We WANT Republicans to run against "contraception"

[g5000]

The result of the California ruling is that some church-run institutions now insure themselves, just as I used in my example between the Bishop and Miss Jones.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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....

Q&A: Obama and the birth control controversy - US News and World Report

Well, there we go!

Q: Was the Obama administration going to require churches to cover birth control?

A: No, churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship were not being required to cover the pill. That was never the issue.

Instead the battle is over nonprofit institutions affiliated with a religion. For example, a Catholic hospital or a college chartered by a denomination but open to students of all faiths or no faith. The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to artificial birth control methods, but polls show that the faithful in the pews generally use contraceptives anyway.

This decision does not apply to churches, only organizations associated with a certain religion.

Which means the court case I supplied earlier applies 100%.

And you guys are completely wrong about this entire issue!

Love it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

On the plus sides, it's nice to see some on the Right doing some research and posting some links and sources. We need more of that. I'd discuss any topic with you guys any time.

Thanks!

 

[Dot Com]

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..

rightard says what? Seriously steph, whats the last non-fiction book you've read & when was it?

 

[Stephanie]

On the plus sides, it's nice to see some on the Right doing some research and posting some links and sources. We need more of that. I'd discuss any topic with you guys any time.

Thanks!

oh brother..
condescending

 

[konradv]

WOW!! What?

I would LOVE to hear this explained!

Easy, the RCC was trying to enforce its religious tenets on its non-religious employees in violation of the 1st.

So if the Roman Catholic church found out one of its employees had an abortion, I suppose you would be against the church being allowed to fire them, eh?

No one is forcing anyone to work for the Church. If they don't like religion, DO NOT GO TO WORK FOR THEM.

Don't be stupid.

They shouldn't be able to, if the employee is in a non-religious position. You're the one being stupid, if you don't think a 100 years of labor law exists. It's wishful thinking to believe "DO NOT GO TO WORK FOR THEM" applies.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Easy, the RCC was trying to enforce its religious tenets on its non-religious employees in violation of the 1st.

So if the Roman Catholic church found out one of its employees had an abortion, I suppose you would be against the church being allowed to fire them, eh?

No one is forcing anyone to work for the Church. If they don't like religion, DO NOT GO TO WORK FOR THEM.

Don't be stupid.

They shouldn't be able to, if the employee is in a non-religious position. You're the one being stupid, if you don't think a 100 years of labor law exists. It's wishful thinking to believe "DO NOT GO TO WORK FOR THEM" applies.

Why would anyone who has issues with the Catholic Church, want to go work for the Catholic Church and then demand that there be a Catholic Free workplace?

That's stupid.

 

[Stephanie]

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..

rightard says what? Seriously steph, whats the last non-fiction book you've read & when was it?

oh miss dottie, you are just on a roll.
*YAWN*

 

[rdean]

What I see when Rdean talks

People use contraception to limit the size of their families to what they can financially support. They space out the children so the mother can recover between children and so they don't have a lot of babies they can't support all at one time. For many women, contraceptives are also used for health reasons.

The vast majority of women take contraceptives including nearly every women of child bearing age including married women.

Republicans are trying to pick a fight against contraception.

All I can say is "bring it on". It's a fight Democrats welcome

I knew you were delusional but then you put this in your signature line:

“Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ******.”

So you're also filthy. I thought so. I wasn't sure. But now I am.

 

[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?

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

...California doesn't have the final say, unless the US Supreme Court lets it happen.

 

[Dot Com]

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..

rightard says what? Seriously steph, whats the last non-fiction book you've read & when was it?

oh miss dottie, you are just on a roll.
*YAWN*

That non-answer speaks volumes (pun intended)

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

There are 20 states at least that have the contraception requirement in their insurance laws and Catholic organizations have been complying, against their will, for years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This guy did ...



I'm still waiting for one of you to explain how this is the government violating the First Amendment.

Where in that statement does he say "protecting a citizen's right to practice or not practice a certain religion's beliefs and practices is an attack on that religion"

??

Because that's what Obama is doing and that is what is supposedly an attack and in violation.

Look, are you guys honestly trying to say that if you work for a religious organization that you must follow all their tenets, even in your private life, and that this is protected by the First Amendment?

Because if so, you have a seriously fucked up view of the First Amendment.

You are the one with a seriously fucked up view of the 1st Amendment. Catholics are not telling people who work for them they cannot use birth control or get abortions, they are telling them that they, as a church, will not pay for it, and Obama is telling them that they have to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where in that statement does he say "protecting a citizen's right to practice or not practice a certain religion's beliefs and practices is an attack on that religion"

??

Because that's what Obama is doing and that is what is supposedly an attack and in violation.

Look, are you guys honestly trying to say that if you work for a religious organization that you must follow all their tenets, even in your private life, and that this is protected by the First Amendment?

Because if so, you have a seriously fucked up view of the First Amendment.

You are the one with a seriously fucked up view of the 1st Amendment. Catholics are not telling people who work for them they cannot use birth control or get abortions, they are telling them that they, as a church, will not pay for it, and Obama is telling them that they have to.

If they work for the Church and they buy contraceptives out of their paycheck, or out of their insurance benefit,

the Church paid for it either way. Because the Church is paying them for their work.

 

[saveliberty]

Because that's what Obama is doing and that is what is supposedly an attack and in violation.

Look, are you guys honestly trying to say that if you work for a religious organization that you must follow all their tenets, even in your private life, and that this is protected by the First Amendment?

Because if so, you have a seriously fucked up view of the First Amendment.

You are the one with a seriously fucked up view of the 1st Amendment. Catholics are not telling people who work for them they cannot use birth control or get abortions, they are telling them that they, as a church, will not pay for it, and Obama is telling them that they have to.

If they work for the Church and they buy contraceptives out of their paycheck, or out of their insurance benefit,

the Church paid for it either way. Because the Church is paying them for their work.

The church leaves the moral decision up to the individual. The state removes it from the church. By your insane example, the state would be buying drugs if a corrections officer bought some. Or even better, if you paid the Catholic Hospital you are a Catholic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Watchtower Society v Village of Stratton.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Oooh, nice one. To bad you didn't actually read it, what it requires is any employer that supplies prescription drug coverage to cover contraceptives. This is saying that, if they provide a service, they cannot discriminate, so they elected not to supply the service. There employees were, however, free to get the coverage themselves with their own money, not the church's.

Next.

 

[saveliberty]

Oooh, nice one. To bad you didn't actually read it, what it requires is any employer that supplies prescription drug coverage to cover contraceptives. This is saying that, if they provide a service, they cannot discriminate, so they elected not to supply the service. There employees were, however, free to get the coverage themselves with their own money, not the church's.

Next.

Suitable for framing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There are 20 states at least that have the contraception requirement in their insurance laws and Catholic organizations have been complying, against their will, for years.

No they have not.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d59UTGDZ6qI&feature=player_embedded]Matthews Scolds Heilemann For Regurgitating Incorrect WH Talking Pts On Catholic Contraception Issue - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Zander]

Because that's what Obama is doing and that is what is supposedly an attack and in violation.

Look, are you guys honestly trying to say that if you work for a religious organization that you must follow all their tenets, even in your private life, and that this is protected by the First Amendment?

Because if so, you have a seriously fucked up view of the First Amendment.

You are the one with a seriously fucked up view of the 1st Amendment. Catholics are not telling people who work for them they cannot use birth control or get abortions, they are telling them that they, as a church, will not pay for it, and Obama is telling them that they have to.

If they work for the Church and they buy contraceptives out of their paycheck, or out of their insurance benefit,

the Church paid for it either way. Because the Church is paying them for their work.

Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. Using your "logic" the church is also paying for food, drinks, porn, i-pads, and everything else a person buys....logic is not your strong point.