[tomder55]

Ummm did you read the part that says "the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation "

[speechlesstx]

Tom, that part has been skipped, ignored, pooh-poohed from the first mention of it a month and a half ago.

[NeedKarma]

ummm did you read the part that says "the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation "

Don't they still employ people and pay them salaries? Y'know, like a regular business?

[speechlesstx]

Don't they still employ people and pay them salaries? Y'know, like a regular business?

Asked and answered. Preachers and priests don't work for free, why should a hospital employee? Don't we all have to eat? Geez...

[excon]

ummm did you read the part that says "the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation "

Hello again, tom:

NOW we're getting somewhere. You didn't call it a church.. You, yourself, called it a "health care provider". Cool. Then, AS a health care provider, it doesn't have the same protections a church does. Its NON profit status doesn't confer any 1st Amendment protections either.

Consequently, when the government wants "health care providers" to cover their employee's contraceptive needs. As long as they are covering their males health care needs, it can't cry RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION.

Why? Because it's NOT a church.

excon

[speechlesstx]

And I called them hospitals, so what? You guys are just arguing in circles.

I've already said more than once, the essence of the mandate is the regime is attempting to redefine what qualifies as religious in order to confine the church's ministries to within the church walls, contrary to the fact that the constitution CLEARLY and SIMPLY states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Tom and I have both shown that history and the constitution are on our side. But keep at it, you ain't going to like it when the church stops serving people. But I've said that already, too.

[paraclete]

Hi Ex yes I think we have all got that, this argument has been about where the lines are blurred, and they are blurred not because the catholics haven't got a clear idea of the service they provide but because they have been stupid enough to take government money and open themselves to government regulation.

This idea that there is a separation between church and state has been, like everything else about your constitution, taken to extremes. It is easy to see that the state is making no law about the conduct of religion here, it hasn't mandated that contraceptives be used in worship or that all priests should wear condoms, it has said that the services covered by health insurers include contraceptives.

[excon]

but because they have been stupid enough to take government money and open themselves to government regulation.

Hello again, clete:

An excellent argument - one we haven't even made yet. Why should we? We're winning on IDENTIFYING a hospital as a hospital...

But, as long as you let the cat out of the bag, why IS a church, IF IT'S TRULY A CHURCH, accepting government MONEY for PAYMENT?? Doesn't a church work on DONATIONS? Since when does a church INVOICE? Isn't that WHY a church gets its exemption?? I think it IS.

excon

[tomder55]

they have been stupid enough to take government money and open themselves to government regulation.

Are you saying that if a church did not get the tax exempt status ;and ran a health care ministry that the mandate wound not apply ? I'd like to see proof of that... The President did not distinguish.

The church does not accept a penny of "government money" . You guys really think that the money government confiscates in taxes is government money?? I guess that's liberal in a nutshell. I say it is the people's money ,and as such ,the tax exemption does not mean that the government isn't giving money to the church. It means that the church is not required to pay the tax.

[tomder55]

We're winning on IDENTIFYING a hospital as a hospital...

Steve and I already have answered this enough time... If the government can say that a ministry of the church is not a religious ministry, then the government is defining what is a religion ,and as such are violating the establishment clause to the 1st amendment .

[excon]

Are you saying that if a church did not get the tax exempt status ;and ran a health care ministry that the mandate wound not apply ? I'd like to see proof of that ... The President did not distinguish.

The church does not accept a penny of "government money"

Hello again, tom:

Your second question first. The hospital accepts Medicaid Patients. Who do you think Medicaid is?

Church's are exempt. Those are the FIRST words in MY copy of the tax law. A church IS exempt. That is so. It says so right there in the tax law. It also says it in the Constitution.

So, why would a church ASK the government IF it can BE a church by giving it PERMISSION to BE exempt? It doesn't NEED permission. It already HAS permission..

Secondarily, a church, since it's exempt, doesn't need any legal structure other than "church". It's NOT a corporation.. It's not a proprietorship. It's NOT a an association... It's a church. For legal purposes, a CHURCH is the creation of the tax code. A CORPORATION, on the other hand, is a creation of the state.

Church's structure themselves as corporation in order to meet the needs of the IRS, IF a church wishes to seek GOVERNMENT permission to BE a church... Of course, we already know that the government is precluded from deciding what a church IS and what ISN'T. The First Amendment tells us that...

But, the government CAN control a corporation and if a church is stupid enough to give the government dominion over its FORM, and asks the government to sanction it as a church, it DESERVES to be treated like ANYTHING but a church, because it's NOT.

Put that in your holy pipe and smoke it.

excon

[talaniman]

QUOTE by tomder,
OK . The employer hires the insurance company and negotiates the terms for the plan they will provide for their employees. There are some services that are required by law on a state by state basis that have to be included in the plan ;but generally the employer decided the level of coverage that will be included in the company provided benefit.

Not true, the state or feds decide the level of coverage.

I for one think that even this is too restrictive because better deals could be negotiated if the employer were able to negotiate outside the state monopoly system.

That's EXACTLY what the Affordable Care Act mandates.

Now mandating that the church cover contraception against their doctrine is a complete violation of the 1st amendment . You know that it will not last court challenge. Even in your bluest of blue states a Federal judge has ruled that pharmacists can be guided by their consciences rather than the state with regard to stocking and distributing abortifacients contraceptive drugs.(Stormans v. Selecky)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1399273.html

The background. And this is the current law in Washington.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-863-095

(2) A pharmacist shall not delegate the following professional responsibilities:

(j) Decision to not dispense lawfully prescribed drugs or devices or to not distribute drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted distribution by pharmacies.

(3) Utilizing personnel to assist the pharmacist.

(a) The responsible pharmacist manager shall retain all professional and personal responsibility for any assisted tasks performed by personnel under his or her responsibility, as shall the pharmacy employing such personnel. The responsible pharmacist manager shall determine the extent to which personnel may be utilized to assist the pharmacist and shall assure that the pharmacist is fulfilling his or her supervisory and professional responsibilities.

(b) This does not preclude delegation to an intern or extern.

(4) It is considered unprofessional conduct for any person authorized to practice or assist in the practice of pharmacy to engage in any of the following:

(a) Destroy unfilled lawful prescription;

(b) Refuse to return unfilled lawful prescriptions;

(c) Violate a patient's privacy;

(d) Discriminate against patients or their agent in a manner prohibited by state or federal laws; and

(e) Intimidate or harass a patient.

Put simply, you cannot discriminate against a patient/customer because of religious views, and its up to the pharmacy, be it private, or public, to decide to accommodate the practice of employees. Private VS the public good.

Not only can you be fired for not performing your job description, you may also be denied employment if you cannot perform your job description.

[speechlesstx]

Ex and tal, you are both still ignoring the fact that this regime is trying to redefine what qualifies as religion in violation of the establishment clause. You asked for simple and we gave it to you. Here it is again for umpteenth time:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[excon]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Hello again, Steve:

I don't believe, that YOU believe, that this right is absolute. Certainly, a church based on, say, ROSES, couldn't SELL roses without paying taxes. A church, that believed in NAKEDNESS, wouldn't be allowed to practice IN THE OPEN.

Given that it's NOT absolute, and you BELIEVE that it's NOT absolute, you're going to need a better argument.

excon

[talaniman]

And you ignore the expansion of the church into the private sector where rules, and regulations, keep order, and stability on private markets. Why do you ignore the rights of the people, as consumers, customers, and employees?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" And you do know there is more to the first amendment than just one sentence and several court precedence to establish and define freedom of religion.

You have not shown that churches pay for things they are against, but you have shown that private citizens are adversely affected by the church. By one church in particular, the Catholic church. Its illegal to favor one church over another in America.

[speechlesstx]

EXPANSION of the church into the private sector? You have it bass ackwards tal, the church has been into health care, education and other areas for centuries. It is the government expansion into the church's business that's at issue here. You guys can pretend it's not true but history is on our side.

Aside from the church tending to the sick prior to her time, St Fabiola used her own personal wealth to establish a hospital in the fourth century and it's only progressed from there. Hospitals being secular is a relatively new invention on this continent, so there is no EXPANSION of the church into the secular here.

Same with education, prior to the 19th century every college in America was a religious institution until University of Pennsylvania and the University of Virginia came along.

Harvard College [University], Massachusetts founded in 1636 was founded as a Congregational school.

William and Mary, Virginia founded in 1693 was an Anglican school.

Yale, Connecticut, founded in 1701 was a Congregational school.

Princeton, New Jersey, was founded in 1746 as a New Light Presbyterian school.

Columbia, New York, was founded in 1754 as an Anglican school.

Brown, Rhode Island was founded in 1765 as a Baptist school.

Rutgers, New Jersey, was founded in 1765 as a Dutch Reformed school.

Ignore it all you want, but the facts are on my side. The government is intruding on religion, not the other way around.

[talaniman]

That's not the point as they have thrived and survived, and grown, and expanded enormously. That only proves the point that this is an issue of cleric leaders wanting more, while the congregation clearly does not, specifically the females who are discriminated, and targeted against.

But of course for some church comes first, even though the congregation is free to follow their own conscious. The whole right wing agenda is focused on denying the rights of females to make choices. Specifically the ones they EMPLOY. The church cannot set price or business policy, and don't get the bill for the services rendered nor do they make a payout. A private company under contract does.

Talk about a straw argument, this is one. Clearly the government has a compelling need to NOT limit anyone from a service it provides and equal protection under the law is for everyone, NOT just non catholics, that would be discrimination. A church is not free to make doctrine that negatively, or adversely forces your doctrines on any one. History tells us, by your own admission, that churches can service the society and do very well operating inside the law of the land, and so far NO church has limited its charities, or ministries because of the laws of the land.

That makes your freedom of the church a NON argument, and you can get away with shielding criminals from prosecution, but I doubt you get away with denying employees their rights under the law. Why doesn't the church shut down those ministries that provide not only contraceptives, but abortions also? Like the one you linked to before?

[speechlesstx]

A) You made unprecedented expansion of the church into the secular realm the point. And I proved you wrong. Government intrusion on religious freedom is the issue. I don't get why you can't acknowledge that fact.

B) No one is forcing anyone to work at a religious institution. They are free to work elsewhere.

C) Again, church doctrine is not subject to the whims of the laity OR discrimination laws. The constitution expressly forbids the government establishing religion, something you guys on the left used to love.

D) I addressed NKs wild goose chase a month ago.

Mr. S****,

We do not provide the morning after pill and we do not perform abortions at BSA. There are cases where, if a mothers' life is in imminent danger through the birthing process, a decision may need to be made by the family and physician but these instances are extremely rare and unique. The ADAM site is a general comprehensive database library that we source through our web developer and gives information on numerous topics of which BSA does not make any claims as to representing our views and practices. That being said, in the "Terms of Use" for the ADAM health library we are going to insert stronger language regarding the fact that content on the site does not in any way represent the views/opinions of BSA.

Appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

You lose again.

[tomder55]

Healing has been a mission of Christianity since it's founding. Jesus charged the Apostles in explicit terms to heal the sick (Luke 10:9) ( Matthew 10:1).
And promised to those who should believe in him that they would have power over disease (Mark 16:18). The Apostles in Jerusalem made healing one of their main missions ,They healed the lame man (Acts 3:2-8), the palsied (Acts 9:33-34)and of the cripple(Acts 14:8)
Peter ,the 1st Pope delivered the sick from their infirmities (Acts 3:6-8).
For christian religions , there is no difference between their faith and the act of healing .

[speechlesstx]

P.S. Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program