Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 2565292" data-attributes="member: 277"><p>With your quote about, lets go back to my earlier question. How does this position impact a person's right to access meds for STDs, AIDS, or even prenatal care? Surely some of the people who need meds for AIDS or other STDs got them by doing something immoral by HL standards. </p><p></p><p>Also, if a woman wants to 'slut around' as you put it, why should the company cover any of her pregnancy costs. I mean we seem to be using a company's moral position to equate to exactly what coverage a person is allowed, so why stop at the morning after pill for a bad decision? Clearly HL should be able to only cover the costs of those who get pregnant while married, right? I mean that is the moral thing and to do anything else seems like it'd be rewarding her irresponsible decision, right?</p><p></p><p>I'm also curious why then should a company like HL offer to cover someone's viagra? Surely not everyone who uses that coverage is married or using it in a 'moral' way. So should HL be able to get reports from a doctor about who is and isn't using that coverage so that it can approve or disapprove of the 'moral' use?</p><p></p><p>Finally, would this moral framework allow companies to refuse to cover any benefits for homosexual employees?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donner, post: 2565292, member: 277"] With your quote about, lets go back to my earlier question. How does this position impact a person's right to access meds for STDs, AIDS, or even prenatal care? Surely some of the people who need meds for AIDS or other STDs got them by doing something immoral by HL standards. Also, if a woman wants to 'slut around' as you put it, why should the company cover any of her pregnancy costs. I mean we seem to be using a company's moral position to equate to exactly what coverage a person is allowed, so why stop at the morning after pill for a bad decision? Clearly HL should be able to only cover the costs of those who get pregnant while married, right? I mean that is the moral thing and to do anything else seems like it'd be rewarding her irresponsible decision, right? I'm also curious why then should a company like HL offer to cover someone's viagra? Surely not everyone who uses that coverage is married or using it in a 'moral' way. So should HL be able to get reports from a doctor about who is and isn't using that coverage so that it can approve or disapprove of the 'moral' use? Finally, would this moral framework allow companies to refuse to cover any benefits for homosexual employees? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom