Go Back   Fratching! > General > Church and State

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 12-09-2012, 10:52 AM
Salesmonkey Salesmonkey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 38
Default

Charities, religiously affiliated hospitals, religion-affiliated businesses, &etc. aren't protesting this JUST because they are cheap and don't want to pay for decent health care, they are protesting because this is a cover for apostasy.

Consider, for a thought experiment, if Obamacare would cover the cost of a brick should I desire to bludgeon little Mr. Kitty to death. I would be morally disgusted, but it wouldn't really affect me because I don't plan to destroy the cat.

The problem the litigants have here is that their employees actually DO WANT decent health care. Nobody is chaining up little girls and making them take birth control. They are fighting for birth control. They are paying too much money in order to wait in a boring room, see an overwhelmed and underpaid doctor, and get a prescription to pay too much money to a pharmaceutical company. I don't see any coercion here.

But instead of understanding that most sensible people don't want the kool aid of religious crazy, the litigants in these cases have chosen to equate "religious freedom" with "I'm oppressed if there are other people doing things I don't like".
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 12-18-2012, 06:53 PM
Daskinor Daskinor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 195
Default

I will throw this out there, while it is not true in every state and risk group. Insurance premiums for a contraceptive free health care plan is more than one that includes contraception.

Oh and for the record, fuck anyone up the ass with a bowling ball that disallows treating Endometriosis with birth control pills. that shit aint right.
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 01-16-2014, 05:26 AM
Signmaker Signmaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 40
Default

There is an easy solution. So simple, in fact, I'm really confused as to how this became a national-stage issue. Oh yeah, derp, "religion", "constroversy", "women's rights", and "ObamaCare" are buzzwords that sell stories. Forgot.

The solution is this. I own a for-profit company, say...toilet paper making. As the owner, my personal religious views are that using contraceptives is sinful, and I must do everything in my power to avoid paying for it. No problem...I just wont hire anyone who uses contraceptives. It'll be in your new-hire paperwork, as part of your agreement to work for me, you agree to abstain from using birth control. If you do, and I find out, it's a breach of contract and you can be let go. In the end, my employees will have insurance co-paid by me, but none of it will go to birth control.

Dont want to go without birth control? Dont apply to work here. Dont want to support a company with these ideals? Dont buy my toilet paper. Free market is an awesome thing. Except that it takes government out of the loop...which is verboten.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 01-16-2014, 01:25 PM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,857
Default

Isn't this, philosophically speaking, removing free will from the equation? Its up to the employees whether or not they use birth control and thus choose to "sin". If this is the argument they want to go with, they can't pick and choose. They have to go through the whole health insurance plan and snip off everything that could benefit the results of sinful behaviour.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Signmaker View Post
The solution is this. I own a for-profit company, say...toilet paper making. As the owner, my personal religious views are that using contraceptives is sinful, and I must do everything in my power to avoid paying for it. No problem...I just wont hire anyone who uses contraceptives.
You say that like it wouldn't create a total legal shit storm. >.>

Your personal religious views and your business are, legally and constitutionally, two separate entities. A business does not enjoy the constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion. Regardless of what its owner or owners believe.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 01-16-2014, 01:50 PM
BlaqueKatt BlaqueKatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Signmaker View Post
I just wont hire anyone who uses contraceptives. It'll be in your new-hire paperwork, as part of your agreement to work for me, you agree to abstain from using birth control. If you do, and I find out, it's a breach of contract and you can be let go. <SNIP>Dont want to go without birth control? Dont apply to work here.
ok except birth control is a female health issue, and can be used to treat disabling illness(ovarian cysts, endometriosis, PCOS) , and an employer CANNOT discriminate based on the use of any legal substance, nor can they ask an employee to violate HIPPA.

So your "example" violates 4 anti-discrimination laws. Oops.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 01-18-2014, 03:33 AM
Signmaker Signmaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
You say that like it wouldn't create a total legal shit storm. >.>

Your personal religious views and your business are, legally and constitutionally, two separate entities. A business does not enjoy the constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion. Regardless of what its owner or owners believe.
Actually it does enjoy that right. There are no laws in the US that prevent a private business from openly favoring or participating in any religion. This includes donating to religious charities, holding religious services, or having religious decorations.

There are laws preventing a business from discriminating against individuals based on the religion of the individual. However that would only apply to this situation if the employee claimed need for contraceptive on religious grounds. As strange as that seems...I can actually think of one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlaqueKatt View Post
...and an employer CANNOT discriminate based on the use of any legal substance, nor can they ask an employee to violate HIPPA.
Actually they can discriminate based on the use of a legal substance. There are many companies in operation where a prospective employee must agree to a tobbacco-free clause in their paperwork. In fact the very large corporation I work under conducts regular random tobbacco screenings.

This may differ in areas that function under right-to-work laws, but in at-will employment regions, there are only a few things you cannot force an employee to agree to.

One of them you brought up though, which is the use of a contraceptive drug not for the purpose of contraception, but for other health-related side effects. This would have to be exempted under any such employment waiver, as an employer cannot discriminate against otherwise legal medical items used for a documented medical need. For example in California, if you test positive for marijuana by an employer drug screen, you would be safe with a medical marijuana card, and fired without.


Just to clarify, I have no personal problems with contraceptives, and if I were an employer I would happily pay for them through my insurance program, as it is a cheaper alternative to maternity leave.
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 01-18-2014, 07:11 AM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Signmaker View Post
Actually it does enjoy that right. There are no laws in the US that prevent a private business from openly favoring or participating in any religion. This includes donating to religious charities, holding religious services, or having religious decorations.
This is not about flavouring or participation though, its about using your religious beliefs against others in a business environment. Religious liberty is your right to freely believe and make decisions for yourself, not to impose your beliefs upon others. Furthermore, it is still the employee that pays for the plan and thus the birth control.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Signmaker View Post
Actually they can discriminate based on the use of a legal substance. There are many companies in operation where a prospective employee must agree to a tobbacco-free clause in their paperwork.
Actually, that's illegal in the majority of states. You just live in one where it isn't. Tobacco and birth control aren't exactly on the same wave length regardless.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Signmaker View Post
One of them you brought up though, which is the use of a contraceptive drug not for the purpose of contraception, but for other health-related side effects.
Flip it around. Pregnancy by itself is physically, mentally and economically taxing. Pragmatically speaking, it is also a total net loss for the employer. While a healthy sexual relationship has a huge list of health benefits and no negative effect on the employer. A company trying to claim no birth control for religious reasons is, in reality, straight up saying "We don't want to employ sluts". Because that is, ultimately, what this entire issue is about. Slut shaming. When you get to that core, companies can fuck the hell off, because they are now intruding into their employee's private lives.

A company cannot legally discriminate against a woman for being pregnant or refuse to hire a woman because of the possibility she may get pregnant. So why should the reverse be allowed?
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 01-19-2014, 03:59 AM
Signmaker Signmaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
This is not about flavouring or participation though, its about using your religious beliefs against others in a business environment. Religious liberty is your right to freely believe and make decisions for yourself, not to impose your beliefs upon others.
If your religious beleifs (or lack thereof) say contraception is ok, and you force your employer to pay for it, are you not forcing a portion of your beleifs onto them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
Furthermore, it is still the employee that pays for the plan and thus the birth control.
Well technically it's the pool of insurance policy holders that pay for the birth control, including the employee and employer as a small percentage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
Actually, that's illegal in the majority of states. You just live in one where it isn't. Tobacco and birth control aren't exactly on the same wave length regardless.
29, and only 4 states have laws that cover things other than tobacco products, so in the majority of the states having a contraceptive employment waiver would be legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
Flip it around. Pregnancy by itself is physically, mentally and economically taxing. Pragmatically speaking, it is also a total net loss for the employer. While a healthy sexual relationship has a huge list of health benefits and no negative effect on the employer.
Total agreement, we're not arguing the health benefits of contraceptives, only an employer's right to chose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
A company trying to claim no birth control for religious reasons is, in reality, straight up saying "We don't want to employ sluts". Because that is, ultimately, what this entire issue is about. Slut shaming. When you get to that core, companies can fuck the hell off, because they are now intruding into their employee's private lives.
While I personally agree, I still argue in favor of it being the employer's right to chose who they employ using any criteria that they see fit, outside of discrimination laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
A company cannot legally discriminate against a woman for being pregnant or refuse to hire a woman because of the possibility she may get pregnant. So why should the reverse be allowed?
You have the right to not work for a company because the owners also own a greyhound racing track, and you find the sport cruel and inhumane. Why cant an employer deny employment to someone who frequently races greyhounds, if the employer finds the sport cruel and inhumane?

Liberty means you sometimes dont get what you want, but no one can force you to take what you dont want either.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 01-19-2014, 04:15 AM
wolfie wolfie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Signmaker View Post
For example in California, if you test positive for marijuana by an employer drug screen, you would be safe with a medical marijuana card, and fired without.
There was a case a few years back where someone hired BY A CITY IN CALIFORNIA to grow medical marijuana was convicted (Federal court) of producing illegal drugs. The judge had ordered the defense lawyer to NOT mention "medical marijuana". Jurors polled afterward said that if they'd known it was a medical marijuana case (i.e. the defendant's actions were legal under state law), they would have voted for acquittal.

Also, in a federally regulated industry, drug screening is done according to federal standards. For truck drivers, it's been EXPLICITLY STATED that it doesn't matter whether or not you have a MMJ card, if you test positive for THC, you're disqualified from driving commercially.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 01-19-2014, 05:13 AM
Signmaker Signmaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfie View Post
There was a case a few years back where someone hired BY A CITY IN CALIFORNIA to grow medical marijuana was convicted (Federal court) of producing illegal drugs. The judge had ordered the defense lawyer to NOT mention "medical marijuana". Jurors polled afterward said that if they'd known it was a medical marijuana case (i.e. the defendant's actions were legal under state law), they would have voted for acquittal.

Also, in a federally regulated industry, drug screening is done according to federal standards. For truck drivers, it's been EXPLICITLY STATED that it doesn't matter whether or not you have a MMJ card, if you test positive for THC, you're disqualified from driving commercially.
Yeah, there are still some serious gaps in places where the state legalizes a federally controlled substance. The federal raids of MMJ dispensaries in CA make an excellect example of how the federal government runs roughshod over state's rights.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34 AM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.