copestag

well to specifically address the question posed in the topic.... since nobody seems to have yet..... there is a very clear distinction to those opposed to paying for someone elses contraception..... that being the religious groups who dont want their insurance to cover it for moral reasons (you of course remember thats the issue, not this whole anti-woman campaign the left wants it to be)

it boils down quite simply

contraception- prevents pregnancy (against the moral practices of some religions)

viagra- does not prevent pregnancy, or specifically cause any other immoral act (for that matter it actually assists in conception)

so for those who this entire issue concerns (the religious groups with moral issues.... you do of course remember these are the only groups involved here...... not this whole republicans hate women BS the left wants it to be)

contraceptives= bad......... viagra= who cares (unless youre using it immorally)

youre trying to compare 2 totally unrelated things

TxGoat

This is why the discussion should also include women. Birth control also helps some women cope with PMS symptoms. I'm guessing you didn't know that based on your post. If the right wing is trying to let religious groups impose their beliefs onto their employees' healthcare benefits, (the biggest issue here being recreational sex that is not used for procreation) then why isn't viagra not being discussed as well? It just seems like a double-standard to me.

BabyBlues

Because it is a double standard. The fact that the pill can help with other factors in a woman's life is not going to be taken into consideration. But if the man's mini-me can't have help getting to the party then its a national tragedy.
Insurance companies should not be able to pick and choose what they will subsidize. Either you cover it all or you cover none of it. If a catholic doesn't want to take birth control then don't. But if I want to take it then please shut your trap and move aside at the pharmacy counter.

__________________

copestag

yes a side effect of the pill is it 'can' help some women with their PMS symptoms........ but many better drugs can as well

cocaine can help with a lot of symptoms also

crystal meth has health benefits

heroine has health benefits

are we going to take the least common denominator of a drugs abilities and consider that a good reason to call it an awesome drug?

but thats not really even remotely close to the point is it????????

there are other belief systems in the world and some of them believe that birth control is immoral.... Im guessing you didnt know that based on your post

I bet..... no I dont need to bet.... Ive seen it with my own eyes on these forums..... you would argue a womans right to choose for herself when it comes to abortion...... yet you would deny a religions right to choose their own moral belief system?

take a step back for a minute and look at the big picture.... not everyone thinks the way you do...... and their belief is no more or no less valid than yours

NOBODY is preventing anyone from using birth control........ not a religion on the planet is preventing it......what they are doing is telling you its against the religious practices that you (obviously not YOU personally) choose to participate in

think of it another way....... religion is a club..... you arent being told that you MUST abide by the rules of the club....... you are simply being told that if you DO NOT abide by the rules then you CAN NOT be a member of the club

now if you can explain to me 1 good reason that a private entity........ which happens to be a religious organization (a constitutionally protected organization)..... should be forced to pay for something that violates one of their deepest core beliefs..... in the name of recreational sex (cant seem to remember anything in the constitution about getting your jollies off)...... Im all ears

TxGoat

Well if you're going to sugar coat it....

All kidding aside, it's good to get a woman's perspective in here. A man can argue for or against contraceptives until he's blue in the face, but until there's a way for a man to experience EVERYTHING that a woman experiences then we should never get to decide what is in their best interest.



I emboldened the error in your post. No one is saying THEY can not practice THEIR OWN set of morals. It's them trying to IMPOSE THEIR MORALS onto their employees. When you go to work for someone, you have made a contract with an employer to do your tasks within the hours that you and them have agreed upon. They have no right to govern your private life unless you're in a position where negative publicity could be harmful to the company. And if you are in that type of position then I definitely hope you're being compensated well.

Since you like examples, here's one, what if you were a regional manager of the company Chik-Fil-A and they don't believe in working on Sundays (none of their stores are opened on Sundays because they don't believe in it). One of the VPs of Chik-Fil-A sees you mowing your lawn on a Sunday, or working on your car. The next day you're fired because they believe that their employees are to follow their belief system. So what you're saying is you'd have NO PROBLEM with them firing you for working on a Sunday?

copestag

see once again youre confusing yourself..... its OK.... it cant be easy to understand something so simple

they are NOT trying to impose their moral belief system on their employees.... they are simply saying that they are not going to PAY for their employees immoral behaviour

whats being said here is very clear..... not one person has argued that the employees of religious organizations should be forbidden from using contraceptives.... they are simply saying they will not pay for them...... yes very confusing I know

as for your example........ again.... WAY OFF...... this is not a case of an employer telling their employees what they can or cannot do... this is an employer telling them they are not going to pay for what they choose to do recreationally if it violates their moral practices

a better example would be:

Im wanting to lose weight.... one of the side effects of sex is that it burns a lot of calories..... I would like my employer to pay for me to enjoy some hookers........ this of course is only so I can lose weight..... its not about the sex

pretty simple really............... PAY FOR IT YOURSELF

breadnatty08

This analogy is fine. But, how would it go for men wanting Viagra?

I want to have sex.....my unit is inadequate....I need my employer to pay for it to stand strong

You know, whether it's with a consenting partner in order to procreate or simply for pleasure it's still covered. This is the difference. If you think Viagra is helping men procreate as their respective religion would desire, a lot of it is used for aging men where I'm very skeptical that's what their goal is.

gamblor01

Probably shouldn't get involved here but I'm glad someone else agrees with me about this. Does anyone know if these same institutions are forced to cover viagra? I don't, but I think covering it at all is total hypocrisy. You might argue that it helps some men with ED have children, so it's ok because it is used for procreation. That may be true for some men but I have to believe this is the exception and not the rule. I seriously doubt there are a bunch of 60+ year old men out there who desperately want a child. Chances are they either already have grandchildren, or will soon.

So yes, contraception can be used to prevent extreme periods, treat ovarian cysts, etc. One of my girlfriends in high school used to take it because her periods were so painful and believe me, we never had sex (not that I wasn't trying). But I think this is the minority usage. But so what? It's a total double standard to cover viagra and not contraception.

I don't know that the government should be forcing institutions to cover contraceptives if that is against their beliefs. But if that same institution chooses to cover viagra (because I don't believe there is any law that mandates coverage for it) then that is just discriminatory, and it is illegal for an employer to discriminate based on gender.

The problem is that rarely are issues as black and white as the politicians make them out to be. But it makes for better politics to polarize the nation. They are all crooks and liars if you ask me.

BabyBlues

This about sums it up

OutofDate1980

The topic is insurance coverage for reproductive health care. As contraception and abortion are matters of health I don't understand the claims I shouldn't pay for it and/or it's against my religious tenets.

Health insurance covers medical care, reproductive health has and is medical care. Your employee or yourself provides this insurance, now mandated by law and reproductive care is part of the services that insurance must cover.

No one is forced to claim payment for any medical procedure, if a religious organization is opposed to a medical procedure then it's their responsibility to persuade it's members not to utilize said medical procedures. It's not the government's role to enforce said organizations tenets upon its members.

If an organization doesn't wish to obey the law, then they should withdraw from public commerce. Only the government is mandated to provide education, private organizations may also provide this service, but are not mandated to.

Last edited by OutofDate1980; March 17th, 2012 at 06:19 PM. Reason: Format

9to5cynic

What about this as a possible solution, resolving the issue for all parties involved.

My proposal is fairly simple, a new form of currency. The religious entity that is morally opposed to so many things (contraceptives, drugs, and I would assume alcohol <but I'm no religious scholar>) would pay their employees with a currency related to them (catholic coins or something like that, name it a good name and everyone is on board). So as Johnny B picks up his paycheck from the Catholic Clothes Store, they hand him a check worth 500 CC. He brings in his bills that are due, and the newly constructed Catholic Church Store pays the bills with US currency for him, taking some of his Catholic Coin in a form of exchange. Then Johnny can buy all of his approved product from this store, because we'd hate for his moral fibers to break.

So we've now got those opposed to this taken care of, so what about those in favor. Well, this actually takes care of that too. Because we'd just set up some sort of proxy company. Church organizations buy insurance from X. and X from Y. Y is providing all the coverage. No one has any clue what they are really getting from Y except the employee. Everybody wins. What you don't know can't hurt you right?

Okay, so there is probably a bit of sarcasm thrown in here to lighten the mood of an otherwise touchy subject, but I think this is applicable. Just like Swift's A Modest Proposal.

-----------------

Okay, so, back to the issue. On page one, someone posted that despite religious tenants, religious companies are still required to abide by US laws in regards to taxes, healthcare and employee benefits. I think that sums up the issue. It's law, deal with it.

It isn't infringing on the right of the religious, it is protecting the rights of everyone. That's the way I look at it.

And should we be surprised by the double standard negatively impacting women? No, it's been going on for centuries.

As a man, I'm sorry women that we are giving you the short end of the stick. Forgive us someday, okay?

__________________
Nandroid Backup Script|unanswered threads|BabyBlues Breast Cancer Pledge

Last edited by 9to5cynic; March 17th, 2012 at 10:44 PM. Reason: formatting and such.

copestag

the point is youre trying to create a strawman by bringing up viagra

religious employers are opposed to the mandate because they will be paying for something that violates one of their core beliefs

they dont care about viagra....... it has nothing to do with the subject whatsoever

but to satisfy the curiousity of those confusedly believing in some double standard.........

these same groups also oppose paying for vasectomies and condoms...... no strawman there.... unlike the viagra argument

9to5cynic

Okay, but birth control can be used to provide relief to women with heavy periods. Just like viagra could be used for recreation sex.

Instead of getting "the pill" or "birth control" women should just ask for a pill of estrogen and progestin. It doesn't have the (I guess) negative association of 'controlling' birth.

I guess I just don't understand this issue. To me it seems like a 'no-brainer' and should be solely up to the woman.

--
EDIT:
Okay, so I've got another question. Why is preventing pregnancy 'bad' on a religious ethic level? Is it because they are tampering with something that should be left to god? That's how I would view this, but (again) I'm not a religious scholar.

I can see how a religion wouldn't want a mortal tampering with the divine workings of their deity. But is it not also the divine workings of said deity if a particular man can't stand at full attention?

To me, assisting in conception and trying to prevent it are one in the same. Pregnancy isn't 100% regardless, and no contraception is 100% either. So, if it really was God's Will, then it would happen regardless right?

--
EDIT2: Last Edit, I swear.

but we could also say that extreme pornography 'can' help a man with his ED symptoms.... so should that also be covered?

Last edited by 9to5cynic; March 18th, 2012 at 12:05 AM.

TxGoat

Then answer just ONE question, yes or no. If a company is owned by someone whose religion doesn't believe in ANY medical treatments, then is that company exempt from providing ANY medical coverage to its employees?

breadnatty08

Well, unfortunately, you can make this argument for nearly every form of medicine. I think like it was brought up earlier, Viagra can (should?) be used in the aid of procreating. Is this generally the case? Of course not, but I think that's what the church is "thinking".
While birth control "can" be used solely for the aid in heavy periods etc., it's "side effects" also include blocking a pregnancy-no good.

seaking

it might be covered by insurance but most likely only pays for less than a percent of the price, and who's going to dispute the viagra with insurance on the phone?

JimmyRayBob

Before Obamacare - no companies are REQUIRED to provide health insurance, right? So I guess that makes the answer .... YES.

Ridgerunner665

This is what you get when you mix politics, religion, healthcare, and sex...a cluster****! (sorry, but no other way to put it...and I did "bleep" it)

Politicians should stay in politics and leave the healthcare, religion, and sex out of it...

In my opinion...if an insurance company don't wanna pay for contraceptives they should pay for the alternatives (getting "fixed")...for both men and women. They may do this...I don't know...my wife gets "the pill" for other reasons, as do many other women...in these cases, the pill is truly "health" care and should be covered.

Viagra...should NEVER be paid for by an insurance company...thats just plain and simple...when your "stuff" quits working...face it, the fun is over.

That said...I hope mine still works when I'm 90, but if it don't thats OK too...I figure I got plenty when I was younger, that'll have to do me.

My Grandad (the man who raised me) used to say...you will only get so many erections in your life (he did not call them erections)...so don't waste them.

You see, he understood that all good things must come to an end...we get old, its a fact of life.

EDITED TO ADD: That may read in a way that says I'm against religion...I'm not, I was raised a Baptist...and know the Bible quite well...religion is very important, more so than politics...but the 2 just don't mix very well (history proves this)

Last edited by Ridgerunner665; March 19th, 2012 at 09:52 PM.

9to5cynic

That applies to many things too, like phones. ;D
And it would make a great sig.


Back on topic, I do like your idea of a choice. If you don't cover A, you must cover B. So that way people can still get the care they need, even if it isn't how they'd like it. OR, people should get $XXX towards healthcare and should be able to pick what they'd like. So the work knows that Johnny B. got $XXX towards his heathcare plan, but that's all they'd know.

A.Nonymous

I think that would be a nice compromise. Problem is people would spend all of it on frivolous things and then get pissed when they were actually sick, but couldn't get coverage. Sure they had used all their money on elective surgeries, but that's irrevlevant. They're sick and should be covered right? And some employers would argue that since they're footing the bill it's not unreasonable that they have some say in how the money is spent. That's not too unreasonable either. I like the idea though.

ElasticNinja

Interesting how the Catholic Church changes its beliefs around the world. In Africa they want gays hanged or jailed, but in Europe they can deal with them, as long as they don't marry. Likewise, in Europe Catholic hospitals give out contraception and Catholic schools give comprehensive sex-ed, but in America its immoral and wrong?

Then again, the world was flat and 6000 years old, then suddenly it wasn't.

Yup, and how about, instead of placing the burden on struggling business, the government contributes that money, and works to keep premiums low and comprehensive. Or yano, the normal thing in much of the world.

__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!

Last edited by ElasticNinja; March 20th, 2012 at 02:00 PM.

TxGoat

It would be nice if we could take the profit motive out of the healthcare industry, but I think it's such a large industry now that those in the industry won't let their tidy profits go without a fight. Our healthcare system is definitely broken in the U.S. I can't go to my general care practitioner without seeing pens with pharmaceutical names, calendars with allergy medicine names, and clocks with cholesterol lowering medicine names on it. When you're sick, you'll pay just about any price to get better, and I personally think it's a moral issue.

ylexot

For me, I think employers should be free to provide whatever health insurance plan they want (or none at all). If it doesn't cover what you want, opt out of it and buy your own or buy a supplemental plan.

Actually, I think the best system would be if no employers (nor the gov) provided coverage. People should choose (or not choose) whatever insurance they want.

ElasticNinja

Haha, well, dont be so naive to think that's not the case in Europe too. That's a rubbish indicator of how good or bad your healthcare system is I've seen that everywhere.

You're right about the rest of course. Dont think people dont profit from "non-profit" healthcare providers too.

Stinky Stinky

Hmm I dunno man,

I think If you think like that, then why bother doing anything that gives you a reward at all?

Reward system works pretty much in everyday life and it is the only thing at the end of the day that makes the world go round.

If no one is going to get a profit / reward at the end of the day then nothing would get done... simple as that I guess.

"Money makes the world go round"

But to get back on the topic,

I think there is no problem with a business / company selling you something that covers Viagra but does not cover "the pill".

And I think your topic is slightly slightly flawed in a way...

Because one is to have sex... and one is to prevent the birth of a child / pregnancy... (most of the time but not always)

They are 2 very different things.

Yes they might both result in "having a good time" but they are not the same thing.

Let me explain,

Some people that are not old can have erectile dysfunction... it is not just old people.

Some people that have diabetes... kidney failure... smokers... anti depressant drugs can cause it too (I have personal experience with this)... they can have erectile dysfunction even though they are not old.

Ia m very young and have sexual problems because of my anti depressant drugs....

Some times it is not the persons fault that they can't get it up...

Some times Viagra is actually needed to help people that have sexual problems but can't do it naturally other wise... simply put.

If you want to get technical... Viagra is NOT only for recreational purposes...

It has constructive uses for people that other wise can't get it up that is beyond their controll.

Source:

Erectile dysfunction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying that Viagra is only used for fun???

That is how I read it.

but in any event... if you don't like their services then it is simple, don't buy their services.

That is the beauty of a free society.

I hope I am not being rude here.

If you don't like their services then just don't buy their insurance services.

Or better yet... if it bothers you so much why not start your own business / company that works in insurance and provide what ever services you want to for the world???

If it is such an irritating thing in your life... then surely you should make your own company that would offer better services?

I hope I am not being rude just saying what I think is correct

__________________
I Stink... Therefore I am.

TxGoat

The only reason I'd like to see profit removed is you see doctors over-prescribing medicine to patients, you go to a hospital to visit a deathly sick relative and they charge you to park your vehicle. You're not going to refuse to pay, because you have a loved one clinging to life. Yes, it's a pipe dream, but I think it's easier to gouge people when their health hangs in the balance. I'm not even going to mention how they mostly treat the symptom and don't really address the condition. Like the saying goes, there's no money in the cure.




NSW

mpw

You at the same time undermine and support your own argument there.

You undermine it because you're wrong; contraception is only ever used to prevent pregnancy.

But I think your highlighting a misunderstanding which could be the answer. The insurance companies should be covering the treatment of an illness, not the supply of a medicine.

Surely they should cover illness X, not the supply of medicine Y?

A.Nonymous

???

Since when?

mpw

?????

I don't have an exact date, but at least 23years

TxGoat

Are you talking outside of the United States or in a southern red state where women's reproductive health is as oppressed as a gay disabled minority with a lisp?



I actually knew a woman that suffered from endometriosis, and her suffering was quite heart wrenching. She couldn't function on certain days out of the month. Birth control helped some with the symptoms, but her case was so severe that she still found it easier to stay at home and silently suffer.


Your lack of knowledge is a perfect example of this issue, as well as some of the anti-piracy laws that our leaders are trying to pass. Only taking into account one side of the argument (typically the side that has the deepest pockets), and trying to base a decision on that input alone is why the GOP was lambasted by women's rights groups. The picture below does a good job of demonstrating the GOP's mindset.





And then when a woman DOES try to speak out, the GOP's big mouthed-mouth piece, Limbaugh calls her a slut. I actually think the medications he takes should be cut out of insurance policies before the Pill is cut. If he had a more active lifestyle and didn't eat like a glutton, he wouldn't need most of the medication he's on.

TxGoat

Stating that contraception ("the pill" since this thread is in reference to THAT specific form of contraception) is ONLY prescribed for birth control is a false statement. You're more than welcome to site references to back up your statement. You state it's been 23 years, so feel free to post any references to back up that claim.

Last edited by Steven58; April 4th, 2012 at 01:42 PM.

mpw

Aspirin is a pain killer, yet Aspirin can be prescribed to people with no pain to lessen their risk of heart attack. This is because it is a drug with more than the one use for which it is normally prescribed.

A contraceptive is just that; a contraceptive. A drug(in pill form) designed to prevent pregnancy. The same drug may also be prescribed for other uses, but this prescription is NOT to prevent pregnancy and therefore the prescription is not a contraceptive.

Which is what I said originally, insurance cover should be for the treatment, not the medicine.

If a new drug came out that cost $10 and was designed to give you slightly more attractive elbows, I would hope no insurance company would approve its use through their health plans.

But what if it was found that a side effect of the elbow beautifier was a cure for cancer; do they deny it's prescription because it's just an elbow drug?

Last edited by Steven58; April 4th, 2012 at 01:42 PM. Reason: personal quote removed

A.Nonymous

Contraception is regularly used to regulate periods among women who aren't even sexually active. The Pill is also used to address all kinds of various diseases.

copestag

I think youre missing his point....... its impossible to prescribe contraceptives for any purpose other than preventing pregnancy..... by definition contraception means prevent pregnancy

hes calling out semantics in the characterization

if you want to say the pill or any other drug can be used for other purposes then say the pill or the other drug descriptor

contraceptives can only be used for contraception..... prevention of pregnancy

his other point is drugs should be prescribed to treat illnesses...... not broad prescriptions to cover any side effects

if you want to prescribe the pill for <insert side effect here> then do so...... but dont do so under the false pretense that its contraception and it should be free

of course that opens a whole new ball of wax....... because most of these drugs arent approved for treatment of their side effects....... so without the false pretense of claiming its for contraception... most of these prescriptions would be illegal

TxGoat

A lot of drugs are approved to treat just the symptom and not the root cause. Look at most of the antacid medication out there, it mostly neutralizes the acid, but it doesn't address why our body is creating that excess acid.

I can't imagine what the healthcare industry would do if the government decided to ban all medications that didn't treat the actual disease, but just treated the symptom. You'd have to get rid of most cold/flu medicines.

copestag

very true......... and butterflies are approved to prevent frowns

HOWEVER

these medications are not approved to treat the symptoms for which they are being used.......... they are approved as contraceptives...... the doctors prescribe them as contraceptives deceptively in the knowledge that they will alleviate the symptoms of another issue (assuming they actually do.... not being a physician or pharmacist I do not know..... of course neither does the doctor since he only takes the drugmakers word for it anyhow)

just applying common sense logic here but if these drugs can do all these wonderful things....... and drugmakers are such greedy Aholes....... why havent they pursued this course to begin with? makes you believe there are very specific reasons why 'the pill' isnt prescribed as PMS medicine

to bring it full circle..... using your logic.... viagra should be a higher priority than any contraceptive...... after all...... if we're going by side effects as the reasoning.... I think you would agree that obesity and the related health issues associated (to numerous to name them all..... many of which are life threatening) is a far worse issue in this country than women with cramps...... and we know one of the side effects of using viagra can be weight loss....... so we should be prescribing viagra as a diet pill?

as has been said many times about many laws and practices...... if you dont like it change it........ in this case...... instead of being liars and pretending to prescribe contraception for the ulterior motive of treating other symptoms........ then because you are claiming to prescribe contraceptives you demand its a womans right (which I dont know what nutjob ever came up with this notion to begin with) to get free medication

instead of being deceitful heres an idea...... lobby the FDA to approve these drugs to treat the symptoms for which you claim they alleviate (my guess is theres a good reason the greedy Ahole drugmakers havent done this) .... as a side effect.... then after careful research and approvals the healthcare industry may pay for them as medication

Last edited by copestag; April 1st, 2012 at 01:08 AM.

Steven58

Guys,

Let's keep it respectful. There are strong opinions in this section of forum. Just to remind you, strong opinions and strong arguments are allowed and encouraged. Snarky and personal attacks are not. Such comments will be deleted and posts infracted accordingly. Please play nice.

Steven

__________________

cmybliss

Taken directly from the package insert of an Ortho Novum, an oral contraception:

NON-CONTRACEPTIVE HEALTH BENEFITS

The following non-contraceptive health benefits related to the use of combined oral contraceptives are supported by epidemiological studies which largely utilized oral contraceptive formulations containing estrogen doses exceeding 0.035 mg of ethinyl estradiol or 0.05 mg mestranol.

Effects on menses:

increased menstrual cycle regularity decreased blood loss and decreased incidence of iron deficiency anemia decreased incidence of dysmenorrhea Effects related to inhibition of ovulation:

decreased incidence of functional ovarian cysts decreased incidence of ectopic pregnancies Other effects:

decreased incidence of fibroadenomas and fibrocystic disease of the breast decreased incidence of acute pelvic inflammatory disease decreased incidence of endometrial cancer decreased incidence of ovarian cancer


These are all legitimate reasons to prescribe "the pill".

While I don't agree with copestag on anything else, I do agree with his statement that the labeled usage of oral contraceptives should be changed to include these usages. That is, if it hasn't been done already. (I don't keep up with drug labeling. Next time I see my O.B. I'll ask him)

As a woman who has used the pill for some of these non-contraceptive benefits, I'll admit I'm a bit offended by men who are against b.c. being paid for by employers. These ailments are real and debilitating. They cause women to loose valuable time at work and with their families. I've yet to hear of a man being unable to make it to work because he couldn't get it up. (No p*rn jokes please!) I don't b*tch and moan about paying for viagra, as Stinky said, e.d. effects young men as well as old men. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

As others have stated, if religions are opposed to b.c. because conception is God's dominion, they should also be opposed to viagra, because it is God's will that Mr. Jones's winky no longer functions.

mpw

Any religious argument in relation to what medicines can be prescribed is pointless.

While I'll happily accept a persons argument to not allow certain drugs and procedures based on social or economic reasoning, anyone bringing up religion is showing no reasoning at all, and therefore their argument is void.(Obviously if they choose not to have a procedure or medicine for themselves based on their religious belief that's fine, I'm talking imposing such beliefs on others)

cmybliss

Exactly. Well stated.

ylexot

I think you're missing the point. The Catholic church isn't trying to impose restrictions on people. They just don't want to provide those services to people. If you work for them and want an abortion or contraceptives, you are still free to go get them. The church just doesn't want to pay for it because it is against their religion.

mpw

Would you also agree that if it were against an employer's religion to maintain the ladies toilets in a hygienic state, while providing clean hygienic. faeces-free cotton hand towels etc. in the gents, that this would be okay too?

ylexot

Yes. Don't like it, don't work for them.

mpw

So if Wal-mart decided that on religious grounds it wouldn't employ homosexuals, or hispanics that would be okay?

Should landlords be able to evict people on religious grounds?

ylexot

Sure...it doesn't even have to be for religious reasons. Want to guess how long they would remain in business?

Evict? No. Refuse to rent to somebody in the first place, sure...and again, it doesn't even have to be for religious reasons.

Non-inclusiveness negatively impacts the profitability of a business. Do I care if someone wants to shoot themselves in the foot? No.

mpw

So what if a tenant finds (the wrong) God while living in my property, I'm stuck with him against my religious beliefs?!
What if a business makes the decision not to serve blacks based on race rather than religion is that still okay? and if so why?

ylexot

You (presumably) signed a contract with them. You have to honor that contract.
Yes, because businesses should be allowed to deny service for whatever lame-brained reason the owner wants. They're only hurting themselves by denying paying customers. Thus, their business will fail and you won't have to deal with them any more. That's how the "real" free market works. I say "real" because we don't have a real free market in the US.

mpw

Well I gotta say that you are at least making a credible argument, not that I can agree.

While the attitude that you should be allowed to do anything (except breach contract of course!), and that people must take 100% responsibility for themselves sounds fair; I just can't believe it would ever work in practice. Thankfully.

I only have to think of how many of my friends and family would have suffered and died had they had to live in your market-lead utopia; and equally I sickens me to think of the type of selfish, uncaring, manipulative, bigoted, hateful that would prosper on such suffering.

IOWA

I am a firm believer in 100% personal responsibility. Don't like something? Change it. Nobody said changing would be easy, but it's never impossible unless you don't try.

Also, just a suggestion, but please review the forum policy on naming calling and such, it's in my sig.

__________________
Useful links: The Rules | The Team | FAQ | Unanswered Threads | My LTEvo Review.

donating is the easy part. BabyBlues actually has to do the walking!

mpw

It's easy to say, but if the world ran with a dog eat dog attitude, and I can't delude myself that isn't what would happen any more than a full communism could never work, it's the people who are least able that would be left with nothing.
Don't like being disabled? Change it... and no, that's not easy is it; never impossible?
Living within a plural society peacefully and caring for those that you may not totally agree with, or even like, IS had, but I don't think I'd change it for what some people, often those able-bodied, wealthy and educated, see as 'fair' because they 'earned' what they have
Not sure why you feel the need to bring it up, as I see nowhere that I'm contravening the rules, but feel free to point it out.