Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram
YES. YES I AM. The first amendment applies to both the fed, and the states. The tenth amendment says that anything not given, as a power, to the federal government, is reserved to the states. How is the FED "infringing religious liberty" unconstitutional, according to you, but the STATES doing it constitutional? If it's unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds, it's unconstitutional no matter whether it's fed or state. If it's unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds, then you're arguing that this and EVERY OTHER provision of Obamacare is illegal (which i'm sure you believe) - but in that case, why is the religious provision MORE unconstitutional? If it isn't MORE unconstitutional, we come back to my original question - why is it okay to infringe on their beliefs about the definition of marriage, when it comes to insurance? And again I want to equate, in this instance, the gay marriage controversy with the catholic church's non-recognition of remarried couples.
|
The issue is one of what the States are doing vs. what the Federal Government wants individual businesses to do. You are completely and repeatedly mixing the issues. The are not the same even though they may have similar issues with Constitutionality.
Oh, and I do think Obamacare is a whole other set of issues and problems as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid foisted it on the American people, on both constitutional grounds as well as numerous other areas where there are problems with it. But as Pelosi said, we had to pass it to see what was in it.... We will just have to see what the SCOTUS has to say about the numerous lawsuits that they are going to have to deal with over the next year.