2.) this maybe true but im not sure why this matters, if this is true how much will costs actually go up if the need is so little?
3.)again likely i agree but not an absolutely and also see above, it will get paid for one way or another
<insert group here> is much more likely to do <inset item here>
4.) i agree those should be universal givens but i have no problem with other things being covered especial things that "could" impact other costs to society, abuse, neglect, population, education, crime etc etc etc
5.) well this we definitely agree with
But it's also his business and his money, that money does not belong to the employees nor do they run the business. They work for the business. A private employer should have full freedom to do what they want within the boundaries of the Constitution. I believe the constitution is violated and the religious beliefs of the owner are infringed upon when they are forced to pay for something they think is wrong. If it was the owner somehow forcing employees to not spend their money on BC then that's one thing, but forcing the owner to spend their money on things they think is wrong is religious discrimination.2.) he is not forced to use BC if he doesnt want to, his rights are intact. Its a public realm, dont like the public realm stay out of it, its really that simply.
how many things could an employer deny based on religious belifs if we let them? where does it stop and who gets to decided what acceptable?
And if their decision was based on a belief that BC is icky does that somehow make it different? Again, the employee is not being forced to do anything, they can do whatever they want with their money. The only thing being forced here is the employer being forced to use their money in a way that violates their religious beliefs.3.) If that decision is based solely on religion it 100% is because you are discriminated against based on your beliefs vs theirs, the employee will be FORCED to do something above and beyond based on the employors religions beliefs, thats forcing views.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
Now the per item, per person cost may be little, but that's the whole problem.
All these little incremental costs add up to, one big cost, the rising premium.
I think health insurance should move back to a life insurance pay out system.
People will want to shop around, ask for prices, etc.
Costs are so high, partially because there is no clear pricing standard and people don't ask.
I just personally hate the idea that, I'm covered for mental health (which I don't need), substance abuse (when I don't drink or use drugs), pregnancy (when it's impossible for me to get pregnant), female birth control (which I can never use), etc.
I don't need any of these things, yet I'm required to have and pay for them.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
sorry digs if its admitted to be based on religion or can be proven its discrimination of the employee
2.) so what? its a public business so he has to play by public rules, i agree within the boundaries of constitution and rights etc etc and the supreme courts seems to think they are not
its not discrimination as already proven by the examples above, if the owner doesnt want to play by public rules dont open a business.
i dont want to pay for a womans bathroom because my religion views them as lessers? is that ok?
Ill hire them but im not buy extra stuff
3.) yes it 100% does, if they can make up a legit reason that would imply discrimination they would be ok
the employee is 100% being forced, the employer is not because they choose to open a public business where NOBODY is allowed to discriminate or violate rights
seems you only support this if it fits your views and not others
2.) this is broken logci apply it to an employer not having handicap accessibility or not hiring latins or woman
they cant work else where right?
tell me that duh line again because its wrong.