Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The Attack on Religious Liberty Continues? When did it start?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Man of Mind
Nov 16, 2012, 10:21:02 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
..
>> Why do employers have the right to force their religious dogma on
>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>
> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee
> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
--Why do you 'conveniently forget' that?
>
> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
..
>> Why do employers have the right to force their religious dogma on
>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>
> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee
> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
--Why do you 'conveniently forget' that?
David Hartung
Nov 16, 2012, 11:01:18 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
> ..
> >> Why do employers have the right to force their religious dogma on
>>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>>
>> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
>
> Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
You tell me.
> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
> ..
> >> Why do employers have the right to force their religious dogma on
>>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>>
>> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
>
> Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
>> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee
>> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
>
> That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
Man of Mind
Nov 16, 2012, 11:21:16 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
....
>
> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Why do employers have the right to force their religious dogma on
>>>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>>>
>>> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
>>
>> Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
>
> You tell me.
From all who buy what the employer's employees 'produce', David.
>>>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>>>
>>> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
>>
>> Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
>
> You tell me.
Similarly, if we do not insure these employees as needed, then
it costs all of us more in the long run. Didn't you know that?
>>> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee
>>> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
>>
>> That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
>
> What has that to do with the discussion?
with your claims and fallacy arguments about 'religious beliefs'?
--Your failed 'religious' ideology leaves much to be desired, it seems..
Man of Mind
Nov 16, 2012, 11:32:55 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 9:59 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/16/2012 05:56 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 6:11:06 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 04:42 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45:46 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
.....
>>>>> how is the employer forcing his dogma on the employee?
>>>>
>>>> You don't care. You are a typical preacher with control issues. The
>>>> ones the arch conservative Barry Goldwater hated. Health insurance
>>>> is health insurance no matter how much you assholes hate women. You
>>>> bastards are in deep shit over killing that poor woman in Ireland.
>>>> Did you see the response from right to die?
>>>
>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>
>> By refusing to pay for reproductive care. It is none of his business
>> what his employees do. He is not moral he is controlling.
>
> So by refusing to pay for someone else's care, I am forcing my beliefs
You switch from third-person to first-person so quickly..
> I am forcing my beliefs on that person,
You are denying medical benefits to women, because you think
they'll want an abortion, or birth-control medication, and
what about some other health options related to menopause?
Yeah, your religious beliefs' prevent you from thinking the
entire range of health care options through, like somehow
you would know better than a woman, right? Bullspit, David..
> despite the fact that I am not preventing them from
> paying for it themselves
It would be cheaper, in the long run, for all concerned
to pay for it. Your 'beliefs' cannot be expected to make
wise choices about women's health care options..
--Because it is based upon your failed ideology and bigotry..
>
> On 11/16/2012 05:56 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 6:11:06 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 04:42 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45:46 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
.....
>>>>> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee is
>>>>> free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself. Exactly
>>>>> how is the employer forcing his dogma on the employee?
>>>>
>>>> You don't care. You are a typical preacher with control issues. The
>>>> ones the arch conservative Barry Goldwater hated. Health insurance
>>>> is health insurance no matter how much you assholes hate women. You
>>>> bastards are in deep shit over killing that poor woman in Ireland.
>>>> Did you see the response from right to die?
>>>
>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>
>> By refusing to pay for reproductive care. It is none of his business
>> what his employees do. He is not moral he is controlling.
>
> So by refusing to pay for someone else's care, I am forcing my beliefs
You switch from third-person to first-person so quickly..
> I am forcing my beliefs on that person,
You are denying medical benefits to women, because you think
they'll want an abortion, or birth-control medication, and
what about some other health options related to menopause?
Yeah, your religious beliefs' prevent you from thinking the
entire range of health care options through, like somehow
you would know better than a woman, right? Bullspit, David..
> despite the fact that I am not preventing them from
> paying for it themselves
It would be cheaper, in the long run, for all concerned
to pay for it. Your 'beliefs' cannot be expected to make
wise choices about women's health care options..
--Because it is based upon your failed ideology and bigotry..
David Hartung
Nov 16, 2012, 11:32:50 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 10:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
> ....
>>>>> Why do employers have the right to force their religious dogma on
>>>>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
>>>
>>> Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
>>
>> You tell me.
>
> From all who buy what the employer's employees 'produce', David.
trying to change the subject?
> On 11/16/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
> ....
>>>>> Why do employers have the right to force their religious dogma on
>>>>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
>>>
>>> Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
>>
>> You tell me.
>
> From all who buy what the employer's employees 'produce', David.
We are discussing the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty, and
how the government is ignoring that guarantee.
> Similarly, if we do not insure these employees as needed, then
> it costs all of us more in the long run. Didn't you know that?
constitutional right to exercise my religious faith?
>>>> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee
>>>> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
>>>
>>> That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
>>
>> What has that to do with the discussion?
>
> Why do I have to explain the obvious contradictions involved
> with your claims and fallacy arguments about 'religious beliefs'?
Message has been deleted
Man of Mind
Nov 16, 2012, 11:50:59 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/16/2012 10:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
......
>
> On 11/16/2012 10:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/13/2012 09:41 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Why do employers have the right to force their religious dogma on
>>>>>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
>>>>
>>>> Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
>>>
>>> You tell me.
>>
>> From all who buy what the employer's employees 'produce', David.
>
> trying to change the subject?
Trying to avoid my answers, David?
>>>>>> workers. The money is coming from the customers not the company.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Does not the employer pay the premium on the insurance?
>>>>
>>>> Where does the money come from that employer would pay this with?
>>>
>>> You tell me.
>>
>> From all who buy what the employer's employees 'produce', David.
>
> trying to change the subject?
> We are discussing the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty,
And what specific 'liberties' were you speaking of, specifically,
besides religious institutions not wanting to pay for women's
health care options that you don't like because of your bigotry
and fallacy argumentation?
> and how the government is ignoring that guarantee.
range of health care options that would cost all of us a lot
less.. Think about it, David, you've just stepped in it again..
>> Similarly, if we do not insure these employees as needed, then
>> it costs all of us more in the long run. Didn't you know that?
>
> So in order to save you money,
with your usual fallacy arguments..
> you have the authority to restrain
authority to prevent your religious beliefs from causing
harm, and can restrain you from espousing political issues
under the false guise of 'exercises of religious faith', too..
>>>>> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee
>>>>> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
>>>>
>>>> That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
>>>
>>> What has that to do with the discussion?
>>
>> Why do I have to explain the obvious contradictions involved
>> with your claims and fallacy arguments about 'religious beliefs'?
>
> We are discussion religious freedom, not cost-benefit.
in that your 'religious beliefs' do not trump federal law,
nor will those beliefs be allowed to become law and as a
result become a 'state religion', per the Constitution..
So, to answer the question, which you avoided earlier"
"Why do employers have the right to force their
religious dogma on workers."
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 8:15:47 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 9:59 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> So by refusing to pay for someone else's care, I am forcing my beliefs
>
> You switch from third-person to first-person so quickly..
So I am not perfect.
> On 11/16/2012 9:59 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> So by refusing to pay for someone else's care, I am forcing my beliefs
>
> You switch from third-person to first-person so quickly..
>> I am forcing my beliefs on that person,
>
> You are denying medical benefits to women, because you think
> they'll want an abortion, or birth-control medication, and
> what about some other health options related to menopause?
believe to be sinful. That is my right. The woman is free to pay for
such products and services out of her pocket, or to find an employer who
does pay for such services.
> Yeah, your religious beliefs' prevent you from thinking the
> entire range of health care options through, like somehow
> you would know better than a woman, right? Bullspit, David..
>> despite the fact that I am not preventing them from
>> paying for it themselves
>
> It would be cheaper, in the long run, for all concerned
> to pay for it. Your 'beliefs' cannot be expected to make
> wise choices about women's health care options..
is best for all concerned.
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 8:18:14 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/16/2012 10:44 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
> In article <u9mdnZl2uqrujjrN...@giganews.com>,
The business is owned by people, or a person. It is that person's rights
which are being violated.
> In article <u9mdnZl2uqrujjrN...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
>> We are discussing the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty, and
>
> Which applies to people, not abstractions like businesses.
>
>> We are discussing the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty, and
>
The business is owned by people, or a person. It is that person's rights
which are being violated.
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 8:22:18 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> "Why do employers have the right to force their
> religious dogma on workers."
>
> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
This seems to be the core of your argument. YOU have not yet provided a
> "Why do employers have the right to force their
> religious dogma on workers."
>
> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
rational explanation of just how this is being done by employers who
refuse to pay for certain health care based upon their religious beliefs.
Message has been deleted
Man of Mind
Nov 17, 2012, 8:59:01 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>
> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
"We, the People, of the United States of America, have
the authority to prevent your religious beliefs from
causing harm, and can restrain you from espousing
political issues under the false guise of 'exercises
of religious faith'"
> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
> their religious beliefs.
You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
--Which you keep trying to avoid mentioning..
>
> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>
>> On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 10:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
.......
>> On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 10:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee
>>>>>>> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
>>>>>
>>>>> What has that to do with the discussion?
>>>>
>>>> Why do I have to explain the obvious contradictions involved
>>>> with your claims and fallacy arguments about 'religious beliefs'?
>>>
>>> We are discussion religious freedom, not cost-benefit.
>>
>> Your 'religious freedom' is anything but "freedom" it seems,
>> in that your 'religious beliefs' do not trump federal law,
>> nor will those beliefs be allowed to become law and as a
>> result become a 'state religion', per the Constitution..
>>
>> So, to answer the question, which you avoided earlier"
>>
>>>>>>> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
>>>>>
>>>>> What has that to do with the discussion?
>>>>
>>>> Why do I have to explain the obvious contradictions involved
>>>> with your claims and fallacy arguments about 'religious beliefs'?
>>>
>>> We are discussion religious freedom, not cost-benefit.
>>
>> Your 'religious freedom' is anything but "freedom" it seems,
>> in that your 'religious beliefs' do not trump federal law,
>> nor will those beliefs be allowed to become law and as a
>> result become a 'state religion', per the Constitution..
>>
>> So, to answer the question, which you avoided earlier"
>>
>> "Why do employers have the right to force their
>> religious dogma on workers."
>>
>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>
> This seems to be the core of your argument.
"Seems to be"? Are you trying to reframe what I wrote?
>> religious dogma on workers."
>>
>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>
> This seems to be the core of your argument.
"We, the People, of the United States of America, have
the authority to prevent your religious beliefs from
causing harm, and can restrain you from espousing
political issues under the false guise of 'exercises
of religious faith'"
> YOU have not yet provided a rational explanation
Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
> their religious beliefs.
because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
--Which you keep trying to avoid mentioning..
Man of Mind
Nov 17, 2012, 9:16:07 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 7:15 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>
> On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>> I am forcing my beliefs on that person,
>>
>> You are denying medical benefits to women, because you think
>> they'll want an abortion, or birth-control medication, and
>> what about some other health options related to menopause?
>
> As a Christian employer, I choose to not fund those practices
> which I believe to be sinful.
You cannot dictate, "As a Christian employer", what medical
'practices' you 'believe to be sinful' because your beliefs
are your own, and cannot be forced upon anyone else..
> That is my right.
There is no such "right" as you've stated..
> The woman is free to pay for such products and services
"such products and services" is your way of dismissing all
the facts and messy details that you clearly do not want to
be responsible for, because it entails you having to take
responsibility for your "beliefs" being irrational, in other words..
Example follows..
>> Yeah, your religious beliefs' prevent you from thinking the
>> entire range of health care options through, like somehow
>> you would know better than a woman, right? Bullspit, David..
>
> Not a part of the discussion.
Incorrect. You're again attempting to dismiss that which shows
your 'beliefs' to be ambitiously ignorant and narrow minded..
>>> despite the fact that I am not preventing them from
>>> paying for it themselves
>>
>> It would be cheaper, in the long run, for all concerned
>> to pay for it. Your 'beliefs' cannot be expected to make
>> wise choices about women's health care options..
>>
clause, and is simply 'wishful thinking' on your own behalf..
--That's why there is no 'state religion' such as your 'dominionism'..
>
> On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>
>> On 11/16/2012 9:59 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>> On 11/16/2012 9:59 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 05:56 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 6:11:06 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 04:42 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45:46 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
.......
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 6:11:06 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 04:42 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45:46 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee is
>>>>>>> free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself. Exactly
>>>>>>> how is the employer forcing his dogma on the employee?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't care. You are a typical preacher with control issues. The
>>>>>> ones the arch conservative Barry Goldwater hated. Health insurance
>>>>>> is health insurance no matter how much you assholes hate women. You
>>>>>> bastards are in deep shit over killing that poor woman in Ireland.
>>>>>> Did you see the response from right to die?
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>
>>>> By refusing to pay for reproductive care. It is none of his business
>>>> what his employees do. He is not moral he is controlling.
>>>
>>>>>>> free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself. Exactly
>>>>>>> how is the employer forcing his dogma on the employee?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't care. You are a typical preacher with control issues. The
>>>>>> ones the arch conservative Barry Goldwater hated. Health insurance
>>>>>> is health insurance no matter how much you assholes hate women. You
>>>>>> bastards are in deep shit over killing that poor woman in Ireland.
>>>>>> Did you see the response from right to die?
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>
>>>> By refusing to pay for reproductive care. It is none of his business
>>>> what his employees do. He is not moral he is controlling.
>>>
>>> So by refusing to pay for someone else's care, I am forcing my beliefs
>>
>> You switch from third-person to first-person so quickly..
>
> So I am not perfect.
Indeed, so why cast the first stone?
>>
>> You switch from third-person to first-person so quickly..
>
> So I am not perfect.
>>> I am forcing my beliefs on that person,
>>
>> You are denying medical benefits to women, because you think
>> they'll want an abortion, or birth-control medication, and
>> what about some other health options related to menopause?
>
> As a Christian employer, I choose to not fund those practices
> which I believe to be sinful.
'practices' you 'believe to be sinful' because your beliefs
are your own, and cannot be forced upon anyone else..
> That is my right.
There is no such "right" as you've stated..
> The woman is free to pay for such products and services
the facts and messy details that you clearly do not want to
be responsible for, because it entails you having to take
responsibility for your "beliefs" being irrational, in other words..
Example follows..
>> Yeah, your religious beliefs' prevent you from thinking the
>> entire range of health care options through, like somehow
>> you would know better than a woman, right? Bullspit, David..
>
> Not a part of the discussion.
your 'beliefs' to be ambitiously ignorant and narrow minded..
>>> despite the fact that I am not preventing them from
>>> paying for it themselves
>>
>> It would be cheaper, in the long run, for all concerned
>> to pay for it. Your 'beliefs' cannot be expected to make
>> wise choices about women's health care options..
>>
>> --Because it is based upon your failed ideology and bigotry..
>
>
> Again, we are speaking of a constitutional right,
Your imagined "constitutional right" violates the establishment
clause, and is simply 'wishful thinking' on your own behalf..
--That's why there is no 'state religion' such as your 'dominionism'..
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 9:53:17 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>> YOU have not yet provided a rational explanation
>
> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>
>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>> their religious beliefs.
>
> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
Are you serious? Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
>
> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>
>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>> their religious beliefs.
>
> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the government
establishing a state religion? Are you truly that uninformed?
Man of Mind
Nov 17, 2012, 10:02:02 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 8:53 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>
> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
Are you attempting scoff your way around this fact?
> Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
> to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the
> government establishing a state religion?
You think that nobody can see what you're attempting to
'establish' with your 'religious' discrimination?
> Are you truly that uninformed?
Are you asking a deliberately false rhetorical question in order
to avoid mentions of your fascist theocratic beliefs?
--Touched a nerve there, did I?
>
> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>
>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>
>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
.........
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:01 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 09:21 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 9:45 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Also, if the employer does not offer this benefit, the employee
>>>>>>>>> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What has that to do with the discussion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do I have to explain the obvious contradictions involved
>>>>>> with your claims and fallacy arguments about 'religious beliefs'?
>>>>>
>>>>> We are discussion religious freedom, not cost-benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Your 'religious freedom' is anything but "freedom" it seems,
>>>> in that your 'religious beliefs' do not trump federal law,
>>>> nor will those beliefs be allowed to become law and as a
>>>> result become a 'state religion', per the Constitution..
>>>>
>>>> So, to answer the question, which you avoided earlier"
>>>>
>>>> "Why do employers have the right to force their
>>>> religious dogma on workers."
>>>>
>>>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>>>
>>> This seems to be the core of your argument.
>>
>> "Seems to be"? Are you trying to reframe what I wrote?
>>
>> "We, the People, of the United States of America, have
>> the authority to prevent your religious beliefs from
>> causing harm, and can restrain you from espousing
>> political issues under the false guise of 'exercises
>> of religious faith'"
>>
>>>>>>>>> is free to seek the service elsewhere, and pay for it herself
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That glosses over the fact that it costs more that way, David..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What has that to do with the discussion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do I have to explain the obvious contradictions involved
>>>>>> with your claims and fallacy arguments about 'religious beliefs'?
>>>>>
>>>>> We are discussion religious freedom, not cost-benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Your 'religious freedom' is anything but "freedom" it seems,
>>>> in that your 'religious beliefs' do not trump federal law,
>>>> nor will those beliefs be allowed to become law and as a
>>>> result become a 'state religion', per the Constitution..
>>>>
>>>> So, to answer the question, which you avoided earlier"
>>>>
>>>> "Why do employers have the right to force their
>>>> religious dogma on workers."
>>>>
>>>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>>>
>>> This seems to be the core of your argument.
>>
>> "Seems to be"? Are you trying to reframe what I wrote?
>>
>> "We, the People, of the United States of America, have
>> the authority to prevent your religious beliefs from
>> causing harm, and can restrain you from espousing
>> political issues under the false guise of 'exercises
>> of religious faith'"
>>
>>> YOU have not yet provided a rational explanation
>>
>> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>>
>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>>> their religious beliefs.
>>
>> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
>> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
>>
>>
>> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>>
>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>>> their religious beliefs.
>>
>> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
>> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
>>
>> --Which you keep trying to avoid mentioning..
>
> Are you serious?
>
Are you attempting scoff your way around this fact?
> Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
> to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the
> government establishing a state religion?
'establish' with your 'religious' discrimination?
> Are you truly that uninformed?
to avoid mentions of your fascist theocratic beliefs?
--Touched a nerve there, did I?
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 10:48:41 AM11/17/12
to
informed would be so foolish as to take such a position.
The truth is, you are no more intelligent, or in formed than the average
American citizen. Have a nice day, and get some education.
Message has been deleted
Man of Mind
Nov 17, 2012, 11:17:11 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 9:48 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/17/2012 09:02 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/17/2012 8:53 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, David Hartung wrote:
.......
>
> On 11/17/2012 09:02 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/17/2012 8:53 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, David Hartung wrote:
You have yet to even begin to 'prove' how my 'educated and informed'
position is 'foolish', much less address the facts that I have
presented to refute your claims, and preposterous personal attacks..
> The truth is,
I see that you're again appealing to an 'absolute' that you
cannot hope to prove with sound evidence beyond your personal
beliefs and opinions..
"The truth is.."
*>LOL!<*
> you are no more intelligent, or in formed than
that you're still trying to attack the person, not the ideas..
How lame..
> and get some education.
You first, sky-pilot..
--I am 'free' to laugh at your false assumptions and bigotry, too..
Man of Mind
Nov 17, 2012, 11:20:29 AM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 9:49 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/17/2012 09:36 AM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>> others. The Christian Crazy is not paying for the reproductive
>> services the insurance company is.
>
> But who pays the premium?
Still trying to change the subject when your opinions/beliefs
come up short against reality, David?
--You've painted yourself into another corner, lad..
>
> On 11/17/2012 09:36 AM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:53:23 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
....
>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:53:23 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>>> YOU have not yet provided a rational explanation
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>>>>
>>>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
>>>> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
>>>
>>> Are you serious? Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
>>> to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the government
>>> establishing a state religion? Are you truly that uninformed?
>>
>> Yes. You are a pathetic little man who lusts for the power to control
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>>>>
>>>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
>>>> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
>>>
>>> Are you serious? Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
>>> to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the government
>>> establishing a state religion? Are you truly that uninformed?
>>
>> others. The Christian Crazy is not paying for the reproductive
>> services the insurance company is.
>
> But who pays the premium?
Still trying to change the subject when your opinions/beliefs
come up short against reality, David?
--You've painted yourself into another corner, lad..
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 11:32:56 AM11/17/12
to
your position to be mistaken:
"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."
Note that it says the Congress may not establish a religion, and it also
says the the right of the individual to exercise his religion shall not
be infringed.
You also take the position that the mere refusal of the employer to pay
for something, constitutes the "forcing" of religious views on someone.
You ignore the fact that employees have the full legal right to pay for
such things themselves.
In fact, there are a whole host of things you ignore in order to mmake
your point.
By the way, you keep on thinking you are superior to others. You
actually remind me af a long time friend. He is a decent enough guy, but
he is foolish enough to believe that voting democrat is a sign of
stupidity. You exhibit the same sort of intellectual traits that he does.
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 11:35:20 AM11/17/12
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 5:08:28 PM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 03:27 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
> In article <mdydnUWtubwREjrN...@giganews.com>,
> Businesses don't have these rights, and it's the businesses that pay, not the
> employers. It's the business that would be sued, fined, etc, and it is business
> assets that would be used to pay them off.
The business is the employer.
> In article <mdydnUWtubwREjrN...@giganews.com>,
> employers. It's the business that would be sued, fined, etc, and it is business
> assets that would be used to pay them off.
The business is the employer.
Message has been deleted
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 5:44:34 PM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 04:35 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
> In article <9PednVLTFb1BlzXN...@giganews.com>,
> children to send off to school. A business is a legal construct, not alive.
>
> A business owner, which is not always the same as an employer, can choose to
> mingle business and personal assets and thus accept personal responsibility for
> business debts, but a business owner can also easily keep them separate.
We were discussing whether or not the refusal to cover certain medical
practices for religious reasons actually constitutes the forcing of
religious dogma on the employee. Perhaps you could try to respond to
that point?
> In article <9PednVLTFb1BlzXN...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2012 03:27 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
>>> In article <mdydnUWtubwREjrN...@giganews.com>,
>>> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Why do employers have the right to force their
>>>>> religious dogma on workers."
>>>>>
>>>>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be the core of your argument. YOU have not yet provided a
>>>> rational explanation of just how this is being done by employers who
>>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon their religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> Businesses don't have these rights, and it's the businesses that pay, not
>>> the
>>> employers. It's the business that would be sued, fined, etc, and it is
>>> business
>>> assets that would be used to pay them off.
>>
>> The business is the employer.
>
> Uh, no, it isn't. A business doesn't breathe, eat, sweat, defecate, have
>
>> On 11/17/2012 03:27 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
>>> In article <mdydnUWtubwREjrN...@giganews.com>,
>>> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Why do employers have the right to force their
>>>>> religious dogma on workers."
>>>>>
>>>>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be the core of your argument. YOU have not yet provided a
>>>> rational explanation of just how this is being done by employers who
>>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon their religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> Businesses don't have these rights, and it's the businesses that pay, not
>>> the
>>> employers. It's the business that would be sued, fined, etc, and it is
>>> business
>>> assets that would be used to pay them off.
>>
>> The business is the employer.
>
> children to send off to school. A business is a legal construct, not alive.
>
> A business owner, which is not always the same as an employer, can choose to
> mingle business and personal assets and thus accept personal responsibility for
> business debts, but a business owner can also easily keep them separate.
We were discussing whether or not the refusal to cover certain medical
practices for religious reasons actually constitutes the forcing of
religious dogma on the employee. Perhaps you could try to respond to
that point?
Message has been deleted
David Hartung
Nov 17, 2012, 6:04:38 PM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 04:35 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
> In article <9PednVLTFb1BlzXN...@giganews.com>,
[...]
A third federal judge has vetoed the Obama administration’s efforts to
enforce an abortion pill mandate against Christians, this time ruling in
favor of a Bible publisher.
Officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom said government attorneys
had argued that Tyndale House Publishers simply wasn’t religious enough
for an exemption from the mandate.
The rule is part of Obamacare and forces employers, including
Christians, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and
contraception as part of health insurance coverages under the threat of
ruinous financial penalties.
ADF officials said Tyndale House Publishers, based in Carol Stream,
Ill., is the world’s largest privately held Christian publisher of
books, Bibles, and digital media and directs 96.5 percent of its profits
to religious non-profit causes worldwide.
The publisher specifically objects to covering abortifacients.
“Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book
that they publish,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, who argued
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Nov. 9.
“The court has done the right thing in halting the mandate while our
lawsuit moves forward. For the government to say that a Bible publisher
is not religious is startling. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama
administration is willing to disregard the Constitution’s protection of
religious freedom to achieve certain political purposes.”
The court’s opinion, which accompanied a preliminary injunction, said,
“the beliefs of Tyndale and its owners are indistinguishable…. Christian
principles, prayer, and activities are pervasive at Tyndale, and the
company’s ownership structure is designed to ensure that it never strays
from its faith-oriented mission. The court has no reason to doubt,
moreover, that Tyndale’s religious objection to providing insurance
coverage for certain contraceptives reflects the beliefs of Tyndale’s
owners. Nor is there any dispute that Tyndale’s primary owner, the
Foundation, can ‘exercise religion’ in its own right, given that it is a
non-profit religious organization; indeed, the case law is replete with
examples of such organizations asserting cognizable free exercise and
RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] challenges.”
A few weeks ago, a federal judge in Michigan became the second to say he
would halt the federal government’s enforcement of the Obamacare mandate
that employers pay for abortifacients regardless of their religious views.
Writing that “a preliminary injunction would serve the public interest,”
Judge Robert H. Cleland said he would issue the order in a case
involving Daniel Weingartz and his company, Weingartz Supply.
“The potential for harm to plaintiffs exists, and with the showing
plaintiffs have made thus far of being able to convincingly prove their
case at trial, it is properly characterized as irreparable,” he wrote.
The decisions mean the federal government will not be allowed to enforce
its abortion mandate against the companies until the lawsuits are resolved.
And in an earlier case in Denver, WND reported when U.S. District Judge
John J. Kane of Colorado granted Hercules Co. owners Andy Newland and
other family members a similar order preventing enforcement of the
mandate against the family-owned company.
[...]
“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Cleland wrote. “The harm
in delaying the implementation of a statute that may later be deemed
constitutional must yield to the risk presented here of substantially
infringing the sincere exercise of religious beliefs. The balance of
harms tips strongly in plaintiffs’ favor. A preliminary injunction is
warranted.”
[...]
So, at least three Federal Judges have ruled in favor of religious
businesses. Something tells me that the Supreme Court will be taking a
look at this.
> In article <9PednVLTFb1BlzXN...@giganews.com>,
> Uh, no, it isn't. A business doesn't breathe, eat, sweat, defecate, have
> children to send off to school. A business is a legal construct, not alive.
>
> A business owner, which is not always the same as an employer, can choose to
> mingle business and personal assets and thus accept personal responsibility for
> business debts, but a business owner can also easily keep them separate.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/3rd-judge-vetoes-abortion-pill-mandate/
> children to send off to school. A business is a legal construct, not alive.
>
> A business owner, which is not always the same as an employer, can choose to
> mingle business and personal assets and thus accept personal responsibility for
> business debts, but a business owner can also easily keep them separate.
[...]
A third federal judge has vetoed the Obama administration’s efforts to
enforce an abortion pill mandate against Christians, this time ruling in
favor of a Bible publisher.
Officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom said government attorneys
had argued that Tyndale House Publishers simply wasn’t religious enough
for an exemption from the mandate.
The rule is part of Obamacare and forces employers, including
Christians, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and
contraception as part of health insurance coverages under the threat of
ruinous financial penalties.
ADF officials said Tyndale House Publishers, based in Carol Stream,
Ill., is the world’s largest privately held Christian publisher of
books, Bibles, and digital media and directs 96.5 percent of its profits
to religious non-profit causes worldwide.
The publisher specifically objects to covering abortifacients.
“Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book
that they publish,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, who argued
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Nov. 9.
“The court has done the right thing in halting the mandate while our
lawsuit moves forward. For the government to say that a Bible publisher
is not religious is startling. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama
administration is willing to disregard the Constitution’s protection of
religious freedom to achieve certain political purposes.”
The court’s opinion, which accompanied a preliminary injunction, said,
“the beliefs of Tyndale and its owners are indistinguishable…. Christian
principles, prayer, and activities are pervasive at Tyndale, and the
company’s ownership structure is designed to ensure that it never strays
from its faith-oriented mission. The court has no reason to doubt,
moreover, that Tyndale’s religious objection to providing insurance
coverage for certain contraceptives reflects the beliefs of Tyndale’s
owners. Nor is there any dispute that Tyndale’s primary owner, the
Foundation, can ‘exercise religion’ in its own right, given that it is a
non-profit religious organization; indeed, the case law is replete with
examples of such organizations asserting cognizable free exercise and
RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] challenges.”
A few weeks ago, a federal judge in Michigan became the second to say he
would halt the federal government’s enforcement of the Obamacare mandate
that employers pay for abortifacients regardless of their religious views.
Writing that “a preliminary injunction would serve the public interest,”
Judge Robert H. Cleland said he would issue the order in a case
involving Daniel Weingartz and his company, Weingartz Supply.
“The potential for harm to plaintiffs exists, and with the showing
plaintiffs have made thus far of being able to convincingly prove their
case at trial, it is properly characterized as irreparable,” he wrote.
The decisions mean the federal government will not be allowed to enforce
its abortion mandate against the companies until the lawsuits are resolved.
And in an earlier case in Denver, WND reported when U.S. District Judge
John J. Kane of Colorado granted Hercules Co. owners Andy Newland and
other family members a similar order preventing enforcement of the
mandate against the family-owned company.
[...]
“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Cleland wrote. “The harm
in delaying the implementation of a statute that may later be deemed
constitutional must yield to the risk presented here of substantially
infringing the sincere exercise of religious beliefs. The balance of
harms tips strongly in plaintiffs’ favor. A preliminary injunction is
warranted.”
[...]
So, at least three Federal Judges have ruled in favor of religious
businesses. Something tells me that the Supreme Court will be taking a
look at this.
wy
Nov 17, 2012, 6:23:26 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 5:08 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 03:27 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <mdydnUWtubwREjrNnZ2dnUVZ_rydn...@giganews.com>,
> On 11/17/2012 03:27 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> >>> "Why do employers have the right to force their
> >>> religious dogma on workers."
>
> >>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>
> >> This seems to be the core of your argument. YOU have not yet provided a
> >> rational explanation of just how this is being done by employers who
> >> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon their religious beliefs.
>
> > Businesses don't have these rights, and it's the businesses that pay, not the
> > employers. It's the business that would be sued, fined, etc, and it is business
> > assets that would be used to pay them off.
>
> The business is the employer.
No, the business is everyone who works for it. There would be no
>
> >> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> >>> "Why do employers have the right to force their
> >>> religious dogma on workers."
>
> >>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>
> >> This seems to be the core of your argument. YOU have not yet provided a
> >> rational explanation of just how this is being done by employers who
> >> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon their religious beliefs.
>
> > Businesses don't have these rights, and it's the businesses that pay, not the
> > employers. It's the business that would be sued, fined, etc, and it is business
> > assets that would be used to pay them off.
>
> The business is the employer.
business without every one of those everyone. The employer rarely
does everything himself, unless he's got a really tiny business that
employs only himself.
Message has been deleted
Man of Mind
Nov 18, 2012, 9:53:28 AM11/18/12
to
On 11/17/2012 10:32 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/17/2012 10:17 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/17/2012 9:48 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2012 09:02 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2012 8:53 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
.......
>
> On 11/17/2012 10:17 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/17/2012 9:48 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2012 09:02 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2012 8:53 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>>>>> YOU have not yet provided a rational explanation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>>>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
>>>>>> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Which you keep trying to avoid mentioning..
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you serious?
>>>>
>>>> Are you attempting scoff your way around this fact?
>>>>
>>>>> Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
>>>>> to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the
>>>>> government establishing a state religion?
>>>>
>>>> You think that nobody can see what you're attempting to
>>>> 'establish' with your 'religious' discrimination?
>>>>
>>>>> Are you truly that uninformed?
>>>>
>>>> Are you asking a deliberately false rhetorical question in order
>>>> to avoid mentions of your fascist theocratic beliefs?
>>>>
>>>> --Touched a nerve there, did I?
>>>
>>> No, I am just amazed that a man who presents himself as educated
>>> and informedwould be so foolish as to take such a position.
>>
>> You have yet to even begin to 'prove' how my 'educated and informed'
>> position is 'foolish', much less address the facts that I have
>> presented to refute your claims, and preposterous personal attacks..
>
> May I suggest that you read the First Amendment?
May I suggest that you misinterpreted the "first amendment"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>>>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
>>>>>> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Which you keep trying to avoid mentioning..
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you serious?
>>>>
>>>> Are you attempting scoff your way around this fact?
>>>>
>>>>> Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
>>>>> to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the
>>>>> government establishing a state religion?
>>>>
>>>> You think that nobody can see what you're attempting to
>>>> 'establish' with your 'religious' discrimination?
>>>>
>>>>> Are you truly that uninformed?
>>>>
>>>> Are you asking a deliberately false rhetorical question in order
>>>> to avoid mentions of your fascist theocratic beliefs?
>>>>
>>>> --Touched a nerve there, did I?
>>>
>>> No, I am just amazed that a man who presents himself as educated
>>> and informedwould be so foolish as to take such a position.
>>
>> You have yet to even begin to 'prove' how my 'educated and informed'
>> position is 'foolish', much less address the facts that I have
>> presented to refute your claims, and preposterous personal attacks..
>
> May I suggest that you read the First Amendment?
to suit your religious bigotry and sexual discrimination?
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
reproductive health, which includes birth-control and the
option of an abortion, is "prohibiting the free exercise
of religious liberties", in your opinion (which it isn't)..
> Note that it says the Congress may not establish a religion,
If we let you 'establish' that your religious beliefs can
violate a woman's right to health insurance, in the broad
sense (which includes birth control, abortion and related
health coverage issues that you tend to gloss over readily)
you have already invalidated your 'religious beliefs' as
any sort of 'constitutionally protected' act..
> You also take the position
your mediocre understanding of a woman's physiology..
Example follows..
> that the mere refusal of the employer to pay for something,
in that the health issues of a woman simply cannot be trusted
to a man's 'religious beliefs'. Recently in the news, a woman
was admitted to a Catholic hospital. She died because the
hospital refused to perform an abortion, based upon the
'religious beliefs' that this hospital was 'founded' upon..
Not that religions haven't caused a lot of deaths prior to
this tragic death, but you're probably going to ignore that
too..
> constitutes the "forcing" of religious views on someone.
a counter-example for you to comprehend how 'forcing of
religious views on someone' can turn out..
> You ignore the fact that employees have the full legal
> right to pay for such things themselves.
have been attempting to make abortions illegal, and have
often resorted to violent means to prevent women from
getting effective treatment for their health problems as
related to pregnancies..
> In fact,
You're appealing to authority, another fallacy argument..
> there are a whole host of things you ignore
> By the way, you keep on thinking you are superior to others
have very little to support that foregone 'conclusion'
other than to attack the person who has bested your
illogical and fallacious pseudo-arguments..
> You actually remind me af a long time friend.
including e-mail via the hotmail accounts we both have,
but don't mistake that for me being like your friend.
I vote for Democratic Party candidates because I see that
they are more concerned for "We, the People" than any set
of confused issues you so-called "conservatives" put
forth with your vapid intrusions of religion into politics..
> He is a decent enough guy, but he is foolish enough to
> believe that voting democrat is a sign of stupidity.
and him. That places no onus upon me as to why you seem to
think I place myself above your pseudo-intellectual blather,
which is but another example of you changing the subject,
in a rather desperate manner, when your rationalizations
collide with the facts you intentionally ignored to suit
your 'faith-based' explanations..
>You exhibit the same sort of intellectual traits that he does.
--And I do not believe your 'religion' gives you an excuse for killing..
Man of Mind
Nov 18, 2012, 10:40:24 AM11/18/12
to
On 11/17/2012 10:35 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/17/2012 10:20 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/17/2012 9:49 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2012 09:36 AM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:53:23 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
.......
>
> On 11/17/2012 10:20 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 11/17/2012 9:49 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2012 09:36 AM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:53:23 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>>>>> YOU have not yet provided a rational explanation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>>>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
>>>>>> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you serious? Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
>>>>> to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the government
>>>>> establishing a state religion? Are you truly that uninformed?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. You are a pathetic little man who lusts for the power to control
>>>> others. The Christian Crazy is not paying for the reproductive
>>>> services the insurance company is.
>>>
>>> But who pays the premium?
>>
>> Still trying to change the subject when your opinions/beliefs
>> come up short against reality, David?
>>
>> --You've painted yourself into another corner, lad..
>
> Only in the mind of those who agree with you.
I see you've switched from plural to singular..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>>>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
>>>>>> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you serious? Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
>>>>> to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the government
>>>>> establishing a state religion? Are you truly that uninformed?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. You are a pathetic little man who lusts for the power to control
>>>> others. The Christian Crazy is not paying for the reproductive
>>>> services the insurance company is.
>>>
>>> But who pays the premium?
>>
>> Still trying to change the subject when your opinions/beliefs
>> come up short against reality, David?
>>
>> --You've painted yourself into another corner, lad..
>
> Only in the mind of those who agree with you.
--Your rationalizations and evasions speak poorly, it seems..
Man of Mind
Nov 18, 2012, 10:54:09 AM11/18/12
to
On 11/17/2012 4:08 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/17/2012 03:27 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
>>
>> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
....
>
> On 11/17/2012 03:27 PM, Where's all the China Blue food? wrote:
>>
>> David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> "Why do employers have the right to force their
>>>> religious dogma on workers."
>>>>
>>>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>>>
>>> This seems to be the core of your argument. YOU have not yet provided a
>>> rational explanation of just how this is being done by employers who
>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon their religious
>>> beliefs.
>>
>> Businesses don't have these rights, and it's the businesses that
>> pay, not the employers. It's the business that would be sued, fined,
>> etc, and it is business assets that would be used to pay them off.
>
> The business is the employer.
Without healthy people, there would be no business..
>>>> religious dogma on workers."
>>>>
>>>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>>>
>>> This seems to be the core of your argument. YOU have not yet provided a
>>> rational explanation of just how this is being done by employers who
>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon their religious
>>> beliefs.
>>
>> Businesses don't have these rights, and it's the businesses that
>> pay, not the employers. It's the business that would be sued, fined,
>> etc, and it is business assets that would be used to pay them off.
>
> The business is the employer.
--That's where your pseudo-logia fails..
Man of Mind
Nov 18, 2012, 10:56:21 AM11/18/12
to
--All you're doing now is trying to quibble your way out of this..
Man of Mind
Nov 18, 2012, 11:45:24 AM11/18/12
to
On 11/17/2012 7:48 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 11/17/2012 05:53 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:46:08 PM UTC-5, Gary DW wrote:
>>>
>>> David Hartung says...
>>> Who decides on what is a religious belief, and what is
>>> just some crack pot that wants to deny health care
>>> benefits?
>>>
>>> You?
>>>
>>> Or some other religious crack pot?
>>
>> What if these idiots are worshiping the wrong God and the actual God
>> gets angry everytime they worship the wrong God. Hartung could be in
>> for a nasty surprise when he dies and faces the wrath of Baal.
>
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Really? So you don't want to consider that you might be following
a set of false doctrines, based upon bigotry, prejudices and hate?
--And questioning your 'beliefs' is an attack upon your liberties?
>
> On 11/17/2012 05:53 PM, vit...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:46:08 PM UTC-5, Gary DW wrote:
>>>
>>> David Hartung says...
>>> just some crack pot that wants to deny health care
>>> benefits?
>>>
>>> You?
>>>
>>> Or some other religious crack pot?
>>
>> What if these idiots are worshiping the wrong God and the actual God
>> gets angry everytime they worship the wrong God. Hartung could be in
>> for a nasty surprise when he dies and faces the wrath of Baal.
>
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Really? So you don't want to consider that you might be following
a set of false doctrines, based upon bigotry, prejudices and hate?
--And questioning your 'beliefs' is an attack upon your liberties?
Message has been deleted
0 new messages