• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does it violate my 2nd amendment rights if my employer doesn't buy me a gun?

Does it violate my 2nd amendment rights if my employer doesn't buy me a gun?


  • Total voters
    37
It doesn't conflict. They ruled against me because the conservative bloc is pro-Christian dominance and pro-rich people and pro-big business. They afforded special treatment to people because they are rich and religious at the same time. That's all.



The country will eventually get over its love affair with corporations and will not only stop giving them and their owners special rights, they'll do away with the whole package and dump it in the trash bin with other obsolete notions.
But how many people will be abused in the meantime?




Unfortunately quite a few.

They will be part of the crowd demanding change and they will get it.
 
Considering the Amish don't believe in insurance and think it goes against God's plan, I don't think they would be providing you gun insurance and would probably be exempt just like they are exempt from providing healthcare or social security so it's really not a fair comparison.
Splitting hairs.

Ok, my Mennonite employer, or my Jehovah Witnesses employer, or my Bretheren employer refuses to buy me hand gun ammunition.... .

Also, Amish do not use insurance, it does not mean they do not provide it. Muslims are able to sell pork to non muslims- though many would decline to do so.
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063499060 said:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It appears your opinion is flawed.

Its a amusing that the anti-religious try to make an amendment about government taking a neutral stance on religion into a government is not supposed to have anything to do with religion.
 
Its a amusing that the anti-religious try to make an amendment about government taking a neutral stance on religion into a government is not supposed to have anything to do with religion.
That's not really the problem though...

I mean...either way, making a law that requires someone to do something they religiously disagree with (in this case, paying for birth control pills, or something) would be against the amendment - it's not neutral, either.


That said, I can see this potentially snowballing - suppose someone starts a religion and one of the tenets is that you do not pay taxes (or perhaps some specific form of tax)?

Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable, when considering religious beliefs?
Obviously we draw the line somewhere this side of "ritual human sacrifice", but...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063499200 said:
Hmmm, the welfare state...

According to Malsow, basic needs include food, water, shelter, clothing, and sexual reproduction.

I remember when those needs were the responsibility of the family unit, not tax payers of the state, with the exception of sexual reproduction, which was an individual's responsibility.

I can also remember when most people were too proud and independent to expect others to pay their way. Apparently they had reached the stage of self-actualization. Not any more for some it appears.

I wonder what JFK would think about today's democrat voters?

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

You assume that our economic system allows everyone who is willing to provide for themselves. And I'm certainly not a democratic voter in most cases. Anyway, we're getting off topic.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1063499060 said:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It appears your opinion is flawed.

And what makes the religious opinion of the employer outweigh that of the worker?
 
And that doesn't mean that they get input on their workers' decisions. You might as well say that the employer can withhold wages if their employee wants to use the wages to buy birth control.
No, that would be unacceptable, because it wouldn't be their decision.
 
No, that would be unacceptable, because it wouldn't be their decision.

I fail to see the distinction you are making. The way our economy and our laws are structured, employers are required to provide wages and health insurance (at least partially) to their employees. What makes telling an employee how they can spend their wages different than telling them how to use their health insurance?
 
I fail to see the distinction you are making. The way our economy and our laws are structured, employers are required to provide wages and health insurance (at least partially) to their employees. What makes telling an employee how they can spend their wages different than telling them how to use their health insurance?
Technically, if the employer is paying for it, it's the employer's insurance on it's employees.

Why should the employees tell the employer how to use it's health insurance?
 
No one has a right to contraceptives. They do have a right to a gun. But you have to provide for it yourself. No one has to sell anyone anything.

People have as much of a right to contraceptives as they do a gun... the government has no legal standing in telling you if you can have or not have either.
 
NO.

Your employer can ban you from bringing, selling, or using your firearm at work.


Some ignore that ban though... but they intend to go out with a bang so it doesn't matter to them.
 
That said, I can see this potentially snowballing - suppose someone starts a religion and one of the tenets is that you do not pay taxes (or perhaps some specific form of tax)?

This has to be in the Bible somewhere... quick, look it up. Only 9 more months until April.
 
People have as much of a right to contraceptives as they do a gun... the government has no legal standing in telling you if you can have or not have either.

No, actually they don't. But I tell ya what, show me one single court case that says that getting contraceptives is a right then I'll take your side.

And yes, the government can tell you that you cannot have something. Don't believe me? Try and own a nuke. ;)
 
No, actually they don't. But I tell ya what, show me one single court case that says that getting contraceptives is a right then I'll take your side.

And yes, the government can tell you that you cannot have something. Don't believe me? Try and own a nuke. ;)

It doesn't work like that. I am free to walk into any store that sells contraceptives and buy them. No ID required. Felonies do not matter, citizenship, etc.

And my "legal" point is not about weapons or drugs or slaves... it is about the right to have contraceptives. Unless you show ME a case where the government has denied a person from buy them, you should take my side. See how that works? ;)
 
It doesn't work like that. I am free to walk into any store that sells contraceptives and buy them. No ID required. Felonies do not matter, citizenship, etc.

And my "legal" point is not about weapons or drugs or slaves... it is about the right to have contraceptives. Unless you show ME a case where the government has denied a person from buy them, you should take my side. See how that works? ;)

Except of course people do have the right to refuse service to you so long as they do it on a basis that isn't under one of the protected classes. People do not have to sell their goods to you.

Having the ability to buy something is not the same as having the right to that something.

And no, I do not have to show you a case where the government has denied a person from buying them. You made that claim that having contraceptives is a Right. You have to provide proof that it is.

However I will ask you a rhetorical question, just who is it that regulates whether a contraceptive is allowed on the market or not? The FDA. Which is a part of the government. They can pull any contraceptive from the market that they want and has no doubt denied some contraceptives from being put on the market. Would you deny that this is so?
 
So? What is the fundamental difference between me buying birth control or me paying for a policy that buys it for you?

I think the problem here isn't 'dumb right wing analogies' but power hungry left wing totalitarians that want to use the power of the state to force everyone to bend to their will. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept of a free society rather than insulting everyone who objects to your arbitrary use of force.

The difference is a thin one, but technically, its a benefit. Like StarBucks credit to StarBucks employees. Even if its part of your policy, you don't have to have it, and even if you have it, you don't have to use it. Also, they aren't providing birth control; they are providing access to birth control. Technically, paying their employees money does the same thing.
 
Last edited:
What's next??...what if a JW business owner decides that any employee in need of a blood tranfusion would not be a paid for/covered as an insurance provided medical service because it goes against their religious belief?
 
Except of course people do have the right to refuse service to you so long as they do it on a basis that isn't under one of the protected classes. People do not have to sell their goods to you.

And? The same is true of guns.

And no, I do not have to show you a case where the government has denied a person from buying them. You made that claim that having contraceptives is a Right. You have to provide proof that it is.

Appellants claimed that the accessory statute, as applied, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. An intermediate appellate court and the State's highest court affirmed the judgment.

Griswold v. Connecticut :: 381 U.S. 479 (1965) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Eisenstadt v. Baird :: 405 U.S. 438 (1972) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

However I will ask you a rhetorical question, just who is it that regulates whether a contraceptive is allowed on the market or not? The FDA. Which is a part of the government. They can pull any contraceptive from the market that they want and has no doubt denied some contraceptives from being put on the market. Would you deny that this is so?

No. But irrelevant. The government can create trade embargos limiting people's ability to buy guns or certain foods. If we really break it down the government could deny all sorts of rights. Martial law is another example.
 
And? The same is true of guns.

Yep. Except the government is not supposed to be able to make laws baring you from owning guns. The government can however ban contraceptives as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it.

Appellants claimed that the accessory statute, as applied, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. An intermediate appellate court and the State's highest court affirmed the judgment.

Griswold v. Connecticut :: 381 U.S. 479 (1965) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Eisenstadt v. Baird :: 405 U.S. 438 (1972) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The first case there is about right to privacy. The second case there is about equal protection. Neither one said that there is a right to contraceptives.

No. But irrelevant. The government can create trade embargos limiting people's ability to buy guns or certain foods. If we really break it down the government could deny all sorts of rights. Martial law is another example.

Actually the government is not supposed to make any laws regarding guns. They do it. But they're not supposed to.
 
Yep. Except the government is not supposed to be able to make laws baring you from owning guns.

Good distinction...

The government can however ban contraceptives as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it.

The first case there is about right to privacy. The second case there is about equal protection. Neither one said that there is a right to contraceptives.

The right to privacy is the point. The can't ban contraceptives because that would violate both privacy and equal protection of the 14th Amendment.

Actually the government is not supposed to make any laws regarding guns. They do it. But they're not supposed to.

I thought that they are not allowed to keep people from arming themselves. The 2nd doesn't say anything about not legislating certain types of weapons, just that they can't legislate all weapons (guns).
 
Good distinction...

Thank you.

The right to privacy is the point. The can't ban contraceptives because that would violate both privacy and equal protection of the 14th Amendment.

Actually they can ban contraceptives. I'm assuming that your thinking that they can't because of Roe v Wade regarding the privacy? The difference between the two is that one is about an action. The other is about an item. And if they ban the item all around then it won't come across the problem of equal protection because 1: Its applied to an item. 2: It is not singling any one specific person or group out.

I thought that they are not allowed to keep people from arming themselves. The 2nd doesn't say anything about not legislating certain types of weapons, just that they can't legislate all weapons (guns).

This is the common belief among those that are anti-gun. Don't let them fool ya. There is no exception in the 2nd amendment on the types of arms. IE: There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment which states "shall not be infringed....except" It categorically states "to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the period after infringed. That period has a note of finality to it.
 
Does it violate my 2nd amendment rights if my employer doesn't buy me a gun?

Yes
No

Watching bits and pieces of various MSNBC shows after the Hobby Lobby ruling the rabid leftists on MSNBC seem to be claiming or implying that a woman's 'right' to contraceptives is being violated because an employer is not being forced to pay for birth control due to religious beliefs of that employer.

This is hilarious. A dozen likes. :)
 
Thank you.



Actually they can ban contraceptives. I'm assuming that your thinking that they can't because of Roe v Wade regarding the privacy? The difference between the two is that one is about an action. The other is about an item. And if they ban the item all around then it won't come across the problem of equal protection because 1: Its applied to an item. 2: It is not singling any one specific person or group out.



This is the common belief among those that are anti-gun. Don't let them fool ya. There is no exception in the 2nd amendment on the types of arms. IE: There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment which states "shall not be infringed....except" It categorically states "to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the period after infringed. That period has a note of finality to it.

I submit to the contraceptives issue. You are right.

Regarding the gun issue... what constitutes "arms"? Any weapon? I don't think that the Founders had the first clue as to what technological advances could and would be made. Speech, religion, assembly, petition and the press are all pretty straight forward and had been done to death. They should have seen the evolution from the sword, to first explosive devices, to the rapier, to the musket, the application of pistols, etc. and applied that thinking to the 2nd.
 
Back
Top Bottom