A company shouldn't be allowed to deny contraception coverage to employees. It's pretty fucking simple really. Why the fuck should a company get to tell their employees what they can and can't do? Hobby Lobby is stupid, and if I ever shopped at the stupid fucking place before, I certainly as hell wouldn't now.

Religious Liberty is just a license to discriminate, and force your beliefs on others. At least the way conservatards describe it.

(February 10, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Divinity Wrote: A company shouldn't be allowed to deny contraception coverage to employees.  It's pretty fucking simple really.  Why the fuck should a company get to tell their employees what they can and can't do?  Hobby Lobby is stupid, and if I ever shopped at the stupid fucking place before, I certainly as hell wouldn't now.

Religious Liberty is just a license to discriminate, and force your beliefs on others.  At least the way conservatards describe it.

I'm not so sure that contraception needs to be part of the package provided by employers.  Most don't (as far as I know at least) provide dental or optical coverage in their insurance, since while those things are nice, they are generally not strictly necessary.  Surely, a full-time worker can afford to purchase condoms, and birth control beyond that is optional.

There's a difference between extending to someone the liberty to make choices, and having to pay for stuff.

That being said, as an employer of female staff, I'm not a big fan of training people and then paying for maternity leave while subs flounder around the office.  If a few condoms or a couple extra dollars a month for other options might allow me to maintain stability in the workforce, I'm all for it.  This is also why I pay for gym memberships-- not because I'm a super-nice guy, but because I think healthy people will be better employees. Win, win, methinks-- but if I HAD to pay for all that stuff, legally, I'd be pretty unhappy about it.

(February 9, 2016 at 8:51 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: To what extant should religious liberty in this nation be respected?

Everyone should be able to believe whatever they want including .

But.. at what point should the law respect religious beliefs?

When should allowances be made?

Surely companies, with a Christian basis should not be forced to provide contraception?

A Christina bakery.. shouldn't be...forced..to bake a cake for a gay couples wedding?

Thoughts?

I hate the word "respect", I've said that in may threads. It is a loaded word far too often used to shut down criticism. I never use it. I say "value".

On a planet of 7 billion, much less one country of 300 million are you going to have everyone always agree or only say nice things about each other.

I don't say "respect" as far as even law. I say value, and I do value human rights, even the right to make bad claims. But part of a free society is the value of being able to respond to those bad claims.

My only duty to my fellow citizen is common law and non violence. But if your claims are bad, and especially if those claims lead to denying equal rights and protection under the law, damn right I am going to respond to it.

(February 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'm not so sure that contraception needs to be part of the package provided by employers.  Most don't (as far as I know at least) provide dental or optical coverage in their insurance, since while those things are nice, they are generally not strictly necessary.  Surely, a full-time worker can afford to purchase condoms, and birth control beyond that is optional.

There's a difference between extending to someone the liberty to make choices, and having to pay for stuff.

That being said, as an employer of female staff, I'm not a big fan of training people and then paying for maternity leave while subs flounder around the office.  If a few condoms or a couple extra dollars a month for other options might allow me to maintain stability in the workforce, I'm all for it.  This is also why I pay for gym memberships-- not because I'm a super-nice guy, but because I think healthy people will be better employees. Win, win, methinks-- but if I HAD to pay for all that stuff, legally, I'd be pretty unhappy about it.

Sure it does.

"They can buy condoms!"

Guess what?  Condoms aren't the most effective at preventing pregnancy.  Especially for women whom getting pregnant again would pose a significant health risk.  Telling them they 'shouldn't have sex then' is total bullshit because that's not an Employers decision to make.  And how about women who have heavy menstrual bleeding where the best treatment is birth control pills, not covered by employers who say that it's against their personal beliefs.  

Employers don't get to make healthcare decisions for their employees.  Certainly not because "Oh they can buy condoms!"

(February 10, 2016 at 2:14 pm)Divinity Wrote: Employers don't get to make healthcare decisions for their employees.  Certainly not because "Oh they can buy condoms!"

Then maybe employers should not offer any of their staff health insurance as part of their compensation. Money that would have gone directly to the company's insurance policy could be directed back to the employee. Employees would then truly be making their own health care decisions. Their first decision would be whether or not to carry insurance.

As a business owner, I refuse to hire anyone. Conforming to all the federal, state and local regulations is too expensive, too risky and ultimately unnecessary. I have consultants, independent contractors, and out-source all my production - mostly overseas. I started my own business for the sole purpose of making money so I could stay in the middle class, not to provide social services.

(February 10, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 10, 2016 at 2:14 pm)Divinity Wrote: Employers don't get to make healthcare decisions for their employees.  Certainly not because "Oh they can buy condoms!"

Then maybe employers should not offer any of their staff health insurance as part of their compensation. Money that would have gone directly to the company's insurance policy could be directed back to the employee. Employees would then truly be making their own health care decisions. Their first decision would be whether or not to carry insurance.

As a business owner, I refuse to hire anyone. Conforming to all the federal, state and local regulations is too expensive, too risky and ultimately unnecessary. I have consultants, independent contractors, and out-source all my production - mostly overseas. I started my own business for the sole purpose of making money so I could stay in the middle class, not to provide social services.

Hey Wooters, are you ever going to go back to this thread? Or are you too embarrassed? Want to prove everyone wrong who says you are too arrogant to admit when you're wrong?

(February 10, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: As a business owner, I refuse to hire anyone. Conforming to all the federal, state and local regulations is too expensive, too risky and ultimately unnecessary. I have consultants, independent contractors, and out-source all my production - mostly overseas. I started my own business for the sole purpose of making money so I could stay in the middle class, not to provide social services.

bold mine.

So nice to know that you're a part of the problem in this country. Take good jobs away from the American people who need them and hand them over to some country that only pays their workers seventy five cents an hour all so you can remain in "the middle class" because you're too cheap to "conform to federal, state and local regulations".

What a nice asshole you are. Well at least you're honest about your assholery.

(February 10, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 10, 2016 at 2:14 pm)Divinity Wrote: Employers don't get to make healthcare decisions for their employees.  Certainly not because "Oh they can buy condoms!"

Then maybe employers should not offer any of their staff health insurance as part of their compensation. Money that would have gone directly to the company's insurance policy could be directed back to the employee. Employees would then truly be making their own health care decisions. Their first decision would be whether or not to carry insurance.

As a business owner, I refuse to hire anyone. Conforming to all the federal, state and local regulations is too expensive, too risky and ultimately unnecessary. I have consultants, independent contractors, and out-source all my production - mostly overseas. I started my own business for the sole purpose of making money so I could stay in the middle class, not to provide social services.

Yep, because livable wages and universal health care might make it easier on employees and you too. Just easier to say "fuck the poor" and worry about your own ass.

Did you ever consider that direct investment in livable wages and cheaper cost of living might create that less dependency on government and protect your own feedback loop. Workers are the bulk of the buying public so the more money they have the more money they spend. 

If less regulation and deregulation worked, nobody would be complaining. We have had trickle up economics for the past 30 years and it has not worked.

So you could stay in the middle class? I love mom and pop business owners who stupidly side with the heavyweights when they are featherweights just because they share the title "business owner". Let me tell you something bucko, if a giant corporation who provided a similar product or service you do, wanted to march right in to your market base and squash you, they can and would. Then you'd be in the unemployment line just like the employees you sub contract.

No one owes you jobs, douchebags.

(February 10, 2016 at 6:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: No one owes you jobs, douchebags.

What an enlightened and informative response.