Tal's discussions
Explore our other sites
  • kotaku
  • theroot
    Tal's discussions
    talbett
    Tal
    talbett
    PostsDiscussionsSaved ArticlesFollowers (3)Following (0)

    Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

    You’ve never heard the saying?

    Ctrl-F “Ham sandwich”. Nope, this article fails to include the most relevant piece of information about Grand Juries.

    Grand Juries are not “required” for felony charges - at least not in most jurisdictions.

    And Zinke’s connection/influence on PREPA is? Utterly ignored by this article. At least make an attempt to connect the dots in the conspiracy. Poor effort.

    Live by the pen, die by the pen.

    “Don’t do it!” “You’re not gay.” :)

    You are winning an argument with a woke woman? ;)

    Yankee Candle.

    Yankee Candle.

    It’s not about what the uninsured think about health costs with insurance vs. not. It’s about whether an employer who has strongly held, legitimate religious belief is reasonable in believing that by paying for someone’s health insurance, they are participating in (responsible for) the procedures covered by that plan.

    A distinction without a difference. To most reasonable people.

    Right, because to most sane people not looking to prove themselves better than a bunch of nuns, the distinction between paying someone for labor (and then not taking responsibility for what that money is spent on) and actually procuring something for someone, is clear. :shrug:

    They paid for health insurance that covered such operations, yes. You disagree with which part of that?

    Nope. Employees are 100% free to do whatever they want with the money paid to them in wages. Heck, they can even go crazy and use those wages (ie, their own money) to buy condoms or pay for a prescription for the pill. No one has claimed otherwise. Common sense really.

    Yes, an employer is paying for health care, when they, you know, pay for health insurance. As for monetary compensation, that is a non-sequitor. The employer/employee relationship is one of work for pay. In non-religious positions, the employer has no expectation or right to insist that the employee follow the…

    I looked up prices to defend my assertion that the pill is cheap. And it looks like I was correct. :)

    In the cases at issue here, the employers paid for the health insurance, or at least a large portion of it.

    Not paying for and not participating in the provision of free stuff for other people doesn’t amount to “impos[ing] your religious beliefs onto other people.” Except in crazy world.