The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-15-2012, 08:57 PM   #271
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
I didn't make any argument that was particular to the gay, divorced, insurance issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Nor did I, that's the point.
Yes, I got "the point" that you werent talking about the gay, divorced, insurance issue. That's why I said my argument was equally relevant to the birth control issue.

If the First Amendment doesn't block a state from requiring employers to cover birth control, then it doesn't block the Federal Government from requiring employers to cover birth control.

And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 08:59 PM   #272
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
Yes, I got "the point" that you werent talking about the gay, divorced, insurance issue. That's why I said my argument was equally relevant to the birth control issue.

If the First Amendment doesn't block a state from requiring employers to cover birth control, then it doesn't block the Federal Government from requiring employers to cover birth control.

And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.
Again you fail.

It is not about what the states regulate.

It is about what Obama wants to regulate to the states from the Federal pulpit.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:15 PM   #273
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
BUT THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, MERC. You can be POLITICALLY against it, but you can't say ONE is CONSTITUTIONAL and the other is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. thats not how the first amendment WORKS, merc. Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:18 PM   #274
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
BUT THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, MERC. You can be POLITICALLY against it, but you can't say ONE is CONSTITUTIONAL and the other is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. thats not how the first amendment WORKS, merc. Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.
Why are you shouting. I don't care.

You can't take what is a State's issue and apply it nationally.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:24 PM   #275
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Why are you shouting. I don't care.

You can't take what is a State's issue and apply it nationally.
So you're saying that your opposition IS or ISNT about religious liberty?

Are you against it as a 10th amendment, states-rights issue, or a 1st amendment, freedom of religion issue?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:25 PM   #276
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
... the issue of the Federal Government telling a religious organization what they can and cannot do, or in this case telling them what they must do are completely different. Why? Because that is what the Constitution says.
Where does the Constitution stop the Federal Government from "telling them what they must do"?
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:30 PM   #277
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
Where does the Constitution stop the Federal Government from "telling them what they must do"?
Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.

What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:31 PM   #278
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.

What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.
So how is it legal for states to do it, but not for the fed, under the first amendment? the first amendment applies to states too under the 14th amendment.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:36 PM   #279
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
So how is it legal for states to do it, but not for the fed, under the first amendment? the first amendment applies to states too under the 14th amendment.
In many cases it is a "States Right" issue. You guys are on a merry-go-round. It is quickly becoming no longer important to me if you understand it or not. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe. You are not going to change my mind as to the facts of the Constitutional aspect of this issue and so far you have completely failed to put up a cogent argument which disputes my position. We don't have to agree. Let's see how the courts settle the issue as a final resolution. It is not important to me that you see it my way, really, I just don't care.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 11:12 PM   #280
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.

What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.
If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 11:15 PM   #281
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
In many cases it is a "States Right" issue. You guys are on a merry-go-round. It is quickly becoming no longer important to me if you understand it or not. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe. You are not going to change my mind as to the facts of the Constitutional aspect of this issue and so far you have completely failed to put up a cogent argument which disputes my position. We don't have to agree. Let's see how the courts settle the issue as a final resolution. It is not important to me that you see it my way, really, I just don't care.
I know YOU don't care if I understand, but I -do- want to understand your argument. At this point, I only know that you think it's unconstitutional. But again, HOW is it unconstitutional? I feel like you FIRST were arguing it was unconstitutional on religious liberty grounds, in which case it does not matter if it's a state or the fed, with regards to constitutionality, and then you changed to a states-rights tenth amendment argument.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 07:40 PM   #282
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
I know YOU don't care if I understand, but I -do- want to understand your argument. At this point, I only know that you think it's unconstitutional. But again, HOW is it unconstitutional? I feel like you FIRST were arguing it was unconstitutional on religious liberty grounds, in which case it does not matter if it's a state or the fed, with regards to constitutionality, and then you changed to a states-rights tenth amendment argument.
No, you introduced the issue of States Rights issue by trying to compare it to same sex union court battles. Apples and Oranges.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 07:42 PM   #283
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.
Ok, prove it. I never made such an argument about it applying equally to both. They are completely different. One is top down, the other bottom up. I would be glad to watch you show how they are the same. Please cite as you go.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:26 PM   #284
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
No, you introduced the issue of States Rights issue by trying to compare it to same sex union court battles. Apples and Oranges.
No, I didn't. I didn't compare it to court battles. I asked if in states where it IS legal, you think colleges or charities or hospitals should be able to deny spousal insurance coverage only to gay couples, but provide it to hetero couples? Or rather, I said that as far as I know they ARE required to provide benefits to ALL spouses (or none I suppose), and that they can't pick and choose, even if gay couples violate their beliefs.

I'm still talking ONLY about insurance coverage and ONLY about how it relates to religiously-affiliated institutions.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:33 PM   #285
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
No, I didn't. I didn't compare it to court battles. I asked if in states where it IS legal, you think colleges or charities or hospitals should be able to deny spousal insurance coverage only to gay couples, but provide it to hetero couples? Or rather, I said that as far as I know they ARE required to provide benefits to ALL spouses (or none I suppose), and that they can't pick and choose, even if gay couples violate their beliefs.
You are beating a dead horse. You specifically ID'd states where this was an issue that had been or is being challenged in various levels of courts. This issue is being challenged at a state level or at least regionally from the point of STATES in-acting laws which then have been challenged in court. This has nothing to do with what Obama did via the FEDERAL government from the top down. I just don't understand what you don't understand about the difference between those processes.

Quote:
I'm still talking ONLY about insurance coverage and ONLY about how it relates to religiously-affiliated institutions.
See above.... repeatedly.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.