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

[Sue Hovey]

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
=======================================================