Contraceptives for females aren't free.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
|
Contraceptives for females aren't free.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Exactly, the church will have to pay for them under the mandate and that's not only unconstitutional it's inherently immoral.
Actually Speech, woman pay for contraceptives through their premiums, and the accommodation being worked out, due at the end of the month, makes it possible to get contraceptive coverage as an additional insurance rider outside of insurance the church provides.
Why is that not a good solution to the churches concerns and the females concerns? The church pays nothing, and the burden is on a female to have extra or supplemental insurance. Much like seniors on medicare.
The latest 'accommodation' is a charade. It still requires the church to facilitate contraceptive access and still redefines what qualifies as a religious institution.
No it does not as a fact have anything to do with the church or its insurance because the burden is fully born by the employee, and if you think a toy store is a religious institution you are crazy. If they were indeed a religious institution they could file for exemptions with the IRS. Why haven't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They sell toys for profit, and pay taxes, therefore a business. But of course you think a religious person owning a for profit business makes it a religious business.
I don't think so. Neither will the courts. For all the lawsuits by forty or so religious institutions there are still thousands that have chosen not to sue, and have indeed gone about their business and still perform abortions within the law, as well as other female reproductive health services. I doubt if that changes no matter what the courts rule.
You apparently believe the only people who deserve any conscience protection are those who agree with you.
The mandate does not allow for exemptions for non-profit religious organizations such as Catholic hospitals and schools, so there is nothing to apply for.Quote:
Cardinal Dolan said that, while the new proposal was presented as a solution to the narrow religious exemption, in reality, “the administration’s proposal maintains its inaccurate distinction among religious ministries.
“It appears to offer second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education and Catholic charities. HHS offers what it calls an ‘accommodation,’ rather than accepting the fact that these ministries are integral to our Church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches.”
Cardinal Dolan noted additional concerns prompted by the latest plan: “It appears that the government would require all employees in our ‘accommodated’ ministries to have the illicit coverage — they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children — under a separate policy.”
Further, “because of gaps in the proposed regulations, it is still unclear how directly these separate policies would be funded by objecting ministries and what precise role those ministries would have in arranging for these separate policies.
“Thus, there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities.”
Read more: U.S. Bishops Say Latest HHS 'Accommodation' Falls Short | Daily News | NCRegister.com
The 'accommodation' is a charade.
Not at all, the church and its members are entitled to their opinion, as are you also, and we are entitled to ours. It's the outcome of the policies and laws we are arguing about and for the record, I disagree with Cardinal Dolan.
The federal mandate does allow for exemptions because that's what they are working on whether Dolan likes it or not. Its in the court NOW!! We all await the outcomes despite the rhetoric and posturing.
The law only allows exemptions for places of worship, not schools, not hospitals, not soup kitchens or any other extension of the church. I'm well aware of the court decision, I'm the one who posted it here first and thus far this administration has just rearranged the chairs as it is won't to do. I see no reason thus far to believe their next 'accommodation' will be any more serious.
Hello again,
Two cases are being argued this week. One is DOMA and the other is California Prop 8. How will the court decide?
Me? I think it'll be UNANIMOUS for freedom.
excon
I think there will be a limitted ruling regardless of how they decide. The fact that the court CAN'T ignore is that whenever it has come to a vote ; gay marriage has been defeated . I think DOMA may lose over the federalism issues I've already brought up on this op ,and Prop 8 will be upheld .
The court will not decide the cases this week so we should have plenty of time to read the arguments (but as Obamacare proved ;that decides nothing ) .
Not sure because I haven't read any of the argument yet; but early reporting indicates that the court may have issues with standing on the prop 8 hearing .
Legalization of Incest.. and Polygamy is next on the agenda.
Here is the 1st link I found on this.
My Way News - Court could avoid ruling on gay marriage ban
The problem with Kennedy's position is that although he doesn't feel comfortable in over-turning prop 8... by not hearing the case ;the court would throw it back to the last court that heard the case... the 9th Circus. The 9th ruled to over-turn prop 8 .So by not ruling on a case for a law he thinks should be upheld,he in fact would rule against the law.
Good luck, I imagine it would give you piece of mind to pursue the things you love and not get arrested.Quote:
Legalization of Incest.. and Polygamy is next on the agenda.
Should make people like you happy... your kind seems revel in those sorts of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Legalizing Horse brothels for size queens of either gender.. is on the Southern Poverty law centers agenda after those two.
What is "my kind"?Quote:
your kind
I thought maybe you could explain since you tossed that out first.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Transcripts of the oral arguments are here :
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...transcript.pdf
Audio here :
Supreme Court of the United States
Read and listened to the oral arguments. Best guess is that Justice Kennedy will take the lead and lead from behind. He was clearly uncomfortable with over-turning prop 8 ;but openly questioned throughout the hearing why SCOTUS even accepted this case .
Two things can happen if that's the case . The cop out way would be to decide that since the State of California did not defend the law ;that the defendants have no standing .
But that was hotly debated by both sides of the bench.
The more likely outcome is the least satisfying for both sides ;but one that Kennedy seemed to support .The court would dismiss this case as one that should not have been accepted.
Should that be the outcome, it would have the effect of leaving the issue to be worked out in state legislatues ,and at the ballot box, one state at a time. A future SCOTUS would no doubt eventually have to rule on the issues brought up on the case.
Today SCOTUS hears the arguments for and against DOMA. I don't think they can side step this case.
Early reports is that DOMA is in trouble. Kennedy came right out and said it violated federalism.
The left I'm sure loves federalism today. Kennedy also asked the admin lawyers how they decided which laws to defend.
Yes ,I hear Roberts too was particularly peeved over how the administration decides which laws it chooses to defend and enforce.
This from SCOTUS blog
Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE) : SCOTUSblogQuote:
There did not appear to be a majority of Justices willing to strike down the 1996 law based on the argument that the Obama administration and gay rights advocates have been pressing: that is, the law violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of legal equality in general.
If the House GOP leaders' lawyer had trouble on Wednesday, so did the federal government's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. who was pushing for a wide-ranging ruling that might have the potential to outlaw any ban on same-sex marriage. It was not apparent that Verrilli was making much headway with his argument that any law that treats gays and lesbians less favorably, because of their sexual identity, should have to satisfy a stricter constitutional test.
The Court, although it has been dealing with gay rights cases for years, has never spelled out a specific constitutional standard for judging laws that allegedly discriminate based on sexual orientation. The indications on Wednesday were that the DOMA case might be decided without supplying such a standard, since a decision based on interference with states' prerogatives would not require the creation of a test based on equality principles.
Hello again,
Whatever they base their decision that DOMA is unconstitutional, what becomes clear is that homosexuals HAVE constitutional rights and they CAN'T be voted away. The CONGRESS can't vote them away, and neither can the states.
I've been saying that for decades..
excon
PS> What I want to know is this.. After prop 8 is struck down, and gay marriage WILL be legal in California, what happens to a legally married California couple who moves to Texas?
Then Polygamists have the Constitutional right to marry as many women as they want too... because if you can't define WHO can marry who... you can't define how many can marry each other... or that a mother can't marry her son either...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Then the Cat women marry their cats... etc... etc... after all if you make is a RIGHT... you can't deny ANYONE their right...
Even for a 61 year old man to marry an 8 year old girl... Oh wait... they do that in the Muslim world don't they.
That was always why a national law like DOMA was needed . Now the next challenge is based on the 'full faith and credit' clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello smoothy:
I'll address the expected right wing claptrap. You DID leave off the sicko who wants to screw little children. HE has rights too, doesn't he?
IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.
Uhhh, I'm not going to address the stupidity that a person now has a right to marry his horse, or people can start screwing children...
excon
Because it is not a logical argument to this debate . But polygamy ,and other issues between consenting adults are wide open . If you have the "right " to "marry " anyone you want to then why the number restrictions ? Why the age of consent issues ? Why is incest off the table ? Clearly the state does have the power to define restrictions that impinge on "rights " or all these issues would be on the table.Quote:
Uhhh, I'm not going to address the stupidity that a person now has a right to marry his horse, or people can start screwing children...
Hey.. if it's a Constitutional riught... you can't Deny it to anyone... Mothers HAVE to be allowed to Marry Sons... And Fathers their daughters, and you Can't deny the right of Polygamists... or even the right for cat women to marry their cats... because marriage would nop longer be defines as between a man and a woman as it has since before recorded History began.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ok, lets just look at this point for a sec. We have a right to religious freedom in this country. So followng that line of thinking if you're a muslim or morman of the sect that practices polygamy then you are being denied your right to religiouse freedoms if your not allowed to marry more then one person.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
That shows both harm and intent with the law if it were to change. When states and governments set up laws they set them up so there are definitions and boundries as to what can go on. The State has a vested interest in a married couple (being man and woman) because of procreation aspect. Its not about making mandatory that children must be born. Its about the institution of marriage.
Hello again, tom:
Quote:
If you have the "right " to "marry " anyone you want to then why the number restrictions ?
ExconQuote:
IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.
Rights are rights... if they are a RIGHT... then every group has them and you can't discriminate between anyone wanting to exercise them.
Why not toss out Incest laws and Pedophilia laws too... hell why not legalize Heroin and Meth... just because some people think they should have the RIGHT to do it.
You are not against a right of the citizens having reasonable common sense boundaries of good behavior are you? When common sense catches up to what's reasonable you may see change but I wouldn't run out and buy your horse an engagement ring just yet, or score a bag of heroin from an unlicensed dealer through a key hole.
I am not against you beasty boys petitioning the courts for the right to marry your beloved pet or farm friend. GO FOR IT!
We HAD common sense and boundries... its the left that's trying to take them down... they have been up for thousands of years...Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Now don't try and pretend if its not fair to keep it the way its ALWAYS and literally ALWAYS been... then whine that you can allow same sex marriage and discriminate against heterosexual marriage... where polygamy actually has existed throughout time... and still does in parts of the world.
Hello again, wingers:
Tell me, how does all this liberalism happen in a center right country?
Exocn
How often has gay marriage been passed in a ballot ?
The rights of a minority should never be left to the vote of a majority.
Marraage isn't a "RIGHT" and it never has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Then not allowing them to marry makes no sense and is a blatant form of discrimination, and open bigotry.
They do have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and is within reason under law.
Oh get real... they have NO right to getting married... any more than a serial wife beater has a RIGHT to get married... or an incestuous parent to marry one of their children... or for Polygamists to marry as many as they want or can afford.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Nobodies denying them a right to happiness... exactly where does getting married guarantee anyone happiness, and not being married prevent it... I guarantee you every married person here is laughing hysterically over that one...
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:52 AM. |