02-10-2012, 03:11 PM | #226 | |||
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
|||
02-10-2012, 03:25 PM | #227 | |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Quote:
|
|
02-10-2012, 03:26 PM | #228 | |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Quote:
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. |
|
02-10-2012, 03:46 PM | #229 |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Not when it comes to what the Constitution says about it's limits on it's ability to regulate religious practice.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
02-10-2012, 03:47 PM | #230 |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Hey I support them. Just as much as I support groups Right to oppose their beliefs as well. Although I am not sure everyone can get free Birth Control there or more people I know would do so.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
02-10-2012, 03:48 PM | #231 | |
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
|
Quote:
I believe (hard for me to totally understand) negates your point. There is a difference between a commercial entity and an individual. In this case, the hospital IS a commercial entity.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt |
|
02-10-2012, 03:50 PM | #232 |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
I believe most Catholic run hospitals are Not-For-Profit, so, no, they are not a Commercial entity. Different rules apply.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
02-10-2012, 04:35 PM | #234 |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
King Obama's Royal Decree on Catholics
thepeoplescube.com "I shall not force Catholics to pay for abortion -- for now. But I do order you Catholics to buy insurance. And I order the insurance company to pay for the abortion."
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
02-10-2012, 04:36 PM | #235 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
There are two parts to the question of whether or not it's a legitimate infringement of the employer's conscience. The first is whether or not there is EVER a legitimate infringement - and the weight of precedent says, yes, there are things that society can ask of religiously-affiliated public entities like hospitals and schools, even if the religion opposes those demands - again, religious conviction is not considered to legally justify racist hiring policies, or to allow for the selective offering of their services. Then, of course, the question is, where does this issue fall on the continuum of what we as a society (and more importantly, our judiciary) consider acceptable infringements of religious liberty in the name of fair and just application of the law.
In this case, the law says that ALL employer-provided insurance has to cover a certain minimum standard of care. And, as it turns out, even 60% of catholics agree that hospitals and schools and other public institutions, regardless of religious affiliation, should be held to the same standard as any other institution or entity in having to comply with that coverage. Merc, if a private citizen owning and operating a college or hospital wanted to refuse to comply with that provision based on their personal faith, they would have no legal standing to do so, the same way they would have no legal standing to refuse to serve customers on a racial basis, even if their religion preached segregation. Why should a religiously-affiliated entity be treated differently?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
02-10-2012, 04:39 PM | #236 | |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Quote:
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
|
02-10-2012, 04:51 PM | #237 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
I guess that's the question I'm asking. WHAT, exactly, should be protected, and what shouldn't be? should a religious institution be UTTERLY exempt from ALL laws?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
02-10-2012, 06:58 PM | #238 |
Doctor Wtf
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
|
You now, you could dodge this whole issue by abolishing this weird arrangement of having the employer provide health insurance. That has a whole bunch of problems with it.
Employer provides money. Employee uses money to buy health insurance from the organisation of their choice, which may include a government system.
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl. |
02-10-2012, 09:16 PM | #239 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...te?detail=hide
fairly dense reading - almost entirely supreme court opinion quotes - but one that CLEARLY establishes the constitutionality of the decision, pre-compromise.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
02-10-2012, 11:09 PM | #240 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Religious freedom: you can talk to and believe anything your god demands. But you cannot impose those beliefs on anyone else. A church imposing church doctrine on anyone else is discriminating based in religion. That is illegal. Scalia made the point repeatedly. Any relationship between two people is defined by civil laws - not by religion. Unfortunately many give religion liberties it does not deserve. A church is not a god and is not a religion. The church is only a religious consultant. An advisor. Someone that the individual hires to help him with his 'man to god' relationship. BTW, this is the same church that said an organ transplant is a mortal sin. Ordered all people to not have organ transplants (after the first organ transplant - a kidney donated to his twin brother). The pope can deny himself a transplant if that is his religion. But the pope cannot impose his beliefs on anyone else - as Scalia notes. Religion must not exist beyond a 'man to god' relationship. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|