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

[lfalen]

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
>=======================================================