[Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

[lfalen]

It would be best if all benefits were portable and not tied to an employer.
Roger




>-----Original Message-----
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
>From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>, "Kenneth Marcy" <kmmos1 at frontier.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Date: 07/12/14 08:56:04
>
>Health care is not a right, No where in the Constitution is it listed as such. Particularly   not one that an employer must provide. If they want to do so that should be their call.
>I am busy hauling hay and do not have time to respond to any thing on the vis. for the time being.
>Roger
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
>>From: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>
>>To: "Kenneth Marcy" <kmmos1 at frontier.com>, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Date: 07/10/14 06:49:06
>>
>>Roger's comment:   I am not into
>>> forcing anyone to do anything, with a few exceptions such as paying taxes. 
>>> Forcing some one to pay for the consequences of some one else's pleasure 
>>> is the opposite of separation of church and state. To claim otherwise is 
>>> Orwellian.
>>
>>My take on it, and ultimately I believe most citizens will stand here:  To 
>>allow an employer to deny an employee an otherwise guaranteed employment 
>>right, based  on the employer's religious convictions, is a direct violation 
>>of the separation of church and state.   And it isn't Orwellian, it should 
>>be a First Amendment Protection.  If this decision and the injunction 
>>allowed Wheaton College are allowed to stand there will be little to keep an 
>>employer from denying other employment benefits.  Of course, maybe this will 
>>move us closer to a single payer system not based on employment.  That would 
>>be good.
>>
>>Sue H.
>>
>>-----Original Message----- 
>>From: Kenneth Marcy
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 8:52 PM
>>To: lfalen ; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision
>>
>>
>>On 7/9/2014 6:06 PM, lfalen wrote:
>>> The SCOTUS decision was in favor of the separation of church and state. 
>>> This is not a disease. Why should someone else pay for the consequences of 
>>> your pleasure. Abstinence is only one option. I agree that not many will 
>>> use it. I listed others. If an Insurance Company wants to offer a birth 
>>> control policy, fine. If someone wants to buy it, fine. If some one wants 
>>> to provide it free, fine. I am not into forcing anyone to do anything, 
>>> with a few exceptions such as paying taxes. Forcing some one to pay for 
>>> the consequences of some one else's pleasure is the opposite of separation 
>>> of church and state. To claim otherwise is Orwellian.
>>> Roger
>>
>>Interesting.  So, then, you are in favor of higher taxes on families
>>with more children, right?  Certainly those who have no or just one or
>>two children should not be subsidizing those who have three, four, five,
>>six, ... need the multiplications of the masses of the various pleasure
>>promoting pulpits be repeated, begat after begat, yet again?  To avoid
>>Orwellianism certainly you would be in favor of removing a standard
>>deduction for child number three, and the second standard deduction for
>>child number four, and then adding to taxable income a standard
>>deduction for child number five, and adding a similar amount for child
>>number six, etc., etc., to the limits of the procreative prowess of the
>>fruitful multiplicity, correct?
>>
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>
>>
>>=======================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>
>
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================