kylemittskus wrote:For the record, BowTie and myself are the only two who are libertarian (with RPM (glad you're OK) being 90%). And for that same record, I don't want the gov't forcing private employers to do anything. All I'm trying to understand is how me taking BC affects you.
I say: how does me taking BC affect you?
You: It doesn't if you buy it on your own, but if you force me to pay for it, then it is against my faith. (It does if I have to give you the pills.)
Me: You're not giving me the pills.
You: I'm paying for most ( part) of the insurance that in turn provides the pills. Coverage I didn't provide before, due to my religious beliefs.
Me: *Confused.* So where does this argument stop? Would you go to a restaurant that provides employees insurance to BC? Would you use a drug from a pharm. company that does BC research? Aren't you, in both of those cases, circuitiously funding BC in the same way as you paying an insurance company who gives me the money for me to buy BC?
You: Each of us has our own beliefs and faith. Am I forcing you to not use BC. No. Am I forcing you to become part of my religion? No. All I am saying is to respect my choice not to offer BC/Bacon in the HIP, as I respect your choice to use BC if you choose.
I'm having a hard time understanding -- from a logical standpoint, not a political one -- how you offering me health insurance (not that you should be forced to!) is you sinning in the eyes of the Church.
Because remember, religion isn't always logical, because it is based on FAITH. Faith in a power above.
As to sin, the Catholic Church used to teach (and still does I think), that one could sin 3 times for one sin. You thought about it, you said you would do it, and then you did it.
So is it any surprise that if I am forced to offer BC/Bacon to you, that I would consider it a violation of my personal, religious beliefs?
Put another way, do you buy VDDD wines? Because if you don't like VDDD, then you shouldn't buy the wines (like PS) because you are supporting it if you do buy them.
Now suppose Wine A is VDDD, but doesn't advertise it, Wine B isn't, and Wine C is and proudly advertises it.
You know that Wine C is VDDD, and so you don't buy it. But you like Wine A and B, and buy them both. Is it a "sin"? No, because the intent to commit the "sin" isn't there.
Again, this isn't about current companies that offer the coverage, this is about the gov't forcing companies to carry it.
And to reiterate again, since it seems no one pays attention.
You have your rights, and I have mine. My rights are not more important than yours, and yours are not more important than mine.
I don't have the right to enforce my beliefs on you, just as you don't have the right to enforce your beliefs on me.
However, as an Employer, I have the right as to what I offer my employees benefit-wise. If I choose not to offer something, then that is my right. It is not my right to tell you to never pay for it on your own.
You want it, you pay for it yourself.