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
Blood Transfusions
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Salty, Jul 1, 2014.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
The question isn't about what is offered or not. The question is free enterprise.
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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. -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And claiming it makes them theocracies is just stupid. -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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. -
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. -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
I would agree.
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
So your answer is "no, I can't." -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Double post.
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Yup. A petty, bitter man is our C.T.Boy.
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
Page 1 of 2