(02-07-2012 02:55 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  So clothing stores, as someone else brought up, should not be allowed to cater only in Christian cloths... Like I said, you hate freedom... Forced Equality of outcome and Liberty can not co-exist.

No. A store can carry whatever it wants. But when it comes to who they serve, and the laws governing their relationship and obligations to their employees and customers, religious affiliation should make no difference. It's not a hard distinction.

Umm where these hospitals excluding non Christians? or not providing a specific service?

You apparently cant distinguish between an entity giving every one the same service (not offering birth control, or selling secular t-shirts) and not serving everyone equally (not providing a common level of service to all who walk in your door).

It's not a hard distinction

(02-07-2012 03:19 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 03:16 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 10:07 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

dcCid Wrote:  The requirement is not for direct employees of the church, only public businesses like Hospitals. If all other businesses are going to be required to offer them there is no reason to give a competitive advantage to Catholic hospitals who may be able to pocket some cost savings on their health plans due to this. It is up to the plan participant to decide if they want the birth control pills anyway.

Catholic universities and charities too. I guess those are called "businesses" by liberals.

Catholics technically only recognize a marriage performed by a priest. So should they be able to deny spousal and dependent coverage to any couple not married by a priest?

Stay focused. I guess this is your admission that your original statement was either incorrect or misleading.

I am focused. Where do you draw the line with the Catholics providing health care coverage that may have conflicts with their theology? I do not think they should be able to with the exception of the p[people employed by the church itself. For their secular businesses I think they need to follow the standard health care guidelines.

(02-07-2012 03:31 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 03:19 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 03:16 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 10:07 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

dcCid Wrote:  The requirement is not for direct employees of the church, only public businesses like Hospitals. If all other businesses are going to be required to offer them there is no reason to give a competitive advantage to Catholic hospitals who may be able to pocket some cost savings on their health plans due to this. It is up to the plan participant to decide if they want the birth control pills anyway.

Catholic universities and charities too. I guess those are called "businesses" by liberals.

Catholics technically only recognize a marriage performed by a priest. So should they be able to deny spousal and dependent coverage to any couple not married by a priest?

Stay focused. I guess this is your admission that your original statement was either incorrect or misleading.

I am focused. Where do you draw the line with the Catholics providing health care coverage that may have conflicts with their theology? I do not think they should be able to with the exception of the p[people employed by the church itself. For their secular businesses I think they need to follow the standard health care guidelines.

No. I'm sure that when someone agrees to work at a reilgious instution (ex. Catholic Hospital) they know where they are going to work everyday. Want birth control covered in your health coverage......go work at a place that provides it. Freedom to choose where one works.

dcCid Wrote:I am focused. Where do you draw the line with the Catholics providing health care coverage that may have conflicts with their theology? I do not think they should be able to with the exception of the p[people employed by the church itself. For their secular businesses I think they need to follow the standard health care guidelines.

A Catholic university and a Catholic hospital is not a secular business, hence the Catholic part of it.

And, part of the discussions and promises of Obamacare was that this type of situation would NOT happen. Yet, here we are.

If employers weren't forced to provide healthcare for their employees, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That is why healthcare should be decoupled from employment and each and everyone of us should be responsible for finding our own coverage, the coverage that best suits our needs.

If you want birth control coverage (or dental, eye-care, etc.) and your employer's plan doesn't offer it, go get your own plan. You're not forced to take your employer's plan.

(02-07-2012 03:57 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

dcCid Wrote:I am focused. Where do you draw the line with the Catholics providing health care coverage that may have conflicts with their theology? I do not think they should be able to with the exception of the p[people employed by the church itself. For their secular businesses I think they need to follow the standard health care guidelines.

A Catholic university and a Catholic hospital is not a secular business, hence the Catholic part of it.

And, part of the discussions and promises of Obamacare was that this type of situation would NOT happen. Yet, here we are.

If employers weren't forced to provide healthcare for their employees, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That is why healthcare should be decoupled from employment and each and everyone of us should be responsible for finding our own coverage, the coverage that best suits our needs.

They become a secular business, subject to all federal laws once they move past the core ministry functions. They cannot refuse to hire someone because of their religion.

(02-07-2012 04:57 PM)dcCid Wrote:  They cannot refuse to hire someone because of their religion.

I've never understood why someone can't...

If you get the reputation as passing over the best candidates for ones that only fit your agenda (but aren't the best) you won't do good business. Should be a gamble that they are allowed to make.

But that's the free market working, why would we want to listen to logic?

dcCid Wrote:They become a secular business, subject to all federal laws once they move past the core ministry functions. They cannot refuse to hire someone because of their religion.

So, let's get this straight. Running non-for-profit hospitals and providing related services for the "poor" is beyond their core ministry functions?

If you don't agree with their stance on birth control health insurance coverage, you are free to not work there, correct?

I feel this is a pretty open and shut case and I think the Obama administration has made a huge mistake. This a clear violation of the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment that protects religious freedom. The newly approved HHS mandate requires all Catholic institutions that do not exclusively serve Catholics to pay for contraception and... abortion inducing drugs for all employees.

This means that all Catholic Hospitals, Schools, and Charitable organizations would either have to 1. violate their religious teachings by funding abortions, 2. turn away non-Catholics at the door thus abolishing their ability to participate with society at large, or 3. Close down completely.

None of those 3 options constitute Religious Freedom. The Supreme Court would certainly overturn this mandate, especially in light of the 9-0 ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC But my guess is that the Obama Administration will back track on this mandate long before it reaches the Supreme Court. It is a bad sign for a liberal President when even Chris Matthews is excoriating your decision on MSNBC.

(02-07-2012 05:57 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  I feel this is a pretty open and shut case and I think the Obama administration has made a huge mistake. This a clear violation of the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment that protects religious freedom. The newly approved HHS mandate requires all Catholic institutions that do not exclusively serve Catholics to pay for contraception and... abortion inducing drugs for all employees.

This means that all Catholic Hospitals, Schools, and Charitable organizations would either have to 1. violate their religious teachings by funding abortions, 2. turn away non-Catholics at the door thus abolishing their ability to participate with society at large, or 3. Close down completely.

None of those 3 options constitute Religious Freedom. The Supreme Court would certainly overturn this mandate, especially in light of the 9-0 ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC But my guess is that the Obama Administration will back track on this mandate long before it reaches the Supreme Court. It is a bad sign for a liberal President when even Chris Matthews is excoriating your decision on MSNBC.

That case was very narrow and specific to a church choosing its ministers/religious leaders.

(02-07-2012 05:14 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

dcCid Wrote:They become a secular business, subject to all federal laws once they move past the core ministry functions. They cannot refuse to hire someone because of their religion.

So, let's get this straight. Running non-for-profit hospitals and providing related services for the "poor" is beyond their core ministry functions?

If you don't agree with their stance on birth control health insurance coverage, you are free to not work there, correct?

A hospital that is classified as a nonprofit is not necessarily the same as a charity hospital. Most of these do not provide any free services different from a for profit hospital. They expect payment up front and except for emergency room they will not help you. If they do not make a profit they will usually shut it down. A charity hospital or clinic will help all for any of their services regardless of their ability to pay.

If every employee has the same insurance then who is being discriminated against? My insurance isn't the same as yours. Am I being discriminated against? You Libs never make sense.

(02-07-2012 06:36 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  If every employee has the same insurance then who is being discriminated against? My insurance isn't the same as yours. Am I being discriminated against? You Libs never make sense.

I do not see it as discrimination. It is more that if there is a standard on what a minimum health care policy must cover, then it should be the same for all businesses.

Now if birth control is removed as a minimum requirement, I do not have a problem with that. I do not know the driver for including it to begin with.

As a side not I just heard on the news that 98% of American Catholic women use some form of birth control. Not that this is necessarily relevant.

(02-07-2012 06:43 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 06:36 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  If every employee has the same insurance then who is being discriminated against? My insurance isn't the same as yours. Am I being discriminated against? You Libs never make sense.

I do not see it as discrimination. It is more that if there is a standard on what a minimum health care policy must cover, then it should be the same for all businesses.

Now if birth control is removed as a minimum requirement, I do not have a problem with that. I do not know the driver for including it to begin with.

As a side not I just heard on the news that 98% of American Catholic women use some form of birth control. Not that this is necessarily relevant.

There aren't any standards...edit...that I know of.

(02-07-2012 06:10 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 05:57 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  I feel this is a pretty open and shut case and I think the Obama administration has made a huge mistake. This a clear violation of the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment that protects religious freedom. The newly approved HHS mandate requires all Catholic institutions that do not exclusively serve Catholics to pay for contraception and... abortion inducing drugs for all employees.

This means that all Catholic Hospitals, Schools, and Charitable organizations would either have to 1. violate their religious teachings by funding abortions, 2. turn away non-Catholics at the door thus abolishing their ability to participate with society at large, or 3. Close down completely.

None of those 3 options constitute Religious Freedom. The Supreme Court would certainly overturn this mandate, especially in light of the 9-0 ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC But my guess is that the Obama Administration will back track on this mandate long before it reaches the Supreme Court. It is a bad sign for a liberal President when even Chris Matthews is excoriating your decision on MSNBC.

That case was very narrow and specific to a church choosing its ministers/religious leaders.

If you read some more background information on the case it was actually a very broad application of the ministerial exception. The teacher that was fired taught mostly secular subjects at a Lutheran school open to both Luthern and non-Lutheran students alike.

The fact that it was 9-0 shows this Court is going to err on the side of religious freedom.

(02-07-2012 06:50 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  If you read some more background information on the case it was actually a very broad application of the ministerial exception. The teacher that was fired taught mostly secular subjects at a Lutheran school open to both Luthern and non-Lutheran students alike.

The fact that it was 9-0 shows this Court is going to err on the side of religious freedom.

Historically the court sides with religious freedom as you point out.

A key piece to the case will involve the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I read a good piece on it today. Based on that act there are 4 questions that have to be answered

Quote:1. Does a person engage in an "exercise of religion" when he, for religious reasons, refuses to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients?

2. Does the HHS mandate "substantially burden" such exercise of religion?

3. Does application of the burden to the person further a "compelling governmental interest"?

4. Is application of the burden to the person the "least restrictive means" of furthering a compelling governmental interest?

If the answer to any of these is yes then the HHS mandate won't stand before the Supreme Court. It's fairly difficult to argue that the Catholic church isn't exercising their religion when they refuse to provide insurance that covers contraception.

This will be litigated, and I really don't envision the court siding with Obama on this.

(02-07-2012 10:16 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 07:54 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 11:41 PM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 07:48 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  And people deny there is a war on religion from the left ...

Liberals don't understand that, as Americans, we have freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion.

And we're supposed to have in this country a separation of church and State, yet imbecile "conservative" politicians continue to inject religion into the political discussion to distract from the issues and appeal to a part of the electorate that in reality should not have the right to vote.

There was not supposed to be an ironclad "separation of church and state" as currently understood by liberals. The founders only wanted to be sure that membership in a state religion was not required and no particular religion was adopted as the "official" religion of the United States. Prayer in the public schools would have been ok with Washington, Adams, et al.

As was slavery, etc...your point?

Wasn't slavery eliminated with a constitutional amendment? I don't remember an amendment being passed to eliminate religion from public life.

Unless there is a constitutional amendment to ban prayer in public schools, it should be legal. The Supreme Court really screwed up that issue. There is nothing in the constitution to ban prayer in schools, at graduations, etc.