7 States Sue over Contraception Mandate. It's not just the Catholics, OBUMMER!

[The T]

Really? If we, as a society, decided that everyone named Joe who works at any company should give anyone who asks a blowjob would you think that was perfectly acceptable?

Nope, there are laws against that... But you bring up an interesting point.

Why do we have those laws? Because someone somewhere really thought that employment gave them the right to demand sexual favors from employees.

So a condition was put on employers that they can't do that shit unless they want to pay a shitload of money in fines.

I think you just defeated your own arguments. Congratulations.

Genius, you missed my point, as usual.

If we, as a society, which was your argument, decide that it is legal, does that make it right. You can't argue that from the point that we, as a society, decided it is wrong and that proves it is wrong. Either things are wrong because they are, or majority rules and slavery is right. You cannot have it both ways.

However Slavery of the people to government whim... to the elites in government as they call the shots is justified in Joey's world.

 

[saveliberty]

I What seems to get lost on the left here is, diminishing one right will lead to erosion of other rights. Better to protect all of them, even the ones you feel are not as important as another to you.

.

So by that reasoning,

what other rights do you predict will be eroded following the diminishment of collective bargaining rights by unions?

The right to bear arms

free speech

due process

 

[logical4u]

But that's not what we are talking about here. This isn't about "not being able to pay for it". This is about the Churches offering health insurance as a condition of employment. It is no more charity than a company parking lot is. In short, in exchange for services provided to the Church, the church in turn provides health care.

Now, here's the critical thing. When I was growing up Catholic and enduring things that have left me with a lifetime hatred of all religions, the Church was still able to get people to sign up for the Holy Orders.

So while half of my teachers in the 1970's were Nuns or Christian Brothers, today (according to my nieces and nephews) there are almost none of them left. They have to hire people to do those jobs, and sometimes, those people aren't even Catholic. And they have to admit non-Catholics as customers because they couldn't pay the bills just admitting or enrolling Catholics.

Case in point. When my neice went to the fancy Catholic High School for $6000 a year, fully 1/3 of her classmates were non-Catholics. there was even a Muslim girl in there, headscarf and everything. Which means to make the money, they had to pass over catholics who couldn't pay in order to get tuition from non-Catholics who could.

At that point, it stops being a religion and starts being a business.

So we are all to be punished because you had a bad experience?

Sure. Why not?

You are asking me to get all hot and bothered because your evil, stupid, backward Church can't impose their silly superstitions on people.

I just can't get that upset about it. I'd do a lot worse to them. First, I'd take away all their tax exemptions.

Then I'd apply the consumer fraud laws. You know, make them PROVE there's a God before they start talking about him.

That'd be fucking hilarious.

Ironic that, you and the other libs trying to force a church to follow your religion of porn and murdering children, saying the opposite.

No, it comes down to "forcing" an institution, run for charitable reasons to provide (directly thru insurance or indirectly thru fines, fees, or deceptive wording) a service that is directly against "that religion".

It is even more ironic that you cannot see how dangerous this is: if it is "accepted" for the gov't to force people to participate in activities that are directly against their beliefs, how long will it be before people are "forced" to participate in activities that are tyrantical dictatorial?

 

[logical4u]

If they are subject to regulation, why are you whining about this.

There's a regulation. YOu have to provide reproductive health coverage to your employees. We're done here.

The only thing a company is supposed to provide is a safe working environment, workers comp. and minimum wage.

Or whatever else we as a society decide they should.

Look, I think that employer provided health insurance is an awful idea, but theres reluctance to go to single payer in this country. Private Health insurance couldn't exist without massive government subsidy and support. Medicare Part C, SCHIPP, tax credits, and so on.

This isn't an issue of cost. This is an issue of the Churches wanting to impose their religion on their employees in the part of their business that has nothing to do with religion.

The Bishops were all for ObamaCare when they realized it would subsidize a lot of new customers for them. They just saw the big dollar signs and said, "Oh, yeah!"

And now there's a string attached they don't like. can't feel sorry for them.

This is NOT an example of the church trying to impose their beliefs on employees. If they wanted to do that, the employer/employee agreement would have a moral and ethical code for work and non-working hours. It would require references for "personal" character. You are a bitter, little man, that is trying to make churches and employers pay for your own helplessness. Just a sad observation from here.

 

[Full-Auto]

The only thing a company is supposed to provide is a safe working environment, workers comp. and minimum wage.

Or whatever else we as a society decide they should.

Look, I think that employer provided health insurance is an awful idea, but theres reluctance to go to single payer in this country. Private Health insurance couldn't exist without massive government subsidy and support. Medicare Part C, SCHIPP, tax credits, and so on.

This isn't an issue of cost. This is an issue of the Churches wanting to impose their religion on their employees in the part of their business that has nothing to do with religion.

The Bishops were all for ObamaCare when they realized it would subsidize a lot of new customers for them. They just saw the big dollar signs and said, "Oh, yeah!"

And now there's a string attached they don't like. can't feel sorry for them.

This is NOT an example of the church trying to impose their beliefs on employees. If they wanted to do that, the employer/employee agreement would have a moral and ethical code for work and non-working hours. It would require references for "personal" character. You are a bitter, little man, that is trying to make churches and employers pay for your own helplessness. Just a sad observation from here.

Sorry Brother Im out. Reps when possible.



And Bravoactual, you are a pussy I wont forget you either.

 

[logical4u]

Always knew Carbonated was a thug.

is that jealousy in the air....

Always something that amazes me about some on the right.

They give up their unions, agree to dumb ass free trade treaties, trade a pension for a 401K, and instead of being mad at the people who cheated them, they are mad at the people who didn't go along with the gag.

It's like an arsonist burns down your house, but instead of demanding the arsonist be brought to justice, you insist they have to burn down your neighbor's house, too.

When you watch unions abuse employees, and close businesses (all those pensions are gone, along with healthcare, way of life, high wages, etc), rather than "compromise" during hard times, why would anyone want to stay in the union? When you watch unions protect criminal activities (especially by teachers) by union members and fight to keep those jobs; those same unions will look the other way in a genuine case of discrimmination, why would anyone want to stay in the union? When the union (originally formed to supply the employer with qualified employees) is more interested in hurting the employer, than improving the employee, why would anyone want to stay in the union?

No choice on the 401Ks, the companies have figured out how to beat the unions, and the gov't when it comes to pensions: you sell the company (if it is a shell game or not). If the gov't wants to require companies in this country to make the pensions follow the purchase, they sell the company outside the USA, and the company declares bankruptcy, taking all the pension funds with them.... If you are starting out and relying on "a pension", you better find a relative to live with when you retire, because chances are, it will not be there.

The dems have been in control of the Congress for the majority of the last 70+ years. I can understand why you want to blame it all on the republicans, it makes you feel better as your being screwed not to think it is the party that you have supported that is really behind that 'uncomfortable' feeling. Again, the dems, have been in control for the majority of that time, do you really think that anything has been passed in this country without the dems "blessing" (publicly or not)?

 

[logical4u]

Sorry, but there is a difference between being able to offer such a benefit and being forced to do so. I would agree that it costs less to provide BC coverage than for a certain percentage of the staff to be pregnant at any given time, but then that certain percentage is going to happen naturally anyway.

I'm sorry you think "freedom" is a joke. Maybe that is why this country has gone to hell in a hand basket.

Immie

Well, no, it's going to hell in a handbasket because stupid people think that the rich getting away with fucking murder (literally) needs to be allowed in the name of "Freedom".

The Catholic Church (an organization that knowingly sheilded pedophiles for decades) is insisting that it has a right to impose its moral beliefs on its employees. Even if said employees are not working specifically in the religion end of their business or are even members of their faith.

 

[sealybobo]

And my state is included God Bless her! Whoo hoo!

Seven state attorneys general sued the Obama administration Thursday over its order requiring some religious employers to cover birth control in their employees’ healthcare plans.

In the suit, the states argue that the White House infringed on the religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

“This violation of the [First] Amendment is a threat to every American, regardless of religious faith,” Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said in a news release. “We will not stand idly by while our constitutionally guaranteed liberties are discarded by an administration that has sworn to uphold them.”The attorneys general from Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas also joined the lawsuit.

Seven states sue over contraception mandate - The Hill's Healthwatch

This is why Obama hates the Constitution. Because the Constitution allows States to fight back against an overreaching unConstitutional move like this!

I love it!

Of course its not "just" Catholics. This issue wasn't even stirred up by the Catholics. The GOP stirred this up.

And notice these are red leaning states? The GOP are trying to make this a wedge issue in places like Ohio because the GOP are going to lose Ohio.

And Michigan is run by Rick Snyder, a right wing Republican. He will not win a second term. So he's pushing a very radical right wing agenda while he can.

Its not going to work. These are what we call frivilous lawsuits.

 

[Greenbeard]

This is NOT an example of the church trying to impose their beliefs on employees.

This could've been a valid argument a month ago, if you squint real hard and look for alternate justifications for seeking to deny their employees the legal protections afforded to every other American.

However, since these religious employers are now off the hook financially but continue to fight to deny their employees access to contraception that the employer isn't paying for, their motives are pretty clear at this point.

 

[logical4u]

I agree. Freedom is not a joke and must be defended BY the people at all times...the cost of being a citizen...the Founders warned us. Shame it had to come to such monumental circumstances for some to wake up.

The Founders were a bunch of rich slave holders who didn't want to pay their taxes, so we can kind of stop canonizing them now.

This isn't an issue of freedom. It's an issue of contract law. If employers are going to offer health insurance as a condition of employment, then they should not be trying to impose their morality on their employees unless it is job related.

Which this isn't.

You really do just make it up as you go, don't you? Many of our 'founding fathers' spent a fortune paying for the "health care" to BIRTH this nation. They didn't have a tax system, and relied on DONATIONS, and property sales.

Contract law??? When you go for a job, you are given the opportunity to ask questions about the benefits provided by the employer. The employer usually has a handbook of just what they will provide, and what they expect. You, as an employee prospect, have the right to negotiate for different benefits. An agreement is reached, your employer will provide you, the employee for X,Y, Z, in exchange for you supplying the labor to accomplish, A,B,C. You appear to be getting more desperate in your attempts to 'guilt' people into agreeing with your point of view. Sorry, it is getting pathetic.

 

[saveliberty]

This is NOT an example of the church trying to impose their beliefs on employees.

This could've been a valid argument a month ago, if you squint real hard and look for alternate justifications for seeking to deny their employees the legal protections afforded to every other American.

However, since these religious employers are now off the hook financially but continue to fight to deny their employees access to contraception that the employer isn't paying for, their motives are pretty clear at this point.

Its because this isn't about money fool. Its about a moral stand.

 

[Full-Auto]

And my state is included God Bless her! Whoo hoo!

Seven state attorneys general sued the Obama administration Thursday over its order requiring some religious employers to cover birth control in their employees’ healthcare plans.

In the suit, the states argue that the White House infringed on the religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

“This violation of the [First] Amendment is a threat to every American, regardless of religious faith,” Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said in a news release. “We will not stand idly by while our constitutionally guaranteed liberties are discarded by an administration that has sworn to uphold them.”The attorneys general from Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas also joined the lawsuit.

Seven states sue over contraception mandate - The Hill's Healthwatch

This is why Obama hates the Constitution. Because the Constitution allows States to fight back against an overreaching unConstitutional move like this!

I love it!

Of course its not "just" Catholics. This issue wasn't even stirred up by the Catholics. The GOP stirred this up.

And notice these are red leaning states? The GOP are trying to make this a wedge issue in places like Ohio because the GOP are going to lose Ohio.

And Michigan is run by Rick Snyder, a right wing Republican. He will not win a second term. So he's pushing a very radical right wing agenda while he can.

Its not going to work. These are what we call frivilous lawsuits.

The GOP stirred this up.


They initiated the mandate?

 

[Greenbeard]

Its because this iwn't about money fool. Its about a moral stand.

That's my point, this is part of an ideological war on contraception. They don't have to pay for it for their employees yet they continue to fight to restrict access to contraception for those employees.

Or, as it was succinctly put above, this is an issue of the Churches wanting to impose their religion on their employees in the part of their business that has nothing to do with religion. I'm glad you can at least acknowledge that.

 

[logical4u]

Not a left-right issue for me.

I don't think the Church should be able to impose their morality on me just because they hired me to do a job.

If the law allows them to do that, we should change the law.

You can't have "freedom of religion" unless you have "freedom from religion".

They are not. If you work for them, you can go out and buy your own insurance.

Immie

And if the Church gave them additional pay to the equivlent of what they are paying in insurance, that would be fine.

The Church and other employers don't do that.

If health insurance is a benefit, then you can't use it to get into people's personal life.

Obamacare is going to put everyone's health records on an internet database, do you really believe any medical treatment will be "private" once that happens? The IRS will be the collection agency for fines for the healthcare system. Do you really believe there will not be report after report of people's health records being mistakenly lost/exposed/left open on 'gov't databases? Obamacare gives every politician a tool to punish taxpayers, if they choose. It is just the same dems/libs/progressives/socialists/communists/homosexual activists/islamic extremists/environmentalists (choose one, they all sound/act the same) that are already saying, AGAIN: this time it will be different (why can't they just learn after more than 6000 years of civilization, their way never works)!

 

[saveliberty]

Its because this iwn't about money fool. Its about a moral stand.

That's my point, this is part of an ideological war on contraception. They don't have to pay for it for their employees yet they continue to fight to restrict access to contraception for those employees.

Or, as it was succinctly put above, this is an issue of the Churches wanting to impose their religion on their employees in the part of their business that has nothing to do with religion. I'm glad you can at least acknowledge that.

The church does not want to promote it in any way. Find one employee who is denied access. It is part of religious beliefs to help the sick. A mission for the Cahtolic church. Find one contract with an employee that forbids the use of contraceptives. Forbid? Not a chance.

 

[Jroc]

SO IN THE REAL WORLD YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE.

Now we know for fact you are a big government guy who doesnt mind giving up liberty.

So before you mouth off you might consider how many will come forward in agreement.

He has a plethora of USMB Leftists backing him.

Not a left-right issue for me.

I don't think the Church should be able to impose their morality on me just because they hired me to do a job.

If the law allows them to do that, we should change the law.

You can't have "freedom of religion" unless you have "freedom from religion".

If you don't like it ,you can get another job.

Morals Clause Law & Legal Definition

A morals clause is a provision in a contract or official document that prohibits certain behavior in a person's private life. They deal with behavior such as sexual acts and drug use.

Morals Clause Law & Legal Definition

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is NOT an example of the church trying to impose their beliefs on employees.

This could've been a valid argument a month ago, if you squint real hard and look for alternate justifications for seeking to deny their employees the legal protections afforded to every other American.

However, since these religious employers are now off the hook financially but continue to fight to deny their employees access to contraception that the employer isn't paying for, their motives are pretty clear at this point.

Legal protections? What legal protections are the Catholic church denying to their employees? Can you explain exactly how the employers are off the hook? Better yet, can you actually site any official rule that indicates in any way that employers, even Catholic hospitals and schools, are not required to actually pay for this? Come on, you seem to have access to everything the government foes, it shouldn't be hard to find the compromise, if it actually exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its because this iwn't about money fool. Its about a moral stand.

That's my point, this is part of an ideological war on contraception. They don't have to pay for it for their employees yet they continue to fight to restrict access to contraception for those employees.

Or, as it was succinctly put above, this is an issue of the Churches wanting to impose their religion on their employees in the part of their business that has nothing to do with religion. I'm glad you can at least acknowledge that.

It is not a war on contraception.

By the way, did you find the imaginary compromise yet?

 

[saveliberty]

[

Not a left-right issue for me.

I don't think the Church should be able to impose their morality on me just because they hired me to do a job.

If the law allows them to do that, we should change the law.

You can't have "freedom of religion" unless you have "freedom from religion".

Why doesn't it surprise me you take birth control pills?

 

[JoeB131]

Ironic that, you and the other libs trying to force a church to follow your religion of porn and murdering children, saying the opposite.

No, it comes down to "forcing" an institution, run for charitable reasons to provide (directly thru insurance or indirectly thru fines, fees, or deceptive wording) a service that is directly against "that religion".

It is even more ironic that you cannot see how dangerous this is: if it is "accepted" for the gov't to force people to participate in activities that are directly against their beliefs, how long will it be before people are "forced" to participate in activities that are tyrantical dictatorial?

I'll be happy the day all churches go out of business, after admitting they've been lying their asses off for the last 2000 years.

But the Churches can't have it both ways. They can't go to the government with their hand out looking for tax exemptions and payments and then say, "Oh, no, you can't apply your laws to me. I'm a church."

No, you're a business.