XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.politics.liberalism, soc.culture.usa   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: danielsan1977@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/3/2012 11:08 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:   
   > On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:55:11 -0800, DanielSan wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 3/3/2012 9:42 PM, Dånk 42Ø wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:24:39 -0800, DanielSan wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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.  Are you seriously   
   >>>> suggesting that eating of a certain type of food is the same as   
   >>>> medical operations?!   
   >>>   
   >>> When did birth control pills become a "medical operation?"   
   >>   
   >> What if medical operations were against someone's religion?  Should they   
   >> be "forced to pay" for someone's operation?  Christian Scientists, for   
   >> example.   
   >   
   > I doubt I'd be working for a Christian Science organization unless I   
   > subscribed to their teachings.  Even if I did work for them, I wouldn't   
   > expect them to support my lifestyle if it differed from theirs.   
      
   Doesn't matter.  They decided to provide a service to the public.  If   
   they don't want to follow the pre-established rules or new rules, they   
   need to get out of that business.  No one is forcing them to stay in   
   business.  I would think that they would like the money that comes with   
   the providing of that service, but if their ideology trumps money, then   
   they don't HAVE to provide that service.  There are many secular   
   organizations that would be glad to get that service.   
      
   > One of my recurring themes is political correctness trying to use the law   
   > to impose its ideology on conventional religion.   
      
   How about conventional religion trying to use the law to impose its   
   ideology on others?   
      
      
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)