|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 24 2017 23:26 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:12 KwarK wrote:
If a Muslim wouldn't get pork for anyone then they don't have to get it for anyone. If a Muslim gets pork only for able bodied people then they have to start getting pork for disabled people too. That's all. And if SCbM only make cakes for weddings that are in line with their Christian beliefs? i.e. they don't just refuse to make weddings for same-sex couples, but also for polygamists, for incestuous couples, for a master and a concubine?
Those aren't protected classes.
|
On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content.
Oh, you two have a disagreement all right. He compels artistic expression in Christian cases because there are no protections there if he feels it's all a smokescreen for discrimination against protected classes. But I see he's already made that abundantly clear now so you are disabused of that notion.
|
On March 24 2017 23:28 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:26 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 23:12 KwarK wrote:
If a Muslim wouldn't get pork for anyone then they don't have to get it for anyone. If a Muslim gets pork only for able bodied people then they have to start getting pork for disabled people too. That's all. And if SCbM only make cakes for weddings that are in line with their Christian beliefs? i.e. they don't just refuse to make weddings for same-sex couples, but also for polygamists, for incestuous couples, for a master and a concubine? Those aren't protected classes.
But what KwarK was saying earlier is that your protected class isn't a license to force people to wipe your ass.
Clearly the intent here isn't discriminatory. It's not just a smoke screen, as if it it were "I'd service gay people, but [only under preposterous conditions that would result in me never servicing gay people]".
|
United States43550 Posts
I mean this isn't too difficult to understand
"Hey, we'd like to order a wedding cake with writing on it"
"Great, we can totally do that, we do that all the time. What do you want on it?"
"Congratulations to Alex and Sam on your wedding"
"Oh, no, we can't do that, not for Alex and Sam"
"No, you're misunderstanding, you see Sam is Samantha, she just goes by Sam"
"Oh, well in that case we can totally do the cake, they'll love it"
"Great, I'll let Alex know, she'll be delighted"
"We can't do the cake anymore"
It's not about the writing, it's about the fact that Alex and Sam are lesbians.
And there is no such thing as a business that is entitled only to provide service in line with their religious beliefs. You either provide services to the general public or you do not. And if you do provide them to the general public then your religious beliefs are legally outranked by non discrimination against protected classes. They had to be, religious objections formed the heart of objections to the civil rights movement.
|
idk man I can already see through the ice you're standing on there. And it's not the highly compressed, devoid of air type of ice I'm referring to.
For the sake of taking your argument, IF they would want to do that, they'd be hard pressed to have coherent standards on what they base their service policy on. Why it would include these examples you gave and not e.g. "bad christians". Which would exclude include the difficulty of stating what a good christian is and ultimately exclude 90% of all christians. Kinda niche business.
Point is that it's arbitrary to use "christian belief" as an argument for exclusion. Above all because you should love all people and preach forgiveness, you can even argue that excluding people from services is unchristian in itself on that presumption.
|
On March 24 2017 23:33 KwarK wrote:
And there is no such thing as a business that is entitled only to provide service in line with their religious beliefs. You either provide services to the general public or you do not. And if you do provide them to the general public then your religious beliefs are legally outranked by non discrimination against protected classes. They had to be, religious objections formed the heart of objections to the civil rights movement.
Well then we must disagree here. I think only under the most critical of scenarios should one be forced to violate their religious beliefs. I wouldn't draft a Quaker to fight on the front lines, I wouldn't make Hindus have to load their guns by using their teeth to rip ammo cartridges sealed with pork grease.
On March 24 2017 23:35 Artisreal wrote:
Point is that it's arbitrary to use "christian belief" as an argument for exclusion. Above all because you should love all people and preach forgiveness, you can even argue that excluding people from services is unchristian in itself on that presumption.
The most basic principle of Christian charity is "Hate the sin, love the sinner." In that sense it is perfectly capable to show the utmost love to a gay couple without endorsing same-sex marriage.
|
On March 24 2017 23:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 22:46 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 22:43 ThaddeusK wrote:On March 24 2017 21:59 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 21:28 LightSpectra wrote:On March 23 2017 13:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Christians aren't refusing to make homosexual couples cakes because of the content of the cakes. They're just cakes, they presumably aren't cakes of dicks and depictions of gay sex, they're just plain boring wedding cakes. They're refusing to make cakes because of their dislike of the person ordering it. You're demonstrably false because the baker that's been in the news knew the homosexual couple and made them cakes before. Where the line was drawn was a cake that celebrated gay marriage, since that was against their religious beliefs. Or would you force a Jewish baker to make a swastika cake too? Since when were Nazis a protected class? Nobody is advocating that we end all discrimination against the third Reich. If a black person asked for a swastika cake, would the Jewish baker be forced to make it because race is a protected class? I guess your response would be, "No, because being black has nothing to do with the swastika cake." And I would reply, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not refuse service to the gay people, they only refused to bake a cake that contradicted their own religious beliefs." Your confusion seems to be that you think a wedding cake for a gay wedding and a wedding cake for a straight wedding are inherently different products. My understanding of the whole bakery situation was that the gay couple wanted a completely standard wedding cake, a cake that the bakery would have happily sold them if they were straight, so they can't claim the product was against their religious beliefs. You're mistaken. The bakers in question (Sweet Cakes by Melissa) had lots of pre-made wedding cakes. They knew the gay couple, they had sold them baked goods before. What they refused was to custom-make a cake that was specifically celebratory of gay marriage. Let's be clear here, I would not defend a merchant that said "I'm not serving LGBT people at all, period, end of story." What I'm defending is the notion that one should have the right of their religious liberty to not have to custom-make something that offends their beliefs. Suppose there was a Muslim catering service; if you were of some protected class, do you think it'd be right to force them to serve you pork and cocktails? You're not getting this. People in protected classes can't demand that everyone else wipe their asses for them. They can only demand that they not be discriminated against ON THE BASIS OF THEIR CLASS. If a Muslim wouldn't get pork for anyone then they don't have to get it for anyone. If a Muslim gets pork only for able bodied people then they have to start getting pork for disabled people too. That's all. Nobody is saying that protected class membership is a superpower that compels obedience from businesses. You're a member of several protected classes, as is everyone else. No matter what your race, religion, gender, sexual preference, age, disability status etc you are protected from discrimination on those grounds.
Thanks for the explanations Kwark, you've made them quite understandable. Legally, a baker is allowed to refuse to bake a cake so long as the reason has nothing to do with the costumer's status as a protected class. Seems surprisingly simple.
|
United States43550 Posts
On March 24 2017 23:37 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:33 KwarK wrote:
And there is no such thing as a business that is entitled only to provide service in line with their religious beliefs. You either provide services to the general public or you do not. And if you do provide them to the general public then your religious beliefs are legally outranked by non discrimination against protected classes. They had to be, religious objections formed the heart of objections to the civil rights movement. Well then we must disagree here. I think only under the most critical of scenarios should one be forced to violate their religious beliefs. I wouldn't draft a Quaker to fight on the front lines, I wouldn't make Hindus have to load their guns by using their teeth to rip ammo cartridges sealed with pork grease.
Who the hell is drafting Christians into the army gay cake baking corps?
What the fuck are you talking about right now?
Hindus aren't even the pork ones. They're the beef ones. What the fuck are you going on about?
|
There are a number of small religious demographics that maintain racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted beliefs that would qualify as deeply held for the purposes of 1st Amendment protections. However, these protections are avoided by the stronger mandate of the 14th Amendment as applied to government, employment and places of public accommodation, among a few others. Accordingly, those small groups of bigots simply do not offer services through public storefront and instead do private contracting and community solicitation that doesn't requite them to serve people they don't want to.
This was a public bakeshop that claimed to serve the general public. Regardless of the current state of the law, it should be clear that such public accommodation renders religious service objections appropriate only in the most narrow of circumstances, and as KwarK keeps pointing out, the baking of a cake with two androgynous names really doesn't seem to fit in the same space other selective religious vendors occupy.
|
On March 24 2017 23:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:37 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 23:33 KwarK wrote:
And there is no such thing as a business that is entitled only to provide service in line with their religious beliefs. You either provide services to the general public or you do not. And if you do provide them to the general public then your religious beliefs are legally outranked by non discrimination against protected classes. They had to be, religious objections formed the heart of objections to the civil rights movement. Well then we must disagree here. I think only under the most critical of scenarios should one be forced to violate their religious beliefs. I wouldn't draft a Quaker to fight on the front lines, I wouldn't make Hindus have to load their guns by using their teeth to rip ammo cartridges sealed with pork grease. Who the hell is drafting Christians into the army gay cake baking corps? What the fuck are you talking about right now?
To me it's quite obvious that if a baker were to provide top-notch service to a gay couple but stop short only at making a wedding cake, that the intent is not to discriminate against gay people. I don't think it's at all comparable to forcing white supremacists to stop discriminating against black people. The intent there was to cause as much suffering as possible to black people. Making them betray their "religious beliefs" (if they were truly genuine and not just the best legal argument they could grasp) was for the good of civilization. That is not the case for the baker.
|
On March 24 2017 23:31 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:28 Mercy13 wrote:On March 24 2017 23:26 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 23:12 KwarK wrote:
If a Muslim wouldn't get pork for anyone then they don't have to get it for anyone. If a Muslim gets pork only for able bodied people then they have to start getting pork for disabled people too. That's all. And if SCbM only make cakes for weddings that are in line with their Christian beliefs? i.e. they don't just refuse to make weddings for same-sex couples, but also for polygamists, for incestuous couples, for a master and a concubine? Those aren't protected classes. But what KwarK was saying earlier is that your protected class isn't a license to force people to wipe your ass. Clearly the intent here isn't discriminatory. It's not just a smoke screen, as if it it were "I'd service gay people, but [only under preposterous conditions that would result in me never servicing gay people]".
This might depend on the jurisdiction, but it's generally okay to refuse service to someone for any reason, unless that reason is the person's membership in a protected class. Polygamists, incestuous couples, and masters and concubines aren't protected classes so it's okay to discriminate against them for being polygamists, incestuous couples, and masters and concubines. Some states (e.g. Colorado and Oregon) make sexual orientation a protected class. In those states you can't refuse to serve a gay person because they are gay.
Side note - there's currently an argument kicking around that sexual orientation is also a protected class at the federal level, because discrimination against gay people is another type of gender discrimination. SCOTUS will probably rule on this in the next few years.
|
Given how deeply ingrained hierarchy and authority are in republican philosophy, I expect this bill to make it out of congress.
|
United States43550 Posts
On March 24 2017 23:42 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:39 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:37 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 23:33 KwarK wrote:
And there is no such thing as a business that is entitled only to provide service in line with their religious beliefs. You either provide services to the general public or you do not. And if you do provide them to the general public then your religious beliefs are legally outranked by non discrimination against protected classes. They had to be, religious objections formed the heart of objections to the civil rights movement. Well then we must disagree here. I think only under the most critical of scenarios should one be forced to violate their religious beliefs. I wouldn't draft a Quaker to fight on the front lines, I wouldn't make Hindus have to load their guns by using their teeth to rip ammo cartridges sealed with pork grease. Who the hell is drafting Christians into the army gay cake baking corps? What the fuck are you talking about right now? To me it's quite obvious that if a baker were to provide top-notch service to a gay couple but stop short only at making a wedding cake, that the intent is not to discriminate against gay people. I don't think it's at all comparable to forcing white supremacists to stop discriminating against black people. The intent there was to cause as much suffering as possible to black people. Making them betray their "religious beliefs" (if they were truly genuine and not just the best legal argument they could grasp) was for the good of civilization. That is not the case for the baker.
The government is not drafting Christians into gay bakeries. That's not what is happening here. Your comparison with the government drafting Quakers into the military or making Hindus (Hindus? Really?) load pork grease ammo with their teeth makes no sense unless you're trying to compare it with gay bakery conscription. Are you trying to compare it with gay bakery conscription? Is that what you think is happening in America?
Christians are deciding they want to open up bakeries that serve the general public with the deliberate exclusion of gays.
If there were press gangs forcing Christians into gay bakeries then you might have an argument.
And for some reason you've decided that permitting discrimination against interracial marriage is wrong but homosexual marriage isn't.
|
On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it.
Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany.
The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one.
for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class)
Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth).
Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric.
On March 24 2017 23:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:42 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 23:39 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:37 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 23:33 KwarK wrote:
And there is no such thing as a business that is entitled only to provide service in line with their religious beliefs. You either provide services to the general public or you do not. And if you do provide them to the general public then your religious beliefs are legally outranked by non discrimination against protected classes. They had to be, religious objections formed the heart of objections to the civil rights movement. Well then we must disagree here. I think only under the most critical of scenarios should one be forced to violate their religious beliefs. I wouldn't draft a Quaker to fight on the front lines, I wouldn't make Hindus have to load their guns by using their teeth to rip ammo cartridges sealed with pork grease. Who the hell is drafting Christians into the army gay cake baking corps? What the fuck are you talking about right now? To me it's quite obvious that if a baker were to provide top-notch service to a gay couple but stop short only at making a wedding cake, that the intent is not to discriminate against gay people. I don't think it's at all comparable to forcing white supremacists to stop discriminating against black people. The intent there was to cause as much suffering as possible to black people. Making them betray their "religious beliefs" (if they were truly genuine and not just the best legal argument they could grasp) was for the good of civilization. That is not the case for the baker. The government is not drafting Christians into gay bakeries. That's not what is happening here. Your comparison with the government drafting Quakers into the military or making Hindus (Hindus? Really?) load pork grease ammo with their teeth makes no sense unless you're trying to compare it with gay bakery conscription. Are you trying to compare it with gay bakery conscription? Is that what you think is happening in America? Christians are deciding they want to open up bakeries that serve the general public with the deliberate exclusion of gays. If there were press gangs forcing Christians into gay bakeries then you might have an argument.
Except that exact same argument can be used in the exact opposite direction.
If the government forces Christian/ feminist/ homosexual/ black cake buyers to buy from a Christian/ feminist/ homosexual/ black owned bakery that is a problem and you might have an argument
But these people are specifically
1-choosing to buy a cake (government isn't forcing them, there's no "cake requirement" for legal marriage as far as I know)
2-choosing to buy a cake from this shop (government isn't saying you have to use this shop or one just like it)
I'd be perfectly ok with some "antinatalist" individual opening up a cake shop and selling to the general public but not for heterosexual marriages or birth celebrations (or maybe just not marriages where the bride is already pregnant). Or a 'partial' Jehovah's witness that doesn't do birthday cakes (but they will do graduations and retirements.) Or someone that won't do 13th birthdays [you could talk about the last two as violating the age protected class]
|
On March 24 2017 20:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
This is a bit of an ignorant question but are all members of congress in the US rich or are there also regular Joes? Do they all directly benefit from the tax cuts with Trumps healthcare bill?
They're mostly of the well-off variety with only a few exceptions. But they're not looking out for themselves as they are looking out for their corporate sponsors.
Of course, the real money is made after leaving office, for those that don't serve in perpetuity.
|
What is the point of some things being under a protected class, and some things not? It's to fight against deeply ingrained and unjust societal discrimination. Because of how horrific homophobia has been through history, it makes sense that LGBT people have special protection under the law. Conversely nobody is really sympathetic to patriarchal polygamists, so they aren't protected.
But from the perspective of the Christian baker, if they'd refuse a specific, custom service to both a same-sex couple and the polygamist, that seems to indicate to me that the goal isn't to cause suffering to the gay couple because they're homophobic.
So the question is, how far should the state step in, in order to combat unjust discrimination? It's a hard question because forcing people to betray their religious beliefs often leads to a lot of misery. Clearly the British were mistaken to try and do so to their Muslim and Hindu soldiers which led to the Great Mutiny. I think forcing white supremacists to betray their (alleged) religious beliefs was for the good of civilization. I think forcing a Westboro Baptist member to not completely deny service to gay people is also for the good of civilization. I don't think it's for the good of civilization, or gay people speciofically, to force bakers to make them wedding cakes, since as I said before, the intent is clearly not to cause harm or suffering, but rather to participate in a secular society without compromising their conscience qua sincerely held religious beliefs.
And that's all I'm going to say about that, it doesn't seem like I'm going to change anybody's minds.
|
Trump just threw Paul Ryan under the bus on Live TV if the bill was to fail. Holy shit.
|
United States43550 Posts
On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content. If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it. Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany. The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one. for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class) Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth). Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric.
This is the same dumb as hell argument that gays have the same marriage rights as the rest of us before gay marriage because a gay man and a gay woman could get married so what were they even complaining about. It was dumb then and it's dumb now.
You can't insist that offering to make straight cakes for anyone, gay or straight, isn't discrimination. It just doesn't work that way. It's no different from offering to host a wedding for anyone, black or white, as long as they're marrying someone of the same race. Gay marriage is to gays as straight marriage is to straights. Objection to gay marriage while welcoming straight marriage is not about the marriage, it's about the gays.
Sometimes the content is inextricably linked to the customer. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight marriage for straight people isn't allowing straight marriage for gay people. The non discriminatory equivalent of allowing straight cakes for straight weddings isn't allowing straight cakes for gay weddings. That's a logically barren and morally bankrupt argument made by people who, quite frankly, ought to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell they got here.
All of these arguments you're making have already been made, at length, in opposition of interracial marriage. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. That's why this matter has been so thoroughly settled for so long. When you can come up with an argument that doesn't work for "the racist baker would make cakes for any customer of any race as long as they weren't marrying someone of a different race because that would violate his deeply held convictions but it wasn't about the race of the customer because he'd serve any customer, there were just certain weddings he objected to", let me know.
|
On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B.
Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B.
|
Off topic: So nothing to do with US politics, but kinda weird an ammunition warehouse close to Russia's border just went off recently. Totally kidding on the Russia thing, but sucks for everyone in that area.
https://www.facebook.com/smokesmoked/videos/1660410323999659/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
On Topic: Mammograms, and the nature, shouldn't be required for men's health insurances since we're going that route, unless said man has a family that include women, then he should have the option to include it. But if I have to pay a couple dollars extra to help subsidize the cost for other women however, I will...
And as for the wedding thing, I mean, it's a business, they don't necessarily have to take your shit either if it's privately owned. It's up to the owner whether he wants to accept your payment or not. The thing about this case, is the owner clearly told them no and the reason why. I'm assuming it's because they thought the clients would understand, but I'm also assuming the clients were super liberal, and wanted to make it into a huge issue. It's like with web development, I don't want to work with toxic clients that only steal time, then the client telling everyone else I suck.
I understand it from both their positions, but personally, I would of left and just gone to another place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
