Blood Transfusions

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Jul 1, 2014.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,068
    Likes Received:
    214
    Suppose you worked for a company whose private owners did not beleive in blood transfusions.

    Would you have a problme is blood transfusions was NOT covered in your medical insurance
     
  2. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    The question isn't about what is offered or not. The question is free enterprise.
     
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    155
    You have touched on a potentially huge problem created by the current Supreme Court. In essence they have ruled that corporations are theocracies and can pick and choose what health conditions they will or will not cover depending on the owners or board of directors said religious beliefs. I make the prediction this is going to lead to some terrible things happening to American workers in the future.

    Salty, to answer your question I would protest this corporate policy. But with the decision yesterday I do not see how it would be declared illegal to not fund blood transfusions or any other medical practice said corporation says they do not believe in using.


     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    One of the dumber things said on this board.
     
  5. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Despite the inane, self-serving and politically insane statements of one member here, it isn't an issue that will come up. The SCOTUS decision focuses narrowly on "morning after" contraception. That is the only subject addressed in the majority opinion, and no wild-eyed speculation by the radical leftist above/below -- depending on how you order your threads -- to the contrary will change that. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case, finding the contraceptive mandate in its current form "unlawful." Only the contraceptive mandate. No other part of the law is affected.

    If the decision were broader so as to allow Christian-owned companies subjecft to the ACA to opt out of any coverage they found objectionable on the basis of faith, such as Salty's OP suggesting blood transfusions, I'd figure I'd have to pay for blood transfusions and get on with life while I looked for either another job or attempted to locate supplemental coverage elsewhere.
     
  6. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    155
    Giving you the benefit of the doubt Rev. I do not think you have sat down and give this careful though philosophy. Basically the SC decision does the following:


    Not only has this court declared corporations persons, but now have said those corporations can impose religious beliefs on their employees.

    How can a corporation have a religious belief?
    What other beliefs can a corporation force upon its employees?
    Can a Catholic owned corporation fire any employee who buys and uses contraceptive devices?
    Can a Jehovah's Witness owned corporation refuse any and all health coverage for its employees?
    Can a corporation use religious beliefs in determining their hiring practices?
    What about the religious beliefs of the employees? How are they protected?

    Just a few questions that come to mind. There will be many more issues brought forth, and many more cases in many areas that will be brought before the courts.

    This is a huge can of worms the SC has opened.

    P.S. I assume you also realize this decision gives the Democrats another huge round of artillery in their accusations that the GOP is at war against women.
     
    #6 Crabtownboy, Jul 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2014
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    Here you go being inconsistent again. When it comes to corporations feeding the homeless then all of the sudden they can be treated as individuals. I know extremists like yourself like to have it both ways but it will not stand here.

    And claiming it makes them theocracies is just stupid.
     
  8. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    155
    I have never agreed that corporations are individuals. I have said their policies, made by management and they are individuals, can be moral or immoral. Stop derailing the thread Rev. Stay on the topic.

    This decision will result in much mischief.

    A theocracy can make and enforce their religious belief on those under it. Corporations can now force the religious beliefs of the owners or board of directors on the employees.
    http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-the-corporation-cult-creeping-theocracy/

    Religious Liberty and the Coming Corporate Theocracy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-w-lynn/supreme-court-religious-freedom_b_4956018.html


    I predict within five years you are going to be railing against one or more of the ramifications that come about because of this decision.
     
    #8 Crabtownboy, Jul 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2014
  9. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Can you give us one scenario where this would happen ?
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    UH no, you are clearly inconsistent and want it both ways so you have the availability to condemn corps in any way you like. It is called liberalism and it is a disease.
     
  11. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    In the military, a religious belief has to be verified as valid by a certified person. For example, if I tried to get out of duty on a Sunday, I could get a chaplain to back me up and say that I do indeed go to church. Then the military is obligated to accommodate my religious belief, mission permitting.

    I think this will be the same thing. If someone suddenly claims that their religious beliefs do not allow ER visits, and so they shouldn't have to pay for them, that'd never fly. It's not a recognized and common religious belief.

    Now, concerning blood transfusions, that is a common, legitimate belief. It could happen. But I seriously doubt it. But to play along with the hypothetical, I would say that if finding a different job was an option, that's what I'd go with. If not, I'd have to find supplemental coverage. I wouldn't agree with the policy, but like I said, it's a legitimate, common belief. It's their right.
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,068
    Likes Received:
    214
    NO ONE HAS ANSWERED MY QUESTION YET.

    It is a simple yes or no.

    For myself, the answer is NO!
    If that is their policy - so be it. If I dont like it, I can go elsewhere.
     
  13. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would agree.
     
  14. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    155
    Watch what happens over the next five years. It will become clear -- even to you.


     
  15. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    Aw, we posted at the same time, Salty. I answered you. Short answer, "no".
     
  16. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    :laugh:

    So your answer is "no, I can't."
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    Hehe no he can't and did you notice that he asserted that "even you" will be able to see it.
     
  18. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    Double post.
     
    #18 Sapper Woody, Jul 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2014
  19. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yup. A petty, bitter man is our C.T.Boy.
     
  20. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    155
    ROFL, oh Bro. C. I am not bitter. I am so blessed by God that there is no room for bitterness. I am a very happy person, but not blind to what is being done to our country. What I am is sorry for your younger folk who are going to have to live in the world this Supreme Court are creating. I do not have that many years left. I do not envy you, your kids and their kids and the world they will have to live in.

    As I said within 5 years you will be screaming over some of the ramifications of this ruling. Those will not matter to my personal life .... but I truly feel sorry for you and others who simply refuse to see what is being done to you, not just in this ruling but also in other rulings.
     

Share This Page

Loading...