Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by buster2010
 


this case is forcing other people to follow the owners religion and that is wrong.

how in the world do you come up with that ??
where, in the case filings, does it insist that all Domino employees be devout Catholics ??


Honor93 should have stated "this case is forcing other people to follow the owners 'religious tenets' and that is wrong"




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
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)


EXACTLY!!! This whole discussion is NOT about birth control but more about control itself. And that can be defined as 'Since I live by certain beliefs you can either follow what I believe or get out'.

What is troubling me the most is that employers feel then can act like medical professionals and state that as part of your insurance package you are not entitled to the medications prescribed by your doctor.

Again, if these particular employers are offended by this type of medication, what then about those who do not participate in modern medicine because of their beliefs (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witness)? If you are in an accident as lose massive amounts of blood, do Jehovahs' Witness business owners not have to pay for blood transfusion?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Very well. Christian Scientist believe medical conditions are an illusion. While they do allow their follows to recieve medical treatment, this is not at their core belief. As such, why should they feel a need to pay for something that isn't real? "Caroline Fraser writes that children in pain, or with conditions such as diabetes or deafness, have been told by their Christian Science parents, teachers and nurses that there is nothing wrong with them, or that there is no such thing as pain" Christian Science

Here is another question, which religions can be used to voice dissent against medical treatment in a place of public employment? I know, I know, you will say this is about 'birth control', but you are wrong. This is specifically about denying medical treatment based upon religion. Birth control is just the first salvo. If this medical treatment can be denied, then why not others?

Also, many say that the employees can just go a find another job. Okay, this is America, but then the employer should be upfront and state that by being hired the employee will be subject to the religious beliefs of the owners and that those beliefs may directly affect the employee?


for those who fall into such a category, they are provided EXEMPTIONS, or is this news for you ?
perhaps you should review this old list and see if your employer is on it ... Obamacare exempted employers

oh and btw, what's with the "denying medical treatment" rhetoric ??
NO ONE is denying medical treatment, just specific insurance coverage.
perhaps it is you who doesn't really understand the concept ??



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld

Honor93 should have stated "this case is forcing other people to follow the owners 'religious tenets' and that is wrong"
Not forcing at all. Are they enslaved to the business owner? Can they not quit at any time with or without notice? Are they not permitted to purchase their own insurance? The only force involved here is by the government against the business owners and other citizens who believe that it is wrong to be forced to pay for contraception or the murder of children.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 

Oh, I think you may have taken my comment wrong but I really meant it when I said I wish you the best with your system You may have seen me mention it but I have family from and still in Canada up my Mom's side. I hear a little from them and it's not much but mixed. The waiting times kill people ...sometimes. On the other hand, if they fall out of a truck or off a roof and break a leg, they won't be facing financial doom over it. It can happen here.

So, I really think the Canadian system is fine, where people like it. It's just not what would work here. Among other things, the Canadian system DOES work by one major factor. It's by no means the only factor, but it's a big one.

You like your drugs, yes? Your Rx stuff I mean. The live savers and body fixers...not the street garbage. You may have noticed awhile back, a big scandal (Under Bush for time frame) about how states and others were running to Canada to make deals on cheap drugs? Well.. You don't get them cheap so much as you get them at a reasonable mark-up. We get raped on them....but what they rape us for, keeps them running.

That keeps your drugs at your reasonable mark-up (Or Underpriced, as many Americans like to say). When that changes, as our system is morphed into a Government dictate and control on just about all aspects of it....How do you figure they make up that money? I'm guessing drug prices for everyone level out....i.e....raise appropriately to match what we've been paying here. That won't have your system working quite as well ...especially given cost issues Canada faces with it already.

My main point here is that while you point to a system that does, honestly, work for you. It works in connection with not in isolation to OTHER systems...and as ours changes for the worse (given the connections and bonds), yours gets worse with it. Here's to a great future when we get sick, eh?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 





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


Oh, I see. What law would that be exactly? Are condoms medicine too? There is nothing treated by birth control that can not be treated by something else and something safer so that argument is junk science and deflection of the issue. Any law that states birth control is a right is actually no law at all when it demands private companies provide it to employees against their religious beliefs because it comes into direct conflict with a higher law that nullifies it.




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


Yes, employees should have no expectation to be afforded something that is taken voluntarily. Medication taken by choice and not by medical necessity needs to be shouldered by the individual not the company or it's medical plan and especially not when it conflicts with founding moral ideals and principles the company operates upon.




When other peoples rights are being stepped on. Then hell yes.


The only RIGHT that is being stepped on is the business owners in this case. I don't remember seeing birth control mentioned in the bill of rights although I do remember reading something about freedom of religion.

Liberals..............................
edit on 15-3-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


You are correct and I was wrong. These companies are not denying medical treatment. They are just playing doctor and saying even though you need that medication I won't cover it for you. How's that?

Tell you what, high blood pressure comes from not believing in FSM, so therefore I do not have to cover ANY hypertension medication. If you have a heart attack it is because you did not eat enough meatballs. And don't expect me to pay any insurance that covers heart attacks. Followers of FSM not not have heart attacks. So say my religious beliefs. While this may be extreme sarcasm, it is definitely treading into the territory of this debate.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
See, it's this religious dogma that I cannot stand. Following this Judge's "logic" any employer can now deny homosexuals, unmarried couples, unwed mothers and their children, and pagans insurance on religious grounds.

Blanket, opt-out statement: I can't do such and such - it's against my religion.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Oh, I have a comment about the idea that this is all about other uses and not Birth Control. I don't buy it. I won't buy it until those claiming it, back it. Lets see the specific drugs this was about and the multiple uses they have.

I'm a stickler on this..and I'm NOT doing the work on this (I didn't make the claim) because I did work the issue when the Hobby Lobby debate was raging. That was a different set of drugs but the same lame argument was made. I say lame because it did turn out 100% baseless. The specific, named drugs that Hobby Lobby was fighting over had NO other approved use in the United States, period.

Maybe the ones at the heart of this do? Maybe they don't....but the claims are wild until supported, given how I've already found how wrong and easily proven that was in another very similar situation recently.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by buster2010
 


this case is forcing other people to follow the owners religion and that is wrong.

how in the world do you come up with that ??
where, in the case filings, does it insist that all Domino employees be devout Catholics ??


Honor93 should have stated "this case is forcing other people to follow the owners 'religious tenets' and that is wrong"

if i believed such nonsense, i would have said so ... however, since that isn't the case, why aren't you showing us how such nonsense applies in this instance ??

which 'religious tenets' are the employees being forced to follow ??? exactly.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


So if a doctor prescribes a medication then the employer has the right to say 'I don't believe in that medication so I refuse to have it covered under the insurance I provide to you'?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


The tenet against birth control. No, the employer is not forcing the employees to not take birth control, but they are saying that even if prescribed by your doctor they have no obligation to have it covered under their insurance because their god says so.
edit on 15-3-2013 by ObservingTheWorld because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by Helious
 


So if a doctor prescribes a medication then the employer has the right to say 'I don't believe in that medication so I refuse to have it covered under the insurance I provide to you'?


Can we stop pretending that there are all these medications out there that fall under this scenario? We are talking about medication that PREVENTS BIRTH. In the form of pills, sponges, injection or surgery. That is what were talking about so don't deflect by offering hypothetical illogical scenario's that do not apply.

The issue is birth control, not ANY other medication.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foundryman
See, it's this religious dogma that I cannot stand. Following this Judge's "logic" any employer can now deny homosexuals, unmarried couples, unwed mothers and their children, and pagans insurance on religious grounds.

Blanket, opt-out statement: I can't do such and such - it's against my religion.


That point might have basis if those other issues hadn't been litigated and established as having or not having protection in their own right, already. It seems we do need to individually litigate each area through the courts.

However, your point is somewhat lacking as those areas are covered and protected, specifically, as needed. Thanks to the Judge, so is a private employers right not to offer specific benefits, paid by them, to employees under these circumstances.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by Honor93
 


You are correct and I was wrong. These companies are not denying medical treatment. They are just playing doctor and saying even though you need that medication I won't cover it for you. How's that?

Tell you what, high blood pressure comes from not believing in FSM, so therefore I do not have to cover ANY hypertension medication. If you have a heart attack it is because you did not eat enough meatballs. And don't expect me to pay any insurance that covers heart attacks. Followers of FSM not not have heart attacks. So say my religious beliefs. While this may be extreme sarcasm, it is definitely treading into the territory of this debate.

i gave you a star for admitting you were wrong.
however, the accolade ends there.

these companies are denying payment for YOUR medical treatment ... nothing more.

did you even look at the list i linked ??
how many of those companies aren't even religiously affiliated
, yet, they've been granted exemptions from providing ANY insurance coverage for employee medical needs ... how is that fair ??

your off-topic comparison does't even compute in this discussion, try again.

ps ... why else do you think there is such a preponderance of "buying habit" information available and sold these days ??
isn't it possible that based on your "buying habits", your employer may deny OTHER coverage you think should be provided, what then ??



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by Helious
 


So if a doctor prescribes a medication then the employer has the right to say 'I don't believe in that medication so I refuse to have it covered under the insurance I provide to you'?

hardly, those decisions are made when the policy is under-written, not when an emergency occurs. nice try though.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


I am beginning to understand. Those who in favor of denial only see this as an issue against birth control and .... that's it. There are no other aspects to this argument. Period.

Those who are against the denial see a much larger picture. If this works for one classification of medication, why not others? Again, I will ask this question, if a Jehovah's Witness denies payment for blood transfusion is that okay? It goes against their religious belief.

Are you really willing to have someone else tell you how to live your life? While they are not coming out a directly saying you can't use birth control, they are saying they disapprove of your lifestyle and want nothing to do with how you live. Casting judgement in other words. But would I expect anything less from the religious tolerant?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Very well. Christian Scientist believe medical conditions are an illusion. While they do allow their follows to recieve medical treatment, this is not at their core belief. As such, why should they feel a need to pay for something that isn't real? "Caroline Fraser writes that children in pain, or with conditions such as diabetes or deafness, have been told by their Christian Science parents, teachers and nurses that there is nothing wrong with them, or that there is no such thing as pain" Christian Science

Here is another question, which religions can be used to voice dissent against medical treatment in a place of public employment? I know, I know, you will say this is about 'birth control', but you are wrong. This is specifically about denying medical treatment based upon religion. Birth control is just the first salvo. If this medical treatment can be denied, then why not others?

Also, many say that the employees can just go a find another job. Okay, this is America, but then the employer should be upfront and state that by being hired the employee will be subject to the religious beliefs of the owners and that those beliefs may directly affect the employee?



Get this through your head - The Employer is NOT DENYING ANYONE MEDICAL TREATMENT!!! The employee can get all of the damned medical treatment they want; abortions, drugs, birth control, new boobs - WHATEVER! The employer is NOT PAYING FOR IT!

Holy Jiminy Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Why can't you people digest this???

Until Obamacare there was ZERO requirement for an employer to provide medical insurance - or ANY insurance! Employers have done so to sweeten the deal and attract the best and the brightest. That said, even then, the employer had FULL DISCRETION on which and how much insurance to offer. If the employee wasn't satisfied that the insurance plan was adequate then they had 2 choices: Accept the job, decline the employer's coverage and secure their own OR turn down the damned job!

This entitlement mentality is EXACTLY the freaking problem with this country. All of you liberals are walking around believing that you are entitled to a full ride from your employer - YOU'RE NOT! And if they don't give it to you it's because they're "Racist" or "pushing their religion on you" or some other VICTIM-mentality excuse.

Excuse me for ranting but I am so FREAKING PEEVED at the universal stupidity and entitlement!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I am not talking about emergencies. I am talking about when a patient visits their family doctor, the doctor writes a prescription and then the employer says no, I don't care what the doctor says.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by Honor93
 


The tenet against birth control.
i haven't seen any employer refuse to employ ppl who use birth control, got any examples ??


No, the employer is not forcing the employees to not take birth control,
the employer isn't forcing anything, that's your error, not theirs.


but they are saying that even if prescribed by your doctor they have no obligation to have it covered under their insurance because their god says so.
be that as it may, unless God is prescribing it, what's the problem ??





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join