Sandra Fluke's DNC Speech Paints Stark Picture of Romney Presidency

[Responsibility]

serfs up wrote:

<quoted text> Right now we are moving towards darkness.

Turn on the lights!

[Responsibility]

Skuttlebutt wrote:

isn't she a dyke

Dear, your bigotry is showing but, please be assured, that there are women out in americaland who may never (repeat NEVER) need the benefits of contraception - because of age, etc.- that care that the republicannots are restricting women's reproductive rights for women of the future.

And ALL (repeat ALL) WOMEN should be watching ...

[Susanm]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but no employer has the right to impose their religious beliefs on employees by way of company policy and wage packet.

They are not imposing their beliefs. The are choosing the health care plan that they offer. The employee then has the choice to either accept the plan that they offer or to look for employment elsewhere. How is giving them a choice impossing a belief?

[serfs up]

Responsibility wrote:

<quoted text>
Turn on the lights!

Bwhaaa! The power hungry insane progressive dumb azzes tell me I have to spend 100 times more for energy for the good of us all.

[Responsibility]

serfs up wrote:

<quoted text> Bwhaaa! The power hungry insane progressive dumb azzes tell me I have to spend 100 times more for energy for the good of us all.

How much "energy" do you need to watch Fuxx? LOLL

[serfs up]

Responsibility wrote:

<quoted text>
How much "energy" do you need to watch Fuxx? LOLL

Don't watch it. But you get to watch everything else. And most of that is that is progressive. Just one of those TV programs has more influence on the ill educated in this nation and does more damage then FUXX will ever do. Lok at you. You speak on e network. A neo con semi progressive network at that. Wars and security by all if you notice. Emmys and Oscars for minorities and gays and everything else even if the product is not good. Programs that demean and destroy people constantly and bad mouths the son of God to Christians. On and on it goes. When i was a kid and watched the national news on TV, Walter Cronkite who was a progressive sounded like a far right politician spewing the news compared to the trash all over the airwaves now. If you believe what you spew for the poor, then donate 90% of your wealth to them. You won't. So you whine on the rich and it is others in the middle class that keep paying the incremental increases in everyday living to keep this house of cards going. Tell that fat slob Michael Moore to give all his wealth to charities and then donate all his time in the inner cities or other places of interest. He won't. Lead by example. Go forward.

[Bitner]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
They are not imposing their beliefs. The are choosing the health care plan that they offer. The employee then has the choice to either accept the plan that they offer or to look for employment elsewhere. How is giving them a choice impossing a belief?

Yes, it is them imposing their beliefs.

Answer this; why should an employer be allowed to discriminate against a legal medication which is used to treat a valid medical condition based SOLELY on the religious objection of the employer?

[ToManyLaws]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it is them imposing their beliefs.
Answer this; why should an employer be allowed to discriminate against a legal medication which is used to treat a valid medical condition based SOLELY on the religious objection of the employer?

PERFECT..........

[Susanm]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it is them imposing their beliefs.
Answer this; why should an employer be allowed to discriminate against a legal medication which is used to treat a valid medical condition based SOLELY on the religious objection of the employer?

Are we not a country that was founded on religious freedom? Why should your religious freedom trump anyone elses? You have the freedom to choose to work for a company that offers the services that you desire.

[ToManyLaws]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
Are we not a country that was founded on religious freedom? Why should your religious freedom trump anyone elses? You have the freedom to choose to work for a company that offers the services that you desire.

Yea ALL religions....Not just the racist nazi bigoted christian religion...

Religous places have the choice to be in busines or not if they are in business they need to follow same rules as others in that business.......

[Bitner]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
Are we not a country that was founded on religious freedom? Why should your religious freedom trump anyone elses? You have the freedom to choose to work for a company that offers the services that you desire.

Answer the question. Why should an employer be allowed to discriminate against a legal medication used to treat a valid medical condition based SOLELY upon a religious objection?

No one is forcing Catholics to use BC pills.

Not being allowed to impose your religion is NOT the same thing as not being allowed to PRACTICE your religion.

So, you're now against laws that allow a pharmacist to work at a pharmacy that offers BC pills, yet refuse to fill legal prescriptions for them? After all, he can just choose to work somewhere else, right? And if he doesn't, that means he shouldn't be allowed by law to stand aside, right?

[ToManyLaws]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
Are we not a country that was founded on religious freedom? Why should your religious freedom trump anyone elses? You have the freedom to choose to work for a company that offers the services that you desire.

The bible says women who cheat on husband should be stoend to death......BET YOU HATE WE HAVE LAWS AGAINT THAT AND THINK OUR GOVERNMENT HAS GOT IN THE WAY OF RELIGION FOR NOT LETTING HUSBANDS KILL THERE CHEATING WIVES...

[Bitner]

ToManyLaws wrote:

<quoted text>
PERFECT..........

Thank you.

[Susanm]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Answer the question. Why should an employer be allowed to discriminate against a legal medication used to treat a valid medical condition based SOLELY upon a religious objection?
No one is forcing Catholics to use BC pills.
Not being allowed to impose your religion is NOT the same thing as not being allowed to PRACTICE your religion.
So, you're now against laws that allow a pharmacist to work at a pharmacy that offers BC pills, yet refuse to fill legal prescriptions for them? After all, he can just choose to work somewhere else, right? And if he doesn't, that means he shouldn't be allowed by law to stand aside, right?

If it is a company that is run by a religious organization, they should have the right to be guided by their religious principles. I worked for a 7th Day Adventist hospital that did not serve meat because it was against their religion. I have every right to eat meat according to my religious views, I did not however have the right to demand that they serve meat in their cafeteria.

[ToManyLaws]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
If it is a company that is run by a religious organization, they should have the right to be guided by their religious principles. I worked for a 7th Day Adventist hospital that did not serve meat because it was against their religion. I have every right to eat meat according to my religious views, I did not however have the right to demand that they serve meat in their cafeteria.

I want my satan worshipping religous views...I want to make human sacrifices at my place of work...THAT OK???????

[Bitner]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
If it is a company that is run by a religious organization, they should have the right to be guided by their religious principles. I worked for a 7th Day Adventist hospital that did not serve meat because it was against their religion. I have every right to eat meat according to my religious views, I did not however have the right to demand that they serve meat in their cafeteria.

Eating in the cafeteria was not part of your wages.

Answer the questions, coward.

[Susanm]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Eating in the cafeteria was not part of your wages.
Answer the questions, coward.

"If it is a company that is run by a religious organization, they should have the right to be guided by their religious principles."

What part of this statement don't you understand?

[ToManyLaws]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
"If it is a company that is run by a religious organization, they should have the right to be guided by their religious principles."
What part of this statement don't you understand?

Lets say my religion is satan worshipping..CAN I DO HUMAN SACRIFICE AND TIRTURE AND KILL PEOPLE?????

[Bitner]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
"If it is a company that is run by a religious organization, they should have the right to be guided by their religious principles."
What part of this statement don't you understand?

I was talking about the pharmacy question.

[Susanm]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
I was talking about the pharmacy question.

"So, you're now against laws that allow a pharmacist to work at a pharmacy that offers BC pills, yet refuse to fill legal prescriptions for them? After all, he can just choose to work somewhere else, right? And if he doesn't, that means he shouldn't be allowed by law to stand aside, right?"

A pharmacist has the right to ask, and then decline to work for a company that sells/offers products that are against their religious beliefs. The company is also free to decide if they will allow special concessions to accomodate them.