Which is precisely why the religious-exemption claim is so ridiculous. What's the practical difference, in terms of contribution to sin, between an employer's health plan covering contraception, and people paying for it out of their wages? In both cases, it's the employee choosing to use the money they're receiving from their employer for the purposes of paying for contraception.
A benefit is not money received from their employer, but rather a benefit of employment received from their employer. It's a subtle, but important difference - you're entitled to wages for your work, but not benefits.
I'm entitled to what's in my employment agreement. And those benefits? Are there. Anyone trying to tell me I'm not entitled to what I contracted for is going to get shot.
Or you're comparing apples and oranges. You're equating a contraceptive with a sex aid. They're not the same. If they were the same, and they were being treated differently, you'd have a valid point.
Ok, I'm just going to say both are used in the act of sex. If people have an issue with one, they should have an issue with the other. I mean really are you, an apparently smart man failing to realize the point I'm trying to make?
I understand the point you're trying to make, yes. The point, however, is completely invalid. The two medications serve incredibly different purposes.
I have an issue with the hypocrisy, I have an issue with the double standard. I have an issue with the sexism.
And since none of those things are true, you have an issue with a phantom.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And those benefits? Are there.
Anyone trying to tell me I'm not entitled to what I contracted for is going to get shot.
no subject
Would you rather pay for unwanted children?
It's the only alternative to ensuring that women have an equal right to medical care when they pay for insurance.
no subject
To offer any kind of preventative care or treatment impinges on our FREEDOM
no subject
I'd rather not pay for any of it.
It's the only alternative to ensuring that women have an equal right to medical care when they pay for insurance.
This actually isn't a matter of equality at all. Some things are covered by some insurance, some things are not.
no subject
Sucks to be you then, we all have to pay for things we'd rather not. However I don't think saying so will get me off the hook for my bills.
It is when the equal treatment is covered for men but not for women,
no subject
And we've achieved that.
no subject
I'm glad you agree that equal treatment is only covered for men and not women. But I think we could achieve more than sexism.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I understand the point you're trying to make, yes. The point, however, is completely invalid. The two medications serve incredibly different purposes.
I have an issue with the hypocrisy, I have an issue with the double standard. I have an issue with the sexism.
And since none of those things are true, you have an issue with a phantom.
(no subject)
no subject
btw, the real world called, it would like you to come back and take a look at it for once.