Skip to comments.Tom Monaghan sues feds over new health care law (Domino's Founder)
Posted on 12/15/2012 12:33:27 AM PST by true believer foreverEdited on 12/15/2012 5:34:48 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
"Tom Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception is not health care and instead is a "gravely immoral" practice. He's a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court, along with his Domino's Farms, which runs an office park near Ann Arbor.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxny.com ...
Monaghan sold Domino’s back in 1998 to Bain Capital.
‘Monaghan sold Dominos back in 1998 to Bain Capital.’
Sit up higher in your chair so reality doesn’t sail so far over your grape, granny.
Indeed, contraception is not health care. Contraception is a means for the Marxists to control the population to reduce the burden of costs of a totalitarian government dream that is becoming a reality in this country. To implement their godless centralized control, the Democrats must get rid of the churches, and redefine "health care."
I understand the abortion part and agree. I don’t agree with the contraception part.
“Contraception” includes the “morning after pill” and other “emergency” birth control, which does, in fact abort the fetus at a very early stage.
Just ask for a little extra this or that and you can tweak it!
The only thing I’d miss about Brooklyn after leaving is the food, especially the pizza. You don’t know pizza until you’ve had it from Brooklyn.
The question is not what you think about contraception but rather whether he has the God given right to believe it to be immoral.
Does little A.A. want some praise for being a know-it-all jerk?
I understand the abortion part and agree. I don’t agree with the contraception part.
It is immoral to use contraception? If that is your belief then having sex outside of procreation is immoral. I feel sorry for people who live by that code.
Obamacare is F’ing us.
My other question is will Ava Maria Law School be assisting in this...
Sadly no, we're doing it to ourselves.
“...It is immoral to use contraception?...”
Whether it is or it isn’t is not the point. It’s “immoral” to ask the rest of us to pay for it for you. Buy your own damn contraceptives and leave the rest of us alone.
53% of us are, and they don’t even know it.
Contraception is NOT healthcare. It is a means to prevent pregnancy.
If people want to have sex and not get pregnant, they can use birth control on their OWN dime, not mine.
It is just as immoral to ask me to pay for people who smoke, in fact, more immoral. Ppeople who eat like slobs and expect me to pay their fat ass medical bills also piss me off.
The bigger truth is that things were better before we had medical insurance. Then the boss was not involved in my business and medical costs were manageable.
Emphysema is not part of regular healthcare. It is almost always caused by smoking. You want to smoke and get insurance? Don’t do it on my dime.
The cumulative effects of life and a few bad decisions along the way do eventually come to the fore. I’d hope your life has been filled with nothing but good choices, no periods of activity deleterious to health, ever, and that you’re physically well above the norm in every regard, with such an attitude.
You’ll still die anyway. You’re still likely to decline and become sick, to require hospitalization. No escaping that.
At what point are you willing to draw the line, as far as conditions that should not be covered? Smoking, check. Alcohol consumption? Lack of exercise? Poor diet? Sexually transmitted diseases? Getting old? Mental incapacity? Not washing your hands after a visit to the toilet? Riding a bicycle without a helmet?
A remarkably rigid, authoritarian society awaits on ghe other end of such thinking. We’re halfway there already.
They don’t call them health nazis for nothing.
Actually emphysema IS a chronic disease. As is diabetes, heart attacks, cancer, etc.
A lot of these diseases are caused by life styles, sometimes not.
Preventing pregnancy and abortions ARE NOT diseases.
Tom Monaghan is a real committed Catholic, unlike the Johnny come-lately former evangelical Bobby Jindal, who now claims to be Catholic, but advocates for birth control pills to be bought over the counter.
I wonder what Naples, Italy thinks of that...
Thanks true believer forever. He objects on the grounds that contraception is morally wrong.
I hold no obligations to Italy. I don’t care.
You are totally missing the point. This issue is not about what you, I or Tom think about contraception, sex or morality. It's about freedom of religion. By forcing Tom to pay for his employees' contraception, the government is basically telling him that his view on contraception is not valid.
You agree with that view today. What will you do when the government will tell you one day that your opinion is invalid?
Stand with Tom and his religious liberty today, so you won't stand, opressed and alone tomorrow!
I respectfully disagree. Similar arguments were used to promote not allowing blacks and Jews to be parts of society. Should a landlord be allowed to only allow white Christians to use his services? How about a restaurant? I think that religious people should be free to live their lives the way they choose but should not be allowed to impose their beliefs on others.
Admittedly, this is no simple issue.
This is rich! Tom is asking not to be forced to pay for somebody's sexual activity. In your worldview he is imposing his beliefs on others.
The government is forcing him to pay for somebody's sexual activity... But that's OK!
I’m not going to debate the morality of contraceptive use, but I’ll offer a point for you to consider.
Separating sex from the POSSIBILITY of procreation has deep societal, cultural, and moral consequences, as we have seen since the 60’s.
The incentive for marriage is reduced, which reduces the incidence of the “family”, and the family is what directs the energies of young men toward productive, society building endeavors.
That being said, I would not have any problem with the use of contraceptives within the framework of marriage, since the family is already established at that point.
The govt forces me to pay for cigarette smokers. Can I please withdraw my support?
My point is only that if we allow a menu option of what employers will cover, what is to prevent them from taking similar steps to not insure smokers or fast food eaters or fat people etc.
Absolutely nothing! They are endowed by the Creator with the unalienable Right of Liberty!
Is this point unclear on this website?
So, if an employer chooses not to give insurance coverage to a Christian he would have the freedom to do so?
Yes, that's the general idea behind freedom.
It may shock you to know that discrimination against Christians is not illegal in this country. The Catholic Church is allowed to hire only Catholics in their schools, hospitals, charities or whatever other businesses they might run. I suspect Muslims are likewise allowed to NOT hire Christians and therefore not give them insurance.
There are long and winding debates on the subject of legislated equality and its impact on the Constitution's guaranteed freedoms. I tend to side with the opinion I have gleamed from Thomas Sowell's books that:
1) It is economically not in the interest of business owners to discriminate,
2) Racism and discrimination, to the extent that they existed despite incurred economic penalties, tended to start to correct themselves long before the government acted with "equality" laws, and,
3) Government action leaves behind a trail of unintended consequences and in some cases even reversals of the positive trends that started before they acted.
Please read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" and "Economic Facts and Fallacies"
Brooklyn, as in New York? Sorry, all I need to know about New York and your alleged pizza is Chucky Schummer,.........
Politics aside, what does Schumer have to do with the food here?
Short term memory loss Sakic or just selective ignorance?
The tobacco lawsuits and the subsequent draconian rise in taxes on tobacco products in virtually every state were earmarked specifically to fund the alleged medical costs that each state claimed it was going to have to incur due to alleged smoking illnesses........
The industry and its purchasers have been subsidizing their own health care so take your self righteous whine somewhere else..............
Smoker’s “alleged” medical costs? That is funny material.
1 and 3 are true. 2 is false.
If you believe money collected by govt goes where they tell you, you are seriously deluded.
I merely gave you the facts, your problem is with the govt., not the smokers........Like I said, they're paying for the healthcare costs as determined by your state....
Not as funny as yours and the other states' equally ridiculous claim on the alleged healthcare burden of smokers...
But that's a moot argument since the states are already forcing the smokers to pay for their burden on their healthcare systems as I have already pointed out to you.......
And like I said, what the states do with that money is your problem, not the smokers........
Funny that anyone believes that smoking does not increase healthcare spending.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.