obama caves again

[JoeB131]

]Wrong answer dumbass. Congress should keep it's noses out of private contracts as we see how they take it and take control over it making them part of the tyranny.

If a person isn't smart enough to understand the contract/ They shouldn't sign on to it.

YOU propose to cede your liberty and decision making to those whom could give a tinker's damn of you with the exception of election day.

Well, that's one more day than the big fucking corporations give a shit about me, isn't it?

I get pretty bored with this bullshit about liberty. Liberty to a plutocrat usually means, "I have money, so I can push people around". Democracy is when people say, "Um, no you can't."

Honestly, the law should be on the side of the consumer, not the producer.

And I should point out- again- the insurance companies have no problem with this. It isn't a cost issue. This is an issue of a religious organization wanting to impose their beliefs on their employees.

 

[Synthaholic]

What do you expect with the government running it?

Did insurance cover Viagra before Obamacares?

Think before you answer.

Not all insurance did.

And not all insurance does.

It was an issue of some contention here in Wisconsin when the Milwaukee teachers' union tried to get Viagra coverage even though it meant / would have meant laying off many first year teachers. I think that failed to go through.

For the record, I do not think Viagra should be covered. Nobody has a right to sex satisfaction. That's why it's called the pursuit of happiness, not the right of happiness.

 

[Synthaholic]

It sounds BLACK.

I'm just amazed that they can't even muster a lame response, just crickets.

I got no problem answering your, "when did you stop beating your wife" question. I just thought it was rhetorical given the childishly transparent nature of it. But hey, you want it...

There is NOTHING wrong with organizing your community...as long as it's not FORCED organization. THAT is called fascism and it appears to be the aspirations Obama developed during his days as an organizer!

Show where Obama - or even Saul Alinsky - has EVER forced anyone to do anything.


FAIL

 

[JakeStarkey]

A smart person would have taken my post and done some research. The cause and effect of obeisty is pretty well known. Statistics aren't that hard to come by either. Intellectual laziness on your part is telling.

The intellectual laziness comes when offering an alternative without support. That is merely an assertion without support, saveliberty. Let's see some solid evidence.

Please feel free to apply the bold part.

That is merely your assertion, with out (1) evidence showing that Americans are suffering more or less than in relation to the care they get and (2) without any correlation to Japan, or England, or Australia, or Taiwan, or a dozen other countries.

You have not created an argument worth contesting because you have not done anything other than make an assertion.

 

[JoeB131]

For the record, I do not think Viagra should be covered. Nobody has a right to sex satisfaction. That's why it's called the pursuit of happiness, not the right of happiness.

I don't have a problem with it. A healthy sex life helps men live longer and get more fulfillment.

 

[Ravi]

It absolutely is a First Amendment issue. It's the 'free exercise thereof'. To those of us who follow a faith, charity is absolutely fundamental to our core beliefs. It is what Christ told us to do. It's in the Bible, and it's in the First Amendment. That you don't understand those principles, those core beliefs, is immaterial. It is our right to practice our faith without government creating laws that stop us from doing that without compromising our beliefs. We cannot fund birth control, it is against our religion. But we must be charitable... all our charities are founded in Christ's teachings. Ergo, they are protected by the First Amendment.

You're so deluded. The Catholic church can run charities. When they run a business, however, they are subject to the same laws that govern other businesses. They are free to run charities in some other manner.

A church in a secular engagement as a CHURCH does not divorce itself from 1st Amendment protection, Ravi. The liberal shtick of secularism on this issue simply will not work.

There is no first amendment issue here. A business must follow business law or they should cease to operate a business....just like every other business.

 

[Ravi]

Obama just showed more of his idiocy here.

He says the church won't be required to pay for birth control or abortion but the insurance companies must still offer those services for "free" to women who are not offered those services through their employer provided insurance.

We all know there is no such thing as "free" why doesn't Obama the supposedly smartest president ever know that?

Did he say free? I thought he said with no copay. Do you have the same objections to the other things that insurances must offer without copay?

And if so, why? If you must have insurance to receive decent medical care why is it wrong to make insurance companies cover preventative care without copay?

If the service is not covered by the policy and there is no copay, is that not free?

No, it isn't free. Free is when you go down to the public health clinic and get handed free condoms. People pay for their insurance policies.

Why did you not answer my question?

 

[The T]

I'm just amazed that they can't even muster a lame response, just crickets.

I got no problem answering your, "when did you stop beating your wife" question. I just thought it was rhetorical given the childishly transparent nature of it. But hey, you want it...

There is NOTHING wrong with organizing your community...as long as it's not FORCED organization. THAT is called fascism and it appears to be the aspirations Obama developed during his days as an organizer!

Show where Obama - or even Saul Alinsky - has EVER forced anyone to do anything.


FAIL

Nah...just look at the Doctrine and whom is pushing it on the resdt of us.

The O...needs to GO

 

[Valerie]

The first thing you need to know is that bishops don’t get a veto. Given the hyperbolic rhetoric now spewing from the likes of Boehner, Gingrich and Santorum, you could be forgiven for believing that churches have constitutional protections. They don’t. If anything they are disfavored in constitutional law.

Cornell University Law School, in its well-regarded annotation of the US Constitution tells us that the Supreme Court unanimously found in Everson v. Board of Education, “that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ‘aid one religion’ or ‘prefer one religion over another,’ but as well those that ‘aid all religions.’”

What about the First Amendment you say? The Bill of Rights (and its ten amendments) applies only to individuals, not denominations. Again, this is not an opinion, it is settled constitutional law. According to The Freedom Forum (which underwrites Vanderbilt’s First Amendment Center), “The First Amendment affirms the freedom of the individual.” Further, the Supreme Court itself recently reaffirmed in the Heller decision that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.” The Bill of Rights protects only to the rights of individuals (as was the expressed intent of its writers back in 1791.) They have not, so far, conveyed Citizens United style rights to churches.

So how does this translate regarding today’s issue du jour? When John Boehner says Congress will pass a law to confer veto power to religion, he is showing how little he cares about our founding documents. “Congress shall make no law” is pretty darn clear.

US Constitution: The Bishops Don

 

[Liability]

You're so deluded. The Catholic church can run charities. When they run a business, however, they are subject to the same laws that govern other businesses. They are free to run charities in some other manner.

A church in a secular engagement as a CHURCH does not divorce itself from 1st Amendment protection, Ravi. The liberal shtick of secularism on this issue simply will not work.

There is no first amendment issue here. A business must follow business law or they should cease to operate a business....just like every other business.

Wow.

That was a pathetic argument.

There are laws that require disclosure for MANY businesses, incorporated or not. But those "laws" cannot compel the private discussions between a doctor and patient, a priest and a penitent or a lawyer and a client.

JUST as the government must recognize that there are some things that are a matter requiring privacy, so too the government is obligated to accept the bounds of religious dictates when trying to compel "businesses" to do certain things.

Do you honestly imagine, for example, that the Government can compel (or should be viewed as having even the ability to compel) a Catholic hospital to perform abortions just because that is one of the "businesses" performed by some medical facilities?

Your wishful thinking and contentions do not "make it so." Your claim to the contrary notwithstanding, this is CLEARLY a First Amendment issue.

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't care how many times you repeat it, this is not a first amendment issue.

Doesn't stop them from repeating it over and over tho.

That might be because the churches (lots of them) consider it a First Amendment issue. The left, on the other hand, can't seem to get their tiny minds around such a complex issue and prefer to whine about Catholics and birth control.

Not one lefty on this board has explained, rationally, how the First Amendment does not apply. I have outlined why it does. And it has been ignored... y'all are too cowardly to admit that the government does not have the authority to define 'free exercise thereof'

Hey moron - your sig is a lie: how is birth control "murder of the unborn"?

 

[Synthaholic]

That might be because the churches (lots of them) consider it a First Amendment issue. The left, on the other hand, can't seem to get their tiny minds around such a complex issue and prefer to whine about Catholics and birth control.

Not one lefty on this board has explained, rationally, how the First Amendment does not apply. I have outlined why it does. And it has been ignored... y'all are too cowardly to admit that the government does not have the authority to define 'free exercise thereof'

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

If that is true.... that we 'run schools and hospitals to make money', would you care to explain why the Church contributes $5.7 billion per annum to run its hospitals? Where, exactly, is the 'profit'?

Fact is, this is a first amendment issue.... in that the government does not have the authority to define what constitutes the 'free exercise thereof'. Many churches - not just the Catholic Church - run charities, schools, hospitals, etc as a core part of their Christian Duty. That is protected by the First Amendment..... which is why your messiah is backtracking on his clusterfuck of a healthcare bill.

You do know that Catholic hospitals depend on a LOT of Federal money, don't you?

Oh...you don't????

Will you be starting a petition to get Federal money out of church businesses?

Oh...you won't?

 

[California Girl]

The first thing you need to know is that bishops don’t get a veto. Given the hyperbolic rhetoric now spewing from the likes of Boehner, Gingrich and Santorum, you could be forgiven for believing that churches have constitutional protections. They don’t. If anything they are disfavored in constitutional law.

Cornell University Law School, in its well-regarded annotation of the US Constitution tells us that the Supreme Court unanimously found in Everson v. Board of Education, “that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ‘aid one religion’ or ‘prefer one religion over another,’ but as well those that ‘aid all religions.’”

What about the First Amendment you say? The Bill of Rights (and its ten amendments) applies only to individuals, not denominations. Again, this is not an opinion, it is settled constitutional law. According to The Freedom Forum (which underwrites Vanderbilt’s First Amendment Center), “The First Amendment affirms the freedom of the individual.” Further, the Supreme Court itself recently reaffirmed in the Heller decision that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.” The Bill of Rights protects only to the rights of individuals (as was the expressed intent of its writers back in 1791.) They have not, so far, conveyed Citizens United style rights to churches.

So how does this translate regarding today’s issue du jour? When John Boehner says Congress will pass a law to confer veto power to religion, he is showing how little he cares about our founding documents. “Congress shall make no law” is pretty darn clear.

US Constitution: The Bishops Don

Meh, a liberal author disagree. I am shocked.

Liberals want government to force others to their will.... until it's their will at stake, then it's an outrage.

 

[Synthaholic]

The libs are dead wrong on this. Yes, it is a 1st Amendment issue, and the issue outweights any rights concerning reproduction for women. Harsh, yes. But the mandate was wrong, period.

Hmmm...are you claiming that religious liberty is an absolute?

Anyone can answer this. I'd like to know.

 

[Synthaholic]

Liability is a far right extremist who would not know a real conservative if he came up and shook his hand. I will let you have the follow up remark wiithout rebuttal and you will still look silly.

He's actually a discredited Neo-Con.

 

[Liability]

Liability is a far right extremist who would not know a real conservative if he came up and shook his hand. I will let you have the follow up remark wiithout rebuttal and you will still look silly.

He's actually a discredited Neo-Con.

Another Simply Assholic deliberate lie.

I never was a neo-con.

Simply Assholic has no valid points to make nor any ability to make a genuine argument.

This is why he resorts to lies and such.

And I have yet to be discredited. Simply-Assholic has been exposed time and again, however. Stupid putrid hack that he is.

 

[Synthaholic]

Liability is a far right extremist who would not know a real conservative if he came up and shook his hand. I will let you have the follow up remark wiithout rebuttal and you will still look silly.

Actually, he has a valid point. You are not a conservative, Jokey. You are a RINO.

On the bright side, you are smart enough to see past the hyperbole to the issue on this and, for that, I respect your view.

It's just a pity that we seem to have absolutely no rational liberals on this board. Not one will address the First Amendment issue... just deny that it qualifies... which it clearly does... and which is why so many faiths have joined the Catholics.

Is religious liberty an absolute right?

 

[JoeB131]

Hey moron - your sig is a lie: how is birth control "murder of the unborn"?

Shhhhhh... you'll confuse her.

 

[JoeB131]

Liability is a far right extremist who would not know a real conservative if he came up and shook his hand. I will let you have the follow up remark wiithout rebuttal and you will still look silly.

Actually, he has a valid point. You are not a conservative, Jokey. You are a RINO.

On the bright side, you are smart enough to see past the hyperbole to the issue on this and, for that, I respect your view.

It's just a pity that we seem to have absolutely no rational liberals on this board. Not one will address the First Amendment issue... just deny that it qualifies... which it clearly does... and which is why so many faiths have joined the Catholics.

Is religious liberty an absolute right?

If it is, can I be a Rastafarian?

 

[Synthaholic]

The libs are dead wrong on this. Yes, it is a 1st Amendment issue, and the issue outweights any rights concerning reproduction for women. Harsh, yes. But the mandate was wrong, period.

Hmmm...are you claiming that religious liberty is an absolute?

Anyone can answer this. I'd like to know.

Liability is a far right extremist who would not know a real conservative if he came up and shook his hand. I will let you have the follow up remark wiithout rebuttal and you will still look silly.

Actually, he has a valid point. You are not a conservative, Jokey. You are a RINO.

On the bright side, you are smart enough to see past the hyperbole to the issue on this and, for that, I respect your view.

It's just a pity that we seem to have absolutely no rational liberals on this board. Not one will address the First Amendment issue... just deny that it qualifies... which it clearly does... and which is why so many faiths have joined the Catholics.

Is religious liberty an absolute right?

Fuck it - easier to make a new thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...us-liberty-an-absolute-right.html#post4802703