Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
the government should protect religious freedom, not oppress it.
thats the one part of the healthcare bill i cant defend.
ill leave it at that.
umm, it still does protect religious fredom. But as an employer there shouldn't be a different standard.
im not clear as to what you mean.... sincerely. Are you meaning that the government and employers should be held to the same standard?
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
" And people who are much smarter and more educated on the Constitution that you are say it IS constitutional."
who? source please.... maybe a link would help prove your point.
and as far as the supreme court, ill bet you some of my most cherished PJ shit for some of yours that they do rule it unconstitutional.
I dont know if youve ever read the constitution, but i have. and ive always been perplexed about the confusion. Its a very simple, to the point doctrine.... its only hard to understand for people who are trying to push an agenda
Aside from the fact that the answer to your first question is obvious, I already answered that one a long time ago in this thread too. I don't think you're even reading what anyone else says except with your own agenda to figure out what you can say next to boost your own ego.
Yes, I've read the Constitution. :roll: (I even carry it around in a little app on my phone. :geek: ) But it's completely illogical of you to assert that there is absolutely only one way - your way - to interpret its application. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court.
And, again, it's condescending for you to suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand the Constitution. :roll: I'd like to see if you can take a moment to admit that there are more valid interpretations of the Constitution than just yours....
The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - pretty easy to see the problem if you actually look at the text.
Nope. You may (or may not) understand the text of the Constitution, but you clearly don't understand the policy we're discussing. Or maybe you just don't understand what it means to exercise freedom of religion. Probably a little bit of all three.
you clearly don't understand the policy we're discussing.
:roll:
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Obama better be real careful here. The Catholic vote is really important. And despite the fact that plenty of Catholics use contraceptives, they do so under their own power and free will. Although they don't follow this rule, these Catholics respect the church's thoughts on the matter - or most likely, they wouldn't be self-proclaimed "Catholics". I think it's pretty logical to see that this is setting up a framework which would forbid Catholics from following their own beliefs. Catholics who use contraceptives and Catholics who don't won't look fondly upon this... especially as this plays out. They understand the difference.
Obama and Democrats would be best to alter this in any way they can, or they risk losing a ridiculously large demographic.
Afterall, why forbid Catholic institutions from this? What exactly is gained? When you go to a Catholic institution, you do so under your own free will. No one forces you to.
This is a huge threshold that's being crossed that steps well beyond religion.
Obama better be real careful here. The Catholic vote is really important. And despite the fact that plenty of Catholics use contraceptives, they do so under their own power and free will. Although they don't follow this rule, these Catholics respect the church's thoughts on the matter - or most likely, they wouldn't be self-proclaimed "Catholics". I think it's pretty logical to see that this is setting up a framework which would forbid Catholics from following their own beliefs. Catholics who use contraceptives and Catholics who don't won't look fondly upon this... especially as this plays out. They understand the difference.
Obama and Democrats would be best to alter this in any way they can, or they risk losing a ridiculously large demographic.
Afterall, why forbid Catholic institutions from this? What exactly is gained? When you go to a Catholic institution, you do so under your own free will. No one forces you to.
This is a huge threshold that's being crossed that steps well beyond religion.
Catholics use contraception at the same rate as non-Catholics, and I think in all the discussion about the free will to not use contraception people are forgetting about the free will of Catholics (and everyone else) TO use contraception. No one is forcing anyone to use contraception against their will. But by refusing to allow contraception to be covered, these quasi-religious institutions - you know, the ones that want to be considered religious when it comes time to impose their religion on others but not when it comes time to take taxpayer funding - are forcing their religious beliefs upon all the people who do want to use contraception. I know, I know, in theory, people can get contraception even if it's not covered by these institutions. But in reality, that's not the case; lack of insurance coverage is quite prohibitive.
I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.
I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.
Perfectly fine with that. I certainly wouldn't work at a place like that, but I see no reason to force them to offer benefits they don't want to offer.
If their benefits are sub-par, nobody is going to want to work there. Should we force businesses to cover OTC drugs? Or are you saying a business can choose not to offer a health benefit due to financial reasons, just not religious reasons? If it is the latter, I do understand your position and it might even have be the more legal side. I still disagree wholeheartedly.
I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.
Perfectly fine with that. I certainly wouldn't work at a place like that, but I see no reason to force them to offer benefits they don't want to offer.
If their benefits are sub-par, nobody is going to want to work there. Should we force businesses to cover OTC drugs? Or are you saying a business can choose not to offer a health benefit due to financial reasons, just not religious reasons? If it is the latter, I do understand your position and it might even have be the more legal side. I still disagree wholeheartedly.
Please change this quote to properly reflect who you are quoting. I don't want my name associated with this as if I said it.
Obama better be real careful here. The Catholic vote is really important. And despite the fact that plenty of Catholics use contraceptives, they do so under their own power and free will. Although they don't follow this rule, these Catholics respect the church's thoughts on the matter - or most likely, they wouldn't be self-proclaimed "Catholics". I think it's pretty logical to see that this is setting up a framework which would forbid Catholics from following their own beliefs. Catholics who use contraceptives and Catholics who don't won't look fondly upon this... especially as this plays out. They understand the difference.
Obama and Democrats would be best to alter this in any way they can, or they risk losing a ridiculously large demographic.
Afterall, why forbid Catholic institutions from this? What exactly is gained? When you go to a Catholic institution, you do so under your own free will. No one forces you to.
This is a huge threshold that's being crossed that steps well beyond religion.
i don't think obama has to worry about losing the catholic vote from this alone. the church threatened to withold communion from john kerry and catholics still voted for him even though they were warned against it from the catholic church.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Catholics use contraception at the same rate as non-Catholics, and I think in all the discussion about the free will to not use contraception people are forgetting about the free will of Catholics (and everyone else) TO use contraception.
No offense, but this shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. This is the Catholic institutions as employers who are not able to choose what they will and won't cover due to their religious beliefs. They are a private enterprise that should be permitted to do as they please, as they have for decades. No one is forcing anyone to work there or use their goods/services. People have known for years that they weren't covered there. Like they have for years, if they choose to use contraceptives, they may have to pay the twenty-five cents for a condom or hand over the roughly $30 for birth control pills.... Wowweee.
No one is forcing anyone to use contraception against their will. But by refusing to allow contraception to be covered, these quasi-religious institutions - you know, the ones that want to be considered religious when it comes time to impose their religion on others but not when it comes time to take taxpayer funding - are forcing their religious beliefs upon all the people who do want to use contraception.
First... they aren't the one's changing anything. Your boy, Obama is trying to change what they've done for years.
Second, they are private. They aren't forcing anything upon anyone. They are selling a good/service and people "choose" (are NOT FORCED) to buy it. And those who are employed there CHOOSE to work for a religious institution. What you say here is the equivalent of saying that a seller of any good or service is forcing their beliefs upon buyers who may believe otherwise. It's a really poor argument.
I know, I know, in theory, people can get contraception even if it's not covered by these institutions. But in reality, that's not the case; lack of insurance coverage is quite prohibitive.
Umm... condoms are cheap as shit. And birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. Don't exaggerate.
I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.
First, let's break down your example. So, you are comparing lack of contraceptives being covered to blood transfusions? Are you even serious? A condom that costs roughly 25 cents, or a pill that costs MAYBE a little north of a $1 each.... to a $10-$100 thousand dollar operation? Seriously?
Second, let me point out something incredibly obvious... there's a distinction between something being permitted, and then being outlawed... and something being outlawed and then permitted. In other words, this is the way the Catholic church has operated (not covering this). Now, because Barry O. instituted a new law, and you and he think the Catholic church should be forced to change their existing approach. Don't confuse the two. Each example you provided was the opposite where someone within the company comes in and changes their own companies approach. Barry O is trying to change the Catholic church's approach. An approach that is not the equivalent of any of the examples you provided.
Third, my final point... he will lose here. This is like awakening a sleeping political giant. He's stupid politically for picking this fight. That was my point. Not only will this be overturned, he's going to be losing folks left and right (who do use contraceptives or don't) due to his infringement upon the private sector. This public tentacle stuff is exactly what people fear about him.
Obama better be real careful here. The Catholic vote is really important. And despite the fact that plenty of Catholics use contraceptives, they do so under their own power and free will. Although they don't follow this rule, these Catholics respect the church's thoughts on the matter - or most likely, they wouldn't be self-proclaimed "Catholics". I think it's pretty logical to see that this is setting up a framework which would forbid Catholics from following their own beliefs. Catholics who use contraceptives and Catholics who don't won't look fondly upon this... especially as this plays out. They understand the difference.
Obama and Democrats would be best to alter this in any way they can, or they risk losing a ridiculously large demographic.
Afterall, why forbid Catholic institutions from this? What exactly is gained? When you go to a Catholic institution, you do so under your own free will. No one forces you to.
This is a huge threshold that's being crossed that steps well beyond religion.
i don't think obama has to worry about losing the catholic vote from this alone. the church threatened to withold communion from john kerry and catholics still voted for him even though they were warned against it from the catholic church.
I do. This is the President of the United States actively altering private religious enterprise with public tentacles. This is not a random MA senator running for President. This is happening.
My point all along is - for what? Really, is this that important? That's my point. He should just back down here. It's not worth the fight. He will lose this fight and it will provide the religious right with the tools they need to to increase turnout, regardless of the Republican candidate. I keep coming back to... why?
the constitution says that congress should pass no law infringing on expression of religion, but i do not interpret that to mean within policy. keep that shit out of the public sector. is the keeping prayer out of public schools violating the first ammendment? this is the same thing. these businesses are trumpeting their faith as the trump card to reinforce their position that they do not have to cover contraception.
the president should not back down, but he will because he is a pussy.
if people vote for obama while the right questions his citizenship, they will still vote for him in this.
because they would rather pay for contraception than welfare.
I do. This is the President of the United States actively altering private religious enterprise with public tentacles. This is not a random MA senator running for President. This is happening.
My point all along is - for what? Really, is this that important? That's my point. He should just back down here. It's not worth the fight. He will lose this fight and it will provide the religious right with the tools they need to to increase turnout, regardless of the Republican candidate. I keep coming back to... why?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
All of you libs are nothing but damn hypocrites. You were all up in arms screaming freedom of religion over the mosque at ground zero. But now the gov is forcing catholic churches,hospitals,and colleges to provide contraceptives when in fact Catholics do not believe in contraceptives. This is a complete attack on the constitution and you leftist could care less bcos none of you believe in our constitution unless it supports your beliefs. What next freedom of speech?
This isn't even about healthcare, it's about forever changing the relationship between the federal gov and us. It's about controlling us. Most of you are to damn blind to see it.
How about this example... what if a super-right leaning religious Republican (like Santorum but even more religious) got elected (I know, a huge leap)...
...and he banned contraception from being covered by organizations like Planned Parenthood and the like. Would that be bad? Why?
I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.
Perfectly fine with that. I certainly wouldn't work at a place like that, but I see no reason to force them to offer benefits they don't want to offer.
If their benefits are sub-par, nobody is going to want to work there. Should we force businesses to cover OTC drugs? Or are you saying a business can choose not to offer a health benefit due to financial reasons, just not religious reasons? If it is the latter, I do understand your position and it might even have be the more legal side. I still disagree wholeheartedly.
The policy is about preventive services, not just about contraception. There's a national preventive services task force of medical professionals that has existed for years to recommend which preventive services are most important & effective. This administration is simply requiring most employers to cover the services already recommended. And it DOES allow religious employers to opt out; some people are just saying it doesn't because they don't like the definifition of "religious employer". So it's not really about opting out for religious vs financial reasons. (There isn't a good financial reason to opt out of covering preventive care anyway.)
All of you libs are nothing but damn hypocrites. You were all up in arms screaming freedom of religion over the mosque at ground zero. But now the gov is forcing catholic churches,hospitals,and colleges to provide contraceptives when in fact Catholics do not believe in contraceptives. This is a complete attack on the constitution and you leftist could care less bcos none of you believe in our constitution unless it supports your beliefs. What next freedom of speech?
This isn't even about healthcare, it's about forever changing the relationship between the federal gov and us. It's about controlling us. Most of you are to damn blind to see it.
Disagree.
1. I was opposed to the Muslim Cultural Center because 9/11 will be a difficult event for New Yorkers and Americans to recover from. We are still dealing with the consequences of that day today, and will be for decades to come. I simply thought that those who wanted to build the cultural center could have understood that this was a delicate issue, and that they could have chosen another spot for the building. Both sides could have acted like adults, but I think those that wanted to build the center---even if it wasn't really right on top of ground zero--could have understood the desires of New Yorkers. Maybe, it is different for some, but as a new Yorker, and as someone who used to walk past Ground Zero everyday on my way to work, I would have appreciated some consideration. This has nothing to do with right or wrong (do they exist?), but simply human compassion and understanding
2. I am an agnostic. Religion has no role in my life, and I do not feel that any ONE religion that deems itself the "official" religion of a nation that is tolerant of all religions, should play a role in government policy. That being said, I can understand that this is not the best political move. But, if the Catholic church does one of three things, shouldn't it have to comply with federal law?:
1. run a secular business or institution
2. receive federal money for health insurance
3. if the church is involved in the health insurance marketplace, the insured, not the church
should have the freedom to choose what is covered.
I do not feel that this is about "controlling us."
Catholics use contraception at the same rate as non-Catholics, and I think in all the discussion about the free will to not use contraception people are forgetting about the free will of Catholics (and everyone else) TO use contraception.
No offense, but this shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. This is the Catholic institutions as employers who are not able to choose what they will and won't cover due to their religious beliefs. They are a private enterprise that should be permitted to do as they please, as they have for decades. No one is forcing anyone to work there or use their goods/services. People have known for years that they weren't covered there. Like they have for years, if they choose to use contraceptives, they may have to pay the twenty-five cents for a condom or hand over the roughly $30 for birth control pills.... Wowweee.
No offense, but I think THIS shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.
1. Religious employers are exempt. (Some people just don't like the definition of "religious employer". Most people, though, just believe all the bullshit headlines they read & actually believe that there is no exemption.)
2. Many of them are NOT private enterprises. Many receive taxpayer funding and tax exemptions - because, when it suits their agenda, they claim that they are NOT religious organizations. They can't have it both ways.
3. People can't just quit their job (and possibly have to move out of town) every time a new person takes over & wants to impose their religion on everyone. That's not realistic.
4. No, oftentimes people have not known for years that they weren't covered. How can they know for years if the policy can change on a whim?
5. Your last sentence demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of contraception as a public health issue. First of all, condomns are a shitty form of contraception. The best forms of contraception cost upwards of $1000. Secondly, regardless of how you want to trivialize it (typical attitude though :roll: ), studies have shown time & time again that lack of insurance coverage of contraception is prohibitive to contraceptive use. That's just a fact.
No one is forcing anyone to use contraception against their will. But by refusing to allow contraception to be covered, these quasi-religious institutions - you know, the ones that want to be considered religious when it comes time to impose their religion on others but not when it comes time to take taxpayer funding - are forcing their religious beliefs upon all the people who do want to use contraception.
First... they aren't the one's changing anything. Your boy, Obama is trying to change what they've done for years.
Second, they are private. They aren't forcing anything upon anyone. They are selling a good/service and people "choose" (are NOT FORCED) to buy it. And those who are employed there CHOOSE to work for a religious institution. What you say here is the equivalent of saying that a seller of any good or service is forcing their beliefs upon buyers who may believe otherwise. It's a really poor argument.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. We're not talking about the goods & services sold by a company; we're talking about the healthcare of the company's employees.
What's been done for years simply is not working. We absolutely have to change it. I can't believe anyone could actually defend the status quo.
Again, they are not religious institutions, and they are mt necessarily private. Let me ask you this: should employers who are supported by taxpayer funding be exempt?
I know, I know, in theory, people can get contraception even if it's not covered by these institutions. But in reality, that's not the case; lack of insurance coverage is quite prohibitive.
Umm... condoms are cheap as shit. And birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. Don't exaggerate.
I'm not exaggerating. This is my field of expertise; I know what I'm talking about. Educate yourself. There are mountains of data to support my claim.
2. I am an agnostic. Religion has no role in my life, and I do not feel that any ONE religion that deems itself the "official" religion of a nation that is tolerant of all religions, should play a role in government policy. That being said, I can understand that this is not the best political move. But, if the Catholic church does one of three things, shouldn't it have to comply with federal law?:
1. run a secular business or institution
2. receive federal money for health insurance
3. if the church is involved in the health insurance marketplace, the insured, not the church
should have the freedom to choose what is covered.
I do not feel that this is about "controlling us."
i'll do you one better. the church enjoys tax exempt status. if they want to enter into this fray and claim free expression of religion, i demand that they do what all citizens whose rights are protected under that same bill of rights do, and that is pay taxes.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
im not clear as to what you mean.... sincerely. Are you meaning that the government and employers should be held to the same standard?
Aside from the fact that the answer to your first question is obvious, I already answered that one a long time ago in this thread too. I don't think you're even reading what anyone else says except with your own agenda to figure out what you can say next to boost your own ego.
Yes, I've read the Constitution. :roll: (I even carry it around in a little app on my phone. :geek: ) But it's completely illogical of you to assert that there is absolutely only one way - your way - to interpret its application. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court.
And, again, it's condescending for you to suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand the Constitution. :roll: I'd like to see if you can take a moment to admit that there are more valid interpretations of the Constitution than just yours....
Nope. You may (or may not) understand the text of the Constitution, but you clearly don't understand the policy we're discussing. Or maybe you just don't understand what it means to exercise freedom of religion. Probably a little bit of all three.
:roll:
Obama and Democrats would be best to alter this in any way they can, or they risk losing a ridiculously large demographic.
Afterall, why forbid Catholic institutions from this? What exactly is gained? When you go to a Catholic institution, you do so under your own free will. No one forces you to.
This is a huge threshold that's being crossed that steps well beyond religion.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Catholics use contraception at the same rate as non-Catholics, and I think in all the discussion about the free will to not use contraception people are forgetting about the free will of Catholics (and everyone else) TO use contraception. No one is forcing anyone to use contraception against their will. But by refusing to allow contraception to be covered, these quasi-religious institutions - you know, the ones that want to be considered religious when it comes time to impose their religion on others but not when it comes time to take taxpayer funding - are forcing their religious beliefs upon all the people who do want to use contraception. I know, I know, in theory, people can get contraception even if it's not covered by these institutions. But in reality, that's not the case; lack of insurance coverage is quite prohibitive.
I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.
Perfectly fine with that. I certainly wouldn't work at a place like that, but I see no reason to force them to offer benefits they don't want to offer.
If their benefits are sub-par, nobody is going to want to work there. Should we force businesses to cover OTC drugs? Or are you saying a business can choose not to offer a health benefit due to financial reasons, just not religious reasons? If it is the latter, I do understand your position and it might even have be the more legal side. I still disagree wholeheartedly.
Please change this quote to properly reflect who you are quoting. I don't want my name associated with this as if I said it.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
it just reinforces my position that religion has no business in any policies, business or political, or otherwise...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
No offense, but this shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. This is the Catholic institutions as employers who are not able to choose what they will and won't cover due to their religious beliefs. They are a private enterprise that should be permitted to do as they please, as they have for decades. No one is forcing anyone to work there or use their goods/services. People have known for years that they weren't covered there. Like they have for years, if they choose to use contraceptives, they may have to pay the twenty-five cents for a condom or hand over the roughly $30 for birth control pills.... Wowweee.
First... they aren't the one's changing anything. Your boy, Obama is trying to change what they've done for years.
Second, they are private. They aren't forcing anything upon anyone. They are selling a good/service and people "choose" (are NOT FORCED) to buy it. And those who are employed there CHOOSE to work for a religious institution. What you say here is the equivalent of saying that a seller of any good or service is forcing their beliefs upon buyers who may believe otherwise. It's a really poor argument.
Umm... condoms are cheap as shit. And birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. Don't exaggerate.
First, let's break down your example. So, you are comparing lack of contraceptives being covered to blood transfusions? Are you even serious? A condom that costs roughly 25 cents, or a pill that costs MAYBE a little north of a $1 each.... to a $10-$100 thousand dollar operation? Seriously?
Second, let me point out something incredibly obvious... there's a distinction between something being permitted, and then being outlawed... and something being outlawed and then permitted. In other words, this is the way the Catholic church has operated (not covering this). Now, because Barry O. instituted a new law, and you and he think the Catholic church should be forced to change their existing approach. Don't confuse the two. Each example you provided was the opposite where someone within the company comes in and changes their own companies approach. Barry O is trying to change the Catholic church's approach. An approach that is not the equivalent of any of the examples you provided.
Third, my final point... he will lose here. This is like awakening a sleeping political giant. He's stupid politically for picking this fight. That was my point. Not only will this be overturned, he's going to be losing folks left and right (who do use contraceptives or don't) due to his infringement upon the private sector. This public tentacle stuff is exactly what people fear about him.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
+1,000,000,000
I do. This is the President of the United States actively altering private religious enterprise with public tentacles. This is not a random MA senator running for President. This is happening.
My point all along is - for what? Really, is this that important? That's my point. He should just back down here. It's not worth the fight. He will lose this fight and it will provide the religious right with the tools they need to to increase turnout, regardless of the Republican candidate. I keep coming back to... why?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
From what you wrote here, you probably have a big problem with the first amendment.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
now if i could only convert those into dollars i could really help some people
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the constitution says that congress should pass no law infringing on expression of religion, but i do not interpret that to mean within policy. keep that shit out of the public sector. is the keeping prayer out of public schools violating the first ammendment? this is the same thing. these businesses are trumpeting their faith as the trump card to reinforce their position that they do not have to cover contraception.
the president should not back down, but he will because he is a pussy.
if people vote for obama while the right questions his citizenship, they will still vote for him in this.
because they would rather pay for contraception than welfare.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
do you have a problem with my using my first amendment right to say that? :? :?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This isn't even about healthcare, it's about forever changing the relationship between the federal gov and us. It's about controlling us. Most of you are to damn blind to see it.
No offense, but this is one of the funniest posts I've read on here.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
...and he banned contraception from being covered by organizations like Planned Parenthood and the like. Would that be bad? Why?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
That's exactly what I was thinking.
The policy is about preventive services, not just about contraception. There's a national preventive services task force of medical professionals that has existed for years to recommend which preventive services are most important & effective. This administration is simply requiring most employers to cover the services already recommended. And it DOES allow religious employers to opt out; some people are just saying it doesn't because they don't like the definifition of "religious employer". So it's not really about opting out for religious vs financial reasons. (There isn't a good financial reason to opt out of covering preventive care anyway.)
Disagree.
1. I was opposed to the Muslim Cultural Center because 9/11 will be a difficult event for New Yorkers and Americans to recover from. We are still dealing with the consequences of that day today, and will be for decades to come. I simply thought that those who wanted to build the cultural center could have understood that this was a delicate issue, and that they could have chosen another spot for the building. Both sides could have acted like adults, but I think those that wanted to build the center---even if it wasn't really right on top of ground zero--could have understood the desires of New Yorkers. Maybe, it is different for some, but as a new Yorker, and as someone who used to walk past Ground Zero everyday on my way to work, I would have appreciated some consideration. This has nothing to do with right or wrong (do they exist?), but simply human compassion and understanding
2. I am an agnostic. Religion has no role in my life, and I do not feel that any ONE religion that deems itself the "official" religion of a nation that is tolerant of all religions, should play a role in government policy. That being said, I can understand that this is not the best political move. But, if the Catholic church does one of three things, shouldn't it have to comply with federal law?:
1. run a secular business or institution
2. receive federal money for health insurance
3. if the church is involved in the health insurance marketplace, the insured, not the church
should have the freedom to choose what is covered.
I do not feel that this is about "controlling us."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
No offense, but I think THIS shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.
1. Religious employers are exempt. (Some people just don't like the definition of "religious employer". Most people, though, just believe all the bullshit headlines they read & actually believe that there is no exemption.)
2. Many of them are NOT private enterprises. Many receive taxpayer funding and tax exemptions - because, when it suits their agenda, they claim that they are NOT religious organizations. They can't have it both ways.
3. People can't just quit their job (and possibly have to move out of town) every time a new person takes over & wants to impose their religion on everyone. That's not realistic.
4. No, oftentimes people have not known for years that they weren't covered. How can they know for years if the policy can change on a whim?
5. Your last sentence demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of contraception as a public health issue. First of all, condomns are a shitty form of contraception. The best forms of contraception cost upwards of $1000. Secondly, regardless of how you want to trivialize it (typical attitude though :roll: ), studies have shown time & time again that lack of insurance coverage of contraception is prohibitive to contraceptive use. That's just a fact.
I believe he was distinguishing between public and private.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. We're not talking about the goods & services sold by a company; we're talking about the healthcare of the company's employees.
What's been done for years simply is not working. We absolutely have to change it. I can't believe anyone could actually defend the status quo.
Again, they are not religious institutions, and they are mt necessarily private. Let me ask you this: should employers who are supported by taxpayer funding be exempt?
I'm not exaggerating. This is my field of expertise; I know what I'm talking about. Educate yourself. There are mountains of data to support my claim.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."