Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 7:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 7:18:00 PM (view original):
No one is being forced to take birth control. Everyone is free to exercise whatever religion they want. You just can't force your religion on others who do want to take birth control or get gay married.

Yet you feel it's OK for the government to force people who object to birth control to subsidize it's distribution.

Good job.

You aren't subsidizing anything. You're paying premiums. It's essentially the same as paying salaries and having the employees buy it themselves.

Party A pays Party B. Party B buys birth control

Party A pays Party C. Party C buys birth control.

In which scenario is Party A's religious freedom infringed?

So paying salary and paying insurance premiums are the same thing?

Does the government know this?

In this specific scenario it's close enough. Again, ignoring the fact that a fictional entity specifically formed to legally separate it from shareholders has no religious rights, does it violate HL's rights if employees use their paycheck to buy birth control? How is that different from Aetna buying birth control for employees?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 9:10:00 PM (view original):
In this specific scenario it's close enough. Again, ignoring the fact that a fictional entity specifically formed to legally separate it from shareholders has no religious rights, does it violate HL's rights if employees use their paycheck to buy birth control? How is that different from Aetna buying birth control for employees?

Wages are NOT insurance premiums.  Saying "it's close enough" does not make it so.  Thus, your followup questions are irrelevant.

Good job.

And insurance premiums aren't birth control subsidies.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And insurance premiums aren't birth control subsidies.

Sure they are.

If I'm paying premiums to an insurance company, and that insurance company is providing birth control to it's clients, then my premiums are subsidizing it.

Where do you think the money to pay the drug companies for the birth control is coming from?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 7:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 7:18:00 PM (view original):
No one is being forced to take birth control. Everyone is free to exercise whatever religion they want. You just can't force your religion on others who do want to take birth control or get gay married.

Yet you feel it's OK for the government to force people who object to birth control to subsidize it's distribution.

Good job.

You aren't subsidizing anything. You're paying premiums. It's essentially the same as paying salaries and having the employees buy it themselves.

Party A pays Party B. Party B buys birth control

Party A pays Party C. Party C buys birth control.

In which scenario is Party A's religious freedom infringed?

Maybe this hypothetical illustration can answer your question.

Scenario A) An employer offers (as part of its benefits package) an option which deducts X amt of money each week. This money gets paid to some local illegal drug dealers. At any time the employee participating in this (voluntary) program may go to a select number of dealers (in the "network") and get what they need. Just show the membership card to the dealer and you're good to go, because the dealer has already been paid ahead of time through this employer's program.

Scenario B) An employer pays his employee a wage. That employee takes some of that money and buys illegal drugs.

In which scenario is the employer at risk of being found complicit in illegal drug trafficking?

BL, circa last night: "I'm not seeing a material difference in this case."

Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And insurance premiums aren't birth control subsidies.

Sure they are.

If I'm paying premiums to an insurance company, and that insurance company is providing birth control to it's clients, then my premiums are subsidizing it.

Where do you think the money to pay the drug companies for the birth control is coming from?

If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, that violates your rights?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html

Learn it. Live it.

Prayer is thought. I can pray to Jeebus or any other fairy tale character 24/7. Everyone has an ability to have a personal relationship with Jeebus, Everything else, churches, crosses, nativity scenes,tithes, Catholic churches huge real estate holdings, gold chalices, etc. is pure greedy bullshit

Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And insurance premiums aren't birth control subsidies.

Sure they are.

If I'm paying premiums to an insurance company, and that insurance company is providing birth control to it's clients, then my premiums are subsidizing it.

Where do you think the money to pay the drug companies for the birth control is coming from?

If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, that violates your rights?

So now an insurance company is a person?

I thought it might be an "entity specifically formed to legally separate it from shareholders".

Has something changed since last night in your definition of businesses?

Posted by deathinahole on 7/4/2014 12:37:00 PM (view original):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html

Learn it. Live it.

Cool story, bro.   But not relevant to the discussion.

It is, because I say it is.

Are you the Canadian badluck?