Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Whewee. I was worried...

What if I HATE Texans, and don't wanna cover them, or anybody who's married to one? What if I don't like women, and eliminated coverage for them entirely?

Would that be cool with you?

excon

---

Then you'd probably have problems.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

Then you'd probably have problems.

---

So, WHERE do you draw the line? Is hate OK? In this great country of ours, I'm CERTAINLY allowed to HATE, aren't I? That's in the First Amendment too, isn't it?

Why is it wrong for me to exercise my Constitutional right to HATE?

Excon

I said feel free to cover "whatever" you want, not "whoever." If "whoever" doesn't like your benefits they are free to go elsewhere for "whatever" they're looking for.

Hello again, Steve:

To be clear, I'm FREE to do it, as long as my employees are FREE to seek work elsewhere. That's your position?

excon

What part of the difference between "whatever" and "whoever" do you not get?

Whatever happened to the right to work? Oh that's right, it's a misleading spin you guys use like renaming the greedy rich guys job creators. When are you going to learn that telling people to do as you say ain't going to work?

Discriminating against the majority ain't going to work either. Denying the unique needs of half the population won't work either. I know, you believe YOU have that right, but you don't, yet still you fight your WAR and call it practicing YOUR religion.

We will see how that works out.

So you hate the first and second amendments, we get that. When will you get the irony of taking opposing positions in the same breath?

I have heard that straw argument before, but there are more than just two amendments in the Constitution last I looked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I have heard that straw argument before, but there are more than just two amendments in the Constitution last I looked.

---

None of them negating the first two.

But subject to and regulated by the federal laws. The federal government can and should define the boundaries of limitations of the right afforded us by the Constitution, or you would have a right to own a 50 caliber machine gun,or holler fire in a crowded theater where there was none.

What you thought you had unlimited rights? Don't be silly. Army guns and ammo was banned before, and will be again.

Quote:

---

The federal government can and should define the boundaries of limitations of the right afforded us by the Constitution

---

That is an amazing position to take. The government decides how much of your rights you are allowed to exercise.

Ex ,Speech is correct in his position on coverage. However ,I'd take it further and say that a vegan diet coverage is one thing ;and a pill that aborts is quite another. Do you have the right to not hire someone contingent on a medical exam ? Can you refuse to hire someone who smokes tobacco ? In some states the answer is yes.

The government had already limited the right of the people when they said all are created equal except slaves, women, and indians, and white guy with no property. That changed over time and a war, and a bunch of protesting.

So past rights violations justify violating my specifically enumerated rights today?

Looks like it's the pizza people that are carrying the fight. First it was Papa John's... and now Domino's .
Pizza magnate wins temporary ruling on contraception coverage dispute – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Time to enlist Herman Caine to lead the charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

As you know, I'm a "job creator". I'm also a vegan. I'm EVEN religious about it. A LOT of the illness my employees suffer from is from eating meat... IF I stopped covering THOSE illness's, I'd save a lot of money, AND I'd be TRUE to my beliefs.

Would that be ok with you?

excon

---

Nope not O.K.

You have to eat to live. So your choice of religion leads you down a different path is all up to you. Contraception is a choice just like what it was to get to that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, WHERE do you draw the line? Is hate ok? In this great country of ours, I'm CERTAINLY allowed to HATE, aren't I? That's in the First Amendment too, isn't it?

Why is it wrong for me to exercise my Constitutional right to HATE?

excon

---

Nope not allowed.

There are laws that designate certain speech as hate speech that is not covered by the Constitution. Also there are crimes in a separate category that carry an extra penalty for hate crimes. I wish there weren't so it truly was as you say. That way we could identify those that are true haters from those that are not rather then stirring an underground swell resentment.

Hello, again:

I see that you don't like my religion... What if I was a HEALTH nut "job creator"? Eating McDonalds is a choice, isn't it? From MY perspective, and from MY wallets perspective, it's a BAD choice.

Why should I be REQUIRED to cover those people?

Look. I KNOW what you're going to say. If it's RELIGIOUS, you can discriminate... But, if you have similar deeply held beliefs, they don't count. I certainly don't know why.

What about smoking? What about drinking? What about texting while driving? ALL of those activities EFFECT my bottom line. Why shouldn't I have the right to REFUSE to cover people who DO that?

excon

If YOUR religion allows you to discriminate against any group of people from getting what is lawfully allowed that's just plain wrong. But the fix is a simple one, we have universa lhealth care and not employer based health care.

So instead of benefits, employers can pay MONEY to the workers and we take care of our own business. It will be interesting to see how the church competes with the rest of the market place for skills and services of workers they need.

The only way the church gets away with this discrimination in the first place is a tight job market.

Universal care will never happen here. When the people see the disaster your side has inflicted on us with Obamacare ,then it too will be universally rejected . You think I would have less objection because my tax money pays for something I think is immoral ?

Hello again, tom:

Nahhhh... It's ONLY your side who's saying that. But, you've ALWAYS said it, so what's new?

What's REALLY going to happen is that people will FINALLY see that our health care costs are OUT of control, and the ONLY way to stop them, is to STOP them. Then the amount we save can be spent on AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

Doesn't THAT moral good, outweigh the moral bad you see in universal health care?

These are REAL dollars we're talking about here, unless you don't believe we'll be able to do it, or you don't believe Romney, and the WORLDS, numbers.

excon