Judge: Feds Can’t Make Domino’s Founder Offer Birth Control

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
What can be more immoral than forcing your religious delusions on your employees.


The inability to realize that if a religious belief could be trampled upon by your government, so could a political belief, and a philosophical belief, and a moral belief...

C'mon. Think! Lots of people who aren't religious still see the value of protecting a religious person's beliefs. If they were facts, they'd be called "facts".




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
So, in the US, is birth control something separate from other prescription drugs?

If its not, why don't they have differently tiered benefit programs?
With prescriptions included, the plan would be slightly more expensive.

Without prescriptions, medical is still covered, but the employee pays for their own prescriptions when they purchase them (or through a separate private insurance add on).

Your government likes to do things in a way that keeps the whole country arguing and divided over the smallest issues


Do they do these things this way on purpose?

United they stand, divided they fall.......



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 





Quite frankly, no he is not. Please explain how he is violating anyone's civil rights by not paying for birth control. I'll be interested to hear that.


I didn't say civil rights. Rights to medicine under the law.




Why should they?


smh




I'm pretty sure Dominoes doesn't hunt people down and force them into servitude. I'm actually pretty sure people APPLY to them of their own free will and ask for a job. That being the case, I think it is fair to say it is the employee who is ramming their atheism down Dominoes throat. Simple logic.


But it's ok for 1 man to impose his Religious beliefs or point of view upon 100+ Thousand employees?




Pot / Kettle


When other peoples rights are being stepped on. Then hell yes.
edit on 15-3-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Once again, do we live in a free country or not.

If you wish to start a business that's wonderful. If you do business and keep to your religious convictions, also that's great.

I do not believe the government should force you to violate your religious beliefs to stay in business. Also, would it be worse for the employees if the business owner decides he cannot do business that would violate his religious beliefs so he closes the business?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 

Actually, at this point, if his victory in federal court is overturned, he ought to just shut the thing down and screw the 10's of thousands he employs. I really am to that point and I know many among the "wealthy" have been there for awhile now.

First, it's important to note..he need not do anything right now, because he won. He does not HAVE to offer this coverage and whatever people think that is for right or wrong, it's the determination of a Federal Court and it is the law as it stands today. It's over...until it's appealed up and the Super Court is NOT Obama's friend. The sooner this can hit the High Court, the better. I'd expect to see the lower decision mirrored in the Roberts court and then this silly debate really IS over.

Until then though, the right to offer and NOT offer whatever benefits he, as a private business owner, deems appropriate to his beliefs HAS been upheld and protected. It's not really a question. It's settled law for the time being.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Dude i seriously think US needs really advice when it comes to insurance and worker management from Canada.

In Canada, there is no separation between contraceptive and Tylenol, they are the same thing! OTC or prescribed drug!

80% coverage? 80% drug coverage applies to both.



Why do US has to make everything complicated?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I really don't mind this particular case, what i'm worried about is how future employers can abuse this "religious Freedom" to instill certain rules.

I can see this method being abused in so many ways, i can actually think some really fudged up rules right now.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.

Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.
Source

I sincerely wish you the best with that Health Care System in Canada. Same with what the UK has. Best wishes are important, given the downsides of the systems in both places. Although it's what you apparently live with and consider workable. That's fine.... I considered what we had here pretty decent before Pelosi and Obama tore it to pieces and left us with this nightmare.

I'd never ask to go to Canada's system though. It's just not what would work here. Unfortunately we don't have a President who seems to comprehend the idea that solutions can't be *MADE* to work, regardless of circumstance.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Dude i seriously think US needs really advice when it comes to insurance and worker management from Canada.

In Canada, there is no separation between contraceptive and Tylenol, they are the same thing! OTC or prescribed drug!

80% coverage? 80% drug coverage applies to both.


Why do US has to make everything complicated?


That's why I think they divide people on purpose. Obama talked to the EU leaders, and I remember seeing Harper on CNN explaining our medical system.
Then Obama went against the systems that worked, saying he wanted a "US system" that they could call their own



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Why doesn't the government force Big Pharma to provide free oral contraception to everyone?
It's easier to pick on the small business owner.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The thing is, you would find what is worst about Canadian systems online, mainly 90% of the people are okay with it, it could be better, what system is perfect? Im young(if 26 is young lol), and did not have to go thru many difficult procedures in hospitals so i can't say for older generation... but my uncle just had heart bypass, and it was arranged within a week.

You can always pay for surgery if you'd like, its not like that option is gone. You can do that for many things, if you have money you can upgrade your hospital stay, but everyone will get the service to stay alive for free.

It is possible depending on province, cities are usually taken better care due to higher populations. i have 6 big hospitals within 20 mins drive.


I thought the Obama plan helped many people, before it was very good for people with money, and worst for people without money. i really thought he brought it to the center. But this is not from personal experience with American healthcare.
edit on 3/15/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/15/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Here's what worries me. The oral contraceptive is part of the law. Under law you have access to them.

So we now have one company not wanting to offer the contraceptive for "Religious Reasons".

But even not offering for some women that may need to be on the medicine for medical reasons.

So what happens when another company wants to deny their employees, for "Religious Reasons", access to a medication or surgical procedure. Because it conflicts with their viewpoint?

Sure I'm for personal freedoms of every American. But your personal freedoms shouldn't keep someone else from receiving a medication if you have a medical condition.


edit on 15-3-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Why should any company have to pay for any type of birth control?

If it doesn't provide any type of medical purpose other than preventing pregnancy then why should the employer be held responisble?

Have we become such a dependant nation that we now want the rich to provide a way for us to have sex without becoming pregnant?

When does personal responsibility kick in?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream


I think this is a big no no to start a business with, it like saying "we only hire certain people that fit our moral standards"
Then don't. That is your belief and you should be free to follow it. Not supporting contraception is one of his beliefs, he should also be free to follow it. If you don't like his beliefs, don't do business with or work for him.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 

Why should any company be required to pay for your health insurance at all? Are they required to pay your life insurance? Your car insurance? Insurance and health care should be PERSONAL and personally provided for according to your needs and means. If you pay for it yourself, then nobody can tell you what you can or cannot buy.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Birth control is a pharmaceutical and as such should be covered by your insurance. That's the end of it, it isn't anyone's goddamn business what your doctor is prescribing for you... not God's, not the Church's, not any legislators, and for damn sure not your frigging employer. It's nobody's business period. Conservative logic at it's lulziest.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Becoming
 


In some cases oral contraception does provide a health benefit in women who suffer from ovarian cysts

www.aafp.org...


The authors conclude that current OC use is associated with a modest decline in the risk of development of functional ovarian cysts,


It doesn't prevent ovarian cysts. But it helps to lessen formation of cysts.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Birth control is a pharmaceutical and as such should be covered by your insurance. That's the end of it, it isn't anyone's goddamn business what your doctor is prescribing for you... not God's, not the Church's, not any legislators, and for damn sure not your frigging employer. It's nobody's business period. Conservative logic at it's lulziest.
When you make me pay for it, what you buy is my business. Don't like it? TOUGH! Pay for it yourself.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Becoming
 


In some cases oral contraception does provide a health benefit in women who suffer from ovarian cysts

www.aafp.org...


The authors conclude that current OC use is associated with a modest decline in the risk of development of functional ovarian cysts,


It doesn't prevent ovarian cysts. But it helps to lessen formation of cysts.
Great. Pay for it yourself or go work for someone else who does not object. Simple, and much better than continuing to defecate on the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by grey580
 

Why should any company be required to pay for your health insurance at all? Are they required to pay your life insurance? Your car insurance? Insurance and health care should be PERSONAL and personally provided for according to your needs and means. If you pay for it yourself, then nobody can tell you what you can or cannot buy.


Because it's now the law.

And if they could afford to then I'm sure they would. But if you're employers pays you 30K a year. And your monthly rent is 1,200 bucks for a 2 bedroom apartment. On top of the other bills you have to pay. How can you afford insurance?





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join