For example on abortion (but it can go for many things): Leftists like to say it's not their employer's business whether or not their employee has an abortion. Okay, I'll go with that. But part of them saying that it's "not their business" is that when their employer gives her health insurance, that it should include paying for abortions. Can you say hypocrisy!?!? If you are making your employer pay for your abortion, you ARE FORCING IT on him. I will play the Devil's Advocate (even though I am not entirely on board) that if you pay for an abortion on your own, and he tries to stop you, I guess in some ways than it's him forcing his beliefs somewhat. This also goes for things like forcing someone to make a gay wedding cake when he doesn't agree, or for taxpayer funding of abortions, and many other things.
For example on abortion (but it can go for many things): Leftists like to say it's not their employer's business whether or not their employee has an abortion. Okay, I'll go with that. But part of them saying that it's "not their business" is that when their employer gives her health insurance, that it should include paying for abortions. Can you say hypocrisy!?!? If you are making your employer pay for your abortion, you ARE FORCING IT on him. I will play the Devil's Advocate (even though I am not entirely on board) that if you pay for an abortion on your own, and he tries to stop you, I guess in some ways than it's him forcing his beliefs somewhat. This also goes for things like forcing someone to make a gay wedding cake when he doesn't agree, or for taxpayer funding of abortions, and many other things.
I can... but it doesn't apply here.For example on abortion (but it can go for many things): Leftists like to say it's not their employer's business whether or not their employee has an abortion. Okay, I'll go with that. But part of them saying that it's "not their business" is that when their employer gives her health insurance, that it should include paying for abortions. Can you say hypocrisy!?!?
I can... but it doesn't apply here.
Let's say your boss has a strong moral disapproval of eating meat. Is he justified in firing employees who use their wages to purchase and buy meat? Is it hypocritical of you to buy a hamburger with the salary he pays you?
Or, let's say your boss is a Democrat, and believes that contributions to Republicans are immoral. Is your boss justified in demanding that you refrain from donating to Republicans?
Does the boss paying for part of your health insurance give him control over your health care decisions?
The employer isn't "paying for your abortion." You're not "forcing" anything. The employer's contribution to your health insurance is just another form of compensation, and your boss shouldn't have the right to tell you what to do with your wages.
For example on abortion (but it can go for many things): Leftists like to say it's not their employer's business whether or not their employee has an abortion. Okay, I'll go with that. But part of them saying that it's "not their business" is that when their employer gives her health insurance, that it should include paying for abortions. Can you say hypocrisy!?!? If you are making your employer pay for your abortion, you ARE FORCING IT on him. I will play the Devil's Advocate (even though I am not entirely on board) that if you pay for an abortion on your own, and he tries to stop you, I guess in some ways than it's him forcing his beliefs somewhat. This also goes for things like forcing someone to make a gay wedding cake when he doesn't agree, or for taxpayer funding of abortions, and many other things.
For example on abortion (but it can go for many things): Leftists like to say it's not their employer's business whether or not their employee has an abortion. Okay, I'll go with that. But part of them saying that it's "not their business" is that when their employer gives her health insurance, that it should include paying for abortions. Can you say hypocrisy!?!? If you are making your employer pay for your abortion, you ARE FORCING IT on him. I will play the Devil's Advocate (even though I am not entirely on board) that if you pay for an abortion on your own, and he tries to stop you, I guess in some ways than it's him forcing his beliefs somewhat. This also goes for things like forcing someone to make a gay wedding cake when he doesn't agree, or for taxpayer funding of abortions, and many other things.
'Does this mean that I will get a 30% tax cut because I disprove of the current military?
How are you being forced to pay for an elective abortion?
Morality has nothing to do with it. It is taxes that benefit society... you may be against driving but society still builds roads.
After he pays you, IT'S YOUR MONEY. When the money is still his, forcing him to pay for something he is morally against is FORCING something. If I buy health insurance for somebody, that's my money. If the person wants their health insurance to pay for abortions, that person better purchase some PRIVATE INSURANCE that covers it.
No, it isn't.After he pays you, IT'S YOUR MONEY. When the money is still his, forcing him to pay for something he is morally against is FORCING something. If I buy health insurance for somebody, that's my money.
'
Once they receive the actual paycheck, legally that's their business. If I have to pay for your healthcare coverage to fund it, or pay for it through taxes, that's mine. May I add that I said previously on these boards that I support privatizing the military.
Your benefits are considered to be part of your salary, hence what you use the insurance for is your business. That was easy.
They are also paying for that healthcare coverage or receive it as part of their benefits package and you cannot tell them how they can use what they also pay for because of your religious beliefs because they also have the same religious beliefs. Public healthcare doesn't pay for elective abortions because of the Hyde amendment.
Your religious beliefs stop at the end of your nose where the religious and secular rights of others begin. Keep your myths at home or at church where they belong.
Privatizing the military is called mercenaries. We have seen how that works with the Bush administssion using Blackwater in Iraq.
No, benefits are not part of your salary. Your employer still pays for it. If they pick out what benefits to give you, than it's their business. What if I stated that guy down the street is constantly harassing me. He's bad for my health. Hence, my insurance should pay for him to be killed. Same difference.
Nope the benefits package is part of your salay for your services, go ask your HR.
Once you give someone something, it's none of your business what they do with it. Don't give your employees health insurance, if you don't like what they do with it.For example on abortion (but it can go for many things): Leftists like to say it's not their employer's business whether or not their employee has an abortion. Okay, I'll go with that. But part of them saying that it's "not their business" is that when their employer gives her health insurance, that it should include paying for abortions. Can you say hypocrisy!?!? If you are making your employer pay for your abortion, you ARE FORCING IT on him. I will play the Devil's Advocate (even though I am not entirely on board) that if you pay for an abortion on your own, and he tries to stop you, I guess in some ways than it's him forcing his beliefs somewhat. This also goes for things like forcing someone to make a gay wedding cake when he doesn't agree, or for taxpayer funding of abortions, and many other things.
Who said my pro-life views were "religious"? You do realize I'm a former atheist right? Even when I was an atheist I believed homosexuality was unnatural and that abortion was murder. I also used to mock ALL RELIGIONS, especially Christianity when I was an atheist.
Nope the benefits package is part of your salay for your services, go ask your HR.
This is absurd.I'll use this example again.... What if I stated that guy down the street is constantly harassing me. He's bad for my health. Hence, my insurance should pay for him to be killed. Same difference.
I am morally opposed to the police having guns. We better take them all away...
Well your party is doing its best to ban the police. Only question is who is going to round them up and send them to furnaces for you.
News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties UnionAmerican policing has never been a neutral institution. The first U.S. city police department was a slave patrol, and modern police forces have directed oppression and violence at Black people to enforce Jim Crow, wage the War on Drugs, and crack down on protests. When people ask for police reform, many are actually asking for this oppressive system to be dismantled and to invest in institutions, resources, and services that help communities grow and thrive. That’s why many protestors and activists, following in the footsteps of Black-led grassroots groups, are demanding immediate defunding of police departments.
The idea of defunding, or divestment, is new to some folks, but the basic premise is simple: We must cut the astronomical amount of money that our governments spend on law enforcement and give that money to more helpful services like job training, counseling, and violence-prevention programs. Each year, state and local governments spend upward of $100 billion dollars on law enforcement—and that’s excluding billions more in federal grants and resources.
Budgets are not created in a vacuum. They can be changed through targeted advocacy and organizing. We can demand that our local officials (including city council members and mayors) stop allocating funds for the police to acquire more militarized equipment and instead ask for that money to go toward community-run violence-prevention programs.
Funneling so many resources into law enforcement instead of education, affordable housing, and accessible health care has caused significant harm to communities. Police violence is actually a leading cause of death for Black men: A recent study found that 1 in 1,000 Black men can expect to be killed by police, and public health experts have described police violence as a serious public health issue. For a country like ours, which considers itself a modern democracy that pushes ideals of freedom and justice for all, that number should be truly shocking.
Much of the work police do is merely engage in the daily harassment of Black communities for minor crimes or crimes of poverty that shouldn’t be criminalized in the first place. Consider this: Out of the 10.3 million arrests made per year, only 5 percent are for the most serious offenses, including murder, rape, and aggravated assault. These are the ones that truly threaten public safety. The other 95 percent of arrests are for things like traffic violations, marijuana possession, unlawful assembly, and even removing a shopping cart from store premises. That means that police spend the most resources going after minor incidents that actually don’t threaten everyday life but do lead to mass criminalization and incarceration.
And as you know, some arrests are made for doing nothing at all beyond being Black.
We have little evidence, if any, to show that more police surveillance results in fewer crimes and greater public safety. Indeed, funneling police into communities of color and pushing officers to make arrests just perpetuates harm and trauma. Yet since the 1980s, spending on law enforcement and our criminal legal system has dramatically outpaced that in community services such as housing, education, and violence prevention programs. Those are the institutions that help build stable, safe, and healthy communities.
Defunding the police doesn't mean that there will be no police. Put down the Fox News crackpipe and read something factual.
News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union
Yep stopped reading as soon as I saw the phrase "slave patrol". Talk about crackpipes....
Early American cops were charged with slave patrol and retuning runaway slaves.
The earliest american policing was colonial night watchmen looking for gambling, whoring, and general mischief.
When one thinks about policing in early America, there are a few images that may come to mind: A county sheriff enforcing a debt between neighbors, a constable serving an arrest warrant on horseback, or a lone night watchman carrying a lantern through his sleeping town. These organized practices were adapted to the colonies from England and formed the foundations of American law enforcement. However, there is another significant origin of American policing that we cannot forget—and that is slave patrols.
The American South relied almost exclusively on slave labor and white Southerners lived in near constant fear of slave rebellions disrupting this economic status quo. As a result, these patrols were one of the earliest and most prolific forms of early policing in the South. The responsibility of patrols was straightforward—to control the movements and behaviors of enslaved populations. According to historian Gary Potter, slave patrols served three main functions.
“(1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside the law.”
Organized policing was one of the many types of social controls imposed on enslaved African Americans in the South. Physical and psychological violence took many forms, including an overseer’s brutal whip, the intentional breakup of families, deprivation of food and other necessities, and the private employment of slave catchers to track down runaways.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?