here are a couple of fascinating articles on some recent developments post the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision.  the Wonkette piece is particularly well done.  what i find amazing about the story is the awesome display of projection.  this pro-life nurse who wanted a job at a family planning facility is suing simply because she didn't get the job!  largely because her religion forbids her for doing said job.  meanwhile, the same bible beaters are legally allowed to FIRE and employee they want because of their religious beliefs.  that they are fine with.  yet not hiring a person who is simply not capable (admittedly!) is generating a lawsuit from these twisted dimwits.  you really need to read it to appreciate it.  and Wonkette really knocks it out of the park with the introduction.  

Views: 293

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I just saw these articles in Daily Kos implicating the Dominionist groups The Family and The Gathering in the Hobby Lobby decision.  You may recall that the Family along with the CIA and Vatican (via Opus Dei) collaborated with Fanatic Christian Korean Syung Myun Moon in the funding and training of Latin American and Asian Death Squads.  They were apparently instrumental in Suharto's murder of over 1 million Indonesian leftists.

Wow Wonkette described it amazingly well!

If she wins the lawsuit, I want to found a religion that says I cant work over 4 hours a day, I get 3-day weekends, and I get to duct tape certain people who I can't name, to a wheelchair and roll them down the I -205 on-ramp.

She is kind of silly but there are lots of 'equal rights' employment suits out there. The thing is, if you don't approve of the place, DON'T APPLY TO WORK THERE. Which amazes me when people actually apply for and work for a religious organization with their (silly) rules and then get a dramatic when it hits the fan. It works both ways. No one HAS to work for Hobby Lobby or the Catholic church.

This kind of reminds me of the gay couple who tried to put their child into a fundamentalist day care and then sued when the facility objected. Or for that matter the couple who sued a caterer for not wanting to make their wedding cake. Trust me folks if the place does not like you for who you are, you really, really do not want to be doing business with them.

I wouldn't work for a company who was fundamentally (religious or otherwise) against my beliefs. And I wouldn't cry about it to the courts.

I wouldn't work for a company who was fundamentally (religious or otherwise) against my beliefs. And I wouldn't cry about it to the courts.

I dunno, it depends.........being against abortion and applying for a job that would involve abortion is one thing. Being pro-choice and wanting to work at a craft store is another.

Also, what if there are limited employment opportunities in a given area? Especially in the bible belt, where you might have a choice of different jobs, but nearly ALL of them are run by fundamentalists.

If only there were a way to outlaw religion in the public sector altogether. Once you step outside your house, it's neutral, secular territory. Worship as you see fit at home or on your own property, but once in public, regular laws apply.

And I wouldn't cry about it to the courts.

Capitalism offers people many ways to acquire wealth. Most of them require work, like six or seven days a week and ten-to-sixteen hours a day.

Some of us try to acquire wealth in the courts. Companies might not want to pay the costs of trials and pay off people who sue them.

During my 20 years in San Francisco I heard of a judge ruling that a frequent-suer (think frequent flier) was a "vexatious litigator" and had to get a judge's approval to file a suit.

For a while I considered going to law school. I've met lots of lawyers but never asked:

* What percentage of cases are thrown out because judges see them as scams?

* Do unemployed or unemployable law school graduates file such cases?

* Is "lack of standing" a polite way to say a case is a scam?

There are lawyers that thrive on these cases. They recruit people to find small stores with inadequate aisles (ADA) or missing notifications (especially in CA) with not all the required warning signs and sue, giving a small portion of the take to the 'aggrieved' party. They avoid the vexatious litigator issue by recruiting different people each time.

I dunno, it depends.........being against abortion and applying for a job that would involve abortion is one thing. Being pro-choice and wanting to work at a craft store is another.

Really, does that rise to a critical level that necessitates intervention of law?  (This is the question that should be very seriously considered before the sledgehammer approach of law is applied to any situation). You can work at other stores. You can even work at HL and just not get birth control coverage (not such a big deal). Lots of people might want to work at a craft store but don't because it doesn't pay enough. Should we legally mandate big pay so they can follow their dream too?

I'm not meaning to sound snide. But law cannot solve all our problems or fulfill all our expectations.

As I reminded in other threads (and being an older guy), for a very long time NO medical coverage included birth control. We budgeted that out of our household budget (like food, rent etc).  Day to day birth control does not belong in 'insurance'.

jay, there are plenty of medical reasons for including birth control in a health plan.  being an older guy perhaps you are just unaware.  i would also argue that preventing unwanted pregnancies is generally a shared feature of both sexes, yet the cost of accomplishing said shared goal is carried by the fairer sex disproportionately.  

on more thing, the cost of offering contraceptive coverage doesn't hurt anyone.  the average taxpayer would foot the bill by less than one penny in his/her lifetime.  

i'm not sure jay is pro-life, probably just anti-government intervention and anti-tort.  at least that was my take on his comments.  that he has his facts wrong are likely a result of misinformation campaigns by religious conservatives, and possibly his age due to lack of recent familiarity with the products in question and those who use them.  .

Sorry to cause a bit of a shock.

Insurance is basically protection against large an unpredictable expenses. Auto insurance does not cover oil changes and tire replacement. Homeowners insurance does not cover painting and new cabinets. Similarly medical insurance (to be truly insurance) should be about the things that skyrocket our expenses. Hospital, doctor treatment etc.

Some people will need help with birth control. The government can get involved here, but it's a medical grant, not insurance.

Methinks Freethinker doesn't know how to use commas or simply omitted these two:

Yes, Booklover, taking....

Addressed to Jay H, the post would make sense.

Proofreading helps, F...31. Your bad.

Uh-oh, I forgot. Peacemaking can be dangerous; it can anger both sides.

Jay, medical insurance is much much more than catastrophic care.  It's a lot closer to the idea of auto insurance providing for oil changes and tire replacement, and accident avoidance by, say, nagging people to clean their windshields, testing drivers for alcohol, drugs, and dementia, and mandating that all drivers undergo drivers ed.  The medical insurance policies and corporate requirements are for insurance to cover all evidence-based preventive care, screening for health conditions, care for chronic conditions that are not immediately catastrophic.  There was a recent newspaper article here about health plans drug testing pain patients, and refusing to give pain medications if people test positive, even when people demand opioids - which they often do.  Some employers are also demanding health screening to reduce health insurance costs, and urine testing for nicotine metabolites, to prove patients are not smoking.

I'm not arguing whether that is right or wrong, or even the definition of insurance, but medical is far, far, far more comprehensive than auto or home.

Also I can't think of much better insurance cost reduction than birth control.  Babies and obstetrics are very very expensive, and a major generator of lawsuits when things go wrong.   I imagine birth control is a major savings for the insurance company.  I have no idea why a health insurance company would be reluctant to pay for that.  Pregnancy is also something some women can't handle, health-wise.   For them, birth control may be life saving.

Medical insurance is also impacted by customer service surveys that push it even further - Press-Ganey, which may raise costs and/or be bad for health,but advocates and the govt push heavily as a means to give customers a voice. 




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service