Arizona SB1062

This bill has been labeled across the country as an anti-homosexual bill, when in fact - it is not.  The intention of SB1062 was to promote the rights of business and church groups to not be forced to perform service(s) which may be in conflict with their own moral beliefs - religious or otherwise.  The fact is, it is an unnecessary bill.  Businesses already have the right to refuse service to anyone - it's their prerogative to do so.  If they turn away business - it's their bottom line which is at stake.  Those who oppose such a stance are free to take their business elsewhere.  

Since this new bill really doesn't DO anything, it's silly legislation which is only allowing the state to be opened to unnecessary attacks from some with an agenda to oppose anyone exercising personal freedoms.  It can only bring upon calls for sanctions or boycotts - and really, again, the intent of the bill was not to put down any particular group, but to recognize the rights of other groups.  

I still find it ironic that roughly 3.5% of the population gets so much attention!  When greater than 96% do not share in the homosexual lifestyle, why do we spend so much time debating the topic?  (See stats sited on the CathApol Blog).  Certainly, in this country, individuals who wish to pursue a lifestyle which is morally contrary to others have the right to do so - so long as their pursuit of such a right does not trample upon the rights of those who do not share their moral (or amoral) view.  In short, homosexuals do not have the right to force their morality upon those who "rightfully" oppose them.  

Still, I repeat, SB 1062 really doesn't do anything that individuals do not already have the right to do, or not do!  For THIS reason, I would recommend that Governor Brewer does NOT sign this bill into law.  She has until the end of the week to decide.

Please feel free to share your thoughts and/or share this article!  .

Taking Your DNA For Any Arrest

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled it is legal for law enforcement to take your DNA for any "major" (not defined) arrest.  You don't have to be found guilty of anything, just accused - and you have to submit potentially self-incriminating evidence.

OK, sure, it's purpose is to catch the "bad" people, but one who is just "accused" is not guilty of anything yet, and what if this information is used to identify medical issues, but even in the case of "bad people" a person cannot be forced to testify against himself, and this essentially does exactly that.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/03/scotus-taking-dna-swabs-upon-arrest-without-a-warrant-is-legal/

Right To Health Care?

An interesting topic posted from Facebook...

"You have a 'right' to pursue the best health care you can afford to get for yourself.  Beyond that, there is not, and can not be a "right" to something that involves the labor of other people. "Health Care" is the labor of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technnology engineers, etc. And claiming a 'right' to their labors is to regard them as slaves. Neither can a 'right' be determined to the labors of other people (in the form of their money) to pay for one's health care. The very concept defies logic and that is the very simple argument we should all make when confronted with this garbage. The same goes for Welfare and any other 'right' that imposes upon other individuals to provide the benefit."

While I could not find the exact quote put in quotes above, I believe I found an article which sums up his point to a "T":  

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=13873

Another added this comment:

"I agree with your stance on government subsidized healthcare, but I'm curious how you would address the tax benefits afforded to churches and religious organizations using the same logic. My inkling is there would be a bit of a double standard."

To which I responded:

First off, you conceded the initial point - but then changed the subject. While getting a tax benefit can be seen as a subsidy, that was not the original point. The point was that calling healthcare a "right" (Constitution of the United States) when it is chiefly the labors of those in the healthcare industry is in reality taking the "rights" (Constitution...) of those who provide the services away from them. It is to take *ownership*, or "making slaves" of those persons and/or their skills. With that in mind, your question has pretty much hijacked the original discussion point.
The further (original) point is that this is the same as any *welfare* system which demands that others pay for the *wants* of others. I hesitate to call it *needs* anymore, for no one "needs" a cell phone, yet we're paying for cell phones for those who cannot afford them. We subsidize the food for many individuals who turn around and use money on drugs which they could have spent on food. I have no problem being there for an individual or family who needs help in an extra-ordinary situation, and that was the original purpose for welfare. It is not intended to be a "cradle-to-grave" (Adams, Henry) subsidy, or in other words - it was not to become the *ordinary* which it has become.
Now, to sort of tie-in the diversive point... The traditional role of providing for these *needs* of individuals and families *was* and to a large part *still is* the responsibility of religious organizations! Catholic Social Services and the St. Vincent dePaul organizations, to name a couple, are huge *providers* to those *in need.*
The REAL problem here, and more on the original point, "using the same logic,"  such *welfare* has become the expectation and the norm for many in society. It has gone beyond a temporary means of assistance to this "cradle-to-grave" (Adams, Henry) mentality. It has become to be thought of as a "right" (Constitution...) which has essentially takes the will of those caught up in this system, and breaks it, "broken, as the colt dies in harness, taking a new nature in becoming tame...” (Adams, Henry).

The person who wrote the (what I called "hijacked") point responded to me stating:

I've never seen someone go to such great lengths to miss the point. Congratulations. I didn't "hijack" his discussion point. I spoke to the core of the issue. Even with Obamacare enacted, those in the healthcare field will still be paid for their labor. A far cry from slavery. More to the original point is the undue hardship it puts on the entire system and more importantly the taxpayers who have to pay to subsidize the income of the healthcare worker. To be clear, I'm a proponent of smaller government, much smaller. 

Then we should put the breaks on and even repeal "Obamacare."   You claim to speak to "the core of the issue" - but the original point had nothing to do with religion.  To say I "missed the point" is a bit humorous, since I brought the discussion BACK to the original point AND incorporated the additional topic you brought up!  That being said, I believe what you've just said puts us in agreement!  "The undue hardship it puts on the entire system and more importantly the taxpayers who have to pay to subsidize the income of the health care worker."  THAT statement is completely in line with the original point of this discussion!
  
Footnotes:

Adams, Henry qtd. on: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/240528-from-cradle-to-grave-this-problem-of-running-order-through

Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights http://constitutionus.com/

Addendum, 5/13/2013:

> How can you reconcile your stance on subsidized
> healthcare with your stance on subsidized
> religious organizations without some mental
> gymnastics?

Simple, you're comparing apples to oranges.  Health care organizations (I work for one) are getting literally millions of dollars, per organization, in direct subsidy.  Can you name a religious organization which is getting DIRECT subsidy, especially in the millions of dollars?  Each hospital is getting funded, dollar for dollar, for everything they are spending on converting to electronic health records; and the catch is they HAVE to do this - for if they don't then soon comes the penalty phase of the EHR - where if you DON'T have a viable one in place, you will LOSE millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements!  There is no such thing going on in religious organizations.  The minor percentage of what a hospital MIGHT have to pay taxes on (and there ARE "for profit" hospitals which DO file taxes) would be easily countered by what they "write off" as uncollectable from the uninsured and under-insured.  In the end, they'd pay no significant taxes, if any, even as "for profit" hospitals.

Actually, some religious organizations, namely the Catholic Church, are being forced by the government to subsidize things (like abortion and contraception) which are completely contrary to their doctrines.  Veiling it as "their insurance companies pay for it, not them," is a joke - whom do you think pays the premiums to the insurance companies?!  How about those who self-insure?

> Sorry for taking the conversation in a
> different direction. I had no idea it would be
> this hard for you to follow.

1) Thank you for admitting you took it in a different direction!  That's ALL I was saying when I said you "hijacked" the topic.  It was hijacked too, because Jr., et. al., followed you down the rabbit trail.

2) It wasn't hard to follow at all.  I followed it perfectly - I merely pointed out that it was a different direction from the original topic.  Well, I also have been pointing out the differences between direct and indirect government subsidy.

> For me it seemed a much more interesting tangent
> seeing as how we already agreed on the healthcare
> issue.

Interesting, but as you say - a tangent.