-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Blood Transfusions
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
You have touched on a potentially huge problem created by the current Supreme Court. In essence they have ruled that corporations are theocracies and can pick and choose what health conditions they will or will not cover depending on the owners or board of directors said religious beliefs. I make the prediction this is going to lead to some terrible things happening to American workers in the future.
Salty, to answer your question I would protest this corporate policy. But with the decision yesterday I do not see how it would be declared illegal to not fund blood transfusions or any other medical practice said corporation says they do not believe in using.
One of the dumber things said on this board.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Despite the inane, self-serving and politically insane statements of one member here, it isn't an issue that will come up. The SCOTUS decision focuses narrowly on "morning after" contraception. That is the only subject addressed in the majority opinion, and no wild-eyed speculation by the radical leftist above/below -- depending on how you order your threads -- to the contrary will change that. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case, finding the contraceptive mandate in its current form "unlawful." Only the contraceptive mandate. No other part of the law is affected.
If the decision were broader so as to allow Christian-owned companies subjecft to the ACA to opt out of any coverage they found objectionable on the basis of faith, such as Salty's OP suggesting blood transfusions, I'd figure I'd have to pay for blood transfusions and get on with life while I looked for either another job or attempted to locate supplemental coverage elsewhere.
If the decision were broader so as to allow Christian-owned companies subjecft to the ACA to opt out of any coverage they found objectionable on the basis of faith, such as Salty's OP suggesting blood transfusions, I'd figure I'd have to pay for blood transfusions and get on with life while I looked for either another job or attempted to locate supplemental coverage elsewhere.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt Rev. I do not think you have sat down and give this careful though philosophy. Basically the SC decision does the following:
Not only has this court declared corporations persons, but now have said those corporations can impose religious beliefs on their employees.
How can a corporation have a religious belief?
What other beliefs can a corporation force upon its employees?
Can a Catholic owned corporation fire any employee who buys and uses contraceptive devices?
Can a Jehovah's Witness owned corporation refuse any and all health coverage for its employees?
Can a corporation use religious beliefs in determining their hiring practices?
What about the religious beliefs of the employees? How are they protected?
Just a few questions that come to mind. There will be many more issues brought forth, and many more cases in many areas that will be brought before the courts.
This is a huge can of worms the SC has opened.
P.S. I assume you also realize this decision gives the Democrats another huge round of artillery in their accusations that the GOP is at war against women.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here you go being inconsistent again. When it comes to corporations feeding the homeless then all of the sudden they can be treated as individuals. I know extremists like yourself like to have it both ways but it will not stand here.
And claiming it makes them theocracies is just stupid.
I have never agreed that corporations are individuals. I have said their policies, made by management and they are individuals, can be moral or immoral. Stop derailing the thread Rev. Stay on the topic.
This decision will result in much mischief.
A theocracy can make and enforce their religious belief on those under it. Corporations can now force the religious beliefs of the owners or board of directors on the employees.
http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-the-corporation-cult-creeping-theocracy/
Religious Liberty and the Coming Corporate Theocracy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-w-lynn/supreme-court-religious-freedom_b_4956018.html
I predict within five years you are going to be railing against one or more of the ramifications that come about because of this decision.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you give us one scenario where this would happen ?
UH no, you are clearly inconsistent and want it both ways so you have the availability to condemn corps in any way you like. It is called liberalism and it is a disease.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
In the military, a religious belief has to be verified as valid by a certified person. For example, if I tried to get out of duty on a Sunday, I could get a chaplain to back me up and say that I do indeed go to church. Then the military is obligated to accommodate my religious belief, mission permitting.
I think this will be the same thing. If someone suddenly claims that their religious beliefs do not allow ER visits, and so they shouldn't have to pay for them, that'd never fly. It's not a recognized and common religious belief.
Now, concerning blood transfusions, that is a common, legitimate belief. It could happen. But I seriously doubt it. But to play along with the hypothetical, I would say that if finding a different job was an option, that's what I'd go with. If not, I'd have to find supplemental coverage. I wouldn't agree with the policy, but like I said, it's a legitimate, common belief. It's their right.
I think this will be the same thing. If someone suddenly claims that their religious beliefs do not allow ER visits, and so they shouldn't have to pay for them, that'd never fly. It's not a recognized and common religious belief.
Now, concerning blood transfusions, that is a common, legitimate belief. It could happen. But I seriously doubt it. But to play along with the hypothetical, I would say that if finding a different job was an option, that's what I'd go with. If not, I'd have to find supplemental coverage. I wouldn't agree with the policy, but like I said, it's a legitimate, common belief. It's their right.
N
NE HAS ANSWERED MY QUESTION YET.It is a simple yes or no.
For myself, the answer is NO!
If that is their policy - so be it. If I dont like it, I can go elsewhere.
I would agree.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
Aw, we posted at the same time, Salty. I answered you. Short answer, "no".N
It is a simple yes or no.
For myself, the answer is NO!
If that is their policy - so be it. If I dont like it, I can go elsewhere.
Hehe no he can't and did you notice that he asserted that "even you" will be able to see it.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
Double post.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yup. A petty, bitter man is our C.T.Boy.
ROFL, oh Bro. C. I am not bitter. I am so blessed by God that there is no room for bitterness. I am a very happy person, but not blind to what is being done to our country. What I am is sorry for your younger folk who are going to have to live in the world this Supreme Court are creating. I do not have that many years left. I do not envy you, your kids and their kids and the world they will have to live in.
As I said within 5 years you will be screaming over some of the ramifications of this ruling. Those will not matter to my personal life .... but I truly feel sorry for you and others who simply refuse to see what is being done to you, not just in this ruling but also in other rulings.