Using obesity as an argument against worrying about slippery slopes is probably is probably not the best example in a US-centered thread.Frelga wrote:Well, that first spoonful of yogurt in the morning is the start of the slippery slope toward 600lb obese body. Yet most of us have breakfast and retain non-spherical shape.
But you are intervening in a contract that both parties agreed to.axordil wrote:I'm suggesting they have a choice: employ people by the same rules the rest of us have to, no special treatment, or get out of the business of employing people.
Actually they did, and Jim Crow was law. A group of elected officials voted, it passed, and then everyone else had to obey. Those who wanted to serve the public without regard for skin color were barred from doing so. Conscience was overridden by legislation, just like the RCC & contraception.axordil wrote:And while you're correct about no one being forced to work for them, that's not the point. Blacks didn't *have* to travel, or shop, or interact with society in ways that Jim Crow limited. That didn't make Jim Crow any less wrong.
So now joining the RCC is a condition of employment? Or not paying for contraception on your own time with your own money is a condition of employment? This is all about the Church not paying for it, not about nobody paying for it.axordil wrote:Employees, or potential employees, shouldn't have to worry about their 14th Amendment right to Equal Protection going pfft because a potential employer wants to enforce their religious beliefs on them.
I certainly think slippery slope should be kept in sight, in diet and in politics. But even the obese Americans need to eat.yovargas wrote:Using obesity as an argument against worrying abou slippery slopes is probably is probably not the best example in a US-centered thread.Frelga wrote:Well, that first spoonful of yogurt in the morning is the start of the slippery slope toward 600lb obese body. Yet most of us have breakfast and retain non-spherical shape.
(Fun unrelated fact - IIRC, the US state with the highest obesity rates 20 years ago would now be the lowest.)
Sure am. The government has a vested interest in doing so, when the welfare of the public is at stake. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the right of the government to do so in such cases has been settled law for more than 70 years.But you are intervening in a contract that both parties agreed to.
You misunderstand. My point was that, simply because blacks could *survive* without being allowed the same rights as everyone else didn't make withholding those rights somehow insignificant. The issue is not what someone can make do with; the issue is that the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment is being ignored.Actually they did
No, but toeing the RCC line on any number of issues is. See the links I posted in response to Anthriel. It's like the bishops, realizing they can't get their parishioners to do what they tell them, are taking it out on people they have real leverage with.So now joining the RCC is a condition of employment?
And while some of us kooky libertarian types aren't thrilled with that, I'd hope that folks of any spectrum can agree that just cuz they can interfere doesn't mean they necessarily should. Considering that not having birth control paid for by your employer doesn't prevent one from being reasonably able to obtain through other means, I'd put this under the unnecessary interference column.axordil wrote:Sure am. The government has a vested interest in doing so, when the welfare of the public is at stake. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the right of the government to do so in such cases has been settled law for more than 70 years.
I didn't say "spare change", I said reasonably available. Lots of things that are very important to a person's welfare, many far more expensive then that, aren't paid for by your employer. Most of a person's needs are expected to be paid for by themselves through their wages. Why should BC be treated differently?Primula Baggins wrote:"Reasonably able" if $600 per year (for some forms of the Pill) or $1200 for an IUD insertion is spare change to you. For many it isn't.
Yes, probably, as long as the church was clear and upfront about that.nerdanel wrote:Would you apply the same argument to a church employee who had dared to participate in sexual intercourse and contract a STD for which the church did not wish to pay because the employee's behavior went against its beliefs?
With natural consequences. Women used to have an, on average, shorter life expectancy than men and people in general had, on average, a shorter life expectancy. Death in childbirth dragged women down and death in childhood dragged the entire population down. We see echoes of that to this day in cultures that make a big stinking deal out of a child's first birthday.JewelSong wrote: Yeah, yeah, I know - women used to give birth out in the fields and wipe the kid off with grass, nurse it, place it beneath a shady tree and go back to work. It was the natural way, right?
. When I had to take them for medical reasons, as a student, I bought a few month's supply for me from India.One of my law school classmates who is currently pregnant (second trimester) - with a child that was very much planned for and wanted - says that the experience of pregnancy has made her more vehemently pro-choice and pro-contraception than she has ever been. As much as she is looking forward to the birth of her child, she tells me that she has the clearest appreciation ever for why other women would not want to go through the physically painful experiences she's currently having and why it would be inhumane to force them to do so against their will. Makes sense to me.Inanna wrote:In my current state all I can say is if I was going through this because I could not afford to buy contraceptives, I would be hopping mad. REALLY.
