Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

this is going beyond far and im calling out bullshit! Options · View
TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:18:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,302
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:

Frankly I wouldn't have the gaul to ask someone else to pay for my condoms and I wouldn't want them to know my sexual habits because it's not their business.


Wait... what???
But it's okay for them to fire a woman from her job if she uses contraceptives because it goes against their religious beliefs?

RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:38:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
@lady X,

"But I have to say its simply not reasonable to expect, for instance, a woman to not vehemently oppose a legislative assault on women's rights...."

Again I have to ask: where is it written in the Constitution that women will
Receive contraception paid for by employer supplied insurance whether the employer's ( who is paying the majority of the cost up front) religion agrees with it or not.

You're not being denied any rights, just being denied a free ride at someone else's expense and at the expense of their constitutionally protected right of religious freedom.

With reguard to the Ayn Rand comment, you know I only think for myself, I hope I miss read that.

RM




"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
Dani
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:39:07 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,725
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
@lady X,

"But I have to say its simply not reasonable to expect, for instance, a woman to not vehemently oppose a legislative assault on women's rights...."

Again I have to ask: where is it written in the Constitution that women will
Receive contraception paid for by employer supplied insurance whether the employer's ( who is paying the majority of the cost up front) religion agrees with it or not.

You're not being denied any rights, just being denied a free ride at someone else's expense and at the expense of their constitutionally protected right of religious freedom.

With reguard to the Ayn Rand comment, you know I only think for myself, I hope I miss read that.

RM




Bullshit.



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:43:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
TheDevilsWeakness wrote:


Wait... what???
But it's okay for them to fire a woman from her job if she uses contraceptives because it goes against their religious beliefs?



ONLY IF THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT!!!!!

This is not a difficult concept to wrap your brain around, you can't force others to pay for something you demand because you think your need trumps all.

If someone else is paying they can dictate, it's very simple, it's very clear.

RM


"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
Dani
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:47:02 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,725
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:



ONLY IF THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT!!!!!

This is not a difficult concept to wrap your brain around, you can't force others to pay for something you demand because you think your need trumps all.

If someone else is paying they can dictate, it's very simple, it's very clear.

RM


B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.

If you're going to provide benefits, you can't pick and choose what not to support just because you're close-minded it goes against your religious beliefs. And you for damn sure shouldn't be able to fire someone because of it.



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:48:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


Bullshit.


One day when you own a business and have to pay 40% of an employees sex change operation you will see how bullshit it is. Until then I think you are just a little too defensive about this because it targets women and therefore must be wrong, period. I should have no say because I have a penis.

Looks like we are both dissappointed tonight, Slippery...

RM



"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:48:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,302
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:



ONLY IF THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT!!!!!

This is not a difficult concept to wrap your brain around, you can't force others to pay for something you demand because you think your need trumps all.

If someone else is paying they can dictate, it's very simple, it's very clear.

RM


Type slowly and clearly to me then... cause clearly I cannot understand this as I am a simple Canadian and cannot fathom the idea of discriminating against a form of MEDICATION. Birth Control is a medication. We cannot pick this stuff up from a grocery store or minimart. It can and HAS in the past had direct consequences for women and their health.
There are complications from taking this medication and as such may need a doctors care for it.
Does this mean if I DO take it and pay for it and something happens and my boss finds out about it I should be fired? This is the general gist of the original posting, or at least what I got from it.

sprite
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:53:20 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,662
Location: My Tower, United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:


A Catholic believes condoms are an affront to God, you don't have the right to make him pay for them simply because you don't AND you don't want to take the coin out of your purse.

You can still have the pills you want you just have to pay for them yourself, you can't compel someone to go against their religious belief because you think you need outweighs their convenant with God.




you're aware that, in the US, the church is exempt from taxes, right? so really, why should non-catholics have to support them for religious beliefs they don't share? if the church wants to dictate policies regarding laws and legislation based on religious beliefs, they're more than welcome to pay taxes for the right.

btw, my wife is on the pill because otherwise her periods are quite painful, and they were prescribed simply for that reason - tell me, can she expect to be covered or not? what about women who take them because their health dictates it, that getting pregnant can endanger their lives? what about women going through chemo and who are still sexually active, where their medication could effect the baby, or women with AIDS or other STDs? what is your stance on their right to BC coverage? this is an earnest question, btw

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Dani
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:54:20 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,725
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:


One day when you own a business and have to pay 40% of an employees sex change operation you will see how bullshit it is. Until then I think you are just a little too defensive about this because it targets women and therefore must be wrong, period. I should have no say because I have a penis.

Looks like we are both dissappointed tonight, Slippery...

RM



You said it, not me.

And I'm not sure what the aforementioned scenario has to do with denying women the right to contraceptives. Paying for a sex change and providing a medical need are two completely different things. I'm not being defensive. I'm not speaking out because I'm a woman. I'm speaking out because this is BULLSHIT. As I stated before, when you give me proper justification, I'll acknowledge it. Until then, I am going to call bullshit. All you keep doing is bringing up shit that has nothing to do with shit. When you can give me justification that a woman can/should be denied contraceptives in her health insurance plans to the point of being fired for it, I'll stop disregarding your empty arguments.

Until then...BULLSHIT!bs

P.S. Disappointed? Speak for yourself...I'm far from it.



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:05:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
Ok then I must have failed because you're pretty shape 'slippery...', some of what i wrote was directed at SPRITE because her post took the argument off in many different tangents and I tried to address as many as I could. I'll give it another go...

this is really the salient point of my position;

"In all of your post Sprite, nothing compels me to make someone pay for something they spiritually don't believe in no matter how great you think your need is. No one should be able to enslave another to do anything simply because they think their fire burns brighter or their need is greater."

I think that covers it but I'll expand; if you want contraception... Pay for it yourself. It's really no more complex than that. No one is denying you health care... Anywhere. That's it, just that simple.

A Catholic believes condoms are an affront to God, you don't have the right to make him pay for them simply because you don't AND you don't want to take the coin out of your purse.

You can still have the pills you want you just have to pay for them yourself, you can't compel someone to go against their religious belief because you think you need outweighs their convenant with God.

Frankly I wouldn't have the gaul to ask someone else to pay for my condoms and I wouldn't want them to know my sexual habits because it's not their business.


I hope that makes it clear, if not I check the post and I'll get your opinion no doubt.

RM



Did you read the story linked to in the original post? It's not about who pays for what. It's about the idea that the business owner can fire someone who doesn't share his beliefs, religious or otherwise. The litmus test just seems to be contraceptives. Do you think it's right for the boss to be in your medicine cabinet?

Wait - earlier, you posted:


RobinMaxwell760 wrote:


Frankly I wouldn't have the gaul to ask someone else to pay for my condoms and I wouldn't want them to know my sexual habits because it's not their business.



So I repeat: Do you think you should have to ask permission from your boss to go out and purchase condoms? Or is it truly "not their business"?

RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:08:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
@She,

I was trying to be nothing but nice imy response to you, you choose to nothing but antagonistic. As I stated to another in their post; I have a penis and therefore should have no say, right?

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
You have a lot of anger and you said that you are in therapy for it, I think that's good because your anger is still misplaced as happens in situations like yours...
this is something you shouldn't write in the forum, it is hers to share not yours. And even if she wrote it down somewhere,are you using that as argument against her? personally think this is punch below the belt.

She shared it in the forum. I'm suppose to ignore it. Sharing pain is part of the healing process and I was nothing but compassionate to Sprite bucause this is something I live with as well with my girlfriend.

RM



"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:16:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
@Mr nudie pants,

"Did you read the story linked to in the original post? It's not about who pays for what. It's about the idea that the business owner can fire someone who doesn't share his beliefs, religious or otherwise. The litmus test just seems to be contraceptives. Do you think it's right for the boss to be in your medicine cabinet? "

If you read the bill, the actual law that got passed it says nothing of the sort!

If it were about shared religious beliefs it would never pass muster, i would be on your side and would be struck down so you have nothing to worry about. But you know full well it's not about that at all. It's about should someone be compelled to pay in part or whole for something they don't believe is right in the eyes of God. You know that tho.

You know that.


RM



"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
Dani
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:16:51 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,725
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
@She,

I was trying to be nothing but nice imy response to you, you choose to nothing but antagonistic. As I stated to another in their post; I have a penis and therefore should have no say, right?

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
You have a lot of anger and you said that you are in therapy for it, I think that's good because your anger is still misplaced as happens in situations like yours...
this is something you shouldn't write in the forum, it is hers to share not yours. And even if she wrote it down somewhere,are you using that as argument against her? personally think this is punch below the belt.

She shared it in the forum. I'm suppose to ignore it. Sharing pain is part of the healing process and I was nothing but compassionate to Sprite bucause this is something I live with as well with my girlfriend.

RM



No, but you're not supposed to exploit it, either. And if anything you said earlier is your definition of compassion, then I feel sorry for your girlfriend if she's going/been through something similar.




Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:18:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


You said it, not me.

And I'm not sure what the aforementioned scenario has to do with denying women the right to contraceptives. Paying for a sex change and providing a medical need are two completely different things. I'm not being defensive. I'm not speaking out because I'm a woman. I'm speaking out because this is BULLSHIT. As I stated before, when you give me proper justification, I'll acknowledge it. Until then, I am going to call bullshit. All you keep doing is bringing up shit that has nothing to do with shit. When you can give me justification that a woman can/should be denied contraceptives in her health insurance plans to the point of being fired for it, I'll stop disregarding your empty arguments.

Until then...BULLSHIT!bs

P.S. Disappointed? Speak for yourself...I'm far from it.


Not denied access to contraceptives, just denied a free contraceptive on someone else's dime.

RM

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:19:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
MrNudiePants wrote:


So I repeat: Do you think you should have to ask permission from your boss to go out and purchase condoms? Or is it truly "not their business"?


Only ask permission if you want your boss to PAY FOR THEM!!!!

RM



"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:20:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,302
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
@Mr nudie pants,

"Did you read the story linked to in the original post? It's not about who pays for what. It's about the idea that the business owner can fire someone who doesn't share his beliefs, religious or otherwise. The litmus test just seems to be contraceptives. Do you think it's right for the boss to be in your medicine cabinet? "

If you read the bill, the actual law that got passed it says nothing of the sort!

If it were about shared religious beliefs it would never pass muster, i would be on your side and would be struck down so you have nothing to worry about. But you know full well it's not about that at all. It's about should someone be compelled to pay in part or whole for something they don't believe is right in the eyes of God. You know that tho.

You know that.


RM



So let me get this right... If I worked for a Scientologist (And it's well known that they don't believe in "coddling" mental illness) and I needed anxiety medication or anti-depressives... or maybe even anti-psychotics that I should be denied?

RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:22:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
Off to hit the sack, continue to beat me up, I'll respond tomorrow or day after.
It's been swell!

RM



"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
Dani
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:24:24 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,725
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:


Not denied access to contraceptives, just denied a free contraceptive on someone else's dime.

RM


So if I understand correctly, you can dictate what health benefits I'm entitled to because it rubs you the wrong way? Even if it's a legitimate, extremely medical need, you can deny me my benefits/rights because it's something YOU don't agree with?

Again...Bullshit.



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

She
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:32:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
@She,

I was trying to be nothing but nice imy response to you, you choose to nothing but antagonistic. As I stated to another in their post; I have a penis and therefore should have no say, right?

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:
You have a lot of anger and you said that you are in therapy for it, I think that's good because your anger is still misplaced as happens in situations like yours...
this is something you shouldn't write in the forum, it is hers to share not yours. And even if she wrote it down somewhere,are you using that as argument against her? personally think this is punch below the belt.

She shared it in the forum. I'm suppose to ignore it. Sharing pain is part of the healing process and I was nothing but compassionate to Sprite bucause this is something I live with as well with my girlfriend.

RM



Shall I thank you for being nice when you could have been an ass?..but I am/was not hostile. I was actually having fun and being sarcastic at times. But I can explain my posts again, no problems if there is some doubt
Of course you have rights to say, just choose your words when delicate subject is on -when someones rights are being questioned and it has nothing to do with girl power or any other feminist thing if that is crossing through your mind.

I think that using that info was badly unappropriated, it was used against her. Not nice. I really don't want to disrespect her with fighting her battles, she is more than capable of doing that on her own.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:48:15 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,823
TheDevilsWeakness wrote:


So let me get this right... If I worked for a Scientologist (And it's well known that they don't believe in "coddling" mental illness) and I needed anxiety medication or anti-depressives... or maybe even anti-psychotics that I should be denied?


Have you signed a contract stating that you will work for him and that he will provide you with a paycheck as well as health benefits, but said benefits will not include any medication for anxiety, depression, or psychosis, because it is against the religious beliefs of your employer, who is a Scientologist?

Then yes.

Or you could just work for someone else. I have serious questions about the mental well-being of anyone who would willingly work for a Scientologist.



But your question takes an extreme position against an argument that is not being made.

Birth control pills can be used as a contraceptive, and also for health reasons unrelated to pregnancy.

If you work for a Catholic, and he is against the use of contraceptives on religious grounds, then what right do you have in asking him to pay for your condoms? If you sign a contract, and it states that he will not pay for contraceptives, then you should not have the right to force him to pay for contraceptives. However, birth control pills, because of the aforementioned duality of use, are in a gray area.

Let's say that you signed that contract. Now you've been to a doctor. He says you have a condition unrelated to the need to not be pregnant because you don't want a baby. He prescribes birth control pills. Under the contract, that's a health issue and not a contraceptive one. All you need do now is simply go to your employer with a note from the doctor, you get your pills, and all is better.

You have the pills needed to continues a pleasant life, and he has not been forced to violate his principles.


To put it another way, and more succinctly, if I was to work for you, and I told you that you should pay for my subscription to Playboy, would you be okay with me just shrugging and telling you that you should be forced to pay because it stops my girlfriend from getting pregnant, or would you want a note from my doctor explaining my condition which causes extreme pain if I don't masturbate every two hours?
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:49:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
So, as long as we maintain a dialogue on these matters, you'll have to deal with my enthusiasm (interpreted by you as naivete I suppose) and accept that for women, for minorities, for the working class, for an increasing percentage of the national pie, actually...it's really no laughing matter when you hear the rhetoric, and see legislation proposed that means less rights for yourself. It's easier for a male conservative to not comprehend the extreme unease that a liberal female feels in the face of republican spoken agenda and rhetoric, just like it's easy for straight people to wave off the fury caused by Chick-fil-A: "it's no big deal, why get worked up like this?" Because it's my very rights being fought and advocated against, Poindexter, that's why.


Wow! I'll bet it felt good to cut lose with all that. ;)

I'm pretty sure that I already know how you'll respond to my response, but maybe I'll help you to find that zen you envy. More likely, you'll read whatever I say and find some way to dismiss it, however irrationally, because you just don't like the message. I've demonstrated how ridiculously easy it is to manipulate your emotions, to cause you to resort to namecalling and demonizing the opposition. You're not alone in this. It's an affliction of an overwhelming percentage of the voters. It's why the game works.

Probably the first thing you should realize is that we hire professional liars to run our government. That's what lawyers are. That's what politicians are. They are skilled manipulators of peoples' emotions. That's how they make their living. This isn't only true of one side and it isn't only true of government. The same is true of all the people who inform us about government for a living. Spinning the truth is lying. We think that we send our representatives to capitols as our ambassador for the purpose of representing our interests. They understand that they are there to win reelection. We think that we get a better truth from our chosen sources of information, but they all manipulate the emotions of anyone susceptible to them.

Because of that, what you probably don't understand, it that everything you do to combat these demon Republicans that you carry on about only serves their purposes. By opposition, you empower them, because they can point to you and say to their constituents, "This person wants you to serve her purposes. This person is willing to mortgage your future and destroy our way of life by forcing you to buy her stuff". By empowering them, you only create more government and damage the ability of individuals, especially the individuals you seem to believe that you care about -- women, minorities, low wage workers, etc. -- to derive benefit from the society. That's because, when peoples' emotions are easy to manipulate, they ignore causality. They combat their foes without recognizing that in so doing, they strengthen them by morally authorizing opposition to their own use of might-makes-right. They believe in what they are trying to do, regardless of the results their actions will cause. There is no good form of authoritarian hell.

Because of that, your "very rights (as an individual) are being fought and advocated against" either way. That's what makes it funny. There is no way to win by playing the game, unless you are one of the professional liars. There is no point in getting all fired up about what happens in some other state that you don't want to move to. It does you no more good to worry about what happens there than what happens in some other country. To use it as an excuse for greater centralization of authority under the federal government only plays into their hands. Every bit of the advantage gained by your chosen solution to these demon Republicans (economic centralization) eventually gets inherited by religion. It's the only logical successor to the power of a strong central government. The only way to fight that is to prevent economic centralization and the erosion of individual rights. Both parties, as they are currently constituted, are opposed to decentralization of federal authority. Both parties are causing movement toward a religious dictatorship and economic ruin, and to the revolution that would eventually result from it.

You say that people shouldn't have to leave their state to get what they want, but that is the only system that doesn't eventually collapse under the weight of debt that people vote to pass on to future taxpayers. By attempting to make it so that the national government wipes out the distinctions between states, you only recreate the experiment that always fails and always makes the situation worse. That's because everybody always wants somebody else to sacrifice for them. We know what that causes. It doesn't matter that you believe that you deserve what you want to take. The people who have what you want to take also have the power to deprive you of it and to punish you economically for trying to take it by employing might makes right. Their opinion matters more than yours because they have that power and they refuse to succumb to the belief that they have a moral responsibility to serve your purposes.

The gist of this is that young people especially, if they wish to prevent a theocracy, must lose their naivete about economic centralization. It may seem like those are unrelated issues, but the linkage occurs through the common belief that it's okay to use your vote to require others to serve your purposes. The end result of economic centralization is poverty, the most fertile ground for religious dogma. When nobody has economic clout, religion wins. Breaking the axles off the federal gravy train and letting states compete for capital and workers and jobs takes power away from religion. If you stop trying to take their money away, their justification for running your life goes away.

You will probably see the US go through a very drastic change of government in your lifetime. That's what the debt we're building will ensure. You don't like hearing about "collectivism" but whatever you want to call the opposite of individualism is a bad thing to have in a central government.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:57:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
She wrote:
1ball, nothing is funny about when someone is thinking or even worse saying out loud that your rights of having a choice might be taken away from you. Some games should be played with white glows on, and this is one of them, you don't just say thing just to hear your voice, this is too delicate.
And even if it is as you say it is, who are you, no really, to put this subject into worthless? In your whole post, not even one word, that might indicate support women.angry7


I think my record of support for equal rights is clear. My record of support for individual rights is also clear. I don't believe we can tolerate having group rights that trump individual rights. Minorities always lose when that happens. So I'm going to call it funny when I see absurdity. It falls short of hilarious, but it is all part of political theater and if you can't laugh at seeing people fail to learn from the past, then it's all too easy to get caught up in it.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:59:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,302
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
SeaCreature wrote:


Have you signed a contract stating that you will work for him and that he will provide you with a paycheck as well as health benefits, but said benefits will not include any medication for anxiety, depression, or psychosis, because it is against the religious beliefs of your employer, who is a Scientologist?

Then yes.

Or you could just work for someone else. I have serious questions about the mental well-being of anyone who would willingly work for a Scientologist.



But your question takes an extreme position against an argument that is not being made.

Birth control pills can be used as a contraceptive, and also for health reasons unrelated to pregnancy.

If you work for a Catholic, and he is against the use of contraceptives on religious grounds, then what right do you have in asking him to pay for your condoms? If you sign a contract, and it states that he will not pay for contraceptives, then you should not have the right to force him to pay for contraceptives. However, birth control pills, because of the aforementioned duality of use, are in a gray area.

Let's say that you signed that contract. Now you've been to a doctor. He says you have a condition unrelated to the need to not be pregnant because you don't want a baby. He prescribes birth control pills. Under the contract, that's a health issue and not a contraceptive one. All you need do now is simply go to your employer with a note from the doctor, you get your pills, and all is better.

You have the pills needed to continues a pleasant life, and he has not been forced to violate his principles.


To put it another way, and more succinctly, if I was to work for you, and I told you that you should pay for my subscription to Playboy, would you be okay with me just shrugging and telling you that you should be forced to pay because it stops my girlfriend from getting pregnant, or would you want a note from my doctor explaining my condition which causes extreme pain if I don't masturbate every two hours?


I took the extreme approach because he (RobinMaxwell) was standing behind the religious beliefs of denying contraception to women. I chose Scientology and mental illness to drive this home. This could possibly happen to anyone and the implications can have far reaching effects.

What I really wanted to know was why people would think this was okay to FIRE a woman because she used contraception. I don't really care WHO pays for it, but I do not think that my boss should have the right to FIRE me for it.

Guest
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:12:07 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,823
TheDevilsWeakness wrote:


I took the extreme approach because he (RobinMaxwell) was standing behind the religious beliefs of denying contraception to women. I chose Scientology and mental illness to drive this home. This could possibly happen to anyone and the implications can have far reaching effects.

What I really wanted to know was why people would think this was okay to FIRE a woman because she used contraception. I don't really care WHO pays for it, but I do not think that my boss should have the right to FIRE me for it.


And the problem here is that you think this is all about an employer wanting to or having the right to fire a woman for using a contraceptive. There is no such law. It has been misrepresented in here since the beginning.

Does your contract state that your employer will not pay for contraceptives? Did you use your employer's health insurance to pay for contraceptives? That's a breach of contract. Did you use the insurance to buy birth control pills under the guise of a health risk, when you only wanted them as contraceptives? That's a breach of contract.

Now let's assume that you get an employer who really does want to fire you for using condoms, that you purchased yourself at your local corner store. He was not involved, nor was the health insurance. You know he hates condoms and will fire you if he finds out.

#1 Why the hell would you TELL HIM?

#2 If he fired you just for using condoms, and not, say, for sitting around talking about them and not working, HE would be in violation of your contract AND the law! You could sue him for wrongful termination! The issue would then NOT be your use of contraceptives, but his use of your personal life and his own personal opinion being used in an unjust manner!

I hope this clears things up.
TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:19:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,302
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
SeaCreature wrote:


And the problem here is that you think this is all about an employer wanting to or having the right to fire a woman for using a contraceptive. There is no such law. It has been misrepresented in here since the beginning.

Does your contract state that your employer will not pay for contraceptives? Did you use your employer's health insurance to pay for contraceptives? That's a breach of contract. Did you use the insurance to buy birth control pills under the guise of a health risk, when you only wanted them as contraceptives? That's a breach of contract.

Now let's assume that you get an employer who really does want to fire you for using condoms, that you purchased yourself at your local corner store. He was not involved, nor was the health insurance. You know he hates condoms and will fire you if he finds out.

#1 Why the hell would you TELL HIM?

#2 If he fired you just for using condoms, and not, say, for sitting around talking about them and not working, HE would be in violation of your contract AND the law! You could sue him for wrongful termination! The issue would then NOT be your use of contraceptives, but his use of your personal life and his own personal opinion being used in an unjust manner!

I hope this clears things up.


I'm Canadian. We don't have this kind of discrimination.
Religious beliefs have no right in dictating our insurance benefits from our employers. That would get their business slapped with a lawsuit so fast by the Human Rights Commission that the boss wouldn't even think of trying to pull a stunt like this.
I feel genuinely sorry for the American people. State and Religion have no place mixing together.
Your beliefs are yours... not mine. I will respect it, but I will not be ruled by it.

1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:37:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
TheDevilsWeakness wrote:
I'm Canadian. We don't have this kind of discrimination.
Religious beliefs have no right in dictating our insurance benefits from our employers.


Do Canadian business owners even have to provide health insurance? Can't they just say, "Well hell, you're on the national group plan, pay your own damn premiums. We can even do that through payroll deduction." and then just adjust their salary to remain competitive for the labor?



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:37:53 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,823
TheDevilsWeakness wrote:


I'm Canadian. We don't have this kind of discrimination.
Religious beliefs have no right in dictating our insurance benefits from our employers. That would get their business slapped with a lawsuit so fast by the Human Rights Commission that the boss wouldn't even think of trying to pull a stunt like this.
I feel genuinely sorry for the American people. State and Religion have no place mixing together.
Your beliefs are yours... not mine. I will respect it, but I will not be ruled by it.


What about the man who hired you? What about his beliefs? Does he not have any freedom in how he runs his business? Why are you so intent on standing up for YOUR BELIEFS, but so quick to dismiss his? Is it just because he is an employer? A business owner? Do you think that all businesses should be run in the exact same fashion? If you ever own and run a business, will YOUR BELIEFS not longer have any place in how you live and work? Are you now saying that you will pay for my subscription to Playboy?

Insurance costs money. That money comes from your employer. He gets the money by providing a product or a service. When you work for him, you provide him with a service in exchange for some of that money. When you demand more in benefits, that takes more of his money. Most small business owners the world over sacrifice so much to keep that business open that they often take a smaller paycheck than any of the people they employ, and refuse to use the very insurance that is given to those employees. The more you demand from them, the more they lose. They suffer, and the business suffers.

When you demand that your employer pay for contraceptives against his personal belief system, you're telling him that you want more of his money and that you think he's less of a human than you.

Everything here, the business model, the supposed right of a worker to demand more of that producer, is a very large part of why the US is in a recession and why the country is so split. 50% of the people in this country pay no federal tax and complain about getting a fair share when they don't get more benefits. There are millions of people all saying the same thing. I'M ENTITLED. YOU OWE ME THIS. YOUR RELIGION OR BELIEFS DON'T MATTER.

This is not about discrimination. This is not about denying contraception to all women. I wish you could see that.
TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:50:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,302
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
SeaCreature wrote:

What about the man who hired you? What about his beliefs? Does he not have any freedom in how he runs his business? Why are you so intent on standing up for YOUR BELIEFS, but so quick to dismiss his? Is it just because he is an employer? A business owner? Do you think that all businesses should be run in the exact same fashion? If you ever own and run a business, will YOUR BELIEFS not longer have any place in how you live and work? Are you now saying that you will pay for my subscription to Playboy?

Insurance costs money. That money comes from your employer. He gets the money by providing a product or a service. When you work for him, you provide him with a service in exchange for some of that money. When you demand more in benefits, that takes more of his money. Most small business owners the world over sacrifice so much to keep that business open that they often take a smaller paycheck than any of the people they employ, and refuse to use the very insurance that is given to those employees. The more you demand from them, the more they lose. They suffer, and the business suffers.

When you demand that your employer pay for contraceptives against his personal belief system, you're telling him that you want more of his money and that you think he's less of a human than you.

Everything here, the business model, the supposed right of a worker to demand more of that producer, is a very large part of why the US is in a recession and why the country is so split. 50% of the people in this country pay no federal tax and complain about getting a fair share when they don't get more benefits. There are millions of people all saying the same thing. I'M ENTITLED. YOU OWE ME THIS. YOUR RELIGION OR BELIEFS DON'T MATTER.

This is not about discrimination. This is not about denying contraception to all women. I wish you could see that.


You're right. This is not about denying contraception to women at all. This is about forcing my religion and beliefs on someone else and expect them to follow it. WHICH I might add, is not allowed to be done in Canada.

I have owned my own business. Two places of business over the years to be exact. I had employees. And my religion and beliefs do NOT matter when it comes to my employees health. I did not EVER think that I had the right to choose what healthcare benefits that my employees wanted OR needed.

That said. Obviously, Canada and the States have very different health insurance. Just as our healthcare is wildly different. But we do have Health Insurance and Benefits.

I had a business. My employees did their job. I paid them. The benefits were an extra added bonus. My religion has nothing to do with how I run my business. I did not have to offer health insurance benefits. It's not mandatory here for certain types of businesses and for businesses under a certain size.

My full-time employee's and I discussed this and found a provider that would cover prescriptions (to a set limit or amount) eye glasses and exams (once a year), dental visits (four times a year), life insurance death benefit and disability insurance plus a few other things (can't rightly remember all of them, it's been awhile) in exchange for an extra $5 off their cheques and me paying the rest. We reviewed this once a year and adjusted it accordingly.

But I still stand by the fact that I will never understand why it is so important for someone else's religion and beliefs to dictate my life. Just as I do not expect my religion or beliefs to dictate theirs. I have the utmost respect for others religions and beliefs and will go out of my way to accommodate and understand what they want or need in almost any way, shape or form. (And not just in dealing with them business wise. I just consider this common courtesy.)

I do not, however, have ANY respect for those that feel the need to push their religion and beliefs on me and MY way of life AND use it as an excuse to save a buck.

LadyX
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 1:25:48 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:


Wow! I'll bet it felt good to cut lose with all that. ;)

I'm pretty sure that I already know how you'll respond to my response, but maybe I'll help you to find that zen you envy. More likely, you'll read whatever I say and find some way to dismiss it, however irrationally, because you just don't like the message. I've demonstrated how ridiculously easy it is to manipulate your emotions, to cause you to resort to namecalling and demonizing the opposition. You're not alone in this. It's an affliction of an overwhelming percentage of the voters. It's why the game works.

Probably the first thing you should realize is that we hire professional liars to run our government. That's what lawyers are. That's what politicians are. They are skilled manipulators of peoples' emotions. That's how they make their living. This isn't only true of one side and it isn't only true of government. The same is true of all the people who inform us about government for a living. Spinning the truth is lying. We think that we send our representatives to capitols as our ambassador for the purpose of representing our interests. They understand that they are there to win reelection. We think that we get a better truth from our chosen sources of information, but they all manipulate the emotions of anyone susceptible to them.

Because of that, what you probably don't understand, it that everything you do to combat these demon Republicans that you carry on about only serves their purposes. By opposition, you empower them, because they can point to you and say to their constituents, "This person wants you to serve her purposes. This person is willing to mortgage your future and destroy our way of life by forcing you to buy her stuff". By empowering them, you only create more government and damage the ability of individuals, especially the individuals you seem to believe that you care about -- women, minorities, low wage workers, etc. -- to derive benefit from the society. That's because, when peoples' emotions are easy to manipulate, they ignore causality. They combat their foes without recognizing that in so doing, they strengthen them by morally authorizing opposition to their own use of might-makes-right. They believe in what they are trying to do, regardless of the results their actions will cause. There is no good form of authoritarian hell.

Because of that, your "very rights (as an individual) are being fought and advocated against" either way. That's what makes it funny. There is no way to win by playing the game, unless you are one of the professional liars. There is no point in getting all fired up about what happens in some other state that you don't want to move to. It does you no more good to worry about what happens there than what happens in some other country. To use it as an excuse for greater centralization of authority under the federal government only plays into their hands. Every bit of the advantage gained by your chosen solution to these demon Republicans (economic centralization) eventually gets inherited by religion. It's the only logical successor to the power of a strong central government. The only way to fight that is to prevent economic centralization and the erosion of individual rights. Both parties, as they are currently constituted, are opposed to decentralization of federal authority. Both parties are causing movement toward a religious dictatorship and economic ruin, and to the revolution that would eventually result from it.

You say that people shouldn't have to leave their state to get what they want, but that is the only system that doesn't eventually collapse under the weight of debt that people vote to pass on to future taxpayers. By attempting to make it so that the national government wipes out the distinctions between states, you only recreate the experiment that always fails and always makes the situation worse. That's because everybody always wants somebody else to sacrifice for them. We know what that causes. It doesn't matter that you believe that you deserve what you want to take. The people who have what you want to take also have the power to deprive you of it and to punish you economically for trying to take it by employing might makes right. Their opinion matters more than yours because they have that power and they refuse to succumb to the belief that they have a moral responsibility to serve your purposes.

The gist of this is that young people especially, if they wish to prevent a theocracy, must lose their naivete about economic centralization. It may seem like those are unrelated issues, but the linkage occurs through the common belief that it's okay to use your vote to require others to serve your purposes. The end result of economic centralization is poverty, the most fertile ground for religious dogma. When nobody has economic clout, religion wins. Breaking the axles off the federal gravy train and letting states compete for capital and workers and jobs takes power away from religion. If you stop trying to take their money away, their justification for running your life goes away.

You will probably see the US go through a very drastic change of government in your lifetime. That's what the debt we're building will ensure. You don't like hearing about "collectivism" but whatever you want to call the opposite of individualism is a bad thing to have in a central government.


I happen to think most, but not all, of your theory about government being a house of professional liars is true. I'm not sure what I've ever stated online that would give you an otherwise assumption to work from, that somehow I'd believe all politicians were honest, but in case that's your own figment of imagination, I can tell you: I've never felt, or stated, any belief that a given politician held all the answers and that others represented nothing good whatsoever. They've all got deep flaws, those lawmakers. And the flaws of the two major parties are well documented; I see no saints among either tribe. Where our worldviews part though is where yours goes next: that I'd be better served to not openly oppose any abhorrent movements within government, because that somehow sets forth a vortex of collectivism, whereby the more people fight for rights and decency in society and government, the closer we get to the shackles and gulags of authoritiarianism, replete with mandatory religious activity. I don't doubt the certainty with which you believe this..and it's not even that I reject it based on the fact that it sounds crazy on the surface (though I'm tempted) so much as the fact that I simply can't fathom this chain of events actually occurring outside of your head. A difference of outlook, to say the least.

What state a particular movement or legislation occurs in really doesn't matter, it's still in the country where I live. I believe you to be mixing your own desired reality of a loosely-connected federation of states with the reality of the way the the US works as it is, when you say I shouldn't concern myself with something occurring in another state. I say this because it's not the Arizona Coppersmiths Party that's ginning up some crazy ideas for a township in the Sonoran wilderness. The Republican Party isn't regional, it's national, and trend-following. And even if the Party's didn't follow it's own lead in introducing copycat legislation in other states once it's tried once, I'm deeply concerned for the potential injustices being perpetrated in the people that live there. They're Americans, after all, not just Arizonians, or Scottsdalians, or members of the Sunnyside Subdivision HOA, or however small one wishes to parse it in order to absolve or exclude others from having or showing concern. We're all still part of a whole. And by the way, even if it was in Denmark, why wouldn't one speak up and opine based on what they feel is right or wrong? What do my current IP and mailing addresses have to do with it?

Now, I realize that in your ethos, I'm not supposed to give a fuck about anyone else, pursuant to some sort of individualist philosophy of owning my own destiny, not owing anybody kindness because nobody has authority to obligate me, etc., etc., somehow resulting in a better world where everyone leaves each other the fuck alone completely. But in the cases where I see what I deem as deep injustice being attempted (and at times succeeding), you're damn right I'm going to point it out. In your sense of humor, this is very naive and humorous, so "you're welcome" for the good times that I and others must provide for you. Laughter is, after all, good for the soul.

With regard to the issue at hand, the following is the meat of the Arizona Bill which is the original subject of this thread:


Quote:

Arizona Republicans have heard the call to up the assault on women’s rights and answered with a proposed new law that would give employers the power to request that women prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they are using the pills for non-sexual health reasons. Any employee who was unable to provide such proof–that is, any woman who was using birth control pills and had those pills covered by insurance purely as contraception could be fired by her boss if he or she disapproved.

Lesko is proposing a world where women contribute salary to cover health insurance premiums but still must ask her boss for permission to access health care. And should her boss disapprove of that health care then she risks losing her job over that preference.


Invasion of privacy and discrimination toward women. Full stop.

So, some employer wants to make my lifestyle his business based on his ostensible "religious objections"? Fuck that. Once again, that's where the God-squad and I part ways. Religion has, over the years been used as cover for all sorts of human rights violations, and this, while not as severe as some, is just another in the long line. Surely we don't need to review this, so why is this tired argument allowed to hold any water?

I understand that certain people feel like their religious freedom is being violated if they aren't able to fucking lord it over those who depend on them for a paycheck, but too bad. For some reason (that I'm sure there are four versions of in terms of backstory) the US ended up with employers providing insurance, and as long as this is the case, employers need to come to terms with this as part of their (gasp) social contract as part of our little 200-year camp-out in North America. Nobody gets everything they want, even the uptight Baptist Ned Flanders-esque boss who disapproves of 'fornication.' He provides a job and pays (at least part of) a group health policy, and as a 'job-creator', part of his responsibility is to look past his personal (likely sexist, in this case) hangups and allow employees the medical treatment and coverage that the insurance company has been contracted to provide. His rights to his religion are not being violated. Nobody is telling him he can't be a practicing Christian. But by having employees "on the grid" with benefits, his religion has no place in their employment, including (and especially, in terms of privacy) health care. If he doesn't like that, he can absolve himself of the responsibility of employees, or see if they'll accept cash with no benefits and cheat on his taxes, whatever works best for Mr. Sex-is-Evil (or Mr. I-want-to-know-uncomfortable-details-about-my-female-employee-then-lord-them-over-her). And this is to say nothing of where we draw the line on what should be acceptable based on "religious objection." Until the doctor's prescription reads "sacrifice a blonde virgin", I'm calling bullshit on religious rights having any appropriate place in the system of private health care provision.

But I digress.

I believe you were making the point that standing up for rights- such as the one described above- will lead to economic ruin, due to the feeding frenzy of certain segments paying for what other segments demand as their due. I'm skeptical of the entire category of anti-welfare rhetoric to begin with, I think it typically reeks of racism at worst, classism at best, and needless furthers a divide among Americans who really have no inherent or productive reason to resent one another. But that subject is very much related to the "professional liars" you mentioned; in this case, classic republican class-warfare rhetoric. But when it comes to coverage of contraceptives? I'm no accountant, and I presume you aren't either, but I'm having a really hard time understanding how coverage of birth control, which is paid for through private insurance policies, furthers any public debt. It's really late, I just fed my kid, I'm perpetually several hours underslept...so maybe I really did miss the boat here. But you were saying the following:


Quote:
It doesn't matter that you believe that you deserve what you want to take. The people who have what you want to take also have the power to deprive you of it and to punish you economically for trying to take it by employing might makes right. Their opinion matters more than yours because they have that power and they refuse to succumb to the belief that they have a moral responsibility to serve your purposes. The end result of economic centralization is poverty


For birth control pills? I mean, even if we made birth control "on the house" for everyone, I'm having a hard time seeing how throwing out bullshit religious excuses for denying equal coverage for women manifests itself into a might-makes-right worst-case scenario from a blown-budget standpoint. I can see how, if the 'welfare queen' scamsters ran wild like the conservative rhetoric often describes, and people just quit looking for jobs en masse, creating a caving-in of the workforce, that your dire scenario might have real merit, but for what it might cost vs. what it symbolically means for women? We're not even talking about the same things, as far as I can tell, and frankly, it just comes off as justification of our institutionalized sexism to give a balance-sheet answer to a relatively low-cost issue such as this.

Okay, I know, I get it: if Arizonans don't like it, they should move, right? We should all be nomads with social security numbers, Tom Joad-ing our way across the freeways in swift escape of crackpot state legislatures to and fro. You say that by tethering the states together too tightly, we cripple the flexibility of our regionally diverse economy. I know what you're talking about, and I understand in theory how that might work. What I don't understand is what that has to do with basic Americans' rights, both what we're afforded now and what's fair but not yet available to all or is in danger of being taken away. Especially, as in this case, the ones that aren't particularly costly. If we all wanted Bugattis, because we thought we deserved them? Yes, that would become a problem. But we're talking about Yaz pills, holmes. Maybe an IUD here and there, if we really get crazy.

This protection of employer over employee, with hands-off governments that say "hit the road" to objections (no matter how unjust or unsavory) instead of righting them, all the while leaving the federal government bound and gagged in the closet, is your vision of America. I know it's well thought out in your head and that you truly believe in it, I just don't agree with it.

But nevertheless, despite our differences, don't ever think that I don't fully appreciate your patronization and condescension, 1ball. I especially appreciate your assumption that I'd disagree with you based not on personal philosophy or merit of ideas, but for simply not liking the words I'm told, as if I were a motherfucking four year old. I can only hope you're that congenial and tactful with everyone in your life. But you know...us kids can be so naive AND easily manipulated. What to do but set them straight, right?

If only we were all so wise and certain about the coming doomsday and it's cure, your work here would be so much easier and more succinct. On behalf of myself and the legions of naive, childlike members here engaging in the apparently hilarious act of giving a shit, I applaud your efforts
. Lwinking
Archadia
Posted: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:02:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/1/2011
Posts: 425
Location: Middlesbrough, United Kingdom
Blah, i cant be arsed with this topic because its so ridiculous. This proposal breaches moral and human rights, its economically unviable, and will never stand up against rational arguements and common sense. I didnt read the feed, i dont have time, but im assuming this is another one of Americas heavy religious angle, trying to coerce people to bow to their extremism. For a start, todays economic climate couldnt cope with a amendment like that, does anybody know how much it costs to raise a family? Society couldnt handle it, we would have homeless familys everywhere...I mean...seriously....

Then, dont even get me started on human rights breaches, theres too much list, just let the losers fuck off, i couldnt ever see a rule like that being put into effect, we're in the 21st century ffs..
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.