[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
[/quote]
What’s the difference between forcing companies to pay for BC insurance coverage and forcing companies to raise pay [b]specifically so employees can pay for it on their own[b/]? [/quote]
I find it morally objectionable to kick in doors , flash bang babies, shoot dogs . Please tell me how i can opt out . I loath the majority of war
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
I would bet those corporations would find a way to justify to the Corporation God how this is good , so the Corporation does not burn in Corporation Hell [/quote]
Do you spend any of your income on pot?
[/quote]
yes , but little , what’s your point
[/quote]
If you have the income to make yourself feel and act goofy, you have the income for BC.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
I would bet those corporations would find a way to justify to the Corporation God how this is good , so the Corporation does not burn in Corporation Hell [/quote]
Do you spend any of your income on pot?
[/quote]
yes , but little , what’s your point
[/quote]
If you have the income to make yourself feel and act goofy, you have the income for BC.[/quote]
we are talking whether a person has money for BC , we are talking about a law that every one has t o comply with but a few. We are looking at a finacial advantage for being against your religion
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Still a freedom even if you don’t benefit from it, isn’t that better than nothing?[/quote]
Freedom to do what ? to who ? tightly held corporations to inconvenience us ?
that is almost as good as money = free speech
[/quote]
So, let’s imagine corporations are banned tomorrow. Even the tightly held ones. All business is individually held. Now the mandate has even more problems.
Or, the government says religious people can participate in tightly-held or whatever enterprises. But they must run them according to the State’s judgements on various religious beliefs and practices. So now the corporation is something to be competed against by privately/singularly headed businesses. A tool they don’t get to use unless they sign on to the State’s agenda. In short, punishment or reward depending on if one does or doesn’t sign onto the State ‘religion.’
If your bedroom is your business, surely their business is their business.
[/quote]
I know it is six minutes but it says it so well . The ruling is rediculous allowing people to opt out because it is morally objectionable
[/quote]
Should I be able to hire people without providing any health insurance?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
[/quote]
What’s the difference between forcing companies to pay for BC insurance coverage and forcing companies to raise pay specifically so employees can pay for it on their own? [/quote]
I find it morally objectionable to kick in doors , flash bang babies, shoot dogs . Please tell me how i can opt out . I loath the majority of war
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
I would bet those corporations would find a way to justify to the Corporation God how this is good , so the Corporation does not burn in Corporation Hell [/quote]
Do you spend any of your income on pot?
[/quote]
yes , but little , what’s your point
[/quote]
If you have the income to make yourself feel and act goofy, you have the income for BC.[/quote]
we are talking whether a person has money for BC , we are talking about a law that every one has t o comply with but a few. We are looking at a finacial advantage for being against your religion [/quote]
Then I’ll guess you’ll be voting for candidates pledging to repeal the mandate. Don’t create the problem and then complain about it.
Did you really not entertain the idea that, say, the first amendment, might just pose a problem to a newly discovered right to mandate coverage of BC/abortifacients?
Here’s the fairer, more personal responsibility mandate. Women will be able to go after male sex partners for BC support/recompensation. Sort of like child support. Hey, I didn’t screw her, so don’t try to screw me. If you’re not going after the guys who are actually bedding her down, don’t turn to us.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
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.[/quote]
Doesn’t seem like you have read the catechism very strictly either. The Catholic Church has never condemned hormonal medication for legitimate medical purposes, provided there is no contraceptive intent. [/quote]
I never asserted that was Catholic doctrine. A majority of Catholics I know (I am one of them) have no issue with the contraceptive effect of BC. I’m pretty sure the creator of the universe could not care less if we fuck without the intent to procreate.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
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.[/quote]
Doesn’t seem like you have read the catechism very strictly either. The Catholic Church has never condemned hormonal medication for legitimate medical purposes, provided there is no contraceptive intent. [/quote]
I never asserted that was Catholic doctrine. A majority of Catholics I know (I am one of them) have no issue with the contraceptive effect of BC. I’m pretty sure the creator of the universe could not care less if we fuck without the intent to procreate. [/quote]
Ah, but Onan was specifically told to father a child and elected to sow elsewhere.[/quote]
Precisely. Ergo, evidently the creator of the universe does care, if Genesis 1, 9 and 39 are any indication.
One cannot obey the commandment (given not only specifically to Onan but to every creature on the planet, apparently) to be fruitful and multiply if one spills one’s seed upon the ground… or on a woman’s breasts, or in her mouth, or inside of a condom.
