Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 99

Thread: Can the president now order Kosher delis to give away pork?

  1. #1
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    34,070

    Can the president now order Kosher delis to give away pork?

    The president has caused a firestorm by attempting to force the Catholic Church and other religious organizations to provide contraception for their employees, even if said organizations have religious objections to doing so. In addition, every health insurance company is now required to give away contraception, even if said company was created specifically to serve religious organizations that object to doing so. This was done on the sketchy grounds that contraception is so very vital, so very important, and apparently so very expensive and difficult to obtain that horny people without health insurance were basically reduced to begging in the streets for a condom. Yeah, yeah, I know, hyperbole. Don't get your underwear in a twist. Anyhoo, what's to stop the logical next step?

    Food is a much, much more basic need than is contraception and there are people in America who can't even afford an XBOX 360 because they have to spend all their money to feed their families.

    If the president now has the power to just order things like this to happen, why could he NOT simply demand that all food providers such as ethnic grocery stores, neighborhood bake sales, and yes, the aforementioned Kosher deli provide a full selection of all approved food products which includes pork, on the grounds that it's lower in fat than beef?

    Would those of you now applauding the president's power grab be so thrilled to know that when you go to your favorite Jewish eating establishment, you now have to pay significantly more for your Kosher meal because you have to subsidize the pork chop dinner they are forced to give away for free? Feel free to substitute vegetarian and meatballs, or Muslim and pork, etc. You know what I'm getting at. Would you applaud all food establishments being forced to provide ALL foods from a government enforced list, or would you prefer to allow stores to specialize on certain foods, knowing that you have the choice to eat there or not?

    Discuss. If this is allowed to stand, what would stop the scenario I just described?
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 22 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    36,891
    For Christ's sake, he allowed a compromise for religious institutions.

  3. #3
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    34,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone Ranger View Post
    For Christ's sake, he allowed a compromise for religious institutions.
    Not if they want to have employees. They still have to provide insurance that gives away contraception. IOW, they have to buy contraception, or pay large fines.

    Now, to take it out of the religious arena, picture a nice, little vegan restaurant to caters to people who absolutely abhor meat. With this authority, a president could require all eating establishments to give away meat, carving out exceptions for religious objections. Obviously, the vegan restaurant now must purchase, prepare, and give away meat. Does that make such an edict any less of an intrusion on freedom?
    Last edited by hadit; 02-15-2012 at 12:50 PM.
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 22 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    36,891
    The insurance companies pay for the contraception, not the church. You only have so much latitude to make demands about your employees' sex lives.

  5. #5
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    34,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone Ranger View Post
    The insurance companies pay for the contraception, not the church. You only have so much latitude to make demands about your employees' sex lives.
    The Church has to pay for the insurance. An employee only has no latitude to demand subsidies for his sex life from his employer. In this case, the employer is not making any demands whatsoever on his employee's sex life, he's merely demanding that he not be forced to subsidize it.
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 22 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    36,891
    Contraceptives affect reproductive health, so yes, health care coverage should cover it. If the law says as much, the church really has no position.

  7. #7
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    34,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone Ranger View Post
    Contraceptives affect reproductive health, so yes, health care coverage should cover it. If the law says as much, the church really has no position.
    Contraceptives effect only voluntary activities, so no, health care coverage should NOT cover it. Just how expensive is a box of condoms anyway? The law has run afoul of the First Amendment, so the Church is right to challenge it.
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 22 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    36,891
    It doesn't matter if they're voluntary. The law defines them as health care issues that are not at employer discretion to deny, church or not.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 23 2001
    Location
    Long Island Sound
    Posts
    47,271
    As far as kosher, that may not be a good example because many food companies are actually forced to have their products kosherized. It is basically a hidden, religious-based tax. You can see the little symbol of the kosherization on the food's packaging. Bizarre.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 22 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    36,891
    No one is forced to have their food certified as kosher, dickhead. They do it because they want the business from those who only eat kashrut.

    You got that "kosher tax" thing straight off Stormfront.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 24 2002
    Location
    ireland
    Age
    30
    Posts
    9,393
    hadit, if we're going to do it to the furthest in line of government control,
    let's look at the reverse, if the religous organisation had complete and utter control under the benefits of the health policies.
    for example, than an employee of the jehovah's witnessesess couldn't get a blood transfusion on their policy.
    an employee of the chuch of scientology health care plan would be the power of prayer.

    if we're going to play at it one way, let's play it both ways.

    according to the irish times on saturday

    Never mind that 28 of 50 states already have laws requiring the same thing, that 99 per cent of sexually active American women have used artificial contraception, including (according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute) 98 per cent of Catholic women in the US.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...311623129.html
    Last edited by IFF; 02-15-2012 at 02:31 PM.
    e. e. cummings is my hero.

  12. #12
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    34,070
    Quote Originally Posted by IFF View Post
    hadit, if we're going to do it to the furthest in line of government control,
    let's look at the reverse, if the religous organisation had complete and utter control under the benefits of the health policies.
    for example, than an employee of the jehovah's witnessesess couldn't get a blood transfusion on their policy.
    an employee of the chuch of scientology health care plan would be the power of prayer.

    if we're going to play at it one way, let's play it both ways.
    Under Oh-crap! care, every individual MUST have health insurance. Also, under Oh-crap! care, every health insurance plan MUST provide free contraception. That means that every individual MUST purchase contraception for themselves and everyone else in the country, even if they object on religious grounds. How is that ensuring freedom of religion?

    If every health insurance plan MUST give away contraception, then organizations that object should at the very least be able to opt out of supplying said insurance for their employees, but that's not what TFO is doing. He is forcing EVERY organization to buy and supply this for all employees, regardless of religious objections. Now, if this is allowed to stand, what's to stop a future president from forcing EVERY food outlet to give away for free EVERY item on a government checklist that is deemed to be healthful? This would include vegan shops being forced to purchase and give away meat, Kosher shops being forced to do the same with pork, etc.

    And no one has yet made the case that a box of condoms are so expensive and so hard to obtain that it justifies this kind of overreach.
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

  13. #13
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    34,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone Ranger View Post
    No one is forced to have their food certified as kosher, dickhead. They do it because they want the business from those who only eat kashrut.

    You got that "kosher tax" thing straight off Stormfront.
    So what WOULD be your reaction to a government food care plan that guarantees everyone free access to items on a government approved checklist, and that EVERY food outlet must purchase and supply the items to be given away for free, especially if that list includes pork or other products abhorent to Othodox Jews?
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 23 2009
    Location
    Divorceland
    Posts
    6,669
    Quote Originally Posted by hadit View Post
    Contraceptives effect only voluntary activities, so no, health care coverage should NOT cover it. Just how expensive is a box of condoms anyway? The law has run afoul of the First Amendment, so the Church is right to challenge it.
    Tell that to a woman with PCOS or heavy, irregular periods. How in the world are those conditions "voluntary activities". BC Pills are the first line treatment option for those INVOLUNTARY, medical problems.
    ***2009 DA Rookie of the Year***

    Quote Originally Posted by Adanch View Post
    I like it!!! Dick and all!



    Quote Originally Posted by fat mike View Post
    we need to keep tinkerbelle out of jail-the lesbians would kill each other trying to get at her

  15. #15
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    34,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkly Mary View Post
    Tell that to a woman with PCOS or heavy, irregular periods. How in the world are those conditions "voluntary activities". BC Pills are the first line treatment option for those INVOLUNTARY, medical problems.
    As is the case with many medical treatments, there are differing reasons for applying them. I seriously don't know what the Church would say about that one. I do know, however, that the scenario you describe would apply to a small percentage of the cases involved.
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 24 2002
    Location
    ireland
    Age
    30
    Posts
    9,393
    Quote Originally Posted by hadit View Post
    Under Oh-crap! care, every individual MUST have health insurance. Also, under Oh-crap! care, every health insurance plan MUST provide free contraception. That means that every individual MUST purchase contraception for themselves and everyone else in the country, even if they object on religious grounds. How is that ensuring freedom of religion?

    If every health insurance plan MUST give away contraception, then organizations that object should at the very least be able to opt out of supplying said insurance for their employees, but that's not what TFO is doing. He is forcing EVERY organization to buy and supply this for all employees, regardless of religious objections. Now, if this is allowed to stand, what's to stop a future president from forcing EVERY food outlet to give away for free EVERY item on a government checklist that is deemed to be healthful? This would include vegan shops being forced to purchase and give away meat, Kosher shops being forced to do the same with pork, etc.

    And no one has yet made the case that a box of condoms are so expensive and so hard to obtain that it justifies this kind of overreach.
    but my point is that if religous organisation are allowed an opt out on contraceptions, whats to stop other religous organisations claiming opt outs for other medical stuff?
    or other employers, not religous organsations, who hold religous views of no use of contraceptions be allowed opt outs also?
    but then, wuldn't this be the employers pushing their religous views onto their employees.
    e. e. cummings is my hero.

  17. #17
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    34,070
    Quote Originally Posted by IFF View Post
    but my point is that if religous organisation are allowed an opt out on contraceptions, whats to stop other religous organisations claiming opt outs for other medical stuff?
    or other employers, not religous organsations, who hold religous views of no use of contraceptions be allowed opt outs also?
    but then, wuldn't this be the employers pushing their religous views onto their employees.
    No, it would be employers refusing to pay for things contrary to their religious beliefs. Wouldn't it ultimately be in everyone's best interest to stop forcing the employer to provide health insurance in the first place? Then the employee could buy whatever plan he/she wants. And if you allowed for differing types of coverage, the individual would be able to buy what works best for his/her unique situation.
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 23 2009
    Location
    Divorceland
    Posts
    6,669
    Quote Originally Posted by hadit View Post
    As is the case with many medical treatments, there are differing reasons for applying them. I seriously don't know what the Church would say about that one. I do know, however, that the scenario you describe would apply to a small percentage of the cases involved.
    But would you support their ability to deny coverage of a medication that was intended to treat a medical illness? Poly-cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) causes infertility. Treating it with BC Pills for 6 months can often aleviate it enough to allow conception. Endometriosis can also be treated with BC pills if caught early enough and can save a woman's fertility by allowing her to keep her uterus and/or ovaries.

    It doesn't matter if it's a "small percentage of the cases involved". Your claim that it is only for "voluntary activities" is total BS, and I've just given you conditions that prove it.

    Now, simple question...since BC Pills are used to treat actual, medical illnesses and conditions in women not caused by "voluntary activities", should it be covered under any and/or all health insurance plans?
    ***2009 DA Rookie of the Year***

    Quote Originally Posted by Adanch View Post
    I like it!!! Dick and all!



    Quote Originally Posted by fat mike View Post
    we need to keep tinkerbelle out of jail-the lesbians would kill each other trying to get at her

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 22 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    36,891
    Quote Originally Posted by hadit View Post
    So what WOULD be your reaction to a government food care plan that guarantees everyone free access to items on a government approved checklist, and that EVERY food outlet must purchase and supply the items to be given away for free, especially if that list includes pork or other products abhorent to Othodox Jews?
    Food just isn't a parallel to healthcare.

  20. #20
    hadit is offline Super Moderator Super Mod
    Join Date
    Nov 24 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    34,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkly Mary View Post
    But would you support their ability to deny coverage of a medication that was intended to treat a medical illness? Poly-cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) causes infertility. Treating it with BC Pills for 6 months can often aleviate it enough to allow conception. Endometriosis can also be treated with BC pills if caught early enough and can save a woman's fertility by allowing her to keep her uterus and/or ovaries.

    It doesn't matter if it's a "small percentage of the cases involved". Your claim that it is only for "voluntary activities" is total BS, and I've just given you conditions that prove it.

    Now, simple question...since BC Pills are used to treat actual, medical illnesses and conditions in women not caused by "voluntary activities", should it be covered under any and/or all health insurance plans?
    They should be covered under whatever plans wish to cover it as a service to their customers, but employers shouldn't be forced to pay for them if they don't want to.
    Hillary: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.". Welcome to Mind Control Central, USA.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 11:36 PM
  2. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 10:12 AM
  3. President Jimmy Carter's Exec Order (23 May 1979)
    By KillZone in forum In The News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-23-2005, 05:58 AM
  4. Bush refuses to give Afghani 'president' power over anything
    By Ras Bizarre High in forum In The News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 12:46 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-08-2004, 07:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •