XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.politics.liberalism, soc.culture.usa   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: danielsan1977@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/3/2012 10:26 PM, Don Kresch wrote:   
   > On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:56:44 -0800, DanielSan   
   >   scrawled in blood:   
   >   
   >> On 3/3/2012 9:48 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:44:41 -0600, Don Kresch wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:24:39 -0800, DanielSan   
   >>>> scrawled in blood:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 3/3/2012 5:24 PM, Don Kresch wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:28 -0700, Vurgil    scrawled   
   >>>>>> in blood:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> In article<3b55l7tf5nkdn5nbub66321u7klsb9cjr0@4ax.com>,   
   >>>>>>> Steve    wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC), 2907 Dead   
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0600, Dånk 42Ø wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I support the right to birth control and abortion, but I wonder   
   >>>>>>>>>> whether the government should be paying for it or forcing others   
   >>>>>>>>>> to pay for it.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> In other words you don't support the right.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It can't be a right if it infringes someone else's rights, you   
   >>>>>>>> pathetic loon.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Then religious hospitals have no *right* to impose their religious   
   >>>>>>> beliefs on their medical practices, as that infringes on the rights   
   >>>>>>> of the patients.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 	It's a business like any other. A jewish deli doesn't serve   
   >>>>>> pork--is that an infringement of the rights of the eaters?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, because pork-eaters can go to another deli.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 	Irrelevant. Are you seriously suggesting that some things are   
   >>>> so special that they require laws to prevent "discrimination". Wow. Just   
   >>>> wow. How smugly self-absorbed can you get, Danny?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Don   
   >>>> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster Praise "Bob" or burn in   
   >>>> Slacklessness trying not to.   
   >>>   
   >>> So far nobody has addressed my main point, which is that religious   
   >>> organizations are perfectly free to drop coverage for all their employees.   
   >>>   
   >>> The Catholic church can be forced to provide birth control coverage in   
   >>> its health insurance plans, but it can't be forced to provide health   
   >>> insurance at all.  If the Catholic church wants to uphold its principles,   
   >>> it should drop all health insurance coverage for its employees, and let   
   >>> them Hope that Chairman Obama will pay for their coverage instead.   
   >>   
   >> Then maybe they shouldn't be in the health insurance business if they   
   >> don't want to provide insurance for health care.   
   >   
   > 	So you're defining insurance for healthcare as "whatever Danny   
   > wants them to provide".   
      
   No.  Dumbass.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)