Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sure Obama knows he's on the right side of the Constitution.

The Contraception First Amendment Fight Is Not About Freedom of Religion | MyFDL

David Boies on the Constitutionality of the birth control mandate:

Constitutionality of birth control mandate - Video on msnbc.com

Is this the same Obama who said that it was unconstitutional for Bush to use warrantless wiretaps, and who is now defending them? If so, I don't think he cares about the constituion any more than Bsuh did, so arguing that he knows what he is doing is even more idiotic than telling me this is not a 1st Amendment issue.

Everyone keeps trying to argue that, because freedom of religion is not absolute, this is obviously not violating that freedom. Guess what, freedom of speech is not absolute either, but that does not mean the government can tell people from Westboro Baptist Church they cannot insult you. There are limits to what the government can do, and forcing a religion to pay for something that violates its conscious is clearly one of them. If it wasn't Obama would not have exempted the Amish from Obamacare.

My guess is that is not a single person anywhere that can explain why one is right and the other is wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's the 'Free Exercise' clause, NY. Catholics operate those non-profit hospitals and schools as part of the exercise of their religion.

The free exercise clause is not an absolute, and it does not cover actions that are not religious by their nature, such as operating hospitals or schools. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you are completely ignorant regarding the limits of first amendment protects and the expansive case law that goes back well more than a century.

If that was true the government would simply prohibit religions from running hospitals and schools. As a matter of fact, if that were true there would be no ministerial exception to any law that covers hospitals and schools. Funny thing, the Supreme Court just rules otherwise, and slapped the government down unanimously for trying to argue that schools are not churches.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Horseshit. The Catholic operate those things because there's money to be made and fat government contracts to be milked. It's about the money.

Which I have no problem with. But like any other business, they should comply with the law, and this is a pretty reasonable one.

Again, how much money does the Catholic Church 'make' from their charities?

Be specific.

Why? No seriously, ******* why?

I could pull up all sorts of figures that show the greedy bastards are making all sorts of money, you can pull up bullshit numbers about how generous they are selling indulgences...

But it's a business. Too bad we don't apply the consumer fraud laws.

Then I'd sue them to prove Uncle Asshole really got into heaven.

My guess is you cannot find a single source anywhere that shows that the Catholic church is making money off of its hospitals. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

 

[Annie]

If anyone has seen a sensible answer to this question, which has been asked in one way or another about 2 dozen times in these discussions, please post it here.

Why is the Catholic church claiming they can't comply with this requirement - because it's against church doctrine -

when in fact they HAVE been complying with it, in dozens of cases, all across the country,

for years?

Link to dozens, hundreds, thousands. How many 'cases' of Church sponsored outlets are there?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I haven't seen one person on the other side of this debate that can explain how this is not a 1st Amendment issue

It's very simple, it's a first amendment issue only inasmuch as this issue goes beyond the limits of the first amendment. That's what you're not getting. There are limits to what the constitution protects as freedom of religion. The first amendment is not a hall pass that excuses people or groups from any law whatsoever that they don't like. The first amendment prohibits enacting laws that would specifically target religious groups or behavior of a distinctly religious nature. It does not prohibit enacting laws that are generally applicable to everyone, or that prohibit or require behavior that is not of a distinctly religious nature.

As the Supreme Court explained in Reynolds, such a view of the first amendment is clearly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It would allow every person to become a law unto themselves, and all form for government would cease to exist. It's inconceivable that the Founders created the federal government just so that it, and every level of government below it, would be instantly dissolved upon a person's claim of religious belief.

It is a 1st Amendment issue because it goes beyond the 1st Amendment? Did you really just type that stupidity without drooling all over your bib?

The limits of the 1st Amendment are that the laws have to apply equally to everyone. This mandate does not apply equally to everyone because Amish can run a business that does not meet the three qualifications of this mandate and still not have to supply coverage to their employees because they have a blanket exemption to all requirements of Obamacare. That completely destroys anything else you might want to say so I can safely ignore anything you say until you deal with the real world facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Catholic Charities are religious by their nature. Ever single one comes from Christ's teachings.

No, just because a charity is operated by a religious group, or because their behavior is dictated by their religion, does not make the behavior religious by nature. This is the very type of mentality that Reynolds flatly rejected. If a person's religion required human sacrifice, should the government feel bound by the first amendment to not interfere? If a woman feels religiously obligated to burn herself upon her husband's grave, should the government feel bound by the first amendment to not interfere? If such a view of the first amendment were to be adopted, then one would have to believe that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to allow every single person to be a law unto him/her self, such that the government created by the founders could be dissolved as easily as a person uttering the name of God.

The fact that you do not understand these limitations on the first amendment goes to show that you are completely ignorant about the matter. These are not matters of opinion. These are well established and explicit principles found in over a century's worth of case law. Nowhere, and I mean absolutely NOWHERE, in our history has the first amendment been ever perceived in the way you're claiming. Even the very conservative Justice Scalia flatly rejects such ideas as you're trying to promulgate.

Wow, did you misread Reynolds.

There is not a single mention of charities in Reynolds v United States. it was exclusively about the religious duty of Mormons to have more than one wife and federal bigamy laws. The Supreme Court essentially made up the doctrine that, if a criminal law applies equally to everyone, it does not violate the 1st Amendment.

It is interesting that the Waite Court, which produced this gem of jurisprudence, is the same court that said the federal government could not enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1875, set three white men who killed 105 blacks free because the indictment did not specify the victims were black, and said that states could deny women the right to vote.

Please, keep citing Reynolds as support of your bigotry.

 

[JoeB131]

I, , do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Is this a foreshadowing?

I think it's pomposity...

This issue is already dying, when the Men In Dresses figured out there were no riots in the street...

Which is what happens when you let a religion get designed by frustated, self-loathing gay men... the rest of the people are looking at them like WTF?

 

[del]

poor joey, he's really gone round the bend

at least he didn't mention ampad and the gang of mormon thugs that took his lunch money and gave him a swirly back in 1982

progress, not perfection

 

[JoeB131]

My guess is you cannot find a single source anywhere that shows that the Catholic church is making money off of its hospitals. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

They don't call them "Profits", they call them "Surpluses"....


And they always have their hands out for Government money... so they should stop whinging.

But it's about the money. Always has been.

http://www.cliffordlaw.com/not-for-profit-hospital-class-action-litigation/factsheet.pdf

 

[del]

joey's found proof- 80 proof

 

[California Girl]

My guess is you cannot find a single source anywhere that shows that the Catholic church is making money off of its hospitals. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

They don't call them "Profits", they call them "Surpluses"....


And they always have their hands out for Government money... so they should stop whinging.

But it's about the money. Always has been.

http://www.cliffordlaw.com/not-for-profit-hospital-class-action-litigation/factsheet.pdf

Got anything from an actually legitimate source, not some bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers trying to make money out of charities?

 

[JoeB131]

You mean lawyers helping people get their day in court.

Two groups Plutocrats hate. Lawyers and Unions. Plutocrats never like a fair fight.

 

[del]

make that 100 proof

 

[Luissa]

Well according to recent court rulings it is. And I don't know about principle? I think you are speaking for yourself on that one.
Get over it, your church doesn't like women. It's okay.

I have no idea what she means either.

Its called principle, it has nothing to do with cost to me. And it has everything to do with a employer being allowed to discriminate against women.
If you don't get want principle means, well that doesn't surprise me. You blindly supports bishops who think you are less than them.

You wouldn't know 'principle' if your life depended on it. There is nothing discriminatory about Catholic charities not paying for shit that is against their doctrine. If you weren't such a blind partisan hack, you might actually understand the issue. Frankly, I'm sick of you 'freedom for me but not for thee' "liberals".

 

[jillian]

My guess is you cannot find a single source anywhere that shows that the Catholic church is making money off of its hospitals. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

They don't call them "Profits", they call them "Surpluses"....


And they always have their hands out for Government money... so they should stop whinging.

But it's about the money. Always has been.

http://www.cliffordlaw.com/not-for-profit-hospital-class-action-litigation/factsheet.pdf

Got anything from an actually legitimate source, not some bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers trying to make money out of charities?

oh noooooo!!! how horrible that lawyers actually help people.

the horror!!!! the horror!!!!

 

[California Girl]

They don't call them "Profits", they call them "Surpluses"....


And they always have their hands out for Government money... so they should stop whinging.

But it's about the money. Always has been.

http://www.cliffordlaw.com/not-for-profit-hospital-class-action-litigation/factsheet.pdf

Got anything from an actually legitimate source, not some bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers trying to make money out of charities?

oh noooooo!!! how horrible that lawyers actually help people.

the horror!!!! the horror!!!!

It's not my fault that your profession has a crappy rep, mo chara. I'm absolutely certain you are not one of them.... but this country is swamped by ambulance chasers.

 

[The T]

Got anything from an actually legitimate source, not some bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers trying to make money out of charities?

oh noooooo!!! how horrible that lawyers actually help people.

the horror!!!! the horror!!!!

It's not my fault that your profession has a crappy rep, mo chara. I'm absolutely certain you are not one of them.... but this country is swamped by ambulance chasers.

And alot of them reside in the District of Criminals making law that NONE of them plan on abiding by...

 

[Luissa]

I have no idea what she means either.

Its called principle, it has nothing to do with cost to me. And it has everything to do with a employer being allowed to discriminate against women.
If you don't get want principle means, well that doesn't surprise me. You blindly supports bishops who think you are less than them.

You're completely deranged.

If having a problem with a company covering penile implants and not BC makes me deranged. So be it. At least I am not sheep like my friend California Girl.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My guess is you cannot find a single source anywhere that shows that the Catholic church is making money off of its hospitals. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

They don't call them "Profits", they call them "Surpluses"....


And they always have their hands out for Government money... so they should stop whinging.

But it's about the money. Always has been.

http://www.cliffordlaw.com/not-for-profit-hospital-class-action-litigation/factsheet.pdf

Wild allegations in search of a lawsuit are not considered evidence by most people.

 

[The T]

Its called principle, it has nothing to do with cost to me. And it has everything to do with a employer being allowed to discriminate against women.
If you don't get want principle means, well that doesn't surprise me. You blindly supports bishops who think you are less than them.

You're completely deranged.

If having a problem with a company covering penile implants and not BC makes me deranged. So be it. At least I am not sheep like my friend California Girl.

The Above is denial and obfuscation at it's finest. Mark it.

Penis envy? Really?