DOJ to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You're missing the point. We're talking religious reasons. The right was all up in arms, when people were refused service by Muslim cab drivers. What's the difference? Unlike cab drivers, the RCC doesn't even have to be in the presence of the "sinners".

Do the Muslim cab drivers work for a Muslim owned cab company?

They're generally free agents with the company being no more than a dispatching agency.

Then if the dispatching company doesn't care, I see no issue with those drives making their own policies and deciding who they will and will not drive. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Actually, it was technically the idea of the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney. "Conservatives" only started being against it when Obama adopted it.

I think most conservatives would disagree with you lumping in Mitt Romney with them. As far as the Heritage Foundation, their version of mandated health insurance was proposed solely as a more palatable alternative to HillaryCare, which everyone thought was going to pass and was only narrowly defeated at the last minute in the Senate.

Whether conservatives want to have Romney lumped in with them, it's not like you guys aren't going to support him in November.

Actually, it is like that, because I'm not voting for Mitt Romney, but then, I'm also not a conservative, so if you were trying to swing at me you just hit a foul ball, but thanks for playing all the same.

So this is your argument, the Heritage Foundation really didn't mean it?

They came up with an alternative they hoped could be used to prevent something even worse since it looked like what was even worse was inevitable.

A single payer system would be better in that it could dictate what procedures will cost and standardize which procedures are covered.

Yes, what better system than one in which unelected bureaucrats, rather than you doctor, get to decide whether you live or die.

HHS's point was that the insurance companies would save money on this because births cost more than birth control. So they would probably be happy to do it on a cost benefit analysis.

Then why does it have to be mandated? If it's such a benefit it shouldn't need the authoritarian hammer, right?

The ironic thing is that the Catholic Church was all for Obamacare when they thought their hospitals would get a windfall in more compensated patients.

Those are the consequences when you get in bed with the devil.

Again, if health coverage is part of the deal, it's part of the deal. All ObamaCare did was keep employers from welching on the deal.

They can simply pull all coverage period and then they don't have to worry about it. Is that what you would rather see?

Pure speculation, nothing more nothing less. That's a completely invalid argument as you can't cite one example of that happening or proof it will happen in the future.

Three generations of my family have worked for the Catholic Church. Yeah, they have a lovely habit of sticking their noses where they don't belong. Reason #49 why I hate the mother fuckers with a passion.

That doesn't validate what you said.

This is why I think these people need to be slapped down- hard. Keep your religous stupidity to yourself.

And that's why we have freedom of religion in our Constitution. To protect religious people from intolerant folks like yourself.

Your perfectly free to be ignorant, bigoted and superstition in your homes and your churches.

In business, not so much. If they want to run a business, they have to follow the law.

They're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit, period. It's their business and neither the government nor an authoritarian thug like you has the right to tell them otherwise.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Good idea. Let's get rid of employer based health insurance and replace it entirely with a single payer system.

Oh, wait. That's probably not what you were going for there.

How about we get rid of employer based health insurance and replace it with nothing along with eliminating Medicaid and greatly scaling back Medicare since all of those things are what's causing health care in this country to be so damn expensive in the first place.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Quakers shouldn't have to pay taxes that go to the military. Amish shouldn't pay taxes that go to buying vehicles. Christian Scientists shouldn't pay taxes that go to government hospitals.

Get over it people. Congress shall make no law recognizing the establishment of religion.

It's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and do you even know what that means?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This one they will, because the obligations of employers to provide insurance would be rendered moot if anyone could claim it was against their religion to provide coverage.

Damn, you just destroyed your own position.

There is a religious conscious exemption written into the PPACA.


Damn, look at that, there are actually religious exceptions to tax laws. These same exceptions apply to to Obamacare. If the universe were as simple minded as you are Obamacare was just rendered moot. Fortunately for the universe, it is smarter than you are.

Since you don't seem to be able to read English, the religious exception is VERY specific to houses of worship. It doesn't apply to businesses who say, "Hey, my interpretation of the bible is that I can be an asshole!"

I can't read?

I just fracking quoted the US tax code that outlines the religious exemption to paying taxes, which is referenced by the PPACA, to point out how the PPACA actually has a religious exemption built into it. That is the law, not a regulation that, if your interpretation of the law was right, would have gotten this case tossed out from the beginning.

By the way, is there a reason you dropped the pertinent section of my response when you quoted me? Here it is again, I suggest you read it and learn what the actual law is, not what you want it to be. Don't you think that a person who is exempt from paying federal taxes would be exempt from paying contraception mandates? If not, why not?

There is a religious conscious exemption written into the PPACA.

RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION — Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

Section 1402(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code is the part that governs exemption from paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.

(g) Members of certain religious faiths

(1) Exemption

Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by -

(A) such evidence of such individual's membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individual's compliance with the preceding sentence, and

(B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person, and only if the Commissioner of Social Security finds that -

(C) such sect or division thereof has the established tenets or teachings referred to in the preceding sentence,

(D) it is the practice, and has been for a period of time which he deems to be substantial, for members of such sect or division thereof to make provision for their dependent members which in his judgment is reasonable in view of their general level of living, and

(E) such sect or division thereof has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950.

An exemption may not be granted to any individual if any benefit or other payment referred to in subparagraph (B) became payable (or, but for section 203 or 222(b) of the Social Security Act, would have become payable) at or before the time of the filing of such waiver.

Damn, look at that, there are actually religious exceptions to tax laws. These same exceptions apply to to Obamacare. If the universe were as simple minded as you are Obamacare was just rendered moot. Fortunately for the universe, it is smarter than you are.

 

[JoeB131]

They're free to run their business with any moral values they see fit, period. It's their business and neither the government nor an authoritarian thug like you has the right to tell them otherwise.

Oh, really.

So if they want to store vats of unmarked carcinogens in open containers, and not tell the employees, this is okay by you?

If they want to take the money in the 401K fund and blow it on junk bonds, that's fine by you, too, then?

We have laws telling businesses EXACTLY what they can and can't do for all of our protection. And frankly, that's how it should work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Point 1. The bible says absolutely nothing about Birth control. So their point that it is a great part of their religion is incorrect. their own instruction book does not say a thing about it.

.

The verse Funditards cite as to why they think that Birth Control is against God's will is 38:8-10.

To recap this story. Er the son of Judah was offensive to Yahweh. Doesn't say how he was offensive to Yahweh, but he was, so God killed him. Then Judah directed his brother Onan to marry Tamar, Er's widow. Well, old Onan didn't want to father kids on his dead brother's wife, but he had no problem having sex with her. He just pulled out just before the climax. Well, this offended God, too. And God like totally smited that fool.

ANYWHO- the part of the same story the Funditards don't want to talk about. Tamar thought that she should be married to Judah's third son, but Judah wasn't having any of that. This chick is like cursed. So Tamar disguised herself as a hooker, and in a fashion Jerry Springer would be proud of, seduced her father in law. She asked for his seal and rod as payment.

Well, low and behold, she finally did get knocked up - with twins- and Judah wanted to totally burn her alive for it, not realizing he was the father. So much for the "sanctity of the unborn" crap they try to claim when opposing abortion. She had a child outside marriage, she was totally getting burned.

Only when she pointed out the kid was his, did he relent.

Now, this is actually kind of biblically important, because one of these two kids was Pharez, who became an ancestor of David and eventually Jesus.

The only tards in this discussion are the ones that think they know enough about the Bible to dictate other people's interpretation of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So a business is allowed to practice religious doctrines in spite of laws in the USA?

They can fire someone for taking the pill or having an affair or not going to church?

It is a for profit corporation not a church.

For that matter, can you fire an employee for being gay?

Yes.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I can't read?

I just fracking quoted the US tax code that outlines the religious exemption to paying taxes, which is referenced by the PPACA, to point out how the PPACA actually has a religious exemption built into it. That is the law, not a regulation that, if your interpretation of the law was right, would have gotten this case tossed out from the beginning.

]

Blah, blah, blah... don't care...

You really are the most ironically named poster here...

If we start letting businesses ignore the law because their magic sky fairy tells them to, we'd pretty much have no business law at all.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If they want to take the money in the 401K fund and blow it on junk bonds, that's fine by you, too, then?

How does someone take money and spend it in your 401k ?

 

[JoeB131]

If they want to take the money in the 401K fund and blow it on junk bonds, that's fine by you, too, then?

How does someone take money and spend it in your 401k ?

I have to entirely rely on the fact my company manages it... I don't. I maybe pick the stocks, but the funds are entirely run by them.

So they can send me a bullshit report and gamble that money for all I know, because in Taz world, it's perfectly okay for a business to do whatever the fuck it wants... SUCKERS!!!!!

Hey, here's a hint. If most business types weren't a bunch of slimy cocksuckers, we wouldn't need laws or government. People would just do the right thing.

We need government becuase left to their own devices, they won't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Offering insurance isn't against anyone's religion. Making employees accept your personal precepts shouldn't be protected under the 1st amendment. It'd be no different than enforcing shariah law.

You just keep making stupid assumptions and putting them into words, don't you. Not only is insurance against the religious beliefs of some sects, Obamacare specifically makes provisions for these sects to be exempt from all the requirements of the law.

 

[JoeB131]

So a business is allowed to practice religious doctrines in spite of laws in the USA?

They can fire someone for taking the pill or having an affair or not going to church?

It is a for profit corporation not a church.

For that matter, can you fire an employee for being gay?

Yes.

But the point is, you shouldn't be able to, and the laws should incllude HUGE penalties if you even try it.

 

[JoeB131]

Point 1. The bible says absolutely nothing about Birth control. So their point that it is a great part of their religion is incorrect. their own instruction book does not say a thing about it.

.

The verse Funditards cite as to why they think that Birth Control is against God's will is 38:8-10.

To recap this story. Er the son of Judah was offensive to Yahweh. Doesn't say how he was offensive to Yahweh, but he was, so God killed him. Then Judah directed his brother Onan to marry Tamar, Er's widow. Well, old Onan didn't want to father kids on his dead brother's wife, but he had no problem having sex with her. He just pulled out just before the climax. Well, this offended God, too. And God like totally smited that fool.

ANYWHO- the part of the same story the Funditards don't want to talk about. Tamar thought that she should be married to Judah's third son, but Judah wasn't having any of that. This chick is like cursed. So Tamar disguised herself as a hooker, and in a fashion Jerry Springer would be proud of, seduced her father in law. She asked for his seal and rod as payment.

Well, low and behold, she finally did get knocked up - with twins- and Judah wanted to totally burn her alive for it, not realizing he was the father. So much for the "sanctity of the unborn" crap they try to claim when opposing abortion. She had a child outside marriage, she was totally getting burned.

Only when she pointed out the kid was his, did he relent.

Now, this is actually kind of biblically important, because one of these two kids was Pharez, who became an ancestor of David and eventually Jesus.

The only tards in this discussion are the ones that think they know enough about the Bible to dictate other people's interpretation of it.

What I've found is that most funditards don't even know what is in their own bible, and they are often shocked when I point out the stories their ministers keep from them that kind of make Yahweh look like a bit of a dick.

My favorite is still Judges Chapter 11. Absolute comedy gold.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Offering insurance isn't against anyone's religion. Making employees accept your personal precepts shouldn't be protected under the 1st amendment. It'd be no different than enforcing shariah law.

Actually, it is against the doctines of several religions. But you're not one to let 'facts' get in the way of bullshit.

Why does that make a difference?

No one should be involved in that disussion but the patient and the doctor. If you are offering health coverage in leiu of compensation, that should be the end of the matter.

You say no one should be involved except the patient and the doctor, yet you insist that the patient should be able to demand some one other than the patient or the doctor pay for it. Can you explain how the person paying for it is not involved?

 

[Synthaholic]

Wingnuts must lie and distort - the truth beats their ass every time.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, it is against the doctines of several religions. But you're not one to let 'facts' get in the way of bullshit.

Why does that make a difference?

No one should be involved in that disussion but the patient and the doctor. If you are offering health coverage in leiu of compensation, that should be the end of the matter.

You say no one should be involved except the patient and the doctor, yet you insist that the patient should be able to demand some one other than the patient or the doctor pay for it. Can you explain how the person paying for it is not involved?

Very simple. The person paying for it already got what he was paying for. A member of that person's family showing up at work and doing a service for them.

Everything else is part of the deal. And if the deal is "Health coverage" in exchange for work, you don't get a say in what that is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do know there's a difference between birth control pills and abortion, right?

Christians and have a moral objection to abortion and birth control their church teaches them that.

They're not being asked to practice birth control or abortion, just provide access to insurance coverage. That position makes as much sense as allowing Muslim cab drivers to refuse to pick up fares that have been drinking.

You, however, are being asked to practice critical thinking. Do you plan to start at any point in the future?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's astonishing to me that "conservatives" side with big corporations against their own interests because they can push a few religious buttons and make them act stupid.

Actually, no, it's the so called "liberals" who are siding with the corporations on this one. ObamaCare was a huge windfall for insurance companies, which the Marxists have always despised, but that's ok because it was a Democrat's idea.

Actually, it was technically the idea of the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney. "Conservatives" only started being against it when Obama adopted it.

On this particular issue, there is no issue for the insurance companies, because birth control is cheaper than paying for maternity costs.

[

If you are against birth control, don't practice it. But don't go around telling other people they can't.

Nobody has told anyone that they can't use birth control, Joe. Any other lies you'd like to tell in your feeble attempt to bolster your failed argument?

No, they are just being told that insurance won't cover it, which is kind of the same thing.

If someone was such a fanatic about birth control that they won't pay for it, somehow, I don't think they'd look upon me kindly as an employee if they knew I was practicing it out of my own pocket.

This is why I think these people need to be slapped down- hard. Keep your religous stupidity to yourself.

Is your position that every single conservative was for the mandate before they were against it? Does that actually include the many conservatives, and Republicans, that voiced opposition to it all the way back when the Heritage Foundation first proposed that everyone be required to have a policy that covers catastrophic care?

Wait, the Heritage Foundation didn't actually want everyone to carry private insurance that covered routine medical care? Could it be that the supporters of Obamacare are lying?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

I can't read?

I just fracking quoted the US tax code that outlines the religious exemption to paying taxes, which is referenced by the PPACA, to point out how the PPACA actually has a religious exemption built into it. That is the law, not a regulation that, if your interpretation of the law was right, would have gotten this case tossed out from the beginning.

]

Blah, blah, blah... don't care...

You really are the most ironically named poster here...

If we start letting businesses ignore the law because their magic sky fairy tells them to, we'd pretty much have no business law at all.

You want to ignore it because the Obamafairy tells you it is good, what's the difference?