CDZ Does ACA establish political beliefs that discriminate against citizens of Constitutional beliefs?

[emilynghiem]

Religious Discrimination
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization or group.
========================
I was looking up discrimination by creed and the Civil Rights Act,and found this under EEOC.
========================
I have been arguing with Luddly Neddite Dante C_Clayton_Jones JakeStarkey and others that it is a form of "discrimination by creed" to abuse govt, Courts, Congress and Party to endorse and enforce ACA mandates against the beliefs of Constitutionalists (whose principle beliefs are violated by federally imposed taxes to fund govt health care programs instead of recognizing free choice of people and states).

How would argue either for or against these points

1. that ACA mandates to fund federally regulated exchanges violate Constitutional beliefs in one or more of the following:
states' rights, no taxation without representation, no involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, no depriving citizens of liberty without due process of law, religious freedom, freedom of choice in health care including but not limited to reproductive health, equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

2. abusing the party system, election campaign system, and media to promote the "right to health care as the law of the land" and to declare Constitutionalist opposition to be "racists" and "bigots" is a form of religious harassment on the basis of creed; and using this to collect monetary resources and political support to EXCLUDE Constitutional beliefs from equal representation and defense constitutes "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" by abusing govt to undermine the equal legal protection of other beliefs.

It is "treating citizens" differently or unequally due to association or membership with groups,
thus discriminating on the basis of religious belief or political creed.

3. Note: if you want to argue parties on both sides are doing this, do two wrongs make it right to discriminate and harass? You are welcome to debate this point.

Are political beliefs only defensible by law if they respect all other beliefs?
If so, are ALL beliefs that don't respect others to be barred from imposition through govt?
Why isn't this enforced consistently? What criteria is proper for determining which beliefs
are enforceable and can be established by govt, and which should be kept out of govt?

4. Dante and JakeStarkey seem to argue that the laws would have to be changed to specify that political creeds are included in the laws, where currently only the term "religion" is used in Constitutional laws. And this has not been interpreted officially to mean political beliefs. Does this mean it cannot be used that way until the law is changed?

Is your point of debate that the Constitution "would have to be amended first" to include "political religions or creeds" under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The premise in America is that a person has the right to believe whatever s/he wants, and if a compelling reason does not intervene, then she has the right to practice her religion.

Her religious belief about ACA is simply out of the scope of the law. Her remedy is to change the law, not have the law permit her to practice religious discrimination as a barrier to the law.

Kudos to you, Emily, for putting this in the CDZ, instead of in artificially created world of a SDZ thread.

 

[emilynghiem]

The premise in America is that a person has the right to believe whatever s/he wants, and if a compelling reason does not intervene, then she has the right to practice her religion.

Her religious belief about ACA is simply out of the scope of the law. Her remedy is to change the law, not have the law permit her to practice religious discrimination as a barrier to the law.

Kudos to you, Emily, for putting this in the CDZ, instead of in artificially created world of a SDZ thread.

Dear JakeStarkey
Does majority rule and 4-5 vote of Supreme Court justices
give Congress the right to pass a law that ESTABLISHES A RELIGION by imposing a mandatory system (based on the belief that "health care as right") as a tax on the American public, despite the opposing beliefs by 1/2 to 3/4 of the taxpayers affected.

I just found out that my Singlepayer friends are against the ACA as corporate finagling with health care.
But they are not being vocal in opposition; they are too busy lobbying for Singlepayer.
They are allowing Republicans to represent their opposition, so this opposition is actually more than half.
The other leftwing believers in Singlepayer are part of that opposition but not being counted because
their beliefs for opposition are different. They are equally opposed, but not speaking up equally.
It's more likely to be over 50% opposition, and the polls that have been cited tend to reflect this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The opposition is no where in that number.

Counting those who like the system, those who want to go to single payer system, the approval group is probably 60% of more.

Congress voted for it, the President signed it, and SCOTUS opined 5-4 (not 4-5) for it, so, yes, it is legal and constitutional.

The best way to oppose it is to control the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Does ACA establish political beliefs that discriminate against citizens of Constitutional beliefs?

Yes. Worse, is actually adds to rather than address the problems of the health care system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, political beliefs are not constitutionally protected in the sense you far righties would hope.

 

[DarkFury]

Politics cannot nor should ever be protected by law. I myself fired two democrats at the start of summer.
I myself also would not want to hire a muslim either.
But no, politics should not be covered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is your right, DF, and I fired folks like you. Bidness is bidness.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Nope, political beliefs are not constitutionally protected in the sense you far righties would hope."

Actually it seems to me that is the whole point of the Constitution, ever hear of the bill of rights?

 

[JakeStarkey]

9thID clearly does not understand what the Bill of Rights means. Political beliefs are not protected from governing process. In others, ACA is the law of the land, you will abide, and you will work to overturn it if you wish. You are not exempt because politically you disagree.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope, political beliefs are not constitutionally protected in the sense you far righties would hope.

Okay JakeStarkey
so whose responsibility is it to amend the Constitution to specify that religion and creed includes political beliefs?

Are you saying that the Democrats and 5 Justices who voted for this are equally responsible for correcting this
which they did not consider in the process? So the people who violated beliefs are responsible?

Are you saying the people whose beliefs were violated are responsible for correcting the laws that allowed them to be violated?

Are we all responsible, or only the people who were violated?

And if so, how is this equal protection of the laws.

That the people whose BELIEFS in using the system as is "keep benefiting"
and violating the beliefs of others expected to fix it, isn't that discrimination and unequal protection of the laws?

That's fine if you believe that, but this should be publicly acknowledged who believes what!
So people have a right to vote for and fund those who admit they don't respect equal protection of the laws.

Nothing would have been illegal about forming a consensus first so that there were no beliefs violated.

See Code of Ethics for Govt Service:
"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

JakeStarkey if it cost an estimated 24 billion to taxpayers to shut down govt because of conflicts in ideology over these mandates that the Democrats, including Obama, KNEW were there when they passed it in this contested form,
how much would it have saved to mediate the issues in advance and work out a plan that didn't violate states or other rights?

You remind me of the corporate developers who play with grey areas of the law to push their way because nobody has the legal resources to "prove in court" they did anything wrong.

Just because it isn't established by court to be unconstitutional yet
doesn't mean it didn't VIOLATE equal protections of the laws and/or the First Amendment by establishing biased beliefs
and forcing others to comply or pay fines into programs that violate their beliefs.

This can still be argued to be unethical.

And maybe we need to start policing Constitutional ethics
and have a branch of mediation through the justice system that addresses
political conflicts of interest.

It's still discrimination and not equal protections,
but legalistic people like you allow this to happen "because it isn't proven yet."

Same with allowing child abuse or sex abuse because it is hard to prove.
Not a good precedent to stand on Jake. I am disappointed if you are content with this.

When I look at the prolife issue, and how that cannot be proven so the prolife
advocates have to tolerate prochoice, at least they aren't fined for investing in their prolife programs.

in this case, people who believe in other systems, even the Singlepayer advocates
who disagree with ACA and corporate insurance mixed in, are forced to buy insurance
or else pay tax fines INTO that system and thus cannot invest those resources into alternatives.

So this is punitive and discriminatory.
And you are saying it is legal until it is changed in court.

So JakeStarkey who pays for the damages and loss of civil rights in the meantime?

Assuming the law is changed later, who pays for the 24 billion
and all the legal expenses, and pay for the exchanges.

the people who VOTED for this? or the people who believe in alternatives?

so if someone builds a nuclear plant legally, but it is later found to violate rights to safe water and environment,
who is responsible for the costs of the clean up?

JakeStarkey what side do YOU agree to pay for
if you support ACA as legal are you willing to pay

are you only saying that because you expect others to pay

If you and Obama and anyone who signs an agreement that ACA mandates are legal
were legally required to pay for any programs or transitions or costs involved
to resolve the conflicts if it is found later to be unconstitutional because it discriminates,
which side would you sign on

the side of the defendants who defend this bill and agree to pay all costs associated

or would you sign on the side of plaintiffs arguing it is discriminatory and unconstitutional?

 

[emilynghiem]

Politics cannot nor should ever be protected by law. I myself fired two democrats at the start of summer.
I myself also would not want to hire a muslim either.
But no, politics should not be covered.

Why not? because by your political beliefs, you ALSO would have the right freedom and liberty
to hire and fire and not be required to associate with adverse political beliefs any more than an adverse religion
that goes against your beliefs.

Why are you assuming this only works one way?
The whole point is to require either a consensus so nobody is imposed upon,
or agree to separate so nobody is imposed upon.
This is to protect you, too!

DarkFury