Jump to content

Princess Artemis

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Princess Artemis

  1. Are you using Ad Block? Mine was acting up and it was blocking the interactions--turns out Ad Block was blocking a "pre-footer" when it shouldn't have, which threw the whole thing off. If you have that, that might be what is causing the problem.
  2. For someone who doesn't like it when someone else is suggested to be presuming but takes that word as applicable to her and runs with it, you sure do presume a lot.
  3. I will assume that they know how their employer handles things. Was I presuming? I was, some, yes. I was presuming that I don't have all the information. I was also presuming that your being a patient at a hospital did not equate to you being employed by that hospital. I have, actually, held a job! I am aware of how some employers work in regards to what insurances they carry. Some have quite a few choices, in fact. Others, not so much. Do I know how your employer works? No, I do not. Though if your insurance isn't covering what you need it to, I submit to you that that isn't an issue that is the fault of the Catholics. I've made my point several times in the thread. I don't see a reason to make it again.
  4. Doesn't sound like you're an employee or an employer at a Catholic institution, nor an insurance agent for one of the insurances they buy for their employees. So, yes, you are presuming. Sounds like you have an issue with your insurance. You should check into it, and if you don't like it, get better insurance which you know will cover birth control. Not all insurances do, and it's not because they are Catholic.
  5. You believe it would be ridiculous for a Jewish or Muslim restaurant to get upset if they were forced by the US Government to serve pork? This surprises me. Or, are you insisting that the US Government forcing Catholic companies to pay for birth control Totally Isn't The Same Thing? Both involve the US Government forcing a religious company to do something directly against the religion of the company. Which is a First Amendment issue. As I have said elsewhere: Separation of Church and State: It's a Two Way Street.
  6. You're not coming off as rude or uncaring, no worries there. In the US, there are many large, very well respected Catholic hospitals around, and the issue is, essentially, they do not wish to be required by the US government to provide birth control for their employees; that's against their religion. It's not how they treat their patients that is at issue here, but how they are being forced to pay for services for the people who work for them. Anyhow, it's well known that hormonal birth control is useful in medical situations. It's also fairly well known that it's not the only useful thing in a lot of them--for instance, birth control is a relatively old treatment for PCOS. There are better treatments now that are more effective. I am quite certain that Catholic insurance buyers know this, and that the insurances they buy have ways of covering what is needed. They are likely pretty creative about it so that employees can get what they need and the employers don't feel like they are sinning. Yes, that's exactly what it is. If you don't know if they have a way to address medical needs or not with their employee insurances, then to presume they do not is, in fact, presumptuous.
  7. It is also fairly presumptuous to suggest that Catholic institutions, especially the hospitals which will be required to go against their religious practices, are not aware that there are medical reasons to take hormonal contraception and have things in place to address that. Again, I ask, how would you feel if Jewish or Muslim employers were forced to serve pork by the US Government? No dodging this time!
  8. How would you feel about it if the US government forced Jewish and Muslim institutions to serve pork? That's what this is about, not firing employees.
  9. It is indeed problematic. Given that Obamacare has in place the ability to refuse it based on religion (which the Amish and Mennonites will use, given that they do not pay into Social Security and also do not draw out of it), it seems perfectly logical that Obamacare forcing (and that is the key word) religious institutions to pay for contraception in violation of their religion ought be addressed similarly. What Wheaton College may or may not be doing by choice in contravention to their religion is a whole 'nother universe from the Federal government forcing them to do, in contravention to the First Amendment. Separation of Church and State: It's A Two-Way Street. That said, Santorum has a big mouth.
  10. Looked to me like Ashojj was speaking AS a younger player, so he can say that younger players have an issue with the thread because that's what he is. Which means, perhaps, that he lacks the parental supervision he ought to have while cruising the Internet, and should learn sooner (and gently) rather than later (and harshly) that the Internet is not his oyster and forums attached to dragon collecting games are not necessarily kid-friendly.
  11. https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/08...than-i-thought/ About California's coming Prop 35.
  12. Unexpected hugs (as well as light touches on the shoulder that others give me in an attempt to "comfort" me) cause, more often than not, my dystonia to get a bit more active. I don't even know how I'd react to someone I just met hugging me O_O I suspect that my body language would make it clear how incredibly uncomfortable it made me before someone closed in though. I never liked unexpected touch before, but now, aaaaaaaaaaaggghhh. Hugs are not always nice! Sometimes they are though. That is what I have against (some) hugs.
  13. Thanks for your thoughts. I didn't realize what I was asking was so dependent on your worldview and upbringing, but I can see that it is. Anyway...I'll remain thinking that it's really scary how accepting people are of "register with government at birth or be jailed"...because as I see it, registration is something one does with a commodity. Not a human. A parent isn't stealing their child from anyone if they don't get a number stamped on them : (
  14. How do you think you would feel about it if there were no extenuating circumstances? Honest question, in case it doesn't come across so.
  15. I am uncertain, but if so, this, also, is terrifying. We are not the government's property.
  16. No, in the US, thought crime in speech is not yet a real crime, although there are a lot of people who want it to be. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right in the US; as such, enacting laws against people talking in a way that others dislike is not one which will fly here...at least, not for a while. That is why we also enjoy an inalienable right to free association--if we do not like someone's speech, we are completely free to socially shame them into oblivion. We are also quite free to speak about how awful we think they are and spread our opinions around so that others will, hopefully, agree with us and the social shame will spread until someone with vastly unpopular opinions finds a lot of people exercising their freedom of association to avoid them. There are very few restrictions on the right to free speech, such as, screaming "Fire!" in a crowded building when there is no fire is not free speech. Expressing an opinion which some people dislike is the very essence of free speech. In order for anyone to enjoy freedom of speech, the speech of the worst, most vile people must be protected. One never knows when one will become "disfavored" by a government which criminalizes speech. There are libel and slander laws, which shows that a person may be civilly liable for speaking or writing lies that are harmful to another. Opinions are protected. So, any consideration that what the CEO said was illegal because other people don't like it is not one in the US. And that's it from me in the Religion thread on this subject...much more and it will go way too far away from religion, although in the US, freedom of religion is also a 1st Amendment inalienable right.
  17. WOW. I am going to have to mark that as firmly on the CON side of national health care. That's terrifying.
  18. They are speaking up about freedom of speech issues because at least one mayor, of Boston, straight out said he would abuse his power in order to prevent any Chick-Fil-As from setting up shop in his town. When government starts trying to punish a company for the speech of its CEO, yes, that is a free speech issue.
  19. Hmmm...so, you think that hearing how much the rest of the world looks down on us as ignorant savages for years on end wouldn't convince us that you guys don't like us? I think I do have an idea, yeah.
  20. She's asking about something that has been beaten to death in the news a few weeks ago, not something that was in this thread. A search engine might be a better place to find facts about it, in any case.
  21. I don't mind humans as long as they don't interact with me in a sexual or inappropriate way...
  22. So...who would you suggest, outside the parents, ought be doing the job of the parents?
  23. You are being forced to pay for a military you are philosophically against. How does that feel to you? That your hard-earned money is being taken from you to support something you abhor? In any case, I did not say I didn't want to pay for something that others will use. I never said that anywhere; if I felt that way, I wouldn't think charity was good. https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/ and http://www.caringvoice.org/ are both good charities in the health care field. Can't say I am particularly cheerful about my family doing so at gunpoint though, no. We have some weird luck with our health and don't need to have the government take from us by force, take its cut, then redistribute it back to us and everyone else as well "for our own good". That's terribly inefficient. In the US, LASIK can be got for as low as $250, I believe, but that is without any after care. The price I mentioned was average for the procedure done with a stationary laser, any medication needed, and a year's after care. The word people in this thread have been looking for is elective, not cosmetic. It didn't change how I look in the least, so LASIK cannot possibly be cosmetic. It certainly can be elective though. It is forcing when the government is reaching into pockets to pay for it or else. I do believe there are ways to fix the problem at hand (and there certainly is one) without giving it to the Federal government and saying, "Take care of us : (" How are state's rights a distraction? In the United States of America, the States are the important part. USA != Federal Gov't. States are almost but not quite like countries. Saying that the rights of states are merely a distraction seems...disrespectful of what they are.
  24. I almost never do online petitions, so shall have to pass on this one, but I certainly do hope stuff like that gets stopped.