New Poll: Catholics want birth control coverage: Catholic women side with Obama

[Cecilie1200]

Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.

Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.

Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.

Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.

 

[Avatar4321]

Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.

Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.

Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.

Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.

Its probably near that healthcare clause.

 

[Valox]

Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.

Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.

Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.

Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.

No one is forfeiting civil rights. For ****'s sake, if you are against birth control, don't use it.

Stop bitching and moaning like you are some Rosa Parks who is losing civil liberties.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The first comment from that link nailed it, How can women abide by laws written by unmarried men?

Laws? What laws? Are we referring to the tenets of the Catholic faith? The answer to that would be, "by choice". No one holds a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic, so if they don't like the rules of that particular religious club, they're more than welcome to take their whining asses off and find one whose rules DO suit them. There's certainly no shortage to choose from.

Enjoy your red herring. No one said that anyone puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic.

However, you missed the point. Christianity has biblical laws or moral codes of conducts, especially for women. However, these biblical laws and moral codes of conducts are made by unmarried men.

This went right over your head.......whooosh.

Enjoy your cherrypicking. I wouldn't want you to strain anything by producing the intellectual courage to deal with the answer to your question: How can women abide by laws written by unmarried men? BY CHOICE.

You didn't just miss the point, you turned around and ran your chickenshit ass in the other direction so you wouldn't have to face it. Christianity has dozens and dozens of different denominations and sects under its umbrella, all of them with different doctrines and memberships rules. Any woman out there is entirely free to pick and choose the denomination whose rules suit her best. Or she can choose a religion that isn't Christian. Or, quite frankly, she can skip going to an organized church, stay home, and make up her own frigging rules. No one's stopping her. If she's abiding by this or that denomination's rules, it's because she CHOOSES TO.

This went right over your head . . . WHOOSH!

By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.

Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.

Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.

Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.

The strangest thing about the insistence that the government can do this if you accept money from them is that it is not about money. If it were the Catholics would just stop taking the money and keep doing things their way, this rule applies even to groups that do not take money from the government. It just shows how stupid and/or desperate the idiots are to defend their politics.

 

[tinydancer]

This whole notion that this violates the First Amendment doesn't hold water. The Catholic Church voluntarily chooses to operate secular institutions (such as hospitals and schools) that are open to the public, yet want to force their beliefs upon the public. Plus, they receive a plethora of state money for their charities.

Its like a group of Christian Scientists opening up a restaurant and refusing to offer their diabetic employee coverage for insulin, and then screaming about their First Amendment rights regarding this mandate.

I think the federal mandate is much more unConstitutional than this.

I'm sorry, but where does the First Amendment say, "Unless you're operating a secular institution"? Where does it say, "only in the context of church"? Or "unless you're receiving government money"? Where was I when exercising religious freedom was Constitutionally restricted to only certain times or facets of life? Last time I checked, I and every other citizen of the United States has the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs 24/7.

Admittedly, I haven't checked the "living Constitution" today, so it might have sprouted a new penumbra I'm not aware of.

You want your state money while you enjoy your separation of church and state, all while promoting your religious views.

Anyways, I see that you are just randomly applying to posts while spouting off a bunch of hyperbolic BS mixed in with red herrings, strawmans, and other logical fallacies.

How do you feel about a publicly funded Islamic school ?

"TiZA, founded in 2003, has about 480 students in kindergarten through eighth grade. The school has campuses in Inver Grove Heights and Blaine. It received about $4.7 million in state funding this past school year."

You going to tell them to teach sex education, make it mandatory to have reading material such as "Mohammed has two daddies" and most importantly ban prayer in their schools?

I'm trying to find the outcome of an ACLU lawsuit against them. I'm most interested in this because of course their schools are counter suing.

 

[Care4all]

no church should be given tax payer's money...that breaks the 1st amendment.

but it is not ''the church'' that is given tax payer's money, it is universities and hospitals and charities run by the CC, but available to people of all faiths or non-faiths, that is taking the gvt money....

there is a difference....

 

[Cecilie1200]

This whole notion that this violates the First Amendment doesn't hold water. The Catholic Church voluntarily chooses to operate secular institutions (such as hospitals and schools) that are open to the public, yet want to force their beliefs upon the public. Plus, they receive a plethora of state money for their charities.

Its like a group of Christian Scientists opening up a restaurant and refusing to offer their diabetic employee coverage for insulin, and then screaming about their First Amendment rights regarding this mandate.

I think the federal mandate is much more unConstitutional than this.

I'm sorry, but where does the First Amendment say, "Unless you're operating a secular institution"? Where does it say, "only in the context of church"? Or "unless you're receiving government money"? Where was I when exercising religious freedom was Constitutionally restricted to only certain times or facets of life? Last time I checked, I and every other citizen of the United States has the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs 24/7.

Admittedly, I haven't checked the "living Constitution" today, so it might have sprouted a new penumbra I'm not aware of.

You want your state money while you enjoy your separation of church and state, all while promoting your religious views.

Anyways, I see that you are just randomly applying to posts while spouting off a bunch of hyperbolic BS mixed in with red herrings, strawmans, and other logical fallacies.

As I understand it, it's damned hard to operate any sort of institution WITHOUT state money getting involved these days. Are you suggesting that Catholic hospitals should stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients? No, of course you're not. What you're suggesting is that those damned Christians should shut the hell up about their rights, and keep their religion in their churches where it belongs, instead of acting as though it has some bearing on everyday life, or something.

Anyways [sic], I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. But if you still need a little more time and diversion to grow a pair, perhaps you could show me where the "red herrings, strawmans [sic], and other logical fallacies" are in the question, "Where does the Constitution say that government money invalidates civil rights?"

And then, when you've actually explained and justified your bullshit accusations, perhaps you'll be warmed up enough to answer the question, rather than simply repeating your assertion.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to stop being an intellectual poltroon, though, since it's clearly going to take a long time.

 

[tinydancer]

Laws? What laws? Are we referring to the tenets of the Catholic faith? The answer to that would be, "by choice". No one holds a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic, so if they don't like the rules of that particular religious club, they're more than welcome to take their whining asses off and find one whose rules DO suit them. There's certainly no shortage to choose from.

Enjoy your red herring. No one said that anyone puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic.

However, you missed the point. Christianity has biblical laws or moral codes of conducts, especially for women. However, these biblical laws and moral codes of conducts are made by unmarried men.

This went right over your head.......whooosh.

Enjoy your cherrypicking. I wouldn't want you to strain anything by producing the intellectual courage to deal with the answer to your question: How can women abide by laws written by unmarried men? BY CHOICE.

You didn't just miss the point, you turned around and ran your chickenshit ass in the other direction so you wouldn't have to face it. Christianity has dozens and dozens of different denominations and sects under its umbrella, all of them with different doctrines and memberships rules. Any woman out there is entirely free to pick and choose the denomination whose rules suit her best. Or she can choose a religion that isn't Christian. Or, quite frankly, she can skip going to an organized church, stay home, and make up her own frigging rules. No one's stopping her. If she's abiding by this or that denomination's rules, it's because she CHOOSES TO.

This went right over your head . . . WHOOSH!

By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.

What just slays me are the freaking libs who constantly whine, ***** and moan that we are the ones shoving our beliefs down their freaking throats.

Every bit of legislation I've ever seen from the left shows it's the other way around.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Hypocrisy thy name is progressive.

 

[Valox]

By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.

Let's add ad homs to your list of logical fallacies. While one can argue Peter was married, he certainly didn't view women as equal to men, but rather the inferior creature.

Perhaps this can explain your over-the-top behavior.

 

[Valox]

Enjoy your red herring. No one said that anyone puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic.

However, you missed the point. Christianity has biblical laws or moral codes of conducts, especially for women. However, these biblical laws and moral codes of conducts are made by unmarried men.

This went right over your head.......whooosh.

Enjoy your cherrypicking. I wouldn't want you to strain anything by producing the intellectual courage to deal with the answer to your question: How can women abide by laws written by unmarried men? BY CHOICE.

You didn't just miss the point, you turned around and ran your chickenshit ass in the other direction so you wouldn't have to face it. Christianity has dozens and dozens of different denominations and sects under its umbrella, all of them with different doctrines and memberships rules. Any woman out there is entirely free to pick and choose the denomination whose rules suit her best. Or she can choose a religion that isn't Christian. Or, quite frankly, she can skip going to an organized church, stay home, and make up her own frigging rules. No one's stopping her. If she's abiding by this or that denomination's rules, it's because she CHOOSES TO.

This went right over your head . . . WHOOSH!

By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.

What just slays me are the freaking libs who constantly whine, ***** and moan that weare the ones shoving our beliefs down their freaking throats.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Hypocrisy thy name is progressive.

What slays me is that Republicans only see the world in black and white. They cannot handle dissenting opinion without thinking that everyone is a radical statist progressive.


Nonetheless, lets just throw out the fact that I said that we should toss out the federal mandate, which is essentially, a Republican re-cycled idea.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.

Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.

Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.

Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.

No one is forfeiting civil rights. For ****'s sake, if you are against birth control, don't use it.

Stop bitching and moaning like you are some Rosa Parks who is losing civil liberties.

Oh, I love it. "If you're against birth control, don't use it . . . but you have to buy it for other people!"

How's this? If you want birth control, BUY IT YOURSELF.

Did you really not know what the topic was, or is it just that intellectual cowardice preventing you from acknowledging it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.

Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.

Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.

Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.

The strangest thing about the insistence that the government can do this if you accept money from them is that it is not about money. If it were the Catholics would just stop taking the money and keep doing things their way, this rule applies even to groups that do not take money from the government. It just shows how stupid and/or desperate the idiots are to defend their politics.

Sadly, I believe Catholic hospitals are unwilling to turn away people who are on Medicare and Medicaid and still wish to be treated in a Catholic hospital. It's not a choice the government should be forcing on the hospitals OR the patients.

 

[Valox]

I'm sorry, but where does the First Amendment say, "Unless you're operating a secular institution"? Where does it say, "only in the context of church"? Or "unless you're receiving government money"? Where was I when exercising religious freedom was Constitutionally restricted to only certain times or facets of life? Last time I checked, I and every other citizen of the United States has the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs 24/7.

Admittedly, I haven't checked the "living Constitution" today, so it might have sprouted a new penumbra I'm not aware of.

You want your state money while you enjoy your separation of church and state, all while promoting your religious views.

Anyways, I see that you are just randomly applying to posts while spouting off a bunch of hyperbolic BS mixed in with red herrings, strawmans, and other logical fallacies.

As I understand it, it's damned hard to operate any sort of institution WITHOUT state money getting involved these days. Are you suggesting that Catholic hospitals should stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients? No, of course you're not. What you're suggesting is that those damned Christians should shut the hell up about their rights, and keep their religion in their churches where it belongs, instead of acting as though it has some bearing on everyday life, or something.

Anyways [sic], I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. But if you still need a little more time and diversion to grow a pair, perhaps you could show me where the "red herrings, strawmans [sic], and other logical fallacies" are in the question, "Where does the Constitution say that government money invalidates civil rights?"

And then, when you've actually explained and justified your bullshit accusations, perhaps you'll be warmed up enough to answer the question, rather than simply repeating your assertion.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to stop being an intellectual poltroon, though, since it's clearly going to take a long time.

yawn...your self-righteous and antagonistic behavior is tiring.

No one is invaliding your civil rights. No one is saying that you have to take birth control. You are still free to be Catholic and refuse to use birth control. However, in your hyperbolic nonsense, you are painting yourself out to be a modern day Rosa Parks. It is quite amusing, but tiring.

This is a problem with the federal mandate, which you are incapable of grasping. Religious organizations who are serving the public, who hire people outside of their faith, and accept state need to accept the federal mandate like any other private entity. They need to provide insurance that is required like any other private institution that falls under this mandate.

Just because you invoke your religious freedoms does not mean they are being violated. You are free to refuse birth control, but it should be offered under said circumstances. Catholic institutions who operate in the above regard should not receive preferential treatment.

For instance, if it was against Catholic doctrine to offer chemotherapy to cancer patients, would you be throwing the same hissy fit over a Catholic institution who serves the public, employes non-Catholics, and receives state aid?

 

[Cecilie1200]

By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.

Let's add ad homs to your list of logical fallacies. While one can argue Peter was married, he certainly didn't view women as equal to men, but rather the inferior creature.

Perhaps this can explain your over-the-top behavior.

The only thing needed to explain my behavior is on display in your every post: intellectual cowardice.

I'm still waiting for you to develop the stones to answer the questions, instead of trying to pretend they don't exist.

One doesn't have to "argue" that Peter was married, fool. He WAS married. So were many of the other Apostles. Nice goal-post moving, though: how can women abide by laws made by unmarried men? Oh, they were married? But they didn't view women the right way!

Doesn't matter, because the answer is still the same: Whoever wrote the rules, women abide by them BY CHOICE.

Not that I expect you to EVER be courageous enough to respond to that, coward.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Enjoy your cherrypicking. I wouldn't want you to strain anything by producing the intellectual courage to deal with the answer to your question: How can women abide by laws written by unmarried men? BY CHOICE.

You didn't just miss the point, you turned around and ran your chickenshit ass in the other direction so you wouldn't have to face it. Christianity has dozens and dozens of different denominations and sects under its umbrella, all of them with different doctrines and memberships rules. Any woman out there is entirely free to pick and choose the denomination whose rules suit her best. Or she can choose a religion that isn't Christian. Or, quite frankly, she can skip going to an organized church, stay home, and make up her own frigging rules. No one's stopping her. If she's abiding by this or that denomination's rules, it's because she CHOOSES TO.

This went right over your head . . . WHOOSH!

By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.

What just slays me are the freaking libs who constantly whine, ***** and moan that weare the ones shoving our beliefs down their freaking throats.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Hypocrisy thy name is progressive.

What slays me is that Republicans only see the world in black and white. They cannot handle dissenting opinion without thinking that everyone is a radical statist progressive.


Nonetheless, lets just throw out the fact that I said that we should toss out the federal mandate, which is essentially, a Republican re-cycled idea.

What slays me is that liberals only see the world in liberal. They simply refuse to see anything conservative at all. It's not even a matter of them handling dissenting opinions, because they're too cowardly to even recognize that such things exist, let alone deal with them. Case in point, Valox the Coward.

Nonetheless, let's just throw out the fact that you still haven't told us what part of the Constitution supports your belief that the First Amendment is conditional.

 

[Valox]

Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.

No one is forfeiting civil rights. For ****'s sake, if you are against birth control, don't use it.

Stop bitching and moaning like you are some Rosa Parks who is losing civil liberties.

Oh, I love it. "If you're against birth control, don't use it . . . but you have to buy it for other people!"

How's this? If you want birth control, BUY IT YOURSELF.

Did you really not know what the topic was, or is it just that intellectual cowardice preventing you from acknowledging it?

Just because you are a Catholic, own a restaurant, and employ people who fall under the CRA, is not a valid reason to declare that your First Amendment rights are being violated over this mandate.

I am all for giving people the liberty to buy their own birth control if an employer does not want to fund it. I was never against this principle. (In fact, I would like to see more free market regarding health care, followed by a P.O, followed by single payer). Unfortunately, you are too dense to comprehend.

You are completely oblivious about the context of this conversation, which falls under this federal mandate (which adamantly I oppose). Under this context, Catholic institutions the serve the public, hire outside their denomination, and receive state aid should not be given preferential treatment.

 

[Valox]

What just slays me are the freaking libs who constantly whine, ***** and moan that weare the ones shoving our beliefs down their freaking throats.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Hypocrisy thy name is progressive.

What slays me is that Republicans only see the world in black and white. They cannot handle dissenting opinion without thinking that everyone is a radical statist progressive.


Nonetheless, lets just throw out the fact that I said that we should toss out the federal mandate, which is essentially, a Republican re-cycled idea.

What slays me is that liberals only see the world in liberal. They simply refuse to see anything conservative at all. It's not even a matter of them handling dissenting opinions, because they're too cowardly to even recognize that such things exist, let alone deal with them. Case in point, Valox the Coward.

Nonetheless, let's just throw out the fact that you still haven't told us what part of the Constitution supports your belief that the First Amendment is conditional.

You are too ******* stupid to realize that I believe that the federal mandate should be thrown out the window, and then we would not be having this conversation. However, you cannot grasp the context of having a conversation within proper parameters.

What part don't you understand about this sentence? "The federal mandate should go out the window."

What part don't you understand about this sentence? "If we are going to have a federal mandate, then Catholic institutions who serve the public, hire outside their denomination, and receive state aid should not be given preferential treatment."

Why are you so ******* obtuse?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You want your state money while you enjoy your separation of church and state, all while promoting your religious views.

Anyways, I see that you are just randomly applying to posts while spouting off a bunch of hyperbolic BS mixed in with red herrings, strawmans, and other logical fallacies.

As I understand it, it's damned hard to operate any sort of institution WITHOUT state money getting involved these days. Are you suggesting that Catholic hospitals should stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients? No, of course you're not. What you're suggesting is that those damned Christians should shut the hell up about their rights, and keep their religion in their churches where it belongs, instead of acting as though it has some bearing on everyday life, or something.

Anyways [sic], I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. But if you still need a little more time and diversion to grow a pair, perhaps you could show me where the "red herrings, strawmans [sic], and other logical fallacies" are in the question, "Where does the Constitution say that government money invalidates civil rights?"

And then, when you've actually explained and justified your bullshit accusations, perhaps you'll be warmed up enough to answer the question, rather than simply repeating your assertion.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to stop being an intellectual poltroon, though, since it's clearly going to take a long time.

yawn...your self-righteous and antagonistic behavior is tiring.

::yawn:: Your cowardice is tiring.

No one is invaliding your civil rights. No one is saying that you have to take birth control. You are still free to be Catholic and refuse to use birth control. However, in your hyperbolic nonsense, you are painting yourself out to be a modern day Rosa Parks. It is quite amusing, but tiring.

Interesting. So my freedom of religion, according to you, only applies to my own personal use of birth control. According to you, I have no First Amendment right to decline to participate in the use of birth control by other people.

In your pathetic attempt to sound condescending, you continue to paint yourself out to be unaware of the actual topic. It is not at all amusing, but it IS tiring. If you don't know what the ******* debate is about, pinhead, why the hell are you pontificating about it?

This is a problem with the federal mandate, which you are incapable of grasping. Religious organizations who are serving the public, who hire people outside of their faith, and accept state need to accept the federal mandate like any other private entity. They need to provide insurance that is required like any other private institution that falls under this mandate.

I'm having no problem with the federal mandate, dumbass, since WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FEDERAL MANDATE. We're talking about the Constitution. I don't really give a rat's ass WHAT pretext you and your leftist buddies try to use to violate the First Amendment. NOTHING gives the government the right to dictate the exercise of religious belief. Period.

If you're doing something that brings you into conflict with the First Amendment, I suggest you take it as evidence you shouldn't be doing it.

Just because you invoke your religious freedoms does not mean they are being violated. You are free to refuse birth control, but it should be offered under said circumstances. Catholic institutions who operate in the above regard should not receive preferential treatment.

Just because you repeatedly tell me that rights are not being violated doesn't mean that they aren't, particularly since you're too chickenshit to actually PROVE your assertion. I suggest it's also that you're so conceited, you think that your word for it is all the proof needed. Whatever. Rest assured that the more you talk, the more convinced I become that the fact that you are saying something serves as proof that it's wrong, whatever it is.

You are free to continue telling me that my religious freedom extends only to my personal use of birth control. That doesn't make it so.

I'm not even going to comment on how you consider respecting someone's Constitutional rights is "preferential treatment". Or is it allowing them to believe something different from what you've decided is correct that's "preferential treatment"?

For instance, if it was against Catholic doctrine to offer chemotherapy to cancer patients, would you be throwing the same hissy fit over a Catholic institution who serves the public, employes non-Catholics, and receives state aid?

Well, see, I would answer your question, except that poltroons who refuse to answer questions they've been asked three or four times have a hell of a ******* nerve thinking they can turn around and demand answers to THEIR questions.

This isn't an interrogation, Torquemada. When you summon the stones to answer, you can ask. Until then, we'll just stick to this: Coward.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one is forfeiting civil rights. For ****'s sake, if you are against birth control, don't use it.

Stop bitching and moaning like you are some Rosa Parks who is losing civil liberties.

Oh, I love it. "If you're against birth control, don't use it . . . but you have to buy it for other people!"

How's this? If you want birth control, BUY IT YOURSELF.

Did you really not know what the topic was, or is it just that intellectual cowardice preventing you from acknowledging it?

Just because you are a Catholic, own a restaurant, and employ people who fall under the CRA, is not a valid reason to declare that your First Amendment rights are being violated over this mandate.

I am all for giving people the liberty to buy their own birth control if an employer does not want to fund it. I was never against this principle. (In fact, I would like to see more free market regarding health care, followed by a P.O, followed by single payer). Unfortunately, you are too dense to comprehend.

You are completely oblivious about the context of this conversation, which falls under this federal mandate (which adamantly I oppose). Under this context, Catholic institutions the serve the public, hire outside their denomination, and receive state aid should not be given preferential treatment.

"I'm right because I say I am. Look how many times I can tell you your rights aren't being violated. That proves they aren't being violated!"

"Giving people the liberty to buy birth control"? Hey, dumbass! Since when DON'T they have the liberty to buy their own birth control?

Unfortunately, YOU are too dense to comprehend. Let me spell it out for you, and please tell me if I need to go borrow my toddler's Crayolas to draw you a picture: The topic here is NOT whether people have the right to personally use birth control, no matter how fixated you are on my doing so. It is whether or not people have the First Amendment right to not participate in paying for things they have a religous objection to.

Under this context, it doesn't matter what excuse you use to say that they don't, unless and until you get the courage to answer the question of "Where does the Constitution make the First Amendment conditional?"

And let me repeat, no amount of you saying, "Taking state money invalidates their rights" is going to make that so. Your ability to repeat yourself is not evidence, and religious freedom is not "preferential treatment".