We WANT Republicans to run against "contraception"

[Dot Com]

rdean starts a thread & the wing-nuts, predictably, come a runnin' just like Pavlov's dogs

yawn

Its *yawn*

Glad to help

 

[saveliberty]

rdean starts a thread & the wing-nuts, predictably, come a runnin' just like Pavlov's dogs

Got a little drool in the corner of your mouth there. Need a tissue?

 

[g5000]

Two alcoholic beverages a day have been proven to be good for your health.

I demand Obama make Muslim charities buy booze for their employees!!!

 

[Stephanie]

I've come to the conclusion, Don'tbeStupid is one of the Obama's (truth squad goons).

Notice how he come into every thread about him and disrupts it every time with the same BS over and over..

If by "BS" you mean asking you to explain your position on an issue, then yes, that's what I do. I do it to everyone.

It's amazing how many people, like you, can't explain their own positions.

oh dear gawd, this is like the 6th thread that has been posted on this and you still haven't seen the people EXPLAIN their positions?

you just like to ARGUE because you think you are always RIGHT. you are actually boring because you just REPEAT the same shit over and over.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Forcing a Church to pay for something which is in violation of its doctrines is a violation of the free exercise of its religion, and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.

You
Are
Wrong

Show me any court case, ever, where this has been the interpretation of the First Amendment.

 

[The T]

I've come to the conclusion, Don'tbeStupid is one of the Obama's (truth squad goons).

Notice how he come into every thread about him and disrupts it every time with the same BS over and over..

This board is replete with them.

 

[g5000]

Forcing a Church to pay for something which is in violation of its doctrines is a violation of the free exercise of its religion, and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.

You
Are
Wrong

Show me any court case, ever, where this has been the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Show me a case, ever, where the government has ever forced a church to pay for something against its religion.

Obama is breaking new ground, and there are people on the right and the left who have told him he is wrong on this matter. His own VP, Joe Biden, warned him. That is why he is now seeking a "compromise". He knows he fucked up.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I've come to the conclusion, Don'tbeStupid is one of the Obama's (truth squad goons).

Notice how he come into every thread about him and disrupts it every time with the same BS over and over..

If by "BS" you mean asking you to explain your position on an issue, then yes, that's what I do. I do it to everyone.

It's amazing how many people, like you, can't explain their own positions.

oh dear gawd, this is like the 6th thread that has been posted on this and you still haven't seen the people EXPLAIN their positions?

you just like to ARGUE because you think you are always RIGHT. you are actually boring because you just REPEAT the same shit over and over.

I'm not always right. I've been wrong and been corrected. It happens.

In this case though, I'm correct in the interpretation of the Constitution and you are not. But again, show me a court case validating your interpretation and I will freely admit I'm wrong and will change my mind on this issue.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberal democrats lie, they reject any evidence and in fact deny that there is any evidence. They are not amenable to logic or reason. Whatever you say will be misconstrued, denied or just rejected.

No one is going to run against contraception. Not any republicans, no one.

 

[Stephanie]

I've come to the conclusion, Don'tbeStupid is one of the Obama's (truth squad goons).

Notice how he come into every thread about him and disrupts it every time with the same BS over and over..

This board is replete with them.

Oh yeah. I've noticed that.. really all they do is BORE a person to death with parroting the same talking points over and over and over..
we need to sell crackers..

 

[DontBeStupid]

Forcing a Church to pay for something which is in violation of its doctrines is a violation of the free exercise of its religion, and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.

You
Are
Wrong

Show me any court case, ever, where this has been the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Show me a case, ever, where the government has ever forced a church to pay for something against its religion.

Ok. Here you go.

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ccs_amicus.pdf

"California’s Contraception Equity Act is a protective health measure
that promotes important workers’ rights. No constitutional principle
prohibits Catholic Charities’ employees from receiving the protection this
law affords to millions of workers throughout the state"

So like I was saying. You guys are wrong.

 

[HUGGY]

We WANT Republicans to run against "contraception"


Doesn't EVERYONE?

 

[g5000]

If by "BS" you mean asking you to explain your position on an issue, then yes, that's what I do. I do it to everyone.

It's amazing how many people, like you, can't explain their own positions.

oh dear gawd, this is like the 6th thread that has been posted on this and you still haven't seen the people EXPLAIN their positions?

you just like to ARGUE because you think you are always RIGHT. you are actually boring because you just REPEAT the same shit over and over.

I'm not always right. I've been wrong and been corrected. It happens.

In this case though, I'm correct in the interpretation of the Constitution and you are not. But again, show me a court case validating your interpretation and I will freely admit I'm wrong and will change my mind on this issue.

The court has repeatedly ruled that churches are exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

Most recently, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission[.

This was a case of a teacher at a Lutheran school who performed secular and religious duties. She came down with an illness which led the church to become concerned she would not be able to fulfill all of her duties. She demanded protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but was fired anyway.

The Supreme Court ruled the church was exempt from the Act.

Now, if the court ruled that churches are not beholden to anti-discrimination laws to that degree, you have to be pretty stupid to believe churches can be forced to pay for abortions or contraception.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm not always right. I've been wrong and been corrected. It happens.

In this case though, I'm correct in the interpretation of the Constitution and you are not. But again, show me a court case validating your interpretation and I will freely admit I'm wrong and will change my mind on this issue.

January 17, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously voted last week that churches are not bound by some workplace discrimination laws. It's being called the most significant ruling on religious freedom in decades.

SCOTUS Issues Landmark Religious Freedom Ruling : NPR

Sounds like a good basis for challenging this law huh?

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm not always right. I've been wrong and been corrected. It happens.

In this case though, I'm correct in the interpretation of the Constitution and you are not. But again, show me a court case validating your interpretation and I will freely admit I'm wrong and will change my mind on this issue.

January 17, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously voted last week that churches are not bound by some workplace discrimination laws. It's being called the most significant ruling on religious freedom in decades.

SCOTUS Issues Landmark Religious Freedom Ruling : NPR

Sounds like a good basis for challenging this law huh?

It does, if you ignore the California Supreme Court ruling that I posted that specifically addressed Catholic Charities and contraception.

 

[francoHFW]

So the Pubs are in favor of Bishops telling secular workers they can't get secular health care? Pub dupes!!...a disappearing breed...

I suspect the Bishops here are only afraid of being excommunicated LOL. It's a 13th century kind of thing.

 

[Zander]

You
Are
Wrong

Show me any court case, ever, where this has been the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Show me a case, ever, where the government has ever forced a church to pay for something against its religion.

Ok. Here you go.

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ccs_amicus.pdf

"California’s Contraception Equity Act is a protective health measure
that promotes important workers’ rights. No constitutional principle
prohibits Catholic Charities’ employees from receiving the protection this
law affords to millions of workers throughout the state"

So like I was saying. You guys are wrong.

The case was not against the Catholic church, but Catholic Charities- who conceded that it does not provide a religious service, that 74 percent of its employees are not Catholic, and that it serves the public at large. Catholic Charities does not discriminate in hiring, proselytize those it serves, or serve primarily Catholic clients. Thus, it is ineligible for this statutory exemption.

Try again?

 

[g5000]

You
Are
Wrong

Show me any court case, ever, where this has been the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Show me a case, ever, where the government has ever forced a church to pay for something against its religion.

Ok. Here you go.

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ccs_amicus.pdf

"California’s Contraception Equity Act is a protective health measure
that promotes important workers’ rights. No constitutional principle
prohibits Catholic Charities’ employees from receiving the protection this
law affords to millions of workers throughout the state"

So like I was saying. You guys are wrong.

The US Supreme court denied review of that case. The matter is far from settled.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Show me a case, ever, where the government has ever forced a church to pay for something against its religion.

Ok. Here you go.

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ccs_amicus.pdf

"California’s Contraception Equity Act is a protective health measure
that promotes important workers’ rights. No constitutional principle
prohibits Catholic Charities’ employees from receiving the protection this
law affords to millions of workers throughout the state"

So like I was saying. You guys are wrong.

The case was not against the Catholic church, but Catholic Charities- who conceded that it does not provide a religious service, that 74 percent of its employees are not Catholic, and that it serves the public at large. Catholic Charities does not discriminate in hiring, proselytize those it serves, or serve primarily Catholic clients. Thus, it is ineligible for this statutory exemption.

Try again?

It's better than the cases I've seen in favour of the opposite. Plus, I know no matter what I provide you won't accept it. But okay ... I'll look for more. I got some time

edit: Oh, and if you're going to blatantly quote a website, like you just did, it's customary to link to that site.

Here you go: http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Politics/Amar-Brownstein.htm

 

[Zander]

Ok. Here you go.

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ccs_amicus.pdf

"California’s Contraception Equity Act is a protective health measure
that promotes important workers’ rights. No constitutional principle
prohibits Catholic Charities’ employees from receiving the protection this
law affords to millions of workers throughout the state"

So like I was saying. You guys are wrong.

The case was not against the Catholic church, but Catholic Charities- who conceded that it does not provide a religious service, that 74 percent of its employees are not Catholic, and that it serves the public at large. Catholic Charities does not discriminate in hiring, proselytize those it serves, or serve primarily Catholic clients. Thus, it is ineligible for this statutory exemption.

Try again?

It's better than the cases I've seen in favour of the opposite. Plus, I know no matter what I provide you won't accept it. But okay ... I'll look for more. I got some time

I will read it, if and when you post it....