|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: You're damn right I'm anti-Catholic
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I'm anti-Catholic because five of the six Catholic justices sitting on the United States Supreme Court have decided that privately held companies get to decide what forms of birth control its female employees will be able to get through their health insurance. (LA Times article here.)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It looks to me more a peculiar American implementation of a health plan. It also may underscore the oddness of a society which claims to emphasize liberty and freedom seeming to frequently raise limits on it and to control people. Why on earth a supreme court would even accept such a case is also puzzling.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm anti-Catholic because five of the six Catholic justices sitting on the United States Supreme Court have decided that privately held companies get to decide what forms of birth control its female employees will be able to get through their health insurance. (LA Times article here.)
Chances are they primarily voted that way not because they are (Roman) Catholic but because they are Republican.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Or because they're male Catholics. The one female Catholic on the court sided with the dissent.
Either way, I still blame the Catholic Church for having idiotic views on birth control and for the wrongs done to women because of them.
[ 30. June 2014, 17:46: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm anti-Catholic because five of the six Catholic justices sitting on the United States Supreme Court have decided that privately held companies get to decide what forms of birth control its female employees will be able to get through their health insurance. (LA Times article here.)
Chances are they primarily voted that way not because they are (Roman) Catholic but because they are Republican.
I'd say it was more because they are stupid, but the two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Ironically, I read somewhere that Hobby Lobby has investments in the drug companies that make the contraception devices they object too and imports much of it's goods from China, a nation well known for their pro-life polices. So whilst they're obviously deeply concerned, they're willing to turn a blind eye if it could hit their bottom line.
Won't be sharing my tourist dollars with them!
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
I find it offensive that a group consisting entirely of men dared make a decision about women's health without even one woman joining them! The fact that all of their female colleagues were against them didn't give these patriarchs pause!
I honestly want President Obama to pull an Andrew Jackson and ignore this ruling. It's completely wrongheaded.
And we need an amendment to limit large corporations power since the Supreme Court won't do so.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I wasn't surprised. We've lived through 30 years of rising corporate power (and corporate consolidation) at the expense of anything that can challenge it - namely the state and the individual. Now corporations can micromanage the benefits they give their employees in exchange for their labour.
I wonder when they will tell us what we spend our paycheques on, or where and how we use our vacation time. Heck, they already tell us how (or if) we can spend our free time.
It's absurd that a legal entity can have religious rights which can triumph over flesh and blood human beings, but it's come to that. It's become a corporate world and we just live in it. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
[ 30. June 2014, 18:13: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Or because they're male Catholics. The one female Catholic on the court sided with the dissent.
Either way, I still blame the Catholic Church for having idiotic views on birth control and for the wrongs done to women because of them.
It still is a pity you're anti-(Roman-)Catholic because of this.
Only a minority of Roman Catholics (male and female) accept those idiotic views on birth control and an even smaller minority live by them.
Also the overwhelming majority of Roman-Catholics are laity and have no formal influence at all on what the hierarchy in the Catholic Church teaches, proclaims, gets up to, manipulates etc.
Also only half of that Roman-Catholic laity is male.
Lastly the vast majority of Roman Catholic laity worldwide is not Republican. (There is still hope for the world.)
As a Roman Catholic who is unwilling to take the easy way out and leave, I acknowledge to carry a small part of the responsibility for the idiotic views on birth control (and a number of other silly, ugly or even criminal deeds of the Roman Catholic church). But as I explained, as a member of the laity I have extremely limited possibilities to influence matters.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Or because they're male Catholics. The one female Catholic on the court sided with the dissent.
Either way, I still blame the Catholic Church for having idiotic views on birth control and for the wrongs done to women because of them.
How about the owner of Hobby Lobby? Are you against his religion? I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think David Green is a Catholic, is he?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the owner of Hobby Lobby? Are you against his religion? I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think David Green is a Catholic, is he?
He is not.
Consult wikipedia David_Green (entrepreneur) to determine if he is better or worse ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 30. June 2014, 19:36: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
As a Roman Catholic who is unwilling to take the easy way out and leave, I acknowledge to carry a small part of the responsibility for the idiotic views on birth control (and a number of other silly, ugly or even criminal deeds of the Roman Catholic church). But as I explained, as a member of the laity I have extremely limited possibilities to influence matters.
I don't wish to be harsh here, or to point the finger at you. But this is why the RCC gets away with the shit it does - people don't protest enough or rock the boat.
If, as it is alleged, the vast majority of RC laity don't accept the RCC's teachings on birth control, then stand up and make a fuss until the hierarchy begin to see sense. As long as people still come to Mass and give their money and simply keep quiet about "difficult" subjects, nothing will change and the Powers That Be will carry on peddling rubbish.
The Anglican Communion may be a mess of squabbling brats at times, but at least no-one can accuse us of passive acquiescence!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the owner of Hobby Lobby? Are you against his religion? I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think David Green is a Catholic, is he?
He is not.
Consult wikipedia David_Green (entrepreneur) to determine if he is better or worse
Well, I guess that right-wing Catholics and evangelicals have come together on some issues, haven't they? For example, contraception, abortion, and maybe that socialist Muslim Obama?
I'm happy to be agin all of them, but because they're right-wing, not because they're Catholic or whatever.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I don't know what aspect of their thinking was behind this decision - their catholicism, their republicanism or their utter brain-dead stupidity-ism.
Giving corporations rights as if they were people is wrong. They are businesses, you utter fuckwits.
Letting employers make decisions over womens bodies is abuse you utter fuckwits.
Now sort this out you fucking losers.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Actually, it may not be that bad. The court gave the Obama Administration a way out - a fix that was applied to religious institutions which still mandates ABC coverage but doesn't pass the costs onto companies that refuse to cover it.
Justice Alito wrote:
quote:
[The government] could extend the accommodation that HHS (Dan: Health and Human Services) has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS's stated interests.
There is more about it here: Vox.com: Alito gave Obama some advice on guaranteeing ABC Coverage
Ironically, those who are against companies paying for ABC could pay for it themselves directly through taxes.
[ 30. June 2014, 20:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't wish to be harsh here, or to point the finger at you. But this is why the RCC gets away with the shit it does - people don't protest enough or rock the boat.
I can't but agree with you.
But given the, in my opinion principally wrong, power structure in the Roman Catholic church, I have very limited options.
I can pray, I can voice my objections, I can withhold money, I can support dissident priests who do have influence, but apart from leaving that's about it.
[ 30. June 2014, 20:07: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Schroedinger's Cat;
quote:
Giving corporations rights as if they were people is wrong. They are businesses, you utter fuckwits.
While as we're seeing here it doesn't always work out well, treating corporations as 'legal persons' does largely work out pretty well and most of the other legal options are clumsy or unworkable in various ways. Of course like real people they need to be under constant scrutiny and restraint when necessary, and there are certainly times when the real people behind the corporate person need to be taken account of so they can't get away with things. (Rusty 1960s legal degree speaking here)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Schroedinger's Cat;
quote:
Giving corporations rights as if they were people is wrong. They are businesses, you utter fuckwits.
While as we're seeing here it doesn't always work out well, treating corporations as 'legal persons' does largely work out pretty well and most of the other legal options are clumsy or unworkable in various ways. Of course like real people they need to be under constant scrutiny and restraint when necessary, and there are certainly times when the real people behind the corporate person need to be taken account of so they can't get away with things. (Rusty 1960s legal degree speaking here)
Surely there's quite a wide gulf, though, between ascribing 'legal personhood' to a corporation, and anthropomorphising them to the extent that they are understood to have consciences? Which seems to me is what is going on here - 'oh, but the company has a conscientious objection to [presumed] abortifacients', which be taken into account...
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The Anglican Communion may be a mess of squabbling brats at times, but at least no-one can accuse us of passive acquiescence!
I think most members of most churches are in them because they (still) expect some sort of help in relating to God and (hopefully) their fellow humans. Relatively few feel called to try to influence the belief system in that church or the way that church is organized. And I still have to find a church that is without grave faults.
Lots of Roman Catholics rock the boat. Without the most visible of those, quite a few of the highly visible Roman Catholic members of the conservative kind (who when challenged claim to be "just normal Catholics") on this ship would have absolutely nothing to write about.
[ 01. July 2014, 06:43: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
Boycott the bastards!! Hit them where it really hurts. There are plenty of other craft stores.
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Schroedinger's Cat;
quote:
Giving corporations rights as if they were people is wrong. They are businesses, you utter fuckwits.
While as we're seeing here it doesn't always work out well, treating corporations as 'legal persons' does largely work out pretty well and most of the other legal options are clumsy or unworkable in various ways. Of course like real people they need to be under constant scrutiny and restraint when necessary, and there are certainly times when the real people behind the corporate person need to be taken account of so they can't get away with things. (Rusty 1960s legal degree speaking here)
Surely there's quite a wide gulf, though, between ascribing 'legal personhood' to a corporation, and anthropomorphising them to the extent that they are understood to have consciences? Which seems to me is what is going on here - 'oh, but the company has a conscientious objection to [presumed] abortifacients', which be taken into account...
Furthermore, it is only certain aspects of conscience which are applicable. I am struggling to understand all of this, not being American, but the court seems to be saying that other types of conscientious objection, e.g. to vaccination, will not be recognized. Is that right?
So the court is basically favouring some religious views and not others? This seems so bizarre, that I feel I have misunderstood it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Furthermore, it is only certain aspects of conscience which are applicable. I am struggling to understand all of this, not being American, but the court seems to be saying that other types of conscientious objection, e.g. to vaccination, will not be recognized. Is that right?
So the court is basically favouring some religious views and not others? This seems so bizarre, that I feel I have misunderstood it.
I have not had time to study the opinion(s), but my understanding is that what was held was that if there is another reasonable way to achieve the same result, then a business like Hobby Lobby cannot be required to provide contraceptives in violation of the owners' religious beliefs. Here, there is another way—the same compromise that was worked out so that Catholic hospitals don't have to provide contraceptives.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Furthermore, it is only certain aspects of conscience which are applicable. I am struggling to understand all of this, not being American, but the court seems to be saying that other types of conscientious objection, e.g. to vaccination, will not be recognized. Is that right?
So the court is basically favouring some religious views and not others? This seems so bizarre, that I feel I have misunderstood it.
I have not had time to study the opinion(s), but my understanding is that what was held was that if there is another reasonable way to achieve the same result, then a business like Hobby Lobby cannot be required to provide contraceptives in violation of the owners' religious beliefs. Here, there is another way—the same compromise that was worked out so that Catholic hospitals don't have to provide contraceptives.
Yes, I get that, but none the less, the owners' religious beliefs are clearly being given some weight. I am just asking if all religious beliefs are to be given such a status, or only some? If the latter, how will this be decided - will it be those beliefs which the judges agree with, or those which are felt to be compatible with American values, or what?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I wasn't surprised. We've lived through 30 years of rising corporate power (and corporate consolidation) at the expense of anything that can challenge it - namely the state and the individual. Now corporations can micromanage the benefits they give their employees in exchange for their labour.
I wonder when they will tell us what we spend our paycheques on, or where and how we use our vacation time. Heck, they already tell us how (or if) we can spend our free time.
It's absurd that a legal entity can have religious rights which can triumph over flesh and blood human beings, but it's come to that. It's become a corporate world and we just live in it.
It'll be amazing the number of corporations who suddenly discover religion when they realise it means they can wiggle out of some nasty old laws they're not keen on.
My understanding is that the number of companies who can use the Hobby Lobby ruling as a get out of jail free card on certain things is larger than people realise. Figures I saw quoted said something like 52% of the US population were employed by these kind of companies and some of them were large - Dell, Toys R Us, Koch etc.
I suspect that some of people who are currently seeing this as a truimph for freedom of choice will be less than thrilled when:
- It impacts something they care about. Corporations could object to plenty of other medical treatments on religious grounds - blood transfusions, treatments for depression and other mental health things, medicines that include certain animal compounds etc.
- A company run by non-Christians tries to use the same laws as an opt out for medical treatments they don't like. (Cue cries of, "They're trying to force Islamic law on us ... The world is ending!" or similar
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) - The same argument that women shouldn't have contraception because they use it for recreational sex - OMG! - is used to exclude coverage for penis pumps and viagra. Because those are essentials! (The whole women shouldn't be allowed to have recreational sex, but it's okay for men always my mind boggle. Who do they think some of these men are actually having recreational sex with ...!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) )
Tubbs
[ 02. July 2014, 11:46: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
American Shipmates can answer this one but I think it largely is under the Affordable Care Act.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
American Shipmates can answer this one but I think it largely is under the Affordable Care Act.
Assuming they are it could be the perfect excuse.
A friend of mine has worked most of his life as a missionary for several organizations that had a perfect excuse not to have a pension fund:
Why waste money on a pension when the Rapture was supposed to happen any moment now?
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
Generally speaking, yes, if they have more than fifty employees.
As for whether a corporation could opt-out of providing health care coverage based on a First Amendment argument, I highly doubt it.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
Interesting. I wonder how the Christian Science Monitor handles it?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
Generally speaking, yes, if they have more than fifty employees.
Not exactly - "Businesses which employ 50 or more people but do not offer health insurance to their full-time employees will pay a tax penalty if the government has subsidized a full-time employee's healthcare through tax deductions or other means."
link
Basically, the government cannot force an employer to provide health insurance - it can only be (very) persuasive by using tax penalties. This is the same mechanism used to persuade individuals to buy health insurance if they are not covered by another plan; the tax penalty is assessed in part to cover the added public expense for treating them in emergency rooms, etc.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The whole "women shouldn't be allowed to have recreational sex, but it's okay for men" always my mind boggle. Who do they think some of these men are actually having recreational sex with ...!
With Sluts! of course. Not with actual women similar to their coworkers, moms, wives, and daughters, but with an entirely different sort of woman called a Slut! And this sort of woman is dirty and immoral, not deserving of health care.
[ 02. July 2014, 14:04: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
"Closely-held" sluts.
--------------------
Oinkster
"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
SCOTUS could use a good liberal purging.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
"Closely-held" sluts.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The same argument that women shouldn't have contraception because they use it for recreational sex - OMG! - is used to exclude coverage for penis pumps and viagra.
Surely such aids are also required to enable men with erectile dysfunction to have procreative sex? Whilst in practice, that won't happen much, ISTM that there's nothing specific to recreational sex about erectile dysfunction treatment.
By contrast, contraception (qua contraception, rather than the pill as a treatment for certain hormonal or gynaecological issues) is by definition about recreational sex.
ETA: my personal opinion is that contraception, like vaccination, is largely a public health issue, and should be paid for by the government with tax dollars. Health insurance not required.
[ 02. July 2014, 15:07: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Honestly, the whole 'recreational sex' argument sounds like sperm have the consciousness to know whether or not the light at the end of the tunnel is an egg.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The same argument that women shouldn't have contraception because they use it for recreational sex - OMG! - is used to exclude coverage for penis pumps and viagra.
Surely such aids are also required to enable men with erectile dysfunction to have procreative sex? Whilst in practice, that won't happen much, ISTM that there's nothing specific to recreational sex about erectile dysfunction treatment.
By contrast, contraception (qua contraception, rather than the pill as a treatment for certain hormonal or gynaecological issues) is by definition about recreational sex.
ETA: my personal opinion is that contraception, like vaccination, is largely a public health issue, and should be paid for by the government with tax dollars. Health insurance not required.
Okay, then men can only have them if they're in a relationship and have a letter from their partner confirming that these things will only be used for procreative sex. Let's get equal opportunites with this whole recreational sex ban thing!!
Things like this make me thank God that I'm from somewhere with a government provided health service - such as it is!
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I think there has been work done which shows that the more often a couple have sex, at any time in the cycle, the more likely they are to conceive at the appropriate time, so there is no (in the right relationship, of course) such thing as purely recreational sex which is not purposed towards procreation. Even if there is no egg currently awaiting fertilisation.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Anyone who thinks that sex is only procreative has never had a dog hump their leg.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
Generally speaking, yes, if they have more than fifty employees.
Not exactly - "Businesses which employ 50 or more people but do not offer health insurance to their full-time employees will pay a tax penalty if the government has subsidized a full-time employee's healthcare through tax deductions or other means."
link
Basically, the government cannot force an employer to provide health insurance - it can only be (very) persuasive by using tax penalties. This is the same mechanism used to persuade individuals to buy health insurance if they are not covered by another plan; the tax penalty is assessed in part to cover the added public expense for treating them in emergency rooms, etc.
That is why I said "generally speaking."
Yes, one can forgo providing health insurance, but in practice, the penalties are financially prohibitive; thus it is extremely unlikely for anyone to choose that option.
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I think there has been work done which shows that the more often a couple have sex, at any time in the cycle, the more likely they are to conceive at the appropriate time, so there is no (in the right relationship, of course) such thing as purely recreational sex which is not purposed towards procreation. Even if there is no egg currently awaiting fertilisation.
So that's men in a relationship with women of child-bearing age who confirm that they're trying for a baby ... Anyone who meets those criteria gets free Viagra and penis pumps etc. All other men can either fund it themselves or find another job with an employer who is willing to find it for them.
I'm failing to see how any reasonable person can disagree with this as it's pretty much what FB has been telling me all day is fine for women.
Praise God for the NHS!!! Canonise Bevin now!!!!
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Praise God for the NHS!!! Canonise Bevin now!!!!
Tubbs
I think you mean (Aneurin) Bevan, rather than (Ernest) Bevin, especially as they apparently hated each other (probably due to people confusing them for each other). But yes, each time I collect a free prescription, every time I visit the doctors, every time I make a trip to hospital, I am grateful to Nye Bevan and the others who made the NHS possible, whatever its faults.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I believe that it was Ernest Bevin who, when told that Nye Bevan was his own worst enemy responded: "Not while I'm alive, he isn't".
That said, I'm pretty sure that rather than the anonymous briefings preferred by todays Tribunes of the Plebs, Cabinet disagreements between Bevin and Bevan were settled by the two men hurling stones at one another, the size of which ten strong men of our own degenerate days could barely shift. Or something.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
The words of Lady Julia Flyte from Brideshead Revisited come to mind about all the brouhaha and accusations of a "Popish Plot " on this issue
"Write a letter to the Times ! Get up and make a speech in Hyde Park ! Start a "No Popery" riot, but for goodness sake , Dont bore me about it !"
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Anyone who thinks that sex is only procreative has never had a dog hump their leg.
(Image of a litter of bizarre-looking human-leg/dog puppy hybrid creatures goes here, like a human foot with a puppy's head, tail and feet sticking out of it, scampering out surreally)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Chast - you have a very strange mind. (entertaining too).
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
And don't forget that at least three of them have ties to Opus Dei: Scalia's son is an OD priest, Roberts sends his kids to an OD school, Thomas was returned to the "faith" by an OD priest. Opus Dei is very active among the Catholic GOP politicians and loves to influence them to vote for furthering OD's conception of what Catholic politicians should be doing: remaking the political landscape into a Catholic state as far as they can. And when you have that many of their people in the Supreme Court, you can get a lot done to further that agenda.
--------------------
My cooking blog: http://inthekitchenwithdon.blogspot.com/
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Wouldn't be because they are conservative, patriarchal nutters, than would it?
No, no, no, it is because they are Catholic. Lord knows the conservative patriarchal nutters of other religions aren't having wet dreams over the recent decisions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the Hobby Lobby owners are not Catholic. I'm not sure what they are, some variety of evangelical? I suppose there is some kind of unholy alliance.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
