If What Goes on in People' Bedroom is None of My Business...

[Woodruff]

The current government laws that prohibit some religious activities only revolve on actions taken against other people (prohibiting sacrifices for one). No other law that I'm aware of forces the religious group to take a positive action that goes against their beliefs. All the other restrictions are negative restrictions.

You didn't answer my questions. Is it because you don't have a good answer for them?

I don't know for sure of any religious organizations that provide traditional health insurance (although that would make the administration's "work-around" of forcing the insurance to offer the contraceptive instead of the employer a big fail). And I suppose that religious organizations don't have to provide hospitals, but then we probably really would return to the medicinal levels of the 1800s (that liberals like Player always claim conservatives want to go back to). And there are other religious organizations besides hospitals (schools being the largest).

So you AGREE with me that their religion is not actually being limited, because running a hospital is not actually a part of their religion. Thank you.

[Night Strike]

The current government laws that prohibit some religious activities only revolve on actions taken against other people (prohibiting sacrifices for one). No other law that I'm aware of forces the religious group to take a positive action that goes against their beliefs. All the other restrictions are negative restrictions.

You didn't answer my questions. Is it because you don't have a good answer for them?

I don't know for sure of any religious organizations that provide traditional health insurance (although that would make the administration's "work-around" of forcing the insurance to offer the contraceptive instead of the employer a big fail). And I suppose that religious organizations don't have to provide hospitals, but then we probably really would return to the medicinal levels of the 1800s (that liberals like Player always claim conservatives want to go back to). And there are other religious organizations besides hospitals (schools being the largest).

So you AGREE with me that their religion is not actually being limited, because running a hospital is not actually a part of their religion. Thank you.

Actually, it could be argued that providing health care to those in need WOULD count as carrying out the commands to help their neighbors in need. Especially since many religious hospitals are non-profit organizations.

Specifically speaking of contraceptives, I would say that in the long run, the fact that people have contraceptives readily available to them is going to bring down the abortion and STD rates significantly...that seems like a pretty major plus to me.

I didn't think birth control protected against STDs. And they're not handing out free condoms (yet).

[kentington]

Woodruff: Do you think it is ok for the government to require businesses provide anything? ( I don't know how to word it better, but I am referring to the contraceptives).
I personally don't think it's okay.

My opinion is that there may be certain limited circumstances when it is the right thing to do. I don't necessarily know whether contraceptives would fit the bill or not in that regard, but I do believe that circumstances may exist when, for the good of the nation, this is done. Specifically speaking of contraceptives, I would say that in the long run, the fact that people have contraceptives readily available to them is going to bring down the abortion and STD rates significantly...that seems like a pretty major plus to me.

I can agree with you that there may be certain circumstances when it is the right thing to do, but the hard part is determining when it is the right thing to do and what the right thing to do is. We don't know that having contraceptives readily available will lower any statistics until it is actually tried, I am not arguing that it wont. But people will be people, either lazy or stupid and still not use them.

This reminds me of that lawsuit against e-harmony. This required them to offer services for homosexuals, or did they settle?

This is the first I've heard of this, actually. I'm not sure I disagree with E-Harmony being required to offer their services though...

I disagree with that. I don't think the government should require you to offer any more in a business than you want to. Let the consumers decide whether it will fail or not through support or lack there of, monetarily. The company I work for specializes in repairing packaging equipment. I don't think the government should be able to tell me to work on equipment that I don't have training on or that I don't want to work on. Even if I could get the training, they shouldn't have the right to make me do anything extra to provide extra services.
Another example, I have a clothing store and I sell men's clothing. A woman comes in and wants me to sell women's clothing. I shouldn't have to sell women's clothing just because a demand is there. I also, should have the right to refuse service for whatever reason. (This is because I don't want someone offering me a service that doesn't want to offer that service, the quality will be lower and it will be a lose/lose situation)

Either way the government shouldn't have a hand in it. What if I am a pet groomer and someone wants me to cut their kids hair? (I know this is ridiculous, but it's the first thing that comes to mind).

I see a difference in that you're NOT TRAINED to cut their kids hair. As well, I have trouble equating pets to kids regulation-wise.

That is my point on this one. They are not trained to cut human hair just as E-harmony wouldn't be trained to put homosexuals together in a way that would benefit them. More studies have been done to have info readily available to make a test to match heterosexuals. I don't think homosexual relationships have been studied as much.
I wasn't saying kids were like pets, just that it is a different type of hair.

E-harmony provides match-making services for heterosexuals and have no experience putting homosexuals together.)

This is a legitimate point, I think, but also one that can be fairly readily overcome.

I agree with you this point can be overcome, but should a company be required to take the risk of overcoming this? They could do the studies and training and then at the end the homosexual community could boycott them, because they didn't offer it in the first place. I am not saying this would happen, but there still would be some risk involved and there may possibly be little to no return.
I do understand your points though and I just think my opinion varies from yours on this.
Also, I just want to say thanks. Swimmerdude is right. You have handled yourself swimmingly.

[Phatscotty]

If this isn't a big deal, why did Obama promise a few years ago this wouldn't happen?

[Woodruff]

The current government laws that prohibit some religious activities only revolve on actions taken against other people (prohibiting sacrifices for one). No other law that I'm aware of forces the religious group to take a positive action that goes against their beliefs. All the other restrictions are negative restrictions.

You didn't answer my questions. Is it because you don't have a good answer for them?

I don't know for sure of any religious organizations that provide traditional health insurance (although that would make the administration's "work-around" of forcing the insurance to offer the contraceptive instead of the employer a big fail). And I suppose that religious organizations don't have to provide hospitals, but then we probably really would return to the medicinal levels of the 1800s (that liberals like Player always claim conservatives want to go back to). And there are other religious organizations besides hospitals (schools being the largest).

So you AGREE with me that their religion is not actually being limited, because running a hospital is not actually a part of their religion. Thank you.

Actually, it could be argued that providing health care to those in need WOULD count as carrying out the commands to help their neighbors in need. Especially since many religious hospitals are non-profit organizations.

Hard to justify that an actual hospital is required for that, however...right?

Specifically speaking of contraceptives, I would say that in the long run, the fact that people have contraceptives readily available to them is going to bring down the abortion and STD rates significantly...that seems like a pretty major plus to me.

I didn't think birth control protected against STDs. And they're not handing out free condoms (yet).

You're probably right in that my mind instantly put all contraceptives together into one bundle, and that's probably not what's being done. Sorry about that. The rest of my point stands, though.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff: Do you think it is ok for the government to require businesses provide anything? ( I don't know how to word it better, but I am referring to the contraceptives).
I personally don't think it's okay.

My opinion is that there may be certain limited circumstances when it is the right thing to do. I don't necessarily know whether contraceptives would fit the bill or not in that regard, but I do believe that circumstances may exist when, for the good of the nation, this is done. Specifically speaking of contraceptives, I would say that in the long run, the fact that people have contraceptives readily available to them is going to bring down the abortion and STD rates significantly...that seems like a pretty major plus to me.

I can agree with you that there may be certain circumstances when it is the right thing to do, but the hard part is determining when it is the right thing to do and what the right thing to do is. We don't know that having contraceptives readily available will lower any statistics until it is actually tried, I am not arguing that it wont. But people will be people, either lazy or stupid and still not use them.

This reminds me of that lawsuit against e-harmony. This required them to offer services for homosexuals, or did they settle?

This is the first I've heard of this, actually. I'm not sure I disagree with E-Harmony being required to offer their services though...

I disagree with that. I don't think the government should require you to offer any more in a business than you want to.

But isn't that precisely what led to businesses not being willing to serve blacks in the south, for instance? It seems that the government shouldn't stand by and let the market decide things like that when the customer is likely willing to allow that status quo to continue. Specifically, if the general public is fairly anti-homosexual, then the general public isn't really going to cause too many problems for a business that discriminates against homosexuals. I'm not ok with that.

I do understand your points though and I just think my opinion varies from yours on this.

Nothing wrong with that...this wouldn't be any fun at all if we agreed about everything.

[kentington]

But isn't that precisely what led to businesses not being willing to serve blacks in the south, for instance? It seems that the government shouldn't stand by and let the market decide things like that when the customer is likely willing to allow that status quo to continue. Specifically, if the general public is fairly anti-homosexual, then the general public isn't really going to cause too many problems for a business that discriminates against homosexuals. I'm not ok with that.

Blacks not being served in the south differs from this in that it is direct discrimination. If I open a diner and a black person comes in and I refuse him service then it is discrimination. If a vegan comes in and demands that I now offer vegan food. That is just ridiculous, I don't have to offer anything above and beyond what I already do. The government shouldn't decide that for me. If enough vegans come in and ask then I may see that it might be a good idea to add some and then I can make money.

So, there should be some limitations on refusal of service, but not because of race. But that becomes hard to determine. What if someone wants to refuse service because someone is dressed like a gangster and you don't want that in your store. The person happens to be a different race, how do you determine the cause? I think it is ok to refuse service to those dressed like that, because it makes your other customers nervous and other problems can arise.

I do understand your points though and I just think my opinion varies from yours on this.

Nothing wrong with that...this wouldn't be any fun at all if we agreed about everything.

Exactly. I just like people to know when I understand. It's like a trophy for me. Woo hoo, something didn't go over my head, that kinda thing.

[rdsrds2120]

If this isn't a big deal, why did Obama promise a few years ago this wouldn't happen?

There's a lot being talked about, which are you referring to in particular?

-rd

[Woodruff]

But isn't that precisely what led to businesses not being willing to serve blacks in the south, for instance? It seems that the government shouldn't stand by and let the market decide things like that when the customer is likely willing to allow that status quo to continue. Specifically, if the general public is fairly anti-homosexual, then the general public isn't really going to cause too many problems for a business that discriminates against homosexuals. I'm not ok with that.

Blacks not being served in the south differs from this in that it is direct discrimination. If I open a diner and a black person comes in and I refuse him service then it is discrimination. If a vegan comes in and demands that I now offer vegan food.

Ok, I like the vegan analogy...it's a good one, I think. I suppose an argument could be made that this would fall under the same sort of deal (that it's a different service). I don't happen to agree that it is, but that's just my opinion.

[Woodruff]

The current government laws that prohibit some religious activities only revolve on actions taken against other people (prohibiting sacrifices for one). No other law that I'm aware of forces the religious group to take a positive action that goes against their beliefs. All the other restrictions are negative restrictions.

You didn't answer my questions. Is it because you don't have a good answer for them?

I don't know for sure of any religious organizations that provide traditional health insurance (although that would make the administration's "work-around" of forcing the insurance to offer the contraceptive instead of the employer a big fail). And I suppose that religious organizations don't have to provide hospitals, but then we probably really would return to the medicinal levels of the 1800s (that liberals like Player always claim conservatives want to go back to). And there are other religious organizations besides hospitals (schools being the largest).

[Woodruff]

....Then neither is the contraception methods, supplies, or the consequences of what goes on in other people's bedroom.

And yet, Viagra and vasectomies are covered. So Viagra is more necessary than birth control pills?

Ah, it's just a womens issue...suck it up, cupcake!

[Night Strike]

....Then neither is the contraception methods, supplies, or the consequences of what goes on in other people's bedroom.

And yet, Viagra and vasectomies are covered. So Viagra is more necessary than birth control pills?

Ah, it's just a womens issue...suck it up, cupcake!

Is Viagra provided for free? Or with a copay? Or at all? But with this mandate, employers and insurance companies are required to provide ALL forms of female birth control for free. Hardly an equal scenario. And I don't think vasectomies are covered under all plans. And they certainly aren't mandated to be provided for free.

Furthermore, although I disagree with the reasoning, erectile dysfunction is considered a medical condition because it actually prevents men from having sex. Not being on birth control does not prevent a woman from being able to engage in sex. If a woman has to take birth control for a medical reason, that is already covered by insurance. The current mandate is irrelevant to women's health and instead pushes the liberal agenda of care-free sex and infringement on religious rights.

[Neoteny]

Wow.

[Symmetry]

Furthermore, although I disagree with the reasoning, erectile dysfunction is considered a medical condition because it actually prevents men from having sex. Not being on birth control does not prevent a woman from being able to engage in sex. If a woman has to take birth control for a medical reason, that is already covered by insurance. The current mandate is irrelevant to women's health and instead pushes the liberal agenda of care-free sex and infringement on religious rights.

Untrue, there are many ways to have sex without an erect penis. Still, I take it you're talking about only procreation, which is a little sad on your part- you should give other forms of sex a whirl. They're pretty fun, and generally involve caring about your partner. Care-free sex is when you don't care at all about the medical issues that could arise, for example pregnancy.

Your argument seems to be verging on blaming women who who enjoy having sex in the same way that men do. I'm not sure if that's what you mean, so apologies if I'm setting up a strawman argument here, but religions tend to argue that way. Specifically, the leaders of religions tend to argue that way. In practice, of course, the vast majority of practitioners behave very differently, and women are of course typically excluded from those who get to say what the church's stance is on issues like this, let alone be actually involved in the formulation of policy.

[natty dread]

the liberal agenda of care-free sex and infringement on religious right

So sex shouldn't be care-free, then? Should sex always have consequences?

Are people who have lots of "care-free" sex always dirty sluts, or only when they are women?

[Woodruff]

The current mandate is irrelevant to women's health and instead pushes the liberal agenda of care-free sex and infringement on religious rights.

Do you actually believe that there is a "liberal agenda of care-free sex"? I mean...seriously, how does that even make sense? And aside from that, birth control does nothing at all to promote care-free sex...the idea that it does is like saying that taking away seatbelts would promote good driving skills. Again, does that actually makes sense to you? What it does is promote unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions). So you're telling me that you're pro-abortion now, Night Strike? I don't think so, but it seems that's what your desired policy unavoidably leads to.

[PLAYER57832]

Woodruff: Do you think it is ok for the government to require businesses provide anything? ( I don't know how to word it better, but I am referring to the contraceptives).
I personally don't think it's okay.

My opinion is that there may be certain limited circumstances when it is the right thing to do. I don't necessarily know whether contraceptives would fit the bill or not in that regard, but I do believe that circumstances may exist when, for the good of the nation, this is done. Specifically speaking of contraceptives, I would say that in the long run, the fact that people have contraceptives readily available to them is going to bring down the abortion and STD rates significantly...that seems like a pretty major plus to me.

I can agree with you that there may be certain circumstances when it is the right thing to do, but the hard part is determining when it is the right thing to do and what the right thing to do is. We don't know that having contraceptives readily available will lower any statistics until it is actually tried, I am not arguing that it wont. But people will be people, either lazy or stupid and still not use them.

Actually, we already know this. Nations without readily available birth control have higher a LOT of problems we don't have.


BUT, keep in mind that the medical term "abortion" refers to miscarriages, not just surgical abortions. Any woman given a birth control pill to stablize her body prior to getting pregnant or to prevent a potentially fatal/life threatening pregnancy will be included in this prohibition.

Basically, this is a rule put forward by a lot of people who cannot be bothered to do more than look at the barest superificial issues. THAT is why these things need to be decided by medical doctors and why insurance was initially told to provide this coverage. The argument was that this applied just to women and therefore was all too easy to just dismiss, which amounted to discrimination. The fact is that a lot of women are only able to work because they are not forced to have many, many kids and to wear out their bodies, etc, early.

[PLAYER57832]

[ You must not understand the 1st Amendment. It clearly states that the government can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

EXACTLY. and prohibiting employers from using their personal beliefs to exclude employees from insurance coverage the employees want is to allow those employers to discriminate against employees who do not share their faith.. or who just disagree on this point. That is illegal

Forcing a religious business or organization to purchase a product that goes against their beliefs is blatantly prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I see, so conscientious objectors should not have to pay taxes for the millitary? Vegetarians should not have to support subsidies to the cattle industry.. or even help pay for BLM lands where cattle graze? Why should an avowed liberal have to pay to have their kids learn about conservative political ideas? Why should an avowed KKK member have to pay for schools that teach tolerance?

This focus on money is just another way of saying that people in power have the RIGHT to bully those with less. In this case, it goes well beyond that because the FACT is that birth control is a big part of women's health. There are far more reasons for women to take birth control pills that have nothing to do with not getting pregnant OR that have to do with preventing a pregnancy that would be truly harmful.

Yet again, what this REALLY gets down to is a few people using whatever method and arguments they can to take away things that other people want and need.. becuase that is what those few people want. It is not about freedom, it is about denying employees the right to make even basic medical decisions on their own.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't know for sure of any religious organizations that provide traditional health insurance (although that would make the administration's "work-around" of forcing the insurance to offer the contraceptive instead of the employer a big fail).

The ELCA, United Methodists, Presbyterian church in America, etc, etc, etc.. ALL provide health insurance for their pastors, spouses and children. I find it significant that those last two are essentially not part of the Roman Catholic umbrella, (unless they are Episcopal converts). AND... the church is not being asked to provide this anyway. It is being told to provide this insurance in public institutions that hire non-Roman Catholics and Roman Catholics who might not agree with the Bishop on this issue.

And I suppose that religious organizations don't have to provide hospitals, but then we probably really would return to the medicinal levels of the 1800s (that liberals like Player always claim conservatives want to go back to). And there are other religious organizations besides hospitals (schools being the largest).

Only for women, in this case.. only for women.

[PLAYER57832]

The current mandate is irrelevant to women's health and instead pushes the liberal agenda of care-free sex and infringement on religious rights.

Do you actually believe that there is a "liberal agenda of care-free sex"?

Of course he doesn't, but if he actually had to THINK about the issues instead of just throwing out rhetoric, he might have to change his opinions on occasion.

Its like the attorney that throws out "but you did not INTEND this to happen..." and then goes "oops, strike that from the record". The words are said and influence the jury. Here, the "jury" is America. The more extreme positions idiots throw out, the more "sensible" those not so extreme sound.

If Santorum, for example, had voiced what he says.. never mind Perry (et al) in the 1980's, they would have been laughed out of politics, much as the Moral Majority was.

[Baron Von PWN]

To be fair to night strike there is a school of thought called "sex positive" which says sex is a positive thing which shouldn't be stigmatized but instead encouraged, in a fully open manner.

Given his tendency to just lump everything he dislikes with "liberal" that may be what he's talking about.

I also liked the the liberal anti religious freedom agenda. that was classy

[PLAYER57832]

To be fair to night strike there is a school of thought called "sex positive" which says sex is a positive thing which shouldn't be stigmatized but instead encouraged, in a fully open manner.

Given his tendency to just lump everything he dislikes with "liberal" that may be what he's talking about.

No dice. That "movement" has less in common with most of liberal thinking than the KKK type thinking has to do with conservatives. (that is, you will find more conservatives who think races should be seperate, etc than you will find liberals who think that kids should be having sex). There are idiots who claim commonality with any group for their aberrant thinking.. does not mean they truly represent those groups.

EDIT.. apparently there are more groups using that name than the pedophila types. At any rate, my point is that the comparison is stupid, not to get into a debate about sexuality yet again.

[natty dread]

To be fair to night strike there is a school of thought called "sex positive" which says sex is a positive thing which shouldn't be stigmatized but instead encouraged, in a fully open manner.

But not all liberals are sex-positives (although personally I think they should be). And I really doubt that Night Strike was thinking about the ideals of sex-positivity when he asserted that "liberals just want everyone to have carefree sex".

Also, to clarify a bit, sex-positivity doesn't really say that sex should "always be encouraged"... despite the name it doesn't really assert that sex is an inherently good thing in all situations. Rather, it's more about seeing sex as an overall positive thing, provided that both/all parties consent. Consent is a huge part of sex-positivity. Also, that no one should be shamed or ostracized based on their sexual preferences.

[natty dread]

No dice. That "movement" has less in common with most of liberal thinking

Why do you put movement in scare quotes? Do you have something against sex-positivity?

etc than you will find liberals who think that kids should be having sex).

...OMG player, get your facts straight. Sex-positivity is NOT about "kids having sex". Consent is paramount to sex-positivity, and children are not capable of consent.

I would have expected that kind of clueless slander from the right-wing bigots, not from you.

[the carpet man]

why is a child not capable of giving consent for sex? what horrible trap of death awaits the child who consents to sex?