Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:29 PM Jun 2014

I am a worshipper of The Goddess. I believe that men who cannot achieve an erection have ANGERED Her

Because of this, covering Viagra for male employees violates my strongly held religious convictions.

I should not be required to cover Viagra or Cialis for my male employees.

SCOTUS, what sayest thou?

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I am a worshipper of The Goddess. I believe that men who cannot achieve an erection have ANGERED Her (Original Post) MohRokTah Jun 2014 OP
Thought you were talking about Randi Rhodes for a minute, we call her "The Goddess" randys1 Jun 2014 #1
Just making a point MohRokTah Jun 2014 #3
First you have to harass the IRS for a decade like scientology to get recognized snooper2 Jun 2014 #2
PAganism is already recognized. eom MohRokTah Jun 2014 #4
Are you John Travolta? nt geek tragedy Jun 2014 #5
Ok, one of the weirdest OP headlines ever seen quinnox Jun 2014 #6
Just making a point MohRokTah Jun 2014 #8
I know, but that still is a very odd headline! quinnox Jun 2014 #11
Intentionally so. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #12
actually you aren't required to provide such coverage dsc Jun 2014 #7
True enough, but a plan without Viagra coverage will cost more for my corporation with 100 employees MohRokTah Jun 2014 #10
That's simply incorrect. Llewlladdwr Jun 2014 #19
your also going to have to hire some male employees to need the Viagra or Cialis Nobel_Twaddle_III Jun 2014 #9
I have three employees in their sixties, all of which have a prescription for Viagra or Cialis. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #13
I support your deeply held religious beliefs. Will the SCOTUS do the same? McCamy Taylor Jun 2014 #14
They are not Roman Catholic in origin. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #15
"Hand over a million to each of us and we can talk." nt valerief Jun 2014 #16
heh heh heh little missy. You do have a powerful, ah say a powerful sense of humuh! wyldwolf Jun 2014 #17
Using chemical means to achive an erection violates the WILL OF THE GODDESS MohRokTah Jun 2014 #18
this has nothing to do with religion.....they just codified Sexism! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #20
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!! MohRokTah Jun 2014 #21
Seems fair AND implies an important safety tip The Traveler Jun 2014 #22
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
3. Just making a point
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:31 PM
Jun 2014

If the SCOTUS won't allow this exception, they are violating the spirit and the letter of the precedent sent in the Hobby Lobby decision.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
2. First you have to harass the IRS for a decade like scientology to get recognized
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:31 PM
Jun 2014

Then we can "mock" your "real" religion and you can do whatever you want

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
8. Just making a point
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:35 PM
Jun 2014

Where woudl the SCOTUS fall for a Fundamentalist Pagan sect that has a closely held corporation?

If you've ever read anything from the really out there Dianic Wicca sects, this is actually a potential reality. All it will take is one member of a severely Dianic Wiccan Coven that has a closely held corporation and this is a real lawsuit.

I, however, am not that fundamentalist in my Pagan beliefs.

dsc

(52,152 posts)
7. actually you aren't required to provide such coverage
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:33 PM
Jun 2014

that likely is because insurance companies have been providing such coverage without prodding but in point of fact, there is no viagra mandate.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
10. True enough, but a plan without Viagra coverage will cost more for my corporation with 100 employees
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:37 PM
Jun 2014

It's "non-standard" so insurance companies charge a premium.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
19. That's simply incorrect.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:50 PM
Jun 2014

As a Federal employee I'm on Blue Cross Blue Shield and neither Viagra nor Cialis is covered for Erectile Disfunction.

It's 'non-standard' if either of these drugs IS covered for ED.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
13. I have three employees in their sixties, all of which have a prescription for Viagra or Cialis.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:38 PM
Jun 2014

BTW, as a male in his fifties with other medical issues, Cialis is superior to Viagra.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
15. They are not Roman Catholic in origin.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:41 PM
Jun 2014

Ergo, I doubt the Roberts Court would give this as much consideration as religious beliefs opposed to birth control.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
17. heh heh heh little missy. You do have a powerful, ah say a powerful sense of humuh!
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:44 PM
Jun 2014

It's a man's Christian right to have an 'rection. How else will he carry out his divine duty to make babies?

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
18. Using chemical means to achive an erection violates the WILL OF THE GODDESS
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:45 PM
Jun 2014

The male's member will shrivel and die as the Goddess has cursed him.

 

The Traveler

(5,632 posts)
22. Seems fair AND implies an important safety tip
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:35 PM
Jun 2014

Don't anger the Goddess. The results just ain't worth it.

Trav

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I am a worshipper of The ...