May 10, 201214 yr I do when the voice of the people trample on human rights. But who defines those Human Rights....the people....those that voted on it......
May 10, 201214 yr But who defines those Human Rights....the people....those that voted on it...... Or the Constitution is supposed to prohibit the majority from having carte blanche, especially with regard to the rights of others.
May 10, 201214 yr Just so glad we live in a democracy where the voice of the people counts and can be heard. I hope you don't have an issue with that, do you?At one point in the history of the democracy we live in the voice of the people was pretty ok with enslaving an entire race of people and treating them as livestock. Judging by your posts I'm guessing that's ok as long as "the voice of the people counts"...
May 10, 201214 yr At one point in the history of the democracy we live in the voice of the people was pretty ok with enslaving an entire race of people and treating them as livestock. Judging by your posts I'm guessing that's ok as long as "the voice of the people counts"... Be careful with guessing. Slavery is a terrible comparison with the same sex marriage debate. Apples and IPods.
May 10, 201214 yr Be careful with guessing. Slavery is a terrible comparison with the same sex marriage debate. Apples and IPods.I'm not comparing the two. I'm talking about your assertion that the voice of the people counting is #1.
May 10, 201214 yr Be careful with guessing. Slavery is a terrible comparison with the same sex marriage debate. Apples and IPods. As separate issues, yes. When you state that you support the opinion of the majority, it is a very good comparison. It shows that following what the majority votes is not the greatest way to ensure that the right thing is being done.
May 10, 201214 yr Not that I believe. States regulate insurance for their residence. So a large company that has employees in 50 states has to work with 50 different sets of laws. I suspect that is why the large companies like the idea of nationalized healthcare. Either they get out of it all together or they only have to work with one set of rules. Here you have a state saying that it is illegal to recognize a relationship that looks or acts like 'gay marriage' or even 'civil unions'. So does that put a company at risk that does recognize the union? If so, how? What is penalty for violating the constitution. Especially if the violator is a corporation. I see lots of legal fees in someones future. I think you know I am fairly agnostic on this subject. I wish the government would get out of the marriage game all together. Everything should be just be a civil union if even that in the eyes of the government. I am probably way off base, but I have 2 situations that make me think that the state of the headquarters of the insured company dictate the regulations. When I worked for SBUX, we were offered not only benefits for same-sex partners, but also for anyone who lived in the household even if they weren't related...as long as they were documented as a resident of the household. One of my co-workers' roommate was covered under her policy, and they were NOT a same sex couple. Secondly, when I left my last job, I assumed my health insurance coverage was terminated when I left. However, because the company that owns the hotel was headquartered in Texas, I was actually covered until the beginning of the following month, because they deducted from my paycheck coverage payment that included a period overlapping into the following month. So, I left July 19. Because that paycheck deduction covered into the first part of August, I was actually covered for the entire month of August, because of Texas law.
May 10, 201214 yr ^As far as I know, regardless of where you work, your health insurance coverage runs through the end of the month. If terminated on May 1st, you're still essentially covered through the 31st.
May 10, 201214 yr ^As far as I know, regardless of where you work, your health insurance coverage runs through the end of the month. If terminated on May 1st, you're still essentially covered through the 31st. But I left in July 19 and was covered until August 31.
May 10, 201214 yr As separate issues, yes. When you state that you support the opinion of the majority, it is a very good comparison. It shows that following what the majority votes is not the greatest way to ensure that the right thing is being done. I agree. If "Majority" is all that matters, why did the Founding Fathers give us the Judicial Branch of the Government? Executive, Legislative and Judicial are to check and balance each other the last time I looked. If all we needed was a vote or "will of the majority" there would be no need for the Judicial.
May 10, 201214 yr But I left in July 19 and was covered until August 31. I assume that was due to a timing issue as far as payroll like you mentioned. :idunno:
May 10, 201214 yr As separate issues, yes. When you state that you support the opinion of the majority, it is a very good comparison. It shows that following what the majority votes is not the greatest way to ensure that the right thing is being done. Why do you think the majority of U.S. citizens are against Gay Marriage? I guess you think the minority or the appellate judges should decide issues such as this one for us all since we are so stupid and narrow minded, right?
May 10, 201214 yr But who defines those Human Rights....the people....those that voted on it...... Natural rights are not extended to people through a vote. They are there naturally. A vote can deny them and prevent them, but it does not define them.
May 10, 201214 yr Why do you think the majority of U.S. citizens are against Gay Marriage? I guess you think the minority or the appellate judges should decide issues such as this one for us all since we are so stupid and narrow minded, right?You done with this? At one point in the history of the democracy we live in the voice of the people was pretty ok with enslaving an entire race of people and treating them as livestock. Judging by your posts I'm guessing that's ok as long as "the voice of the people counts"... I'm not comparing the two. I'm talking about your assertion that the voice of the people counting is #1.
May 10, 201214 yr Why do you think the majority of U.S. citizens are against Gay Marriage? I guess you think the minority or the appellate judges should decide issues such as this one for us all since we are so stupid and narrow minded, right? As mentioned earlier, the majority of U.S. citizens were against the abolition of slavery as well. Does that mean they were right?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.