Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:

The targets I shot when I was a kid were NRA targets.. The distinguished pistol shot medal I won is from the NRA. I'm biased toward the Second Amendment too. I support the ENTIRE Constitution..

And, like you, I believe in "common sense" gun regulation.

excon

---

If you support the ENTIRE constitution you would have taken my side on not forcing the church to buy contraceptives.

I support the entire constitution, but don't think its says the church has a right to tell me what to do, nor do I give up my rights working for a church. Show me where it does. Why do some churches allow for insurance companies that offer woman's health coverage and some don't.

Can I cancel the insurance the church offers (or any employer for that matter) and get my own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I support the entire constitution, but don't think its says the church has a right to tell me what to do, nor do I give up my rights working for a church. Show me where it does. Why do some churches allow for insurance companies that offer womans health coverage and some don't.

Can I cancell the insurance the church offers (or any employer for tha matter) and get my own?

---

If you support the entire constitution then you support the first amendment. By doing so then you would realize that it is the churches right to tell you what to do. That is what churches do. But being a church they can not force you to do anything. The simple fact of not having the coverage that you desire doesn't constitute forcing you to do anything. The rest would be by choice.

.

This whole argument is ludicrous. The Constitution says that laws cannot be made to govern the conduct of a religion or to establish a religion. The provision of health care is not the conduct of a religion, but a relationship between an employer and the employee and the government can make laws in that respect, all the government is doing is putting in place uniform laws. This is what you get when you start providing assistance to churches to conduct certain "ministries"" or allow tax deductions for contributions, you get the government dictating terms. I don't know about you but I get a little fed up with the protected persons approach associated with churches. This is not the middle ages

Maybe the solution is to make the church pay taxes like everyone else, and observe their religion as they will under the same laws of the land that govern us all. There is no tax exemptions in the constitution for churches is there? Show me.

Show me where it says a church has more rights than a business, or an individual. And I point out that ALL the churches aren't claiming their rights to deny coverages, only some. So your right, we can choose who we deal with, and who we don't.

Yes the conduct of some churches would suggest they are a business and perhaps the definition of not for profit should be tightened to define the non exempt activities much more closely. One way out of the dilemma is to remove them from any requirement to provide health cover and let them give the employees sufficient to seek their own cover. I think you would quickly see the number of ministers rise and church associated businesses fall

I'm all in favor of eliminating exempt status. A church that accepts that status quid pro quo compromises the 1st amendment establishment clause.
However ;you are crossing the line by forcing an employer ,religious or not ,to compromise their morals with this contraception mandate. But that is part and partial with my overall criticism of government mandates.

Meanwhile in Seattle ,the cops were doing a buy back program .They were giving away gift cards . Private dealers showed up and offered cash . The dealers were on site long after the cops folded their tent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm all in favor of eliminating exempt status. A church that accepts that status quid pro quo compromises the 1st amendment establishment clause.
However ;you are crossing the line by forcing an employer ,religious or not ,to compromise their morals with this contraception mandate. But that is part and partial with my overall criticism of government mandates.

Meanwhile in Seattle ,the cops were doing a buy back program .They were giving away gift cards . Private dealers showed up and offered cash . The dealers were on site long after the cops folded their tent.

---

Do you have a link for this? It sounds to me like it should have been illegal. The buy back program has set values. Also it would have to be an effort through the city / county. If private dealers were there then that oversteps the line on a buy back program as those purchased during the but back are destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm all in favor of eliminating exempt status. A church that accepts that status quid pro quo compromises the 1st amendment establishment clause.
However ;you are crossing the line by forcing an employer ,religious or not ,to compromise their morals with this contraception mandate. But that is part and partial with my overall criticism of government mandates.

.

---

Tom there is a disconnect here, the government regulates the benefits to be provided by health care, the employee makes their own decision as to whether they avail themselves of any particular benefit. The provision of health care is part of the payment arrangement between the employer and the employee, is part of the employees pay and no different to the employee being paid and contracting their own health care. The employer is not entitled to regulate which benefits the employee is entitled to. What part of this do you not understand? This is not a moral issue, it is a labour relations issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Do you have a link for this? It sounds to me like it should have been illegal. The buy back program has set values. Also it would have to be an effort through the city / county. If private dealers were there then that oversteps the line on a buy back program as those purchased during the but back are destroyed.

---

Police run out of gift cards at gun buyback | Local News | The Seattle Times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tom there is a disconnect here, the government regulates the benefits to be provided by health care, the employee makes their own decision as to whether they avail themself of any particular benefit. The provision of health care is part of the payment arrangement between the employer and the employee, is part of the employees pay and no different to the employee being paid and contracting their own health care. The employer is not entitled to regulate which benefits the employee is entitled to. What part of this do you not understand? This is not a moral issue, it is a labour relations issue

---

Yes the issue is what is being mandated ;it is a violation of religious conscience ,and there are many examples in our system where religious conscience exemptions apply . That's all the Obots needed to do to avoid the challenges . They created the issue .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Police run out of gift cards at gun buyback | Local News | The Seattle Times

---

Thanks. After reading what happened Im not convinced it was legal at all. Also Im sure they paid nothing back to the program for all the advertizing that was there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes the issue is what is being mandated ;it is a violation of religious conscience ,and there are many examples in our system where religious conscience exemptions apply . That's all the Obots needed to do to avoid the challenges . They created the issue .

---

Your constitution left the issue of religious conscience out of the provence of government and very deliberately so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tom there is a disconnect here, the government regulates the benefits to be provided by health care, the employee makes their own decision as to whether they avail themself of any particular benefit. The provision of health care is part of the payment arrangement between the employer and the employee, is part of the employees pay and no different to the employee being paid and contracting their own health care. The employer is not entitled to regulate which benefits the employee is entitled to. What part of this do you not understand? This is not a moral issue, it is a labour relations issue

---

Wrong Clete, you have it exactly bass ackwards. In a normal world if the employer is purchasing the policy the employer is the only one who has the right to decide which coverage to offer. If you don't like what your employer offers you're free to find another employer or buy your own insurance.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

In a normal world if the employer is purchasing the policy the employer is the only one who has the right to decide which coverage to offer.

---

Nahhhh!

In the LEGAL world, if an employer is going to offer heath coverage to MEN, he MUST offer it to WOMEN.. It's IN the Constitution. I thought you LOVED the Constitution...

Excon

Fine eliminate mandates for free men contraception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhhh!

In the LEGAL world, if an employer is going to offer heath coverage to MEN, he must offer it to WOMEN.. It's IN the Constitution. I thought you LOVED the Constitution...

excon

---

I don't know of any employer that only offers to coverage to one sex.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I know we've been over this several hundred times, but, the law is the law, and I'm going to correct you when necessary.

Stated accurately, you're B!TCHING about the mandate that REQUIRES employers to cover both sexes, and you don't like that at all.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I know we've been over this several hundred times, but, the law is the law, and I'm gonna correct you when necessary.

Stated accurately, you're B!TCHING about the mandate that REQUIRES employers to cover both sexes, and you don't like that at all.

excon

---

NO, stated accurately I'm b!tching about forcing people to violate their religious beliefs. You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that all insurance policies cover Viagra or something. Fine, stop covering Viagra.

Like I said many times, my wife's insurance quit covering Nexium because "alternatives are available over the counter." Sorry, but her Nexium is medically necessary unlike the vast majority of women on contraceptives. Not once did you ever side with me on this, you'd rather force someone to violate their beliefs so women can have free birth control pills than treat my wife's medical condition. Seems to me that people are waging an actual war on MY wife and daughter while you're getting your panties in a wad over a cure without a disease that violates the first amendment in your silly "war on women."

I'm not moved by your protests, I have real issues to deal with.

Quote:

---

I have real issues to deal with.

---

Well you're not to solve anything on this forum. Jus' sayin'