View Single Post
Old 02-17-2012, 04:53 AM   #304
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
I would certainly argue that "presidential edict that churches provide birth control" and "refusal to exempt employers who claim religious affiliation from having to provide birth control like everybody else" are two wildly different things. clearly you disagree.
It is an end around by Obama, he called it a compromise, it is clearly not in the eye of those who are paying for the insurance and in this case that would be the employer.



Quote:
Please please please explain to me why a first amendment religious liberties question has to be differentiated on state/fed lines?
In general they are not, what is different is how and under what angle the different things are being challenged and under what umbrella they are being issued as laws or mandated. The marriage issue is being decided at the state level.

Quote:
Also, as far as I know, there is NO challenge to the legitimacy of laws that say that first marriages and second marriages have to be treated equally by employers, either on the state OR federal level - but legally a marriage is a marriage, and if an employer's health care plan says that it includes spouses, that plan has to include ALL legally recognized marriages.
And I don't see it being challenged as a Constitutional Right.

Quote:
If I understand your point, you are arguing that since marriage (as it relates to insurance SPECIFICALLY) is RECOGNIZED by the federal government, but LICENSED by states, it is completely different from birth control coverage, which is mandated by federal order under Obamacare. Okay, fine. But the first amendment applies EQUALLY to state AND federal laws, and since a religious group can ONLY claim that their religious rights are infringed upon UNDER the first amendment, if religious liberty is the problem with the regulation, it does not matter if the regulation comes from the federal government or from a state government.
It matters greatly. And in the case of marriage, I don't see anyone challenging it as a First Amendment issue.



Quote:
But it's the same legal, religious, and constitutional principle. Why do you care very strongly that birth control insurance coverage is a religious liberties question, but don't care at all about whether divorced/remarried spouse insurance coverage is a religious liberties question?
It is not the same when you address it as a states rights issue over a federal mandate, huge difference. I don't think the BCP issue is within the scope of what the feds can tell individual businesses to do. It is not as important to me what individual states choose to do on the marriage issue. It is important to me what the Federal government says we can and cannot do when it seems to be a clear violation of their power.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote