Now corporations soon to have "freedom of religion"? Really?

[ABikerSailor]

I am arguing in favor of not allowing government to restrain rights in any way, shape, or form. You, on the other hand, prefer a government that screws everyone over because you think that restricting government's power to screw people over gives it more power.

I hear what you're saying - letting some people off the hook, whatever the reason, is better than everyone's rights being violated. But rights are universal and apply to everyone equally. If they don't apply to everyone, they aren't rights, they're just privileges afforded to special interest groups.

As a hypothetical, let me ask you this. What if the exemption wasn't granted to all religions, but only to Catholics. Would you still support it? Why, or why not?

Are you aware that our female soldiers in the middle east aren't allowed to use birth control while they are there? I think in Desert Storm we brought home something like 1500 pregnant women.

Provide a credible link for the claim posted above, or be known as a purveyor of bullshit.

 

[manifold]

I hear what you're saying - letting some people off the hook, whatever the reason, is better than everyone's rights being violated. But rights are universal and apply to everyone equally. If they don't apply to everyone, they aren't rights, they're just privileges afforded to special interest groups.

As a hypothetical, let me ask you this. What if the exemption wasn't granted to all religions, but only to Catholics. Would you still support it? Why, or why not?

Are you aware that our female soldiers in the middle east aren't allowed to use birth control while they are there? I think in Desert Storm we brought home something like 1500 pregnant women.

Provide a credible link for the claim posted above, or be known as a purveyor of bullshit.

I'm not sure that even a link could make a difference at this point, that ship sailed ages ago.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, the sunny disposition of Spunk Slime (Sunshine) has never been known for it's pursuit of truth or facts.

Her (or their) case has always been to repeat talking points from the tea baggers and conservatives, hoping that by sheer repetition instead of facts, people would believe their bullshit.

Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell all use the same tactic.

 

[Vox]

The Hobby Lobby will have every incentive to join those of us fighting to repeal an unjust law.

What, exactly, do you think they are doing?

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

except you fail to see that they are paving the road for repealing the crap for everyone.

 

[Vox]

such as...?

Air purifiers, air ionizers, numerous walkers, wheelchairs, penile enlargement devices, commodes, beds, seats, hearing aides, vision aids, the list is endless...

most of those can be purchased online, without a prescription.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Nope, they can't.

 

[Vox]

such as...?

Air purifiers, air ionizers, numerous walkers, wheelchairs, penile enlargement devices, commodes, beds, seats, hearing aides, vision aids, the list is endless...

most of those can be purchased online, without a prescription.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

so can be a birth control

 

[manifold]

Air purifiers, air ionizers, numerous walkers, wheelchairs, penile enlargement devices, commodes, beds, seats, hearing aides, vision aids, the list is endless...

most of those can be purchased online, without a prescription.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Nope, they can't.

How much do you want to wager?

 

[Vox]

such as...?

Air purifiers, air ionizers, numerous walkers, wheelchairs, penile enlargement devices, commodes, beds, seats, hearing aides, vision aids, the list is endless...

most of those can be purchased online, without a prescription.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

so can be a birth control

and if you want your insurance to pay for the goodies - you have to have a prescription.

you fell in a perfect trap set up by yourself

 

[Vox]

most of those can be purchased online, without a prescription.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

why should you have to pay for something that every body else gets with the payment of their health care... why do they get to force their religious beliefs on their employees ... when they are clearly violating the constitution of freedom of religion...

No, you're mistaken. The constitutional freedom of religion pertains to the government's ability to legislate regarding religion and has nothing to do with the demands made or benefits offered by a business to its employees. A business has no power to coerce it's employees, so it can't violate their freedom of religion.

the government has no power to coerce the employer to violate HIS religious beliefs as well.
The First Amendment.

 

[dblack]

What, exactly, do you think they are doing?

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

except you fail to see that they are paving the road for repealing the crap for everyone.

I'd like to believe that. But it looks the opposite to me. The more groups that can score their own exemptions, the more likely it will remain law. That's why they're cutting all the deals in the first place.

 

[dblack]

why should you have to pay for something that every body else gets with the payment of their health care... why do they get to force their religious beliefs on their employees ... when they are clearly violating the constitution of freedom of religion...

No, you're mistaken. The constitutional freedom of religion pertains to the government's ability to legislate regarding religion and has nothing to do with the demands made or benefits offered by a business to its employees. A business has no power to coerce it's employees, so it can't violate their freedom of religion.

the government has no power to coerce the employer to violate HIS religious beliefs as well.
The First Amendment.

Where did you get that idea? Would that mean Muslims can't be punished for beating their wives then?

 

[Vox]

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

except you fail to see that they are paving the road for repealing the crap for everyone.

I'd like to believe that. But it looks the opposite to me. The more groups that can score their own exemptions, the more likely it will remain law. That's why they're cutting all the deals in the first place.

that is your personal opinion and a wrong one. The Constitution is there to protect us from the government not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges does not impose anything on you( you can walk away from the employer), government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment - you can not walk away from the government's oppression. Or, you can walk away by harming YOU, a private citizen, but staying in scope of government oppression - and the end result is going to be more harm for the end receiver - you, a private employee, because of that government oppression of the private employer.

 

[dblack]

except you fail to see that they are paving the road for repealing the crap for everyone.

I'd like to believe that. But it looks the opposite to me. The more groups that can score their own exemptions, the more likely it will remain law. That's why they're cutting all the deals in the first place.

that is your personal opinion and a wrong one. The Constitution is there to protect us from the government not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges does not impose anything on you, government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I completely agree. Which is why the entire requirement should be struck down, and not simply exempted for religious groups.

 

[koshergrl]

No, you're mistaken. The constitutional freedom of religion pertains to the government's ability to legislate regarding religion and has nothing to do with the demands made or benefits offered by a business to its employees. A business has no power to coerce it's employees, so it can't violate their freedom of religion.

the government has no power to coerce the employer to violate HIS religious beliefs as well.
The First Amendment.

Where did you get that idea? Would that mean Muslims can't be punished for beating their wives then?

Rights only extend to the point that they impede the rights of others.

So no.

This is a sticking point for fascists, though. They don't get it, and I've no doubt that you don't get it, either.

 

[Vox]

No, you're mistaken. The constitutional freedom of religion pertains to the government's ability to legislate regarding religion and has nothing to do with the demands made or benefits offered by a business to its employees. A business has no power to coerce it's employees, so it can't violate their freedom of religion.

the government has no power to coerce the employer to violate HIS religious beliefs as well.
The First Amendment.

Where did you get that idea? Would that mean Muslims can't be punished for beating their wives then?

paying for your privileges ( including the whole insurance) has nothing to do with violence against the private citizen. Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.

 

[manifold]

except you fail to see that they are paving the road for repealing the crap for everyone.

I'd like to believe that. But it looks the opposite to me. The more groups that can score their own exemptions, the more likely it will remain law. That's why they're cutting all the deals in the first place.

that is your personal opinion and a wrong one. The Constitution is there to protect us from the government not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges does not impose anything on you( you can walk away from the employer), government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment - you can not walk away from the government's oppression. Or, you can walk away by harming YOU, a private citizen, but staying in scope of government oppression - and the end result is going to be more harm for the end receiver - you, a private employee, because of that government oppression of the private employer.

Right or wrong academically, your reasoning would also suggest that minimum wage laws and a whole litany of other labor laws are unconstitutional. Since stare decisis clearly shows that's not the case, outside of an academic vacuum your argument has no legs to stand on.

 

[manifold]

Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.

You must not be familiar with Islam.

 

[Vox]

I'd like to believe that. But it looks the opposite to me. The more groups that can score their own exemptions, the more likely it will remain law. That's why they're cutting all the deals in the first place.

that is your personal opinion and a wrong one. The Constitution is there to protect us from the government not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges does not impose anything on you, government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I completely agree. Which is why the entire requirement should be struck down, and not simply exempted for religious groups.

the religious group has the LEVERAGE under the First Amendment and by this can pave the road to strucking down the whole absurdity.

You don't get it, don't you?

The Supreme Court ruled that individual mandate as a TAX is constitutional.
Which does not mean that that TAX can be in violation of the First Amendment.

But it IS. So using that venue one can overturn the whole mandate - if one succeeds in a small portion of it.

It is using the availability of possibilities.

On the philosophical basis I agree with you, but philosophical basis is not in the First Amendment

 

[dblack]

the government has no power to coerce the employer to violate HIS religious beliefs as well.
The First Amendment.

Where did you get that idea? Would that mean Muslims can't be punished for beating their wives then?

paying for your privileges ( including the whole insurance) has nothing to do with violence against the private citizen. Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.

Please don't dodge the point. There are, or at least have been, religions which practice human or animal sacrifice. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue they should get a pass in the name of religious freedom. Surely you can see that the point of the first amendment isn't to protect religious practices when the come into conflict the law. The point is to keep the law from targeting religions.

 

[koshergrl]

It's irrelevant anyway. Beating your wife is a human rights violation, and therefore, freedom of religion does not extend to violation of human rights.