Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:12 AM
 
139 posts, read 85,418 times
Reputation: 45

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Your free to make that argument to the sc
Well, considering SCOTUS members are appointed and not elected, submitting my opinion to them wouldn't do much. However, I plan on writing to my congressman about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:15 AM
PJA
 
2,462 posts, read 3,165,484 times
Reputation: 1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middling Swordsman View Post
I agree. No one has lost the right; however, the ease of accessibility has been diminished on religious grounds, which I don't agree with.
So you propose denying someone else's rights to make it easier for others? That sounds fair.

How about we protect all peoples rights including those who decide to own businesses and if there is something we want that is not easily accessible, we take personal responsibility to either acquire something that is easily accessible or we inconvenience ourselves (rather than others) to obtain this not so easily accessible service/product, that way ALL rights are protected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,205,553 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middling Swordsman View Post
Well, considering SCOTUS members are appointed and not elected, submitting my opinion to them wouldn't do much. However, I plan on writing to my congressman about it.
That's the great thing about American. I'm sure you would have to prove that all heart problems are blamed on meat, how about the vegetarian that has heart problems would your Hindi insurance deny them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:15 AM
 
139 posts, read 85,418 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
They can access it anywhere they choose no one is denying them access
I never said anyone was denying access. I stated that the ease of access has been diminished. I'm curious as to why you support this ruling. For religious reasons? Constitutionality? Juridical personhood?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,205,553 times
Reputation: 2536
Planed parent hood and pharmacies are easy with or without plan b insurance
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,515 posts, read 3,674,029 times
Reputation: 6403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middling Swordsman View Post
From my persective, religious views are being imposed in the form of denying coverage. For example, if I was a Hindu owner of a private business, and I wanted to deny coverage for cardiovascular medication because I saw a correlation between eating meat and heart disease, would I be justified in doing so?



Sure. And the employees would be justified in telling you adios.


The reality is now, especially with the ACA and the exchanges, employers have less responsibility than ever before to offer healthcare to their employees. If you don't like what your employer is offering, go log on to the Obamacare/ACA website and find the plan that works best for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:19 AM
 
139 posts, read 85,418 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
That's the great thing about American. I'm sure you would have to prove that all heart problems are blamed on meat, how about the vegetarian that has heart problems would your Hindi insurance deny them?
I would provide coverage only if they could provide evidence of their dietary habits. In alignment of the ruling, my religious views take precedent over the desires of my employees since I am a private business owner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,205,553 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middling Swordsman View Post
I never said anyone was denying access. I stated that the ease of access has been diminished. I'm curious as to why you support this ruling. For religious reasons? Constitutionality? Juridical personhood?
I support it because of the constitutional reasons . If you so.ey ow a company the government should not make you buy something for someone else that is against their religion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,205,553 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middling Swordsman View Post
I would provide coverage only if they could provide evidence of their dietary habits. In alignment of the ruling, my religious views take precedent over the desires of my employees since I am a private business owner.
So you would cover vegetarians but not cover someone that eats fish, by bet is that case you would lose, but you can drop you're insurance and put them on an exchange which was what hobby lobby was going to do if they lost
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2014, 09:23 AM
 
139 posts, read 85,418 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juram View Post
Sure. And the employees would be justified in telling you adios.


The reality is now, especially with the ACA and the exchanges, employers have less responsibility than ever before to offer healthcare to their employees. If you don't like what your employer is offering, go log on to the Obamacare/ACA website and find the plan that works best for you.
Indeed, they would be justified in quitting, but why should I have the right to impose my religious views on my employees from the start?

I agree. However, if my employer-provided insurance proved to be cheaper and/or more comprehensive, I'd still be in a disadvantaged position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:51 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top