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 02-10-2012, 03:11 PM   #226
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
Giving consumer's the OPTION to purchase birth control is bad how again?
Not the issue. I am completely in support of birth control and I wish there was a free clinic for just birth control issues.

Quote:
I don't see where this is infringing on a PERSON's religion, in fact I look at it just the opposite way. This should have been done all along.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their religious principals is preventing them from exercising their right to not participate.

Quote:
Somehow you have it that taking away the right of the individual is OK.
Could you explain that to me. Cuz seriously, I don't get it.
Are your talking about a persons "Right" to have birth control? Because if you are no such Right exists.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 03:25 PM   #227
Clodfobble
Sulky Cultivator in the Woods
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
I wish there was a free clinic for just birth control issues.
It's called Planned Parenthood.
__________________
My cooking blog
Clodfobble is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 03:26 PM   #228
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
But no they don't really or we would not have whole towns that engage in polygamy but we do. That is unenforceable.
But they don't, the SCOTUS just shot down the state of Oklahoma from outlawing certain aspects of Sharia Law via state law.

So you examples are actually not holding water.
Then you can say the same about everything that is banned...
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 03:46 PM   #229
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 View Post
Then you can say the same about everything that is banned...
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!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 03:47 PM   #230
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
It's called Planned Parenthood.
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!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 03:48 PM   #231
classicman
Chock full O' facts
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 21,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
[i]The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution
See Bigelow v. Virginia
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
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 03:50 PM   #232
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
See Bigelow v. Virginia
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.
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!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 03:52 PM   #233
classicman
Chock full O' facts
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 21,318
Hmmm... dunno where the line is there.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 04:35 PM   #234
TheMercenary
“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!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 04:36 PM   #235
Ibby
"She", not "he", guys
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,012
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?
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 04:39 PM   #236
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
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?
Because they are protected by the Constitution. I guess one could make a case that my religion allows me to pass out crack cocaine because that is my personal faith, but somehow I don't think it will pass mustard.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 04:51 PM   #237
Ibby
"She", not "he", guys
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Because they are protected by the Constitution. I guess one could make a case that my religion allows me to pass out crack cocaine because that is my personal faith, but somehow I don't think it will pass mustard.
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?
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 06:58 PM   #238
ZenGum
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.
ZenGum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 09:16 PM   #239
Ibby
"She", not "he", guys
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,012
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.
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 11:09 PM   #240
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
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?
Obviously not. And that is the point bluntly stated by Scalia. Religion is only a relationship between one man and his god. That relationship is protected by religious freedom. Any relationship that man has with other people is determined by civil law. Religion cannot restrict or regulate any 'man to man' relationship. Religion cannot be imposed on any other person. Because religion is only a 'man to god' relationship.

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.
tw 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 08:03 AM.

Help fill the mug... click to donate
A skunk walked by and my odor eaters went berserk with blood lust. They tripped me, escaped from my loafers, and chased the skunk up a tree. My feet were still hot and sweaty, so I bought wind socks.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.