Court strikes down mandate for birth control in ObamaCare

[Timshel]

First, there is a difference between employing somebody and a violation of their religion. It isn't against their religion to give a person a job, even if they are a sinner. Hiring a gay person isn't against their religion, it isn't immoral to do such a thing, giving them an abortive agent or providing birth control for another is an action that is a sin according to their religion, it is immoral and the Free Exercise of their religion guaranteed in the 1st requires government to allow them to make that decision.

If they want birth control they need to get it from a different source than the church. It isn't even unreasonable, it is affordable, and they chose to work for an employer they knew would not provide such things.

Who says this and that is against their religion and this and that is not?

Have you given any thought to what this would mean for women employed by Muslims or black by those who believe their pigmentation is a curse from God?

Selling crafts is not a religious function. If doing so forces you to violate your religious beliefs then maybe you should sell or close. But due process ensures that we must all be equal before the law.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

i would sue the employer! They aren't buying the birth control or being forced to buy it, they are just supplying the insurance. It is bogus to me, especially when the majority of Catholics defy this.


So, now Jehovah's Witness don't have to supply insurance for blood transfusions? Where does this foolishness end?

this is the type of mess you create with something like obamacare. It doesn't matter if peoples beliefs are retarded, they are entitled to them and they shouldn't have to support something with their pocketbook that is against their religious values, OR PHILOSOPHICAL VALUES OR PERSONAL BELIEFS (emphasis added because I now have to cover every scenario at all times and cannot refer to one limited example).

 

[Timshel]

show me where I said this or implied this, anywhere. Show me where I said that this should only apply to religious people and nobody else.

If you misspoke that is fine but don't be a douche like pmp...

i do think there is a valid argument to be made that clearly some religious people would have a problem with supporting something like birth control. it should be their right to decline. we'll see what the scotus says though

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

If you misspoke that is fine but don't be a douche like pmp...

i do think there is a valid argument to be made that clearly some religious people would have a problem with supporting something like birth control. it should be their right to decline. we'll see what the scotus says though

there is a thing called context you idiot. if you weren't on a one man crusade to make shit up about what I actually believe you would have a much easier time.

 

[Timshel]

this is the type of mess you create with something like obamacare. It doesn't matter if peoples beliefs are retarded, they are entitled to them and they shouldn't have to support something with their pocketbook that is against their religious values, OR PHILOSOPHICAL VALUES OR PERSONAL BELIEFS (emphasis added because I now have to cover every scenario at all times and cannot refer to one limited example).

But see this is a reason to be against Obamacare in general. I would certainly have your back on that. It's not a reason for a limited exemption for a certain class. That way leads to a big mess.

The law is the law. Either it applies to everyone or no one.

 

[Timshel]

there is a thing called context you idiot. if you weren't on a one man crusade to make shit up about what I actually believe you would have a much easier time.

Yeah, and the context betrays you.

Settle down. It is not that big a deal that I think you took the wrong posture on this. It's not a mortal sin. Say three hail Hayeks and you are absolved.

 

[Damocles]

Who says this and that is against their religion and this and that is not?

The same people who say they are anything at all.

You get to make that choice, it is your right guaranteed to you by the Constitution of this nation. What do you believe? The government has no right to intrude on those beliefs, because of the 1st.

Have you given any thought to what this would mean for women employed by Muslims or black by those who believe their pigmentation is a curse from God?

Why would they seek employment with a religious institution that believed that? Would you? I certainly wouldn't, even though I am not black.

Selling crafts is not a religious function. If doing so forces you to violate your religious beliefs then maybe you should sell or close. But due process ensures that we must all be equal before the law.

Due process also guarantees us our specific rights. In this case the 1st guarantees them the free exercise of their religion, which guarantees them that the government cannot force them to violate their religion.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Who says this and that is against their religion and this and that is not?

Have you given any thought to what this would mean for women employed by Muslims or black by those who believe their pigmentation is a curse from God?

Selling crafts is not a religious function. If doing so forces you to violate your religious beliefs then maybe you should sell or close. But due process ensures that we must all be equal before the law.

I think it would be awesome if courts ruled that Muslims have a right to discriminate against women.

 

[Phantasmal]

this is the type of mess you create with something like obamacare. It doesn't matter if peoples beliefs are retarded, they are entitled to them and they shouldn't have to support something with their pocketbook that is against their religious values, OR PHILOSOPHICAL VALUES OR PERSONAL BELIEFS (emphasis added because I now have to cover every scenario at all times and cannot refer to one limited example).

Yes, single payer would have been a much better option.

 

[Phantasmal]

First, there is a difference between employing somebody and a violation of their religion. It isn't against their religion to give a person a job, even if they are a sinner. Hiring a gay person isn't against their religion, it isn't immoral to do such a thing, giving them an abortive agent or providing birth control for another is an action that is a sin according to their religion, it is immoral and the Free Exercise of their religion guaranteed in the 1st requires government to allow them to make that decision.

If they want birth control they need to get it from a different source than the church. It isn't even unreasonable, it is affordable, and they chose to work for an employer they knew would not provide

 

[Damocles]

Yes, single payer would have been a much better option.

It would certainly avoid this issue. Although single payer systems have their own issues.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Nope. They only support the rhythm method and some of the more conservative ones, not even that.

When you talk about the rhythm method I have this image of Charlton Heston in Ben Hur rowing to a drum beat. Ramming speed!!

 

[Timshel]

The same people who say they are anything at all.

You get to make that choice, it is your right guaranteed to you by the Constitution of this nation. What do you believe? The government has no right to intrude on those beliefs, because of the 1st.


Why would they seek employment with a religious institution that believed that? Would you? I certainly wouldn't, even though I am not black.


Due process also guarantees us our specific rights. In this case the 1st guarantees them the free exercise of their religion, which guarantees them that the government cannot force them to violate their religion.

But that's just my point.... You were saying it isn't against their religion to give a person a job. What if they say it is against their religion to hire a homosexual, woman, black, Budhist, Catholic or whatever?

The laws are not intruding on their religious beliefs. Selling crafts or furniture is not religious in nature. They should get exemptions on specifically ecclesiastical functions but nothing more. If anything the religious do is a religious act then anything the government does for them is "respecting an establishment of religion."

 

[Damocles]

But that's just my point.... You were saying it isn't against their religion to give a person a job. What if they say it is against their religion to hire a homosexual, woman, black, Budhist, Catholic or whatever?

Then they would have to follow the religion. So long as they believe that it is central to their religion to act that way you would not be able to force their church to do those things.

The laws are not intruding on their religious beliefs. Selling crafts or furniture is not religious in nature. They should get exemptions on specifically ecclesiastical functions but nothing more. If anything the religious do is a religious act then anything the government does for them is "respecting an establishment of religion."

Your religion is not purposed by what a business does. If I own a business the government does not get to force me to sin simply because I am not the church. Free exercise of religion is something that they cannot make laws against. It's right there in the Constitution.

 

[Timshel]

Then they would have to follow the religion. So long as they believe that it is central to their religion to act that way you would not be able to force their church to do those things.


Your religion is not purposed by what a business does. If I own a business the government does not get to force me to sin simply because I am not the church. Free exercise of religion is something that they cannot make laws against. It's right there in the Constitution.

No, that is an absurdly unworkable reading of the first. It's not what was intended and has no connection to any courts interpretation of the first or any of the state guarantees of religious liberty.