In response to:

Sandra Fluke: Opposing the Contraception Mandate Is Just Like Opposing Leukemia Coverage

Panda Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 2:15 AM
That's your point? Ssssssttttttrrrrrreeeeeettttttccccccchhhhhh!!!!!!!! Yep, just a bit of a stretch there, buddy. But hey, I'm sure you'd bend over backward like that if, say, GLENN BECK made an idiotic comment like Fluke, right? Sure you would! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go collect your Soros check, troll.
ZealousConscript Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 6:53 AM
Sure. What you're saying is that employers have a right to determine the kind of health coverage that their employees get based on their personal morality, and to a point, I agree with you. However, if an employer is forcing an employee to adhere to their religion, isn't that an infringement of the employees rights? Personally I thin that we need to have a public option health insurance proposal that allows people to have an alternative to their employers health insurance. Instead of paying into X companies plan you pay into the public option insurer and everybody wins.
Panda Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 6:36 AM
Couldn't care less. I'm no JW and I don't have any reservations about blood transfusions (unless they come from Marxist wackos--could be contagious). But....

....I'M A FREE AMERICAN WHO CAN FREELY WORK WHEREVER I FREELY CHOOSE, INCLUDING A FREELY OWNED COMPANY THAT FREELY CHOOSES WHAT KIND OF HEALTH COVERAGE TO FREELY OFFER!!!!!!

Do you get it, retard? Do you? Are you capable? This isn't some backwoods Socialist country in the 1800's where I have to work where I'm sent! I have freedom, employers have freedoms, EVEN YOU HAVE FREEDOMS!

If they won't cover something, then that obviously affects their overall compensation package, WHICH AFFECTS MY CHOICE OF WHETHER TO WORK THERE.

GOT IT, RETARD? ARE YOU CAPABLE???
ZealousConscript Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 6:08 AM
So a point is made about a religious organization, of somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.3 million people in the United States, does indeed object to blood transfusions as a medical practice. So its completely possible that a large employer owned by a Jehovah's Witness, would not allow blood transfusions under their healthcare. Should we stand for this?
Panda Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 2:23 AM
Ah, dodged the point I see. Me suspects you do this all the time, troll.

Go collect your Soros check. What a joke.
Arugula76 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 2:20 AM
why on earth would I care what some loony selling overpriced gold to gullible lemmings says?

On MSNBC this afternoon, Sandra Fluke truly outdid herself, attempting to argue that the people who disagree with the contraception mandate on religious freedom grounds are in the same category as people who oppose insurance coverage for leukemia. Just...watch:

What's important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern, and they want to be able to deny...