Is religious liberty an absolute right?

[Cecilie1200]

And what, pray tell, constitutes a "compelling reason" for the government to interfere in a Constitutional right? Hmmm. That would be when the exercise of it infringes on someone else's rights, wouldn't it? So basically, you haven't contradicted a single fucking thing I said, have you?

An example of a compelling reason with regard to the First Amendment right of the people peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances would be a city’s desire to keep its parks and public areas accessible. In Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984), the Court ruled that a ‘sleep-in’ demonstration in Washington, DC, was not protected under the First Amendment.

And why does the city's need to keep parks and public areas accessible constitute a "compelling need"? Um, that would be because OTHER people's right to have access to those areas needs to not be infringed. So you're wasting multiple posts and all manner of words to KEEP AGREEING WITH ME.

Child pornography, obscenity, and defamation/libel are other examples of limits on free-expression.

Also because of the need to keep other people's rights from being infringed.

Consequently, no civil right is ‘absolute.’

If you’d like to educate yourself with regard to First Amendment restrictions, the link below is a good place to start.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

Hey, wow, a whole link to disagree with me by saying the exact same thing. What a spectacular waste of everyone's time.

The government is going to force us to buy health insurance, and you know it, so stop with the disingenuous pretense that they won't just because the law hasn't taken effect yet.

Cite in the ACA what criminal or civil penalty one would sustain if he fails to purchase health insurance. How many years in prison? What’s the maximum allowable civil penalty?

It’s not there, of course, but you’ll ignore that fact along with all others which don’t conform to your subjective dogma.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/finalhcr.pdf

Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment.

Care to deny this or to attempt to prove me wrong?

 

[Cecilie1200]

We all know that there ARE some things which a person cannot do -- even for true reasons of religious faith. Like, if your religious belief says you must kill a Jew, fuck yourself. You are properly and validly denied that "right" by the government.

Murder is against the law. Try again. This time with an example that is legal.

Yes, and we're talking about occasions when the government can make laws restricting religious freedom, so YOU try again. How can someone give you an example of times when the government can make religious exercise illegal with "an example that is legal", moron?

 

[jillian]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Their right to use or not use contraception is 100% protected by the First Amendment. My right to use or not use contraception depending on my own beliefs is 100% protected by the constitution. The court has already dealt with that issue in Griswold v Connecticut.

However, religious freedom isn't limitless. There are cases where kids are taken away from their parents if certain religious practices are followed. (like santaria cutting crosses into their kids to "cure" them). There have been cases brought against people who let their kids stay sick and/or die by refusing to treat them. These decisions are usually based on an infant's inability to consent and a parent's obligation to protect.

What is guaranteed is that the religious extremists have zero right to impose their belif system on the rest of us....

Women in burkas do not have the right to enter government buildings while covered.

The Catholic Church wants special considerations carved out of U.S. law, based on their religion. Which sounds remarkably similar to Sharia Law.

Not everyone working at Catholic institutions is Catholic, or even religious, so if the gov't allows you to impose your religious beliefs on your employees, that's more or less establishing religion.

true. as it should be. they can't be identified with a burka on. and when they get on a plane they have to uncover their faces. of course, that is done in a separate area and with a woman agent.

to answer the question, i'm not sure we need to get specifically into the issue of who wants what. the answer is ... it depends on the governmental interest that is being protected. but any infringement has to directly address that interest.

as for employers "imposing" their beliefs, well, not really. you don't have freedom from employers. you have freedom from government. so that's a bit off point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A right to birth control, obviously. Duh!

Why? Because if I don't buy the slut her birth control, she's incapable of getting it at all? Christ, the bitch has a job, or she wouldn't have health insurance. So you can't tell me she doesn't have any income with which to buy her own damned birth control!

Are women who use birth control 'sluts'?

As far as I'm concerned, women who think someone else should pay for it are. If she pays for it herself, then it's her own private business, and I have no need to form any opinions about her at all.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Omg, are you trying to compete with tm's thread on highschool level knowledge?

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is a political issue, not a religious issue.

As if an issue can only be one or the other.

 

[Liability]

This is a political issue, not a religious issue.

As if an issue can only be one or the other.

Damn it. If you make sense like that, it confuses the life out of SimplyAssholic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Politically motivated, religiously motivated or morally motivated?

Politically motivated.

None of this is about upholding the moral code of the Catholic Church.

If it was, the GOP would be out there trying to end capital punishment.

Regardless of the reason, does the parent of a minor child have the right to enforce or restrict contraception for their minor child? I damn sure know the government shouldn't be granted that authority over minor children much less adults.

The issue isn't contraceptives for minors.

What does capital punishment have to do with anything? Is anyone out there forcing priests - or any Catholics, for that matter - to execute people?

It's funny for you to be berating someone about "the issue isn't" when you just finished babbling about something the issue DEFINITELY isn't.

By the way, dumbass, we're not trying to "uphold the moral code of the Catholic Church". We're trying to uphold their religious freedom to uphold their own moral code.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Their right to use or not use contraception is 100% protected by the First Amendment. My right to use or not use contraception depending on my own beliefs is 100% protected by the constitution. The court has already dealt with that issue in Griswold v Connecticut.

However, religious freedom isn't limitless. There are cases where kids are taken away from their parents if certain religious practices are followed. (like santaria cutting crosses into their kids to "cure" them). There have been cases brought against people who let their kids stay sick and/or die by refusing to treat them. These decisions are usually based on an infant's inability to consent and a parent's obligation to protect.

What is guaranteed is that the religious extremists have zero right to impose their belif system on the rest of us....

Which, I assume, is why we are all forced to sit through interminably long, idiotic posts from you that vehemently assert points no one has argued, in order to allegedly prove something that has fuck-all to do with whatever you're asserting.

Call me when this particular issue has ANYTHING to do with "religious extremists ijmposing their belif [sic] system on" anyone . . . that is, other than Obama and other followers of the Church of Fuck All Christians trying to impose THEIR belief on the Catholic Church.

 

[jillian]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Their right to use or not use contraception is 100% protected by the First Amendment. My right to use or not use contraception depending on my own beliefs is 100% protected by the constitution. The court has already dealt with that issue in Griswold v Connecticut.

However, religious freedom isn't limitless. There are cases where kids are taken away from their parents if certain religious practices are followed. (like santaria cutting crosses into their kids to "cure" them). There have been cases brought against people who let their kids stay sick and/or die by refusing to treat them. These decisions are usually based on an infant's inability to consent and a parent's obligation to protect.

What is guaranteed is that the religious extremists have zero right to impose their belif system on the rest of us....

Which, I assume, is why we are all forced to sit through interminably long, idiotic posts from you that vehemently assert points no one has argued, in order to allegedly prove something that has fuck-all to do with whatever you're asserting.

Call me when this particular issue has ANYTHING to do with "religious extremists ijmposing their belif [sic] system on" anyone . . . that is, other than Obama and other followers of the Church of Fuck All Christians trying to impose THEIR belief on the Catholic Church.

i'm sorry, mistress cecile. i'll try to use smaller words and speak more slowly for your benefit next time, since you clearly have zero comprehension skills.

now feel free to rant on.

 

[ladyliberal]

I'm heartened that no one seems to be asserting that religious liberty is an "absolute right". For an individual to have an absolute right means that said right cannot infringe on anyone else's absolute right. With religious practices it is too easy to see how one practice could interfere with another (if two groups wanted to use the same space at the same time for their practices, for instance). It's not clear to me that there are any absolute rights. Perhaps the right to think whatever you want is absolute, since with current technology bad thoughts, when not wedded to action, can't affect anyone else.

 

[alan1]

Their right to use or not use contraception is 100% protected by the First Amendment. My right to use or not use contraception depending on my own beliefs is 100% protected by the constitution. The court has already dealt with that issue in Griswold v Connecticut.

However, religious freedom isn't limitless. There are cases where kids are taken away from their parents if certain religious practices are followed. (like santaria cutting crosses into their kids to "cure" them). There have been cases brought against people who let their kids stay sick and/or die by refusing to treat them. These decisions are usually based on an infant's inability to consent and a parent's obligation to protect.

What is guaranteed is that the religious extremists have zero right to impose their belif system on the rest of us....

Women in burkas do not have the right to enter government buildings while covered.

The Catholic Church wants special considerations carved out of U.S. law, based on their religion. Which sounds remarkably similar to Sharia Law.

Not everyone working at Catholic institutions is Catholic, or even religious, so if the gov't allows you to impose your religious beliefs on your employees, that's more or less establishing religion.

true. as it should be. they can't be identified with a burka on. and when they get on a plane they have to uncover their faces. of course, that is done in a separate area and with a woman agent.

to answer the question, i'm not sure we need to get specifically into the issue of who wants what. the answer is ... it depends on the governmental interest that is being protected. but any infringement has to directly address that interest.

as for employers "imposing" their beliefs, well, not really. you don't have freedom from employers. you have freedom from government. so that's a bit off point.

That must be why my employer makes all prospective employees take a drug test. They are imposing their "anti-drug beliefs" upon all their employees.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not everyone working at Catholic institutions is Catholic, or even religious, so if the gov't allows you to impose your religious beliefs on your employees, that's more or less establishing religion.

Employers paying for health insurance is compensation, employers have no right to dictate to employees how they’ll use their compensation, even if the employer has some sort of religious motive.

If we were talking about blank, generic compensation, like their wages or their holidays and sick times, that would be true. But in this case, we're talking about not "what the employee does with the compensation", but what the compensation actually IS, since the employer DOES decide what health insurance coverage he will or will not provide.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Their right to use or not use contraception is 100% protected by the First Amendment. My right to use or not use contraception depending on my own beliefs is 100% protected by the constitution. The court has already dealt with that issue in Griswold v Connecticut.

However, religious freedom isn't limitless. There are cases where kids are taken away from their parents if certain religious practices are followed. (like santaria cutting crosses into their kids to "cure" them). There have been cases brought against people who let their kids stay sick and/or die by refusing to treat them. These decisions are usually based on an infant's inability to consent and a parent's obligation to protect.

What is guaranteed is that the religious extremists have zero right to impose their belif system on the rest of us....

Which, I assume, is why we are all forced to sit through interminably long, idiotic posts from you that vehemently assert points no one has argued, in order to allegedly prove something that has fuck-all to do with whatever you're asserting.

Call me when this particular issue has ANYTHING to do with "religious extremists ijmposing their belif [sic] system on" anyone . . . that is, other than Obama and other followers of the Church of Fuck All Christians trying to impose THEIR belief on the Catholic Church.

i'm sorry, mistress cecile. i'll try to use smaller words and speak more slowly for your benefit next time, since you clearly have zero comprehension skills.

now feel free to rant on.

Yeah, the problem is that you're SOOO erudite that people have trouble comprehending you, Belif [sic] Girl. You just keep flattering yourself, since God knows no one else is going to.

But thanks for establishing that your first post was so much swamp gas, and that you had no ability whatsoever to back it up once the bullshit was commented on.

Come on, Miss "You Couldn't Comprehend Me". Dazzle us with your brilliant analysis of how those eeevil religious extremists are "forcing their belif [sic] on the rest of us." You made the accusation; now back it up with something more than "Gosh, I was so amazing".

 

[koshergrl]

What right does not providing birth control infringe on?

A right to birth control, obviously. Duh!

Wrong.

Not a right to birth control (is that a right? Please find it in the Constitution)...the women who work for the Church will still be able to obtain birth control. Their employers aren't preventing them from obtaining any sort of birth control they want. They just don't want to be obligated to provide it to them.

 

[Dr Grump]

Which, I assume, is why we are all forced to sit through interminably long, idiotic posts from you that vehemently assert points no one has argued, in order to allegedly prove something that has fuck-all to do with whatever you're asserting.

Call me when this particular issue has ANYTHING to do with "religious extremists ijmposing their belif [sic] system on" anyone . . . that is, other than Obama and other followers of the Church of Fuck All Christians trying to impose THEIR belief on the Catholic Church.

i'm sorry, mistress cecile. i'll try to use smaller words and speak more slowly for your benefit next time, since you clearly have zero comprehension skills.

now feel free to rant on.

Yeah, the problem is that you're SOOO erudite that people have trouble comprehending you, Belif [sic] Girl. You just keep flattering yourself, since God knows no one else is going to.

But thanks for establishing that your first post was so much swamp gas, and that you had no ability whatsoever to back it up once the bullshit was commented on.

Come on, Miss "You Couldn't Comprehend Me". Dazzle us with your brilliant analysis of how those eeevil religious extremists are "forcing their belif [sic] on the rest of us." You made the accusation; now back it up with something more than "Gosh, I was so amazing".

Jillian got under Cesspit's skin? Check
Sent Cesspit into meltdown mode? Check
Cesspit doesn't have a clue what she is talking about so uses the old 'you made a typo' strategy? Check
Didn't read Jillian's first post where she even quoted case law? Check
The Cesspit is a blithering idiot who does exactly what she is accusing Jillian of? Check

 

[jillian]

i'm sorry, mistress cecile. i'll try to use smaller words and speak more slowly for your benefit next time, since you clearly have zero comprehension skills.

now feel free to rant on.

Yeah, the problem is that you're SOOO erudite that people have trouble comprehending you, Belif [sic] Girl. You just keep flattering yourself, since God knows no one else is going to.

But thanks for establishing that your first post was so much swamp gas, and that you had no ability whatsoever to back it up once the bullshit was commented on.

Come on, Miss "You Couldn't Comprehend Me". Dazzle us with your brilliant analysis of how those eeevil religious extremists are "forcing their belif [sic] on the rest of us." You made the accusation; now back it up with something more than "Gosh, I was so amazing".

Jillian got under Cesspit's skin? Check
Sent Cesspit into meltdown mode? Check
Cesspit doesn't have a clue what she is talking about so uses the old 'you made a typo' strategy? Check
Didn't read Jillian's first post where she even quoted case law? Check
The Cesspit is a blithering idiot who does exactly what she is accusing Jillian of? Check

 

[Dr Grump]

was born: because if I stand by and silent [sic] while the religious freedoms of Catholics are attacked, mine WILL be next.

.

 

[jillian]

was born: because if I stand by and silent [sic] while the religious freedoms of Catholics are attacked, mine WILL be next.

.

oops

 

[LoneLaugher]

why? because if i don't buy the slut her birth control, she's incapable of getting it at all? Christ, the bitch has a job, or she wouldn't have health insurance. So you can't tell me she doesn't have any income with which to buy her own damned birth control!

are women who use birth control 'sluts'?

as far as i'm concerned, women who think someone else should pay for it are. If she pays for it herself, then it's her own private business, and i have no need to form any opinions about her at all.

she is paying for it when she pays her insurance premium