|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 29, 2012 01:48 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
No, you miss it. Your whole post is missing it, and you don't answer to the point.
If, as a BOSS, that is, as an employer, you HAVE to pay part of the health insurance for your employees, it's not a private commodity - it's the same thing as a law that says you HAVE to pay sales tax.
No, you miss it. A mandate to buy a private commodity is not a tax. A federal tax is used to fund the federal government to carry out what the Constitution mandates it to do.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated power (the only legitimate powers of the federal government) that allows the federal government to tell a citizen that they must purchase any private goods or services for themselves or for anyone else. Such a mandate from the federal government is tyranny and is unconstitutional.
Oh, employers are not required to offer the employees a health insurance plan or pay any part of such a plan. I know employers who are going to be dropping insurance coverage altogether if Obama's plan is not found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The SC should rule on Obamacare in two-three months.
The federal government mandating that if an employer provides a health insurance policy that it must pay for baby murder and contraceptives as part of the policy is lunacy and will result in a lot of people no longer having a cheap insurance policy through their employer. Such a mandate is particularly vile when imposed on an organization that teaches such practices are mortal sins.
@Corribus
Quote:
Elodin, do you believe the church should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion/race/ethnicity when making hiring decisions (violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964) even if it is morally or philosophically opposed to people of those faiths? Do you believe that religion employers like the Catholic Church should be required to comply with the Family Medical Leave Act? If the Church hires a Jew or a Muslim, should they be required to grant those individuals personal leave on religion holidays (e.g., Hanukkah), even if those holidays are against the teachings of the Church?
If a church teaches only black females are allowed to pastor a church I support their right to teach such a thing and to implement such a policy in their church.
If a Muslim mosque is seeking a cleric to head the mosque they should not be forced to give a Christian preacher an equal shot at the job.
So yes, a church should be allowed to "discriminate" in its "hiring" practices.
No, I DON'T THINK THE cc OR other religious "employers" should be required to comply with the FMLA. The federal government has no right to determine who is the pastor of a church or if a pastor of a church must be retained. That is interfering with religious freedom.
Now, for your question about religious holidays. No,if for example a Catholic church hires a Jewish janitor the janitor should not be allowed to dictate what hours he will work. When he is being considered for employment he should inform his potential employer of the times he will be unavailable for work. If that is agreeable to the potential employer than all is well and good. If not, he should seek employment elsewhere.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 29, 2012 01:57 PM |
|
|
|
Which means, the Church won't hire people who would make an abortion, so the whole point is moot.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 31, 2012 01:17 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:18, 31 May 2012.
|
Tomorrow the US House of Representatives will vote on whether or not to ban sex-selective abortions. It is going to be interesting to see how the democrats vote on this.
Clicky
Quote:
House members launched into a contentious debate Wednesday over a bill that would ban abortions performed on the basis of gender-selection.
Though sex-selective abortions are typically thought of as a problem in countries like China, bill author Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said Democrats and Republicans in the House agree that sex-selection abortions are occurring in the United States.
"The people of this country are overwhelmingly for this bill, and liberals are going to have to make up their mind whether they are so committed to abortion on demand that they think that includes killing little girls because they are little girls," Franks said.
Under his proposal, physicians who perform sex-selective abortions would face heavy fines and up to five years in jail.
The House, after closing out debate late Wednesday afternoon, is expected to vote on the proposal Thursday. It needs a two-thirds majority to pass.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 31, 2012 01:54 AM |
|
|
Shouldn't they be arguing about something important. Like the economy?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 01, 2012 12:36 AM |
|
|
The bill was defeated as dems want to preserve the mother's ability to murder her baby for any reason she deems fit. This should make good for some good attack ads for the Republicans.
Clicky
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 01, 2012 08:51 AM |
|
|
Nonsense bill.
In theory it's correct that an abortion shouldn't take place because you don't want your baby to be this or that gender.
But how is that to work in practise?
Gender determination is possible only in week 12 at the earliest. I don't know how this is regulated in the US (and I'm not even that interested in checking it up), but most countries have a regulation that allows abortions within the first 3 months only, at least without special procedure.
So abortions within that frame CANNOT possibly be done for that reason.
That leaves the special ones, where it would have been possible to check the gender - but how is that supposed to work? How are you going to prove to someone that they aborted a fetus because of its gender?
In a word: IMPRACTICAL without a thought police.
EXPENSIVE at that.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 12:08 PM |
|
|
A victory for women in South Dakota. Doctors must inform them that abortion carries with it the risk of increased suicide and other information regarding abortion.
Clicky
Quote:
A federal appeals court has upheld a 2005 South Dakota law that requires doctors to tell women seeking abortions that they face an increased risk of suicide if they go through with the procedure.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the portion of the law 7-4 in a ruling issued Tuesday. In September, a three-judge panel upheld U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier's decision to overturn the requirement following a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood.
The suicide advisory was part of a larger law requiring South Dakota doctors to provide women with certain information before an abortion can be considered voluntary.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 12:48 PM |
|
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 12:50 PM |
|
|
Didn't realize that guilt is a mental impairment. 
And when you associate 'facts' with wikipedia, it leaves a very bad; long lasting taste in my mouth. Wikipedia is sufficient for preliminary research only, and NOT to base a controversial argument upon. Not to mention your incessant aggressive attitude completely obliterates any point that you were trying to make.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 01:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Didn't realize that guilt is a mental impairment.
And when you associate 'facts' with wikipedia, it leaves a very bad; long lasting taste in my mouth. Wikipedia is sufficient for preliminary research only, and NOT to base a controversial argument upon. Not to mention your incessant aggressive attitude completely obliterates any point that you were trying to make.
There's nothing wrong with wikipedia if it cites valid sources.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 01:39 PM |
|
|
Irrelevant, abortion correlating with mental health was not under current discussion. Unless JJ thinks that natural human emotions resulting from doing something 'bad' is a mental impairment.
Albeit wikipedia may yield 'real' information, I'm still required to double check it in order to be certain, otherwise there's a good-chance that I'm countering a non-existent argument.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 03:16 PM |
|
|
I didn't think I would have to point it out, but suicidal people are considered mentally not healthy.
And I'm thoroughly sick of people complaining about Wiki as a source - of course only when the gist of it doesn't fir into their world view - when the articles cite their sources, and there is an abundance here.
Now find sources for the "higher suicide risk" in case of abortions.
The other question would be, "higher suicide risk" compared to what? To those women of the same age who are unwantedly pregnant and do not abort? And is there even a cause-effect relation?
I mean, consider this: if a woman aborts, she is obviously unwantedly pregnant. You can ask the question, WHY. So there would be, for example, the rape victims. Let's say a rape victim aborts and later commits suicide. Can you really say, that the suicide is the result of the abortion?
OBVIOUSLY not - it might be the result of the rape.
So first there would have to be a CAUSE-EFFECT CONNECTION established between the two facts abortion and suicide, that is, if there was a suicide and an abortion that there is even a connection between the two.
Which is the problem with these statistics: you can check for suicide rates of smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers, and then, depending on the result, claim, for example: smoking lessens the risk of suicide, but quitting will increase the risk. (Or any other result that this would bring.)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I didn't think I would have to point it out, but suicidal people are considered mentally not healthy.
To quote you, "Who defines what is 'mentally healthy'." 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 07:33 PM |
|
|
wow really?
should everything that might get people depressed, id est ((I finally got to use those words)) pretty much everything in life, have a huge warning label on it?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 07:37 PM |
|
|
If you're going to make judgement over life or death, then yes.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 08:01 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:02, 25 Jul 2012.
|
okay so if I step on a bug then there should be a warning that I could get depressed
Personally I think there should be a depression warning for NOT going through an abortion. WARNING: If you give birth to your baby then your career and social life will get destroyed. You will have to take care of a monster for the next 20 years and you will never be able to enjoy life again. Being a parent might get you depressed!
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 25, 2012 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
okay so if I step on a bug then there should be a warning that I could get depressed
You could implement one.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 26, 2012 02:53 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 02:54, 26 Jul 2012.
|
In any other medical procedure, doctors should go over all risks - including mental health risks - with patients before the procedure is carried out, provided the existence of such risks are supported by scientific studies and agreed to by the medical establishment. A legal abortion procedure is no different in this regard.
That said, and generally speaking, government should not be in the business of legislating what doctors should be saying to patients.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2012 08:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
provided the existence of such risks are supported by scientific studies and agreed to by the medical establishment.
Which is OBVIOUSLY the problem here.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 26, 2012 09:14 AM |
|
|
Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills want to keep women in the dark about the facts involving abortion. I think women having all the facts is a good thing and there is nothing "stone age" about such a requirement. Generally I would think a doctor is being negligent if he does not present the risks a procedure involves to the patient.
____________
Revelation
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
