ChristiansUnite Forums

This article has adult content!
Mr. Mods, Sirs, you may want to check it and see if it's ok to leave.  :-\

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
By Clare Chapman
(Filed: 30/01/2005)

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential employer.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the advertisement can be sued.

Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.

Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12 prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.

Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.

Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml)

And on a lighter note:
I tried to Report this to make sure it was checked by a mod and this is the message I got:
"You can't report your own post to the moderator, that doesn't make sense!"

ROFL! I defy logic!

Now that is funny.

Sister for such a tasteless subject I think it was written in a very tasteful manner. I think that Christians should be fully aware of what this world is coming to so that they know what to do and how to pray for these horrible things.

Thats another sign of the world we live in today. Apostasy is spreading to the reaches and beyond. Thats one of the reasons, I believe we won't be here much longer.

;D figures..................... ;D

Hello Sincereheart,

 ;D   ;D   MOD SQUAD REPORTING FOR DUTY!!

I read this article with mixed emotions and found myself comparing various countries. It's very sad how far our country has turned away from God, but other countries have done worse. There is really no peace in this thought, and we are fighting at this very moment to preserve what's left of the moral fiber of our country.

We should already know that the devil wants it all, and Christians should keep standing and refuse. There is reason for optimism with a victory here and there, but the REALITY is that the devil is roaming loose seeking many to devour. This should not discourage Christians - just the opposite. We know that JESUS CHRIST will completely defeat evil at His appointed time. In the meantime, it is our reasonable service to keep standing and doing His Will until He comes to take us home. YES, I am thinking about the old hymn: "Onward Christian Soldiers".


Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 10:16-17 NASB  However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Thank you, Mod Squad!  :D

What first hit me, was the fact that so many want to legalize everything here in the U.S. And the article is just one example of what's wrong with that idea.  :-\
It would go from "legal" to "expected".







And DW....  :P
I'd argue it but I just can't.  :-X

Hello Sincereheart,

Sister, legalization is also a sign of acceptance and legitimate conduct from a society. A society can roll downhill pretty quickly and that's what the devil wants. Obviously, Christians should never call evil good and accept it.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 62:6 NASB  He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be shaken.

I know............ thats why, I said it that way........... ;D

On a serious note though, the shape of the world is getting worse.  Each day brings new signs, from Matthew 24. Could we be the last generation? I myself believe so but, God has his own time table. So who am I to question God, on his time table.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 1 TO EVERYTHING there is a season, and a time for every matter or purpose under heaven: 2 A time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to pluck up what is planted,  3A time to kill and a time to heal, a time to break down and a time to build up, 4 A time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, 5 A time to cast away stones and a time to gather stones together, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, 6 A time to get and a time to lose, a time to keep and a time to cast away, 7 A time to rend and a time to sew, a time to keep silence and a time to speak, 8 A time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

Again, going from "legal" to "expected"....

Wal-Mart ordered to carry 'morning-after' pill
Lawsuit filed over Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy ruling that chain must carry drug
TRANSCRIPT
MSNBC
Updated: 2:59 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2006
Should the government really be telling businesses what products they can stock on their shelves?  That‘s debatable, but it is happening. 
Wal-Mart was ordered this week by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy to carry the morning after pill.  It‘s an emergency contraceptive and a commercial one.  The directive came after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Wal-Mart to carry the pill in its Massachusetts stores. 

Dr. Rebecca Guy is one of those women.  Dr. Guy, along with her attorney Mr. Sam Perkins, joined Tucker Carlson to discuss the case.

CARLSON:  Doctor, why should government be telling businesses what they can and cannot sell?  Or why should anyone be forcing businesses to sell things they don‘t want to sell?

REBECCA GUY, FILED LAWSUIT ON MORNING AFTER PILL:   Tucker, the emergency contraception pill is not like stocking Colgate versus Crest tooth paste.  A pharmacy is a medical—it‘s part of the healthcare system.  It‘s dispensing medications that are crucial to patient care.  It‘s—the prescription that a patient goes to a pharmacy with is part of a physician-patient contract.  And a patient, when he goes to the medication, expects to be able to get that medication.  It‘s really part of the healthcare system.  So I think... 

CARLSON:  Hold on.  You say it‘s part of the physician-patient contract.  You don‘t own Wal-Mart.  I mean, you‘re not—right.  You don‘t have a business relationship with Wal-Mart, I assume.  Wal-Mart is owned by its stock holders.  And so why shouldn‘t they get to decide what Wal-Mart sells?  I guess I‘m missing this. 

GUY:  You‘re absolutely right.  What they sell on their shelves other than the pharmacy.  But the pharmacy itself is critical to the care of patients.  Whether they‘re stocking medicines to treat diabetes or hypertension, when a woman walks in to a pharmacy, she is getting a medication that she may need. 

And as you may know, emergency contraception is—the sooner you take it the more effective it is.  And time is of the essence.  And so if a woman goes to a pharmacy and is refused medication, it may not be as effective, if she has to go pharmacy shopping. 

CARLSON:  I actually am absolutely certain that‘s right.  But she can go somewhere else and buy it.  Or she can‘t.  But the fact is that it‘s not up to her what Wal-Mart wells.

I ant to get you, Mr. Perkins, in on this.  How is it that you get to choose what a store sells?  You could make the same argument about grocery stores.  I need to eat to live, right?  But I‘m not allowed to tell a grocery store what has to sell, and neither is government—yet. 

SAM PERKINS, ATTORNEY FOR DR. REBECCA GUY:  Well, I think as Rebecca said, Tucker, this is a little different.  If Bloomingdale‘s decided that it didn‘t like the comments you made on your show so all of a sudden it stopped stocking bow ties.  That would be one thing that they have the right to do. 

But we‘re talking about something that is an integral part of the healthcare system.

CARLSON:  As defined by whom?

PERKINS:  And also, from the doctor‘s point of view, for someone to say, when a doctor has prescribed emergency contraception to a woman who may be at risk of having a baby that is unintended, that‘s the equivalent, if you won‘t give her that prescription at the time she needs it on an emergency basis or turning someone away from an emergency room.  Pharmacies are not Bloomingdale‘s. 

CARLSON:  With all due respect, what you‘re saying is rhetoric.  I mean, the emergency contraception pill is not a pill that saves a woman‘s life.  And moreover, here‘s I think the crux of it.  It‘s controversial.  Some people believe this pill is immoral.  This is tantamount to forcing people to perform abortions.  Some people think abortion is fine, and some don‘t.

GUY:  I‘d like to address that issue, because emergency contraception is just that.  It‘s contraception that works not through an abortion fashion.  It‘s often confused with RU-486, which is an abortion pill.  But emergency contraception is the same medication that is in most common contraception and works, as you may know, the same way that breast feeding and the IUD and other things work. 

CARLSON:  You know what?  I agree with you.  I‘m actually on your side of this.  I don‘t have a problem with it.  But some people do.  And so you‘re missing my point.  You and I may think it‘s fine.  There‘s nothing wrong with it at all.  But the fact is some people think it‘s immoral.  And they have a right to believe it‘s immoral.  And they have a right not to have their morals trampled upon by you simply because you disagree. 

In other words, you‘re forcing people to commit an act they believe is immoral.  And I don‘t know why you‘re doing that.

PERKINS:  Well, Tucker, as a matter of fact, I don‘t think that either Dr. Guy or I is forcing anyone to do anything. 

CARLSON:  Of course you are.  You‘re using the power of the state of Massachusetts to make people sell something they don‘t want to sell. 

PERKINS:  ... in Massachusetts.  Actually, no.  Who‘s making themselves something they don‘t want to sell is the border registration and pharmacy, backed by the commonwealth of Massachusetts.  No this is a regulated industry. 

CARLSON:  That‘s actually not true, Mr. Perkins or you wouldn‘t be involved in this lawsuit, which is forcing  -- the state is, at this point, not enforcing it.  You‘re trying to force the state to enforce it.  And I‘m not saying...

GUY:  That‘s not true, Tucker.  The Board of Pharmacy unanimously voted because under Massachusetts state law the pharmacies are required to stock medications that are commonly prescribed and needed by the community. 

~more

CARLSON:  I‘m aware of that.

GUY:  And the Board of Pharmacy decided that this meets both of those requirements, and so it‘s now requiring Wal-Mart—not us but the Board of Pharmacy or the state of Massachusetts—to cover this medication. 

CARLSON:  You don‘t see—I‘m not going to use the word “fascism,” but you didn‘t see this as an authoritarian to force people to do something they think is immoral?

PERKINS:  If you‘re talking about rhetoric, now you‘re getting a little bit of rhetoric yourself.

It‘s true.  The fact of the matter is that they‘re regulated industries of every type.  Hospital emergency rooms have to treat people.  There‘s no way in the world that a corporation that‘s licensed by the state of Massachusetts to provide pharmacy services has the right to pick and choose what kinds of drugs, in violation of state regulations, it can do. 

The gay person who goes in, who needs some sort of medication to help with HIV, it‘s not up to the pharmacy to tell them “We‘re not going to prescribe, we‘re not going to stock this kind of medication.” 

CARLSON:  OK.  That is so far off the topic that I can‘t believe that‘s the final word.  But sadly, we‘re out of time.

PERKINS:  Actually, it‘s right what we‘re talking about.

CARLSON:  It‘s going to have to be the end.  It‘s not going to continue with that completely distracting point. 

PERKINS:  Well, it‘s not a distracting point at all.

Watch 'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' each weeknight at 11 p.m. ET

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11391926/

Hello Sincereheart,

Sister, I think that I remember correctly that this case about the "morning after" pill is far from over. I think this case is a ridiculous example of liberal activists judges making law from the bench. It should be a given that the government can't order a private citizen to do something they feel is immoral. There would be a much better argument if we were talking about someone in the Armed Services, but this case involves a completely private person.

This case will be eventually overturned if the system works correctly. They can't order a Pharmacist to stock or provide the "morning after pill" for the same reason that they can't order a Doctor to perform abortions. This is silly and has the SMELL of ultra-liberals working in the background.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Mark 10:14-16 NASB  But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all." And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands on them.

I'm posting this here because I thought it a good article to coincide with the last one that sincereheart posted here.


Kentucky Bill Would Allow Morning After Pill Without Doctor's Visit

Louisville, KY (LifeNews.com) -- A Kentucky lawmaker has introduced a measure that would allow sales of the morning after pill without visiting a doctor beforehand. Pro-life groups are opposed to the legislation because the drug can sometimes cause an abortion.

Rep. Tom Burch, a Democrat from Louisville, filed the measure after the Kentucky branch of the ACLU released a survey showing nearly 90 percent of pharmacies in Kentucky do not carry the controversial drug.

But Margie Montgomery, executive director of the Kentucky Right to Life Association, says her group opposes the bill because the morning after pill is "not contraception" but the abortion of a 'tiny human being.'"

Burch disputes that and told the Louisville Courier-Journal, that the drug does not cause abortions.

Under the measure, any doctor could provide any pharmacist with a standing prescription for the Plan B drug that could be filled for any woman who wants it. The process would not be the same as the over the counter status the drug's maker Barr Laboratories is seeking, but would have essentially the same result.

The measure would not require pharmacies to carry the drugs, the Courier-Journal newspaper reported.

Ed Monahan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky told the newspaper his group also opposes the bill.

"People (who) are prescribed drugs should have that happen in the context of advice and counsel and the ability to ask questions of doctors," he said.

The measure has been assigned to the House Health and Welfare Committee where Burch is the chairman. He has not set a date for a hearing on his measure but is expected to do so soon.

Leon Claywell, president of the Kentucky Pharmacists Association, told the newspaper the measure is not necessary because the demand for the drugs is very low. He said his own pharmacy does not carry it.

"I feel more comfortable with that being prescribed by" a physician, he said. "But if the law is changed … certainly pharmacists could handle it."

Talking to the pharmacists here (where I go,) they will not stock the morning after pill. As it goes against everything he believes in.

Brothers and Sisters,

If I was a Pharmacist, I can assure you that I would not stock the morning after pill. I can easily agree that I would not stock illegal items, but the stocking of legal items would be my business ALONE.

Love in Christ,
Tom

Psalms 119:133 NASB  Establish my footsteps in Your word, And do not let any iniquity have dominion over me.

There are eight pharmacies here where I live. None of them carry that pill in stock. They have to order it which takes several days. The ones that would carry it have said that there is not enough demand for it to warrant keeping it in stock. Praise God for that and I pray that becomes even more so. Releasing that pill over the counter will just give kids more reason to not be concerned about promiscouity. It would be like telling a young baby they can't have a baby bottle then setting a bottle in front of them and leaving the room.

Brothers and Sisters,

There is no irony that the root of these discussions is immoral behavior and methods to avoid responsibility for immoral behavior. It also involves convenience to continue immoral behavior with the least resistance, up to and including murder. It's really just this simple.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Hebrews 10:19-23 NASB  Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;