MarkDaSpark wrote:Look at Dexter!

But while in violation of the law, they still don't interfere with them teaching, does it? Because that was your statement.


Edit: "anything that I do on my personal time" was your exact words.

I think Dexter would be a pretty good teacher. Not a very good stripper, though.

kylemittskus wrote:I'll see your off-the-clock argument and raise you anything you want to do. Not that the gov't should control or mandate it, but I think that what I do on my personal time -- anything that I do on my personal time -- should have no influence on my job security as long as it doesn't negatively affect my ability to perform my job duties. Example: the teachers who have been fired from schools because they strip at night.

Agreed, although I think some level of "suitable appearances" is reasonable for some jobs. However, that should be laid out clearly in advance.

bhodilee wrote:I think it's not only a social agenda but a fiscal one as well. Easy and free birth control to the working/nonworking poor only helps the nation as we won't be paying for these offspring (legitimate or otherwise) in the form of Medicaid/ABT/Welfare. From a legislative standpoint I think it makes perfect sense.

Plus it cuts down on abortion drastically, which is also a good thing. Put that promises in the drinking water! (birth control, not abortions)

There's a local morning show that loves to say if there was a reliable male birth control pill every single guy in America would take two just in case. Maybe that's what we need (and in fact there is a cancer drug in trial that makes the testes "forget" to produce sperm).

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/

chemvictim wrote:Now the thing is, I don't see any difference. You're still paying money in to an insurance company that pays for contraception. Your money is still touching the contraception money.

Eww! Touching!!

Of course you don't. I doubt you ever will. But there is a difference. It comes down to faith and beliefs.


Put it another way. I loan cars. You borrow a car from me, and use it in a bank robbery. I loaned you the car (touching!), but it is your responsibility what you do with it.

However, if I loaned you the car knowing you would use it to rob a bank, then I am an accessory, not an innocent bystander.

bhodilee wrote:There's a local morning show that loves to say if there was a reliable male birth control pill every single guy in America would take two just in case. Maybe that's what we need (and in fact there is a cancer drug in trial that makes the testes "forget" to produce sperm).

I really wish there was such a pill.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Look at Dexter!

But while in violation of the law, they still don't interfere with them teaching, does it? Because that was your statement.


Edit: "anything that I do on my personal time" was your exact words.

I think those are Kyle's words

I like the idea of "personal freedom" as much as the next guy, but there are instances where your personal and professional lives interact. Here for example, we're not allowed to wear work shirts with our logo on them to the bar after work. We're not on the clock, but because we're easily identified as employees of X we're representing the "brand". I have zero issues with this as the remedy is simple. Wear a different shirt after work or turn this one inside out. I wear t-shirts at work.

I don't think that impinges on my personal freedom at all. Or, if you're a business owner for Sparky's Lawn Care, you don't want your employees to be acting a fool drunk after work in their Sparky's Lawn Care clothes/vehicle as it will negatively impact your business. Not calling you out, cause we're in total agreement here, I just like the thought of Sparky's Lawn Care

MarkDaSpark wrote:Eww! Touching!!

Of course you don't. I doubt you ever will. But there is a difference. It comes down to faith and beliefs.


Put it another way. I loan cars. You borrow a car from me, and use it in a bank robbery. I loaned you the car (touching!), but it is your responsibility what you do with it.

However, if I loaned you the car knowing you would use it to rob a bank, then I am an accessory, not an innocent bystander.

I like that analogy, it's better than the previous ones. However...I'm still not understanding fully. I can use the money you pay me to buy contraception. What if I tell you that? "I'd like my check, Mr. Employer. I'm having extramarital relations tonight and I need to buy some condoms." See, then you know I'm going to rob the bank. Can you refuse to pay me because of religious objections?

bhodilee wrote:I think those are Kyle's words

I like the idea of "personal freedom" as much as the next guy, but there are instances where your personal and professional lives interact. Here for example, we're not allowed to wear work shirts with our logo on them to the bar after work. We're not on the clock, but because we're easily identified as employees of X we're representing the "brand". I have zero issues with this as the remedy is simple. Wear a different shirt after work or turn this one inside out. I wear t-shirts at work.

I don't think that impinges on my personal freedom at all. Or, if you're a business owner for Sparky's Lawn Care, you don't want your employees to be acting a fool drunk after work in their Sparky's Lawn Care clothes/vehicle as it will negatively impact your business. Not calling you out, cause we're in total agreement here, I just like the thought of Sparky's Lawn Care

Sorry, I thought it was PSquishy responding. Corrected it.


And I would prefer Sparky's Strip Joint & Bar, but I'm not sure that would fit on the pasties!

chemvictim wrote:I like that analogy, it's better than the previous ones. However...I'm still not understanding fully. I can use the money you pay me to buy contraception. What if I tell you that? "I'd like my check, Mr. Employer. I'm having extramarital relations tonight and I need to buy some condoms." See, then you know I'm going to rob the bank. Can you refuse to pay me because of religious objections?

Please stop. I knew you would keep it up. And who is going to say that to their boss?


The answer is no, because you earned the money, and by law, I couldn't keep your paycheck. Now if you said you were going to rob a bank, I would report you to the police.


Now if there was a Morals clause in your work contract (or as part of the Human Resources packet), then I would probably have you investigated and then fired if the statement were true. Then I wouldn't have to worry about you.


Edit: Because at Sparky's Lawn Care, We Care!

Here's Richard Epstein's take on the dilemma this election presents for the libertarian. As usual, Epstein's analysis is spot-on.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Please stop. I knew you would keep it up. And who is going to say that to their boss?


The answer is no, because you earned the money, and by law, I couldn't keep your paycheck. Now if you said you were going to rob a bank, I would report you to the police.


Now if there was a Morals clause in your work contract (or as part of the Human Resources packet), then I would probably have you investigated and then fired if the statement were true. Then I wouldn't have to worry about you.


Edit: Because at Sparky's Lawn Care, We Care!

If I purchase the contraception rider, you'd know I was intending to use it. If the policy just covered that stuff as a matter of course, you'd have no idea if I was going to use it or not.

PetiteSirah wrote:Here's Richard Epstein's take on the dilemma this election presents for the libertarian. As usual, Epstein's analysis is spot-on.

The author mentions high marginal tax rates as problematic. High? compared to what?

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

chemvictim wrote:If I purchase the contraception rider, you'd know I was intending to use it. If the policy just covered that stuff as a matter of course, you'd have no idea if I was going to use it or not.

Not necessarily. You might go direct to the insurance company to buy the rider, and I wouldn't know anything about it.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Not necessarily. You might go direct to the insurance company to buy the rider, and I wouldn't know anything about it.

So your conscience is clear, then? Didn't Obama work out some sort of compromise where the insurance company works with the sinful employee directly, leaving the pious employer out of it? That won't fix the overall problem of mandating insurance coverage, but it should fix the religious objection, right?

chemvictim wrote:So your conscience is clear, then? Didn't Obama work out some sort of compromise where the insurance company works with the sinful employee directly, leaving the pious employer out of it? That won't fix the overall problem of mandating insurance coverage, but it should fix the religious objection, right?

Perhaps you should have read the Epstein link by PS better ...

Democrats, including President Obama, are even more regulatory and strident than the conservatives on social issues. Consider the contraception mandate that is part of the ObamaCare program. Here, the Democrats want to federally legislate their social philosophy onto the entire nation. They pay no respect whatsoever to the principles of freedom of association or to religious liberty. Their definition of liberty is one that uses government regulation to protect the reproductive rights of women. Like women’s rights activist Patty Stonesifer, Democrats insist that it is unthinkable “to allow a boss's religion or moral conscience to dictate whether insurance plans can cover a female employee's birth control.”

This is an odd place in which to plant the flag of individual liberty. In some of those cases, the boss turns out to be the Roman Catholic Church, whose only claim is that it should not be forced by government action to pay, either directly or through insurers, for medical services that contravene its religious beliefs. The Church gets no support from me if it wishes to outlaw the provision of health-care services that women can buy on their own. But it is a grotesque claim of individual liberty that lets one person coerce any institution against his will because it bears the title of employer.

ObamaCare was attempting to force the same, until Obama realized that by doing so, he was guaranteeing that the Catholic Church would throw it's support behind Romney.

That's when the rider was approved instead of the more onerous provision.

chemvictim wrote:The author mentions high marginal tax rates as problematic. High? compared to what?

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

High ACTUAL marginal rates. Citing nominal marginal rates is not an actual rebuttal when the tax code had so many loopholes, deductions, exclusions, etc. that nobody actually paid the listed rate -- sort of like how we don't pay the "list price" for wine anywhere.

MarkDaSpark wrote:ObamaCare was attempting to force the same, until Obama realized that by doing so, he was guaranteeing that the Catholic Church would throw it's support behind Romney.

That's when the rider was approved instead of the more onerous provision.

But do you think the compromise fixes the religious problem, since the employer is left out of it?

MarkDaSpark wrote:Celebrities have Morals clauses in their contracts. For example, Tiger Woods lost several endorsement deals when his outside behavior came to light. It wasn't on the golf course, but was private. Yet the companies are paying for his good image.

Shouldn't we have similar expectations for our teachers? We (taxpayers) are paying them to have an image in the classroom.


And really? You don't see the negative consequences of a teacher stripping? Because we never have any teachers "dating" their students.

Or a teacher being a serial killer or bank robber in their off time? That doesn't negatively affect their ability to perform their job duties. Does it?

I understand that there are moral clauses. I am saying there shouldn't be. And no, we shouldn't have higher expectations of a teacher because "I pay her with my tax dollars." I hate that argument. If you do your job well, I don't care what else you do.

Are you saying that a stripper is more likely to date a student? That's absurd.

And honestly, I think a bank robber could be a perfectly fine teacher. And studies have shown that most CEOs of major companies are non-killing serial killers. Or in clinical terms, have anti-social personality disorder.

PetiteSirah wrote:High ACTUAL marginal rates. Citing nominal marginal rates is not an actual rebuttal when the tax code had so many loopholes, deductions, exclusions, etc. that nobody actually paid the listed rate -- sort of like how we don't pay the "list price" for wine anywhere.

Well, crap. I found data for marginal, and data for average, but not for actual marginal. It's not a big deal anyway, I was just curious.

PetiteSirah wrote:http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/

I see yours and raise:

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/male_birth_control_pill_may_soon_be_ready-93709

No shots, no scrotal exposure. I'm cool with either one though. Yours has the benefit of not having to remember to take a pill.

From PS's article:

This is an odd place in which to plant the flag of individual liberty. In some of those cases, the boss turns out to be the Roman Catholic Church, whose only claim is that it should not be forced by government action to pay, either directly or through insurers, for medical services that contravene its religious beliefs.

Putting the govt forcing aside, I don't understand how the church paying for insurance which pays for BC is a religious issue. I know you've explained it Sparky, and I don't think we're ever going to agree, but I just don't understand. Do Catholics not buy from Amazon because Amazon donated $$ to support gay marriage? Again, what about using drugs from Pharmacy Company A that also does BC research? How are these things any different? If the argument is guilt by-proxy, then it will never end.

kylemittskus wrote:From PS's article:


Putting the govt forcing aside, I don't understand how the church paying for insurance which pays for BC is a religious issue. I know you've explained it Sparky, and I don't think we're ever going to agree, but I just don't understand. Do Catholics not buy from Amazon because Amazon donated $$ to support gay marriage? Again, what about using drugs from Pharmacy Company A that also does BC research? How are these things any different? If the argument is guilt by-proxy, then it will never end.

You're not taking Kevin Bacon into account. See, the church sees the pharma company and amazon etal. as at least two degrees removed from Kevin Bacon, to where as they see themselves as one degree removed or possibly Kevin Bacon himself. It's all about how close they see themselves to the issue.

Put another way, they see themselves directly in the kill zone of the nuclear blast that is bc. Amazon and the pharma company would fall into the, well, we'll probably survive, but we're gonna get cancer and deformed offspring zone, so we can live with that.

bhodilee wrote:I think those are Kyle's words

I like the idea of "personal freedom" as much as the next guy, but there are instances where your personal and professional lives interact. Here for example, we're not allowed to wear work shirts with our logo on them to the bar after work. We're not on the clock, but because we're easily identified as employees of X we're representing the "brand". I have zero issues with this as the remedy is simple. Wear a different shirt after work or turn this one inside out. I wear t-shirts at work.

I don't think that impinges on my personal freedom at all. Or, if you're a business owner for Sparky's Lawn Care, you don't want your employees to be acting a fool drunk after work in their Sparky's Lawn Care clothes/vehicle as it will negatively impact your business. Not calling you out, cause we're in total agreement here, I just like the thought of Sparky's Lawn Care

I negotiate (among other things) employment and management consulting agreements on a regular basis. Virtually every one of them has a provision that permits firing for cause (meaning no severance and usually no keeping any stock or options) for criminal offenses and for anything that brings the employer into disrepute or harms its reputation. Some people just see these clauses as boilerplate, but I can tell you that sometimes these are heavily negotiated because of their economic effects and because of both the employee's and employer's sensitivity to off-job behavior questions.

But, in American law, it's pretty much a matter of contract how much your employer has to say about your off-job behavior.

rpm wrote:I negotiate (among other things) employment and management consulting agreements on a regular basis. Virtually every one of them has a provision that permits firing for cause (meaning no severance and usually no keeping any stock or options) for criminal offenses and for anything that brings the employer into disrepute or harms its reputation. Some people just see these clauses as boilerplate, but I can tell you that sometimes these are heavily negotiated because of their economic effects and because of both the employee's and employer's sensitivity to off-job behavior questions.

But, in American law, it's pretty much a matter of contract how much your employer has to say about your off-job behavior.

That sounds like such an interested aspect of law. I'm intrigued by Contracts anyway, but that portion specifically sounds very "fun" to do.

bhodilee wrote:You're not taking Kevin Bacon into account. See, the church sees the pharma company and amazon etal. as at least two degrees removed from Kevin Bacon, to where as they see themselves as one degree removed or possibly Kevin Bacon himself. It's all about how close they see themselves to the issue.

Put another way, they see themselves directly in the kill zone of the nuclear blast that is bc. Amazon and the pharma company would fall into the, well, we'll probably survive, but we're gonna get cancer and deformed offspring zone, so we can live with that.

Probably one of the best posts ever in this thread from the guy that consistently manages to cut through the BS and get to the meat of any issue he choses to comment on here. For a miserable misanthrope, you make a valuable contribution to many of the wine.woot threads. If I ever get to Nebraska I will buy you a bottle of the sake of your choice! (Well within reasonable limits anyway, say up to $60.00)

bhodilee wrote:You're not taking Kevin Bacon into account. See, the church sees the pharma company and amazon etal. as at least two degrees removed from Kevin Bacon, to where as they see themselves as one degree removed or possibly Kevin Bacon himself. It's all about how close they see themselves to the issue.

I laughed out loud at work.

rpm wrote:I negotiate (among other things) employment and management consulting agreements on a regular basis. Virtually every one of them has a provision that permits firing for cause (meaning no severance and usually no keeping any stock or options) for criminal offenses and for anything that brings the employer into disrepute or harms its reputation. Some people just see these clauses as boilerplate, but I can tell you that sometimes these are heavily negotiated because of their economic effects and because of both the employee's and employer's sensitivity to off-job behavior questions.

But, in American law, it's pretty much a matter of contract how much your employer has to say about your off-job behavior.

Am I correct in thinking these contracts are for high salaried upper management positions, not blue collar wage slaves? I can see where a company choosing executive level employees with relatively high salaries would want to be careful. With a $10.00-$25.00 an hour person it isn't so critical. The upper management people also have a much better chance of having some choices in the job market as opposed to the blue collar person.

edlada wrote:Probably one of the best posts ever in this thread from the guy that consistently manages to cut through the BS and get to the meat of any issue he choses to comment on here. For a miserable misanthrope, you make a valuable contribution to many of the wine.woot threads. If I ever get to Nebraska I will buy you a bottle of the sake of your choice! (Well within reasonable limits anyway, say up to $60.00)

That's funny because my wife see's my cutting through BS as me being out of control. I have consistently found that extreme examples make everyone sit back and actually consider the topic, so I choose to take things about 8 steps further than probably needs to be done. Plus, I amuse myself greatly with the stuff I come up with.

edlada wrote:Am I correct in thinking these contracts are for high salaried upper management positions, not blue collar wage slaves? I can see where a company choosing executive level employees with relatively high salaries would want to be careful. With a $10.00-$25.00 an hour person it isn't so critical. The upper management people also have a much better chance of having some choices in the job market as opposed to the blue collar person.

Honestly, it's critical either way,and maybe more critical (based on the enterprise) for the blue collar staff that are more likely to come in contact with the customers of whatever the business is selling. See, business is not government and personal liberty takes a backseat to the job. That's just the way it is. Take myself for example. If I'm driving along and see some asshat driving like a prick in a company vehicle, I take note of that company and cross them off my list of companies I would do business with. Same thing if I see an employee out in public that is wearing work clothes and acting like an lāme duck, I think, well, if they hire people like that, I don't want to do business with them. That's why I have no problems whatsoever with "morality" clauses in private or even government employment. If you're representing "the brand" then you need to act accordingly, or be willing to get canned for your asshattery.

Basically, if you're gonna be an asshat, be sure not to wear anything that identifies you as being with company X. For this reason, if I ever owned a company I wouldn't have customer giveaways with stuff that had my logo on it. With my luck it'd end up in a goat rapists mug shot.

PetiteSirah wrote:"My body, my choice, [y]our financial responsibility" just doesn't work.

Unfortunately you take it out of context and of course it doesn't work when phrased from that bias. In whole:

Our decision to play, My body harboring child, my choice to take to term (and by the way that is no cup of tea!), OUR financial responsibility to raise it.

This is the real situation and notice that there IS a decision point for the man before he enters the situation.

I think it is perfectly fair.

cmaldoon wrote:Unfortunately you take it out of context and of course it doesn't work when phrased from that bias. In whole:

Our decision to play, My body harboring child, my choice to take to term (and by the way that is no cup of tea!), OUR financial responsibility to raise it.

This is the real situation and notice that there IS a decision point for the man before he enters the situation.

I think it is perfectly fair.

I think any man that fathers a child and doesn't man up and help take care of it, even if just financially is a complete and total useless piece of promises and should be beaten to death or choked to death with the umbilical cord. You know ahead of time that sex can lead to a baby, I refuse to feel sorry for someone that says "Well it's not my choice she decided to have it." balance the budget that and you, you knew full well what the possible outcome was, you don't want to take the chance, stay home and jerk off.

Foul, aggressive, and I don't care. This is one area that I'm actually passionate.

cmaldoon wrote:Unfortunately you take it out of context and of course it doesn't work when phrased from that bias. In whole:

Our decision to play, My body harboring child, my choice to take to term (and by the way that is no cup of tea!), OUR financial responsibility to raise it.

This is the real situation and notice that there IS a decision point for the man before he enters the situation.

I think it is perfectly fair.

I presume, then, you would be fine with the father not having any financial responsibility if the mother lied about birth control....

which does happen. A story not for the boards, but I assure you it happens.

rpm wrote:I presume, then, you would be fine with the father not having any financial responsibility if the mother lied about birth control....

which does happen. A story not for the boards, but I assure you it happens.

I wouldn't. Again, the guy knew that even with BC it was possible, or that however remote, she may have been lying, or not lying but missed a day or had taken antibiotics and didn't know they rendered the BC useless (I almost got caught up in that one once). If you have sex, you know, you absolutely know, unless you're an pollster, that a baby is possible. You weigh that risk and you decide to go forward or not based on how agreeable to that risk you are. Personally, my mantra was, I wouldn't sleep with someone I couldn't see as being part of my life for at least 18 years.

bhodilee wrote:Honestly, it's critical either way,and maybe more critical (based on the enterprise) for the blue collar staff that are more likely to come in contact with the customers of whatever the business is selling. See, business is not government and personal liberty takes a backseat to the job. That's just the way it is. Take myself for example. If I'm driving along and see some asshat driving like a prick in a company vehicle, I take note of that company and cross them off my list of companies I would do business with. Same thing if I see an employee out in public that is wearing work clothes and acting like an lāme duck, I think, well, if they hire people like that, I don't want to do business with them. That's why I have no problems whatsoever with "morality" clauses in private or even government employment. If you're representing "the brand" then you need to act accordingly, or be willing to get canned for your asshattery.

Basically, if you're gonna be an asshat, be sure not to wear anything that identifies you as being with company X. For this reason, if I ever owned a company I wouldn't have customer giveaways with stuff that had my logo on it. With my luck it'd end up in a goat rapists mug shot.

I get that. It makes me a little queasy though, that some people (teachers?) are held to such a standard that they are ALWAYS in uniform, ALWAYS "representing the brand," ALWAYS subject to judgment. You probably wouldn't want that for yourself, would you?

cmaldoon wrote:Unfortunately you take it out of context and of course it doesn't work when phrased from that bias. In whole:

Our decision to play, My body harboring child, my choice to take to term (and by the way that is no cup of tea!), OUR financial responsibility to raise it.

This is the real situation and notice that there IS a decision point for the man before he enters the situation.

I think it is perfectly fair.

I guess I don't think it's fair, but it's just life. As long as women are carrying the pregnancies, women are going to have a special say in the matter. That's a burden that simply cannot be shared.

cmaldoon wrote:Unfortunately you take it out of context and of course it doesn't work when phrased from that bias. In whole:

Our decision to play, My body harboring child, my choice to take to term (and by the way that is no cup of tea!), OUR financial responsibility to raise it.

This is the real situation and notice that there IS a decision point for the man before he enters the situation.

I think it is perfectly fair.

The woman knows FAR more about her realistic likelihood of getting pregnant than does the man. The parties do not have symmetrical information.

chemvictim wrote:I get that. It makes me a little queasy though, that some people (teachers?) are held to such a standard that they are ALWAYS in uniform, ALWAYS "representing the brand," ALWAYS subject to judgment. You probably wouldn't want that for yourself, would you?

This is what I was getting at. I understand behaving in a certain way when obviously representing a company (car, uniform, etc.), but all the time is too much. I also think, though, that people need to not be pollsters. Don't post that you're shooting heroin on FB and except that to be totally kosher.

rpm wrote:I presume, then, you would be fine with the father not having any financial responsibility if the mother lied about birth control....

which does happen. A story not for the boards, but I assure you it happens.

I've heard of this happening. I've also heard of cases where men sabotaged their partner's birth control or poked holes in condoms. Despicable behavior, either way. Also very difficult to prove.

If you could change the system, and let fathers opt out in exchange for allowing women to have abortions, how would you go about it? Would there be a time limit for the opt-out? A woman has a very limited time to get an abortion, especially if she wants it to be as trouble-free as possible. She'd need to be given adequate notice. In fact, the notice would have to be damn-near immediate, given the hoops she'll have to jump through unless she lives in a very populated, blue-ish area.

chemvictim wrote:I guess I don't think it's fair, but it's just life. As long as women are carrying the pregnancies, women are going to have a special say in the matter. That's a burden that simply cannot be shared.

I have zero problem with the woman having all of the say over the existence and termination of the pregnancy.

What I object to his a woman's ability to essentially make a man a financial hostage.

I do remember that some of you are all about not imposing your own religious beliefs on others, especially if there's any sort of financial burden involved.

What if the woman has a one night stand, doesn't tell the man that she's very pro-life, and accidentally gets pregnant? Her "religious beliefs" -- which she may not have even disclosed -- impose a MASSIVE financial burden on the man, something that far dwarfs having to pay $9/month out of pocket for birth control.

Yes, the man "chooses to play". But so does the woman -- and she's the one who knows her body and her mind far better than he does. And unfortunately, as with drunken hookups on campus, one party can be held completely responsible for the events and their outcome, all at the option of the other party.

PetiteSirah wrote:The woman knows FAR more about her realistic likelihood of getting pregnant than does the man. The parties do not have symmetrical information.

Good info, but rest assured not all of us keep up with this stuff