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 02-16-2012, 08:43 PM   #286
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.
Are you saying that they can't be both?
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:31 PM   #287
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Are you saying that they can't be both?
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.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:42 PM   #288
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
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.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:45 PM   #289
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
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.
WHICH issue? The issue of birth control coverage, but NOT Obamacare more widely?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:46 PM   #290
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
WHICH issue? The issue of birth control coverage, but NOT Obamacare more widely?
You are mixing the issue of gay marriage and the most recent issue of King Obama's edict of mandated BCP coverage. Obamacare is a THIRD issue you recently dragged in...
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:57 PM   #291
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Ok, look at it like this..

There are issues concerning the BCP edict by King Obama which involve a number of Amendments as well as Section 2 of the constitution. It was MHO that it at least violated the First Amendment. There may be an argument that Obama does not have an enumerated power to even make such an edict. We will have have to see where it goes from here. But to drag the issue of Gay Marriage and now Obamacare into it will not allow you to see the BCP issue more clearly. Each one will be measured differently and alone.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 10:09 PM   #292
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
You are mixing the issue of gay marriage and the most recent issue of King Obama's edict of mandated BCP coverage. Obamacare is a THIRD issue you recently dragged in...
Mandated birth control is PART OF Obamacare. That's why it's being talked about at all. To separate Obamacare from the birth control debate reveals your ignorance on the topic.

But, okay. If we IGNORE GAY MARRIAGE, if you honestly don't see how they are parallel legal arguments, let's talk about divorced and then remarried people.


The catholic church does not believe in birth control.
The catholic church does not believe in divorce.

You posit: catholic-affiliated organizations should not have to insure birth control.
I ask: should catholic-affiliated organizations have to insure remarried spouses?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 10:22 PM   #293
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
Mandated birth control is PART OF Obamacare. That's why it's being talked about at all. To separate Obamacare from the birth control debate reveals your ignorance on the topic.
Really? My ignorance? Don't be a little bitch if you want to discuss this issue with adults. You fail on so many levels. If it was part of the original Bill he would not have had to come out and make an edict about it, the issue would have been inherent in the writing of the original Bill. But what Obamacare did do was give powers to the HHSS to make such edicts. Which is another huge problem with Obamacare.

Quote:
But, okay. If we IGNORE GAY MARRIAGE, if you honestly don't see how they are parallel legal arguments, let's talk about divorced and then remarried people.
They are completely separate issues, they come from completely different angles and issues.


Quote:
The catholic church does not believe in birth control.
The catholic church does not believe in divorce.
Sort of, but yea, I give you that much....

Quote:
You posit: catholic-affiliated organizations should not have to insure birth control.
I ask: should catholic-affiliated organizations have to insure remarried spouses?
Gay marriage and or divorce of anyone is not just an issue of the Catholic Church. The issues have not just been an issue of the Catholic Church.

It just so happens that the Catholic Church has been dealing with the issue head on, but it still is not an issue of just that religion. They happen be the ones dealing with it head on.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:00 PM   #294
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Really? My ignorance? Don't be a little bitch if you want to discuss this issue with adults. You fail on so many levels. If it was part of the original Bill he would not have had to come out and make an edict about it, the issue would have been inherent in the writing of the original Bill. But what Obamacare did do was give powers to the HHSS to make such edicts. Which is another huge problem with Obamacare.
Actually, what the bill says is that exemptions to the UNIVERSAL provision IN the text of the bill (that is, the bill says INSURANCE HAS TO INCLUDE BIRTH CONTROL) can be granted by the executive. Sibelius (with Obama's blessing) decided NOT to EXEMPT religiously-affiliated groups from the provision, but DID exempt churches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Gay marriage and or divorce of anyone is not just an issue of the Catholic Church. The issues have not just been an issue of the Catholic Church.

It just so happens that the Catholic Church has been dealing with the issue head on, but it still is not an issue of just that religion. They happen be the ones dealing with it head on.
What I'm saying is, Catholics could argue that having to recognize people that were remarried as legal spouses for purposes of insurance is infringing on their right to reject second marriages as illegitimate. Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:26 PM   #295
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
This law simply puts the FREEDOM in the hands of the people, NOT the healthcare provider.
Whats the church so worried about?
(insert stats of Catholic women who use BC here)
Next!
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:26 PM   #296
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
Actually, what the bill says is that exemptions to the UNIVERSAL provision IN the text of the bill (that is, the bill says INSURANCE HAS TO INCLUDE BIRTH CONTROL) can be granted by the executive. Sibelius (with Obama's blessing) decided NOT to EXEMPT religiously-affiliated groups from the provision, but DID exempt churches.
Not much different from what I said.


Quote:
What I'm saying is, Catholics could argue that having to recognize people that were remarried as legal spouses for purposes of insurance is infringing on their right to reject second marriages as illegitimate.
And my point is have they? Is anyone in the Federal government saying they must do this? Or is it just being challenged at the state level and the issue has never come up at a Federal level?


Quote:
Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?
Haven't really thought about it much, guess I just don't care.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:27 PM   #297
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?
Yeh, this kinda pisses me off. Apparently I have to get an annulment now.
Talked to the church about it ... $$$$$$$$ makes it all OK.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:29 PM   #298
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
This law simply puts the FREEDOM in the hands of the people, NOT the healthcare provider.
Whats the church so worried about?
(insert stats of Catholic women who use BC here)
Next!
Like I said I am not against BC or the governments desire to provide it. I just don't think they have the Constitutional Right to make Religious organizations to go against their beliefs.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:30 PM   #299
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
I don't think the Church should have EVER had the right to not offer it to patients.
Its the PEOPLE who are being given the choice, as it should be.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:50 PM   #300
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
I don't think the Church should have EVER had the right to not offer it to patients.
Its the PEOPLE who are being given the choice, as it should be.
No. It is Big Government telling Religious organizations what they MUST provide by Presidential edict. And that goes against everything we stand for. Like I said, let them set up a free BCP stand across the street and give the shit out for free, I would support that, the more people on BC the better, they have no Right or Power to mandate that they have to do it and this action is not supported either by enumerated powers of the Office of the President and is prohibited by the Constitution. It really is black and white. I would guess it will go to the courts.
__________________
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 01:36 AM.


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