations we work for. What is defined as unethical is really up in the air considering the nature of freedom of religion in our country, which is really the point of the paragraph you are addressing.
With every corporation out there competing for people, it makes no sense to offer say zero health care under the guise of religion. Not a good way to attract people obviously as you are pointing out. The point is you just in a very passive aggressive way lost control of potential options for treatment. Not just birth control.
The other thing that I worry about is how this also may have a strong influence on the direction of how medicine in general goes about researching for treatments. Why invest money in potential treatments and cures if at some point their methodologies butt heads with corporate ethics? And are therefore off the table from the get go regardless of their efficacy?
In this sense it holds back the money driving the potential of medicine because of taboos. Why fund it if nobody would buy it?
But, maybe I’m thinking too far down the line. At the very least, potential treatments for problems are off the table because of this ruling.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I suppose the next step would be for corporations to adopt religions that are against medicine. Perhaps shareholders would find it profitable to put a CEO like that as a figurehead for the sake of implementing, “religious freedoms” on their medical policies.
[/quote]
What is the problem exactly? None of this was even required before the individual mandate and tons of corporations offered full health insurance. Why didn’t shareholders think of this 50 years ago?[/quote]
The problem is many choices we are going to be able to make about our bodies is going to be determined by the ethics of whatever corporations we work for. What is defined as unethical is really up in the air considering the nature of freedom of religion in our country, which is really the point of the paragraph you are addressing.
With every corporation out there competing for people, it makes no sense to offer say zero health care under the guise of religion. Not a good way to attract people obviously as you are pointing out. The point is you just in a very passive aggressive way lost control of potential options for treatment. Not just birth control.
The other thing that I worry about is how this also may have a strong influence on the direction of how medicine in general goes about researching for treatments. Why invest money in potential treatments and cures if at some point their methodologies butt heads with corporate ethics? And are therefore off the table from the get go regardless of their efficacy?
In this sense it holds back the money driving the potential of medicine because of taboos. Why fund it if nobody would buy it?
But, maybe I’m thinking too far down the line. At the very least, potential treatments for problems are off the table because of this ruling. [/quote]
Do you prefer your life to be directed by the ethics of the many corporations with different views or the government (whatever 50.1% of the people happen to agree with at a given time).
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I suppose the next step would be for corporations to adopt religions that are against medicine. Perhaps shareholders would find it profitable to put a CEO like that as a figurehead for the sake of implementing, “religious freedoms” on their medical policies.
[/quote]
What is the problem exactly? None of this was even required before the individual mandate and tons of corporations offered full health insurance. Why didn’t shareholders think of this 50 years ago?[/quote]
The problem is many choices we are going to be able to make about our bodies is going to be determined by the ethics of whatever corporations we work for. What is defined as unethical is really up in the air considering the nature of freedom of religion in our country, which is really the point of the paragraph you are addressing.
With every corporation out there competing for people, it makes no sense to offer say zero health care under the guise of religion. Not a good way to attract people obviously as you are pointing out. The point is you just in a very passive aggressive way lost control of potential options for treatment. Not just birth control.
The other thing that I worry about is how this also may have a strong influence on the direction of how medicine in general goes about researching for treatments. Why invest money in potential treatments and cures if at some point their methodologies butt heads with corporate ethics? And are therefore off the table from the get go regardless of their efficacy?
In this sense it holds back the money driving the potential of medicine because of taboos. Why fund it if nobody would buy it?
But, maybe I’m thinking too far down the line. At the very least, potential treatments for problems are off the table because of this ruling. [/quote]
Do you prefer your life to be directed by the ethics of the many corporations with different views or the government (whatever 50.1% of the people happen to agree with at a given time).
[/quote]
I think that’s the perfect way of looking at it… The governments or the corporations, not your own.
And that’s the problem. At the end of the day the autonomy of that person who is also a corporation is in charge of yet another aspect of peoples lives. Their choices via whatever medical ethical views that corporate person has.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I suppose the next step would be for corporations to adopt religions that are against medicine. Perhaps shareholders would find it profitable to put a CEO like that as a figurehead for the sake of implementing, “religious freedoms” on their medical policies.
[/quote]
What is the problem exactly? None of this was even required before the individual mandate and tons of corporations offered full health insurance. Why didn’t shareholders think of this 50 years ago?[/quote]
The problem is many choices we are going to be able to make about our bodies is going to be determined by the ethics of whatever corporations we work for. What is defined as unethical is really up in the air considering the nature of freedom of religion in our country, which is really the point of the paragraph you are addressing.
With every corporation out there competing for people, it makes no sense to offer say zero health care under the guise of religion. Not a good way to attract people obviously as you are pointing out. The point is you just in a very passive aggressive way lost control of potential options for treatment. Not just birth control.
The other thing that I worry about is how this also may have a strong influence on the direction of how medicine in general goes about researching for treatments. Why invest money in potential treatments and cures if at some point their methodologies butt heads with corporate ethics? And are therefore off the table from the get go regardless of their efficacy?
In this sense it holds back the money driving the potential of medicine because of taboos. Why fund it if nobody would buy it?
But, maybe I’m thinking too far down the line. At the very least, potential treatments for problems are off the table because of this ruling. [/quote]
Do you prefer your life to be directed by the ethics of the many corporations with different views or the government (whatever 50.1% of the people happen to agree with at a given time).
[/quote]
I think that’s the perfect way of looking at it… The governments or the corporations, not your own.
And that’s the problem. At the end of the day the autonomy of that person who is also a corporation is in charge of yet another aspect of peoples lives. Their choices via whatever medical ethical views that corporate person has. [/quote]
You can choose the corporations more easily than the government especially when it comes to where you work. If you had to be controlled by something do you want to pick from option A-Z or just option A?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I suppose the next step would be for corporations to adopt religions that are against medicine. Perhaps shareholders would find it profitable to put a CEO like that as a figurehead for the sake of implementing, “religious freedoms” on their medical policies.
[/quote]
What is the problem exactly? None of this was even required before the individual mandate and tons of corporations offered full health insurance. Why didn’t shareholders think of this 50 years ago?[/quote]
The problem is many choices we are going to be able to make about our bodies is going to be determined by the ethics of whatever corporations we work for. What is defined as unethical is really up in the air considering the nature of freedom of religion in our country, which is really the point of the paragraph you are addressing.
With every corporation out there competing for people, it makes no sense to offer say zero health care under the guise of religion. Not a good way to attract people obviously as you are pointing out. The point is you just in a very passive aggressive way lost control of potential options for treatment. Not just birth control.
The other thing that I worry about is how this also may have a strong influence on the direction of how medicine in general goes about researching for treatments. Why invest money in potential treatments and cures if at some point their methodologies butt heads with corporate ethics? And are therefore off the table from the get go regardless of their efficacy?
In this sense it holds back the money driving the potential of medicine because of taboos. Why fund it if nobody would buy it?
But, maybe I’m thinking too far down the line. At the very least, potential treatments for problems are off the table because of this ruling. [/quote]
Do you prefer your life to be directed by the ethics of the many corporations with different views or the government (whatever 50.1% of the people happen to agree with at a given time).
[/quote]
I think that’s the perfect way of looking at it… The governments or the corporations, not your own.
And that’s the problem. At the end of the day the autonomy of that person who is also a corporation is in charge of yet another aspect of peoples lives. Their choices via whatever medical ethical views that corporate person has. [/quote]
You can choose the corporations more easily than the government especially when it comes to where you work. If you had to be controlled by something do you want to pick from option A-Z or just option A?[/quote]
And if all the options happen to be bad, well that is life but at least you can say you had some say in the matter.
First off, the ruling is only for privately held majority owned companies…that’s all.
Second, birth control is one of the cheapest prescriptions to pay cash for…dollars a month. And is free at planned parenthood.
And if you think that a company should pay for an abortion as a RIGHT…then you have deeper problems than this ruling.
There is a war on women lads. Big Business has stepped in and stripped women of their fundemental rights.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
There is a war on women lads. Big Business has stepped in and stripped women of their fundemental rights. [/quote]
Not sure if syrs.
What’s funny is if you read some of the progressive reactions (Slate, for example) around the interwebz you would think the Burqa is being enforced. As UtahLama points out, this ruling isn’t very broad. When and where this ruling does apply, how many of those are going to stick to religious tenets (if they even have any on this issue)? So not getting 100% STATE MANDATED (speaking of control of one’s body…have business owners become bodiless) contraceptive coverage from coast to coast is portrayed as, “women will be oppressed breeding stock.” So, 8 years ago, before the mandate, women were assigned to breeding farms or something?
But yeah, what about the bodies of those people using their bodies to work 60-80 hours to run THEIR business? “I’m being oppressed, you didn’t cover BC!”
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
There is a war on women lads. Big Business has stepped in and stripped women of their fundemental rights. [/quote]
Not sure if syrs.[/quote]
Absoulfreaking-lutely. Life, liberty and the right to abort a fetus after 8 and a half months. It’s the American Way!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s funny is if you read some of the progressive reactions (Slate, for example) around the interwebz you would think the Burqa is being enforced. As UtahLama points out, this ruling isn’t very broad. When and where this ruling does apply, how many of those are going to stick to religious tenets (if they even have any on this issue)? So not getting 100% STATE MANDATED (speaking of control of one’s body…have business owners become bodiless) contraceptive coverage from coast to coast is portrayed as, “women will be oppressed breeding stock.” So, 8 years ago, before the mandate, women were assigned to breeding farms or something?
But yeah, what about the bodies of those people using their bodies to work 60-80 hours to run THEIR business? “I’m being oppressed, you didn’t cover BC!”
[/quote]
Are you against contraceptives in general, or just subsidized BC? It seems that a strict reading of the catechism is becoming increasingly rarer. I mean, a lot of catholic families put their daughters on BC because of the severity of their periods. I contend that it is in the national interest for BC to be readily available and encouraged.
This is NOT bout CONTRACEPTION people!!! Ugg. It’s about RU-486. Understand?? Abortions. Da Morning After pill.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s funny is if you read some of the progressive reactions (Slate, for example) around the interwebz you would think the Burqa is being enforced. As UtahLama points out, this ruling isn’t very broad. When and where this ruling does apply, how many of those are going to stick to religious tenets (if they even have any on this issue)? So not getting 100% STATE MANDATED (speaking of control of one’s body…have business owners become bodiless) contraceptive coverage from coast to coast is portrayed as, “women will be oppressed breeding stock.” So, 8 years ago, before the mandate, women were assigned to breeding farms or something?
But yeah, what about the bodies of those people using their bodies to work 60-80 hours to run THEIR business? “I’m being oppressed, you didn’t cover BC!”
[/quote]
Are you against contraceptives in general, or just subsidized BC? I contend that it is in the national interest for BC to be readily available and encouraged.[/quote]
I’m a practicing Catholic, so I’m against BC personally (between man and God deal). I refuse to facilitate it directly, or be used as a passive middle-man. However, it isn’t a question of life and death in the way abortion is, so I’m not interested in telling you, through state force, that you can’t use it.
And I’m damn sure against the government telling me I must service certain types of weddings, or provide contraceptive coverage benefits, or give up my livelihood in order to continue following my moral conscience. And that is exactly the message:
The much vaunted wall of separation is now a one way door. From government to religious.
And, you’re not allowed a business if you’re traditional devout.
So Hillary is pissed at the law that her husband signed?? Can someone translate this for me please.