Catholics sue Obama

Like ObamaCare forces Catholics and others to pay for what they don't belive in?


Are you really claiming that Catholic women do not "believe in" birth control? That Catholic couples do not practice family planing using birth control? Really?

Or did you mean those priests banging the choir boys don't believe in birth control?
 
Like ObamaCare forces Catholics and others to pay for what they don't belive in?


Are you really claiming that Catholic women do not "believe in" birth control? That Catholic couples do not practice family planing using birth control? Really?

Or did you mean those priests banging the choir boys don't believe in birth control?
Claimed what I did...Fluke was demanding something she had NO right to demand from a Catholic School...but made an issue and ASS out of Obama and the Statist Democrats.

I applaud the Diocese for thier lawsuit.

*I AM CATHOLIC FOR THE CAUSE OF LIBERTY*
 
Like ObamaCare forces Catholics and others to pay for what they don't belive in?


Are you really claiming that Catholic women do not "believe in" birth control? That Catholic couples do not practice family planing using birth control? Really?

Or did you mean those priests banging the choir boys don't believe in birth control?
Claimed what I did...Fluke was demanding something she had NO right to demand from a Catholic School...but made an issue and ASS out of Obama and the Statist Democrats.

I applaud the Diocese for thier lawsuit.

*I AM CATHOLIC FOR THE CAUSE OF LIBERTY*

You can claim it all you want. Doesn't make it true.
 
Are you really claiming that Catholic women do not "believe in" birth control? That Catholic couples do not practice family planing using birth control? Really?

Or did you mean those priests banging the choir boys don't believe in birth control?
Claimed what I did...Fluke was demanding something she had NO right to demand from a Catholic School...but made an issue and ASS out of Obama and the Statist Democrats.

I applaud the Diocese for thier lawsuit.

*I AM CATHOLIC FOR THE CAUSE OF LIBERTY*

You can claim it all you want. Doesn't make it true.

Translation: "I Don't be Stupid didn't get the point..."

Not the first time Stupid...and certainly NOT the last.
 
and now he's on TV giving long boring and confusing questions to the press, and when he was asked about that Romney/Baines ad being its an outright lie,,he wouldn't comment on it,,just went off on left field about the private sector,,,,,,what a wuss! why didnt obama just admit the ad was a total farse?
 
and now he's on TV giving long boring and confusing questions to the press, and when he was asked about that Romney/Baines ad being its an outright lie,,he wouldn't comment on it,,just went off on left field about the private sector,,,,,,what a wuss! why didnt obama just admit the ad was a total farse?

Because he loses credability...and that can't happen. HE has to obfuscate issues other than the economy...
 
"We need God. We need each other. We are important to each other. '

-Obama last week, as he struggles to force millions of Catholics to violate their faith
 
"We need God. We need each other. We are important to each other. '

-Obama last week, as he struggles to force millions of Catholics to violate their faith

Who's being forced to violate their faith? If Catholics want to play Vatican roulette for birth control, no one is taking that right away.
 
Very cool.

I hope this goes to the supreme court.

Maybe it will once and for all eliminate government funding for religious organizations..and/or stripping the same tax exemption once they become "for profit" organizations..and reminding them..that if they are "for profit", they have to adhere to the law of the land.

Their religious freedom stops when they violate the civil rights of indivduals and the law.

So you are opposed to freedom of conscience? Noted.
 
"We need God. We need each other. We are important to each other. '

-Obama last week, as he struggles to force millions of Catholics to violate their faith

Who's being forced to violate their faith? If Catholics want to play Vatican roulette for birth control, no one is taking that right away.

Don't shake your fist at God, Dick!

:nono::nono:
 
"We need God. We need each other. We are important to each other. '

-Obama last week, as he struggles to force millions of Catholics to violate their faith

Who's being forced to violate their faith? If Catholics want to play Vatican roulette for birth control, no one is taking that right away.

Don't shake your fist at God, Dick!

:nono::nono:

It is interesting to note that more than once on this thread you have equated the Catholic Church with God.
 
The Church has a considerable uphill climb with its lawsuit, as there are no First Amendment violations, either with regard to the Free Exercise Clause or the doctrine of free association.

The policy in question clearly passes the religious test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971):

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

Lemon v. Kurtzman
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose…

This is obviously the case, since the measure is designed only to ensure consistent availability of healthcare coverage for all employees.

…second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,

This prong of the test is also not at issue; no Catholic is forced to use a contraceptive therapy or have an abortion, no Catholic is denied any ritual of the Church, neither doctrine nor dogma is being preempted.

The argument by some that the policy ‘forces’ the Church to provide treatments in ‘violation’ of its religious tenets is ignorant idiocy: the relationship between the Church and its ‘affiliated employers’ is tenuous at best. Indeed, the health insurance coverage provided is a contract between the insurer and insured only, the employer is not involved in the insurance contract in any way, even less so for the Church.

…finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Not only is there not an excessive government entanglement, there’s no connection whatsoever. The premium payments made by the affiliated employer constitute compensation, the same as a wage or leave, to be used as the employee sees fit. That all or part of the premium payment is made directly to the insurer is immaterial, the affiliated employer can no more dictate to the employee how to use his healthcare compensation than how he may spend his wage or where he may or may not go on vacation.

In order to have any success with its suit, the Church would have to demonstrate a direct link between the policy and how its provisions in any way interfere with religious practice. Since no interference exists, the link can not be established.

In addition, many contraceptives are used as a therapy having nothing to do with birth control, and that an employee might use her health insurance for birth control is insufficient grounds to invalidate the policy.

Moreover, the Church has a serious inconsistency problem with regard to its argument. Many Catholic affiliated employers currently provide employees birth control coverage in their insurance plans: the University of Scranton, DePaul University in Chicago, and Christian Brothers University in Memphis are but a few examples of Catholic affiliated employers who provide such coverage.*

This lawsuit isn’t about the law, the Constitution, or religious freedom, it’s about partisan politics, it’s a contrived non-issue by social conservatives.



* Many Catholic Universities, Hospitals Already Cover Contraception In Their Health Insurance Plans | ThinkProgress
 

Forum List

Back
Top