[paraclete]

How do you edit someoneelse's posts?

[speechlesstx]

You have this all twisted and so do they. That they want to take an ethical stance is commendable but not constitutional. The members of the church are not being forced to use contraceptives and the provision of health care insurance is not a matter covered under the provisions of the constituition relating to the establishment and conduct of a religion. The church is not being forced to violate any standard, since, as I said before, the use of contraceptives is not forced or enforced by the provisions, the members of the church are simply being placed in the same status as any other human being.

We all have to be protected from the thought police and the inquisition in all its forms, this is a case of the inquisition in action, dealing with private communication between a health insurer and its client to enforce a church doctrine. If you allow them to get away with this they will be interrogating the members to determine whether they have used contraceptives next

Clete, that's some really irrelevant non-reality based gobbledygook.

[speechlesstx]

Choice is great, but if it doesn't meet your needs then its useless. Then the employee must make a choice to meet THEIR needs. Thats why a supplemental insurance to cover those that don't have their needs met was the compromise.

Why would you deny an employee going outside the church to make their own choices? It no longer matters what choices the church offers does it, when you can have your own.

You are saying church employees have no right to look beyond the choices the church makes for them. You say the church pays for these extra insurance policies, I say they don't. Its the same as any special rider you get, beyond your employer provided insurance.

I said without the employer there would be no policy. That's choice, they choose a plan and pay a premium... you choose to accept their offer and work there or not. You are not guaranteed employment somewhere that fills all your wants and needs. What's next, compulsory free employer provided day care, fitness rooms, massages

[paraclete]

Clete, that's some really irrelevant non-reality based gobbledygook.

Think what you may speech but there are red herrings a plenty in these debates

[cdad]

how do you edit someoneelse's posts?

You can NOT edit someone else's post. Only the OP has that right for a limited time. The only other way is if you're a Super Mod. They are allowed to edit an OP's post for content.

Other then that you can do light editing if it is a quote. But only the quote will be edited and not the Original Post.

[talaniman]

Why is tal editing my posts?

Your post wasn't edited, you have a time stamp note because I hit the wrong button.

I actually meant to edit my own post.

[speechlesstx]

Think what you may speech but there are red herrings a plenty in these debates

They aren't coming from me. But let's break down your post...

You have this all twisted and so do they. That they want to take an ethical stance is commendable but not constitutional.

Wrong, it is not merely an ethical stance it is a doctrinal stance which the constitution does protect.

The members of the church are not being forced to use contraceptives and

No one is saying they are.

the provision of health care insurance is not a matter covered under the provisions of the constituition relating to the establishment and conduct of a religion. The church is not being forced to violate any standard,

Wrong, the mandate is against church doctrine and forces it to violate said doctrine if they furnish insurance coverage. If the church cannot stay true to their doctrine that is a violation of the free exercise clause.

since, as I said before, the use of contraceptives is not forced or enforced by the provisions, the members of the church are simply being placed in the same status as any other human being.

Wrong, the issue is not about forcing anyone to use contraceptives, that's a red herring. The issue is forcing the church to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients against church doctrine - directly or indirectly - and redefining what qualifies as a religious institution with first amendment protection.

We all have to be protected from the thought police and the inquisition in all its forms, this is a case of the inquisition in action, dealing with private communication between a health insurer and its client to enforce a church doctrine.

Another red herring. No one is asking the insurer to enforce church doctrine or forcing church members to adhere to church doctrine. The issue is as I stated in the previous paragraph, it is about EMPLOYEES and the benefits they receive. If they don't like the benefits they're free to find employment elsewhere.

If you allow them to get away with this they will be interrogating the members to determine whether they have used contraceptives next

That's just plain bullsh*t.

[talaniman]

If they don't like the benefits they're free to find employment elsewhere.

That's the choice you give? There are other options besides yours. That's what you are mad about because if they look around, they can keep their job and your benefits, and get more choices than you offer, on their own.

The churches attempt to limit an individuals choices will fail, but you guys will come up with something else, no doubt.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

If they don't like the benefits they're free to find employment elsewhere.

If we didn't let black people live in certain neighborhoods, you could answer in the same vein... But, I'll bet you wouldn't, because you can SEE the inherent UNFAIRNESS of THAT position..

Or, maybe you can't.

But, because people like you AREN'T able to discern inherent unfairness, we wrote a Constitutional Amendment about it. Nonetheless, you STILL are UNABLE to grasp the VERY obvious UNFAIRNESS embodied in your position.

That's OK. People like you will NEVER be convinced. That's why my beloved Constitution will prevail.. I thought you LOVED the Constitution... No, huh?

Excon

[speechlesstx]

That's the choice you give?

Uh yeah, it's called freedom.

There are other options besides yours. That's what you are mad about because if they look around, they can keep their job and your benefits, and get more choices than you offer, on their own.

Dude, all I know is if I own a business I'm the only one that should be calling the shots. That's how it works, but that's what you are mad about, you want to call the shots for someone else's business, soup kitchen and obviously the Church. If you don't like how others do things start your own and do it your way.

The churches attempt to limit an individuals choices will fail, but you guys will come up with something else, no doubt.

Now that's a red herring.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

If we didn't let black people live in certain neighborhoods, you could answer in the same vein... But, I'll bet you wouldn't, because you can SEE the inherent UNFAIRNESS of THAT position..

Or, maybe you can't.

But, because people like you AREN'T able to discern inherent unfairness, we wrote a Constitutional Amendment about it. Nonetheless, you STILL are UNABLE to see grasp the VERY obvious UNFAIRNESS embodied in your position.

Life isn't fair, and I'm OK with that. But speaking of meaningless things, it's the liberal use of "fairness." You can't define it, you can't create it and your attempts to make life fair are inherently unfair to those you impose on to create your utopia.

That's OK. People like you will NEVER be convinced. That's why my beloved Constitution will prevail.. I thought you LOVED the Constitution... No, huh?

As soon as you can show me where free contraceptives are a constitutional right and defend my specifically enumerated first and second amendment rights I'll listen. You haven't and you won't, you don't like those parts of the constitution.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

As soon as you can show me where free contraceptives are a constitutional right and defend my specifically enumerated first and second amendment rights I'll listen.

We've been here before, but you don't want to get it.. That's OK. I'm patient... The COOL thing about our wonderful Constitution, is that it's NOT written in legalese.. It uses SIMPLE easily UNDERSTOOD words. Here's the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment: The state may NOT "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means, if a company is going to cover MENS health needs, it needs to cover Women's health needs.

Now, you can SAY that if women don't like it, they can seek employment somewhere else... But, that's NOT what our Constitution says... I cannot imagine how your reading of that sentence differs from mine..

Do you think they just wrote those words to take up space? What the hell do you think those words MEAN?? I'm listening.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

We've been here before, but you don't want to get it.. That's OK. I'm patient... The COOL thing about our wonderful Constitution, is that it's NOT written in legalese.. It uses SIMPLE easily UNDERSTOOD words. Here's the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment: The state may NOT "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means, if a company is going to cover MENS health needs, it needs to cover Women's health needs.

Oh I get it, and I've already addressed that. No employer offers men one one policy and women another, they get the same policy. I'm OK with not covering Viagra except for medical necessity, it's used to treat pulmonary hypertension you know.

Now, you can SAY that if women don't like it, they can seek employment somewhere else... But, that's NOT what our Constitution says... I cannot imagine how your reading of that sentence differs from mine..

That's because you're under the same mistaken impression as tal, the constitution does not guarantee whatever employer provided benefits you think you deserve. Please, tell me where that's in there

Do you think they just wrote those words to take up space? What the hell do you think those words MEAN?? I'm listening.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What the hell do you think that means? It's SIMPLE and EASY to understand.

[talaniman]

Even if contraceptives are not a protected right, it doesn't mean they can't be free, or accessible. Now if insurance companies agree to give them out, how is that the business of a church?

They can always stop doing business with them, and go elsewhere. Just because you hate government doesn't mean everyone does, and I believe in government "for the people, by the people", and will resist any effort to subvert it otherwise.

That's not liberal talk, but American talk, and you have a right to disagree of course :)

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

the constitution does not guarantee whatever employer provided benefits you think you deserve. Please, tell me where that's in there

This ISN'T about what we WANT, or think we DESERVE. It's about treating people EQUALLY... That's NOT a difficult concept.. If they offer it to ONE sex, they MUST offer it to the OTHER.. I don't know WHY you don't get it. IF they offer (that's a key word) MEN'S health care, then the law says quite CLEARLY, that they MUST offer WOMEN'S health care...

You talk about Viagra... But, what about treating prostate problems... What about testicle problems? What about urethra problems?? Should men get those services? Should denying women's health care result in THESE mens services being withheld?? Why should MEN have to get a supplemental policy that they PAY for themselves to get THOSE services, and ONLY those services?? I don't even know IF a policy for that exists..

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Even if contraceptives are not a protected right, it doesn't mean they can't be free, or accessible. Now if insurance companies agree to give them out, how is that the business of a church?

They can always stop doing business with them, and go elsewhere. Just because you hate government doesn't mean everyone does, and I believe in government "for the people, by the people", and will resist any effort to subvert it otherwise.

That's not liberal talk, but American talk, and you have a right to disagree of course :)

They ARE accessible, that's the red herring in all of this - the mandate was a cure in search of a disease. There was no problem with access, contraceptive was use was already almost UNIVERSAL in the US.

In fact... NYC schools hand out 12,721 ‘morning-after’ pills.

New York City schools are offering young girls a full menu of birth control options, free of parental counsel, thanks to an unpublicized project by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration.

School nurses handed out 12,721 doses of the Plan B One-Step “morning-after” pill in 2011-12, up from 10,720 in 2010-11 and 5,039 in 2009-10, the New York Post reports.

Mona Davids, president of the NYC Parents Union, was stunned by the report.

“I’m in shock,” she said. “What gives the mayor the right to decide, without adequate notice, to give our children drugs that will impact their bodies and their psyches? He has purposely kept the public and parents in the dark with his agenda.”

Besides “emergency contraception,” about 40 school-based clinics have dispensed prescriptions for contraception, intrauterine devices and hormone-delivering injections, the Post reports. Officials refused to discuss the project.

I forgot to mention subverting parental authority in my list of things the left has done to create the mess they're whining about now. I mean hey, why should a teenager, dependent on her parents for food, clothing, shelter and protection have to get permission to be administered abortifacients and hormone injections? Parents don't need to know what the government is doing to their children or God forbid, have a CHOICE in how to raise their children. This should pi$$ you off, but I know you'll make excuses.

When women get prostates and testicles we can discuss covering them. Please.

[talaniman]

They ARE accessible, that's the red herring in all of this - the mandate was a cure in search of a disease. There was no problem with access, contraceptive was use was already almost UNIVERSAL in the US.

In fact...NYC schools hand out 12,721 ‘morning-after’ pills.



I forgot to mention subverting parental authority in my list of things the left has done to create the mess they're whining about now. I mean hey, why should a teenager, dependent on her parents for food, clothing, shelter and protection have to get permission to be administered abortifacients and hormone injections? Parents don't need to know what the government is doing to their children or God forbid, have a CHOICE in how to raise their children. This should pi$$ you off, but I know you'll make excuses.

When women get prostates and testicles we can discuss covering them. Please.

Actually I believe that parents should be the final authority, but sadly many are not there to stop the youth from behaving badly, and engaging in risky behavior,and many of our youth fear there parents when they make mistakes.

But your argument that when woman grow balls and the rest that comes with it then you will cover the maintanance is kind of ridiculous ince God didn't make 'em that way and different does not mean inferior.

Ex is right you do discriminate to make females dependent on men.

[speechlesstx]

Actually I believe that parents should be the final authority, but sadly many are not there to stop the youth from behaving badly, and engaging in risky behavior,and many of our youth fear there parents when they make mistakes. .

Yeah well, nanny Bloomberg is just like Planned Parenthood and many 'educators', they don't care what the parents want, they think they know what's best for your child.

But your argument that when woman grow balls and the rest that comes with it then you will cover the maintanance is kind of ridiculous ince God didn't make 'em that way and different does not mean inferior.

I see the joke went right over your head.

Ex is right you do discriminate to make females dependent on men

Are you kidding me? I serve my wife and daughter and their friends, I don't subjugate them as your government polices do. The mandate is a cure in search of a disease and it violates the first amendment. That is no red herring.

[tomder55]

Actually I believe that parents should be the final authority, but sadly many are not there to stop the youth from behaving badly

Sort of demonstrates what Speech is talking about... the unintended consequences of liberal policies...

[Tuttyd]

sorta demonstrates what Speech is talking about ....the unintended consequences of liberal policies...

Nonsense Tom.

The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect and love to chatter in place of exercise. Plato



What liberal policies were evident in ancient Athens that cause this problem?

Tut