Religous Freedom is so dead

[Procrustes Stretched]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Correct.

Indeed, they're not even fines, as the ACA makes no provision for punitive measures whatsoever.

One is at liberty to have no health insurance if he so desires.

The PPACA calls it a penalty. It's a choice of buy insurance or pay a penalty

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“If ONE group BELIEVES that health care is a right through govt, and the other
group BELIEVES that freedom and health is governed by God and natural laws
so if we work in natural ways then we can cover health care naturally and it is
unconstitutional to impose otherwise through govt WITHOUT an amendment AND a vote by the people.”

Nonsense.

The ACA is Constitutional pursuant to Congress' taxing powers, using taxes to encourage participation – not to compel participation.

Again, no one is being 'forced' to have health insurance, those who don't want health insurance may go without, and let 'god' and 'natural ways' govern their healthcare.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Correct.

Indeed, they're not even fines, as the ACA makes no provision for punitive measures whatsoever.

One is at liberty to have no health insurance if he so desires.

And yet, the usual dimwits are still saying there are fines.

Bill O'Reilly said that and they believe him over the bible.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Correct.

Indeed, they're not even fines, as the ACA makes no provision for punitive measures whatsoever.

One is at liberty to have no health insurance if he so desires.

And yet, the usual dimwits are still saying there are fines.

Bill O'Reilly said that and they believe him over the bible.

If people do not want health insurance:
People make a shared responsibility payment when they file their taxes

it looks like a fine to some.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Can anyone name one place where they can't prey?

Hells bells, I've seen people prey out loud while they food is getting cold, in restaurants.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

p-r-a-y

A little Freudian slip there ...

 

[MaryL]

that it's been relegated to a once-a-year holiday.

Religious Freedom Day
Each year, the President declares January 16th to be Religious Freedom Day, and calls upon Americans to "observe this day through appropriate events and activities in homes, schools, and places of worship."

Are you kidding?

Obama and Democrats have raised the standards of freedom to all new heights!

You can even take your personally and religiously held sacred beliefs, such as
the belief that "health care is a right" and impose them by law on the entire nation,
imposing tax penalties on anyone who refuses to follow your mandates.
And require citizens pay tithes to exchanges you create under your beliefs.

Plenty to celebrate there!
Haven't you heard all the screaming and shouts of joy???

Unless you're a Christian.

Or a Muslim. And you know what THEY do. Sneak attacks, using little girls as suicide bombers, the possibilities are limitless. Freedom of religion, those muslims are eating that one up. Too bad they don't have freedom of religion in muslim countries, isn't that funny? They kill apostates, they stone gays to death, they burn down Christian churches and exile Jews, blow up thousand year old Buddhist statues. MAN, that is one hell of a religion they got there. They can commit suicide whilst commiting mass murder, DAMN, who else can get away with this shit and call it a "religion"? Hitler should have called NAZISM a religion, then force fed it to the free world, he never would have had to fire a shot. What a fraud islam IS.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

p-r-a-y

A little Freudian slip there ...

Father Peckerman thanks you

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Correct.

Indeed, they're not even fines, as the ACA makes no provision for punitive measures whatsoever.

One is at liberty to have no health insurance if he so desires.

And yet, the usual dimwits are still saying there are fines.

Bill O'Reilly said that and they believe him over the bible.

The 'individual mandate' is nothing more than a bluff, as indeed it 'mandates' nothing:

“The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws.

The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien.

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice.”

Obamacare Tax Or Penalty Call It What You Want But IRS Won t Be Able To Collect It - Forbes

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

start here: the taxes/fines are NOT criminal penalties

Correct.

Indeed, they're not even fines, as the ACA makes no provision for punitive measures whatsoever.

One is at liberty to have no health insurance if he so desires.

And yet, the usual dimwits are still saying there are fines.

Bill O'Reilly said that and they believe him over the bible.

The 'individual mandate' is nothing more than a bluff, as indeed it 'mandates' nothing:

“The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws.

The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien.

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice.”

Obamacare Tax Or Penalty Call It What You Want But IRS Won t Be Able To Collect It - Forbes

"The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty?"" The court may have said it functions as a tax for the purposes of constitutionality, but the law's words have not been changed. Let us be clear: Within the Individual Mandate is a shared responsibility payment to be collected by the IRS.

even the link is clear: The Affordable Care Act’s tax on those who choose not to buy health insurance was the linchpin of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law’s constitutionality. But in reality, the tax (nee penalty) is a mouse.

 

[emilynghiem]

The 'individual mandate' is nothing more than a bluff, as indeed it 'mandates' nothing:

“The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws.

The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien.

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice.”

Obamacare Tax Or Penalty Call It What You Want But IRS Won t Be Able To Collect It - Forbes

So it's okay to pass a law that discriminates against people by creed, or belief in how to pay for health care,
as long as the fine is unenforceable???

So how is this supposed to pay for health care if it isn't enforceable?

If this was such an urgent matter of public welfare, that it necessitated a tax and depriving people of liberty and choice, why isn't so urgent to make it enforceable to collect that money?

Doesn't sound very urgent to me, then.
Makes it sound even more like a bogus gesture to stand for health care reform.

So why not make it optional if it is not enforceable, and ACKNOWLEDGE it is just common sense
and natural law that people have freedom to choose how to pay for their heath care.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can anyone name one place where they can't prey?

Hells bells, I've seen people prey out loud while they food is getting cold, in restaurants.

Not one.

Citizens are at liberty to pray in any venue they wish – public or private.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 'individual mandate' is nothing more than a bluff, as indeed it 'mandates' nothing:

“The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws.

The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien.

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice.”

Obamacare Tax Or Penalty Call It What You Want But IRS Won t Be Able To Collect It - Forbes

So it's okay to pass a law that discriminates against people by creed, or belief in how to pay for health care,
as long as the fine is unenforceable???

So how is this supposed to pay for health care if it isn't enforceable?

If this was such an urgent matter of public welfare, that it necessitated a tax and depriving people of liberty and choice, why isn't so urgent to make it enforceable to collect that money?

Doesn't sound very urgent to me, then.
Makes it sound even more like a bogus gesture to stand for health care reform.

So why not make it optional if it is not enforceable, and ACKNOWLEDGE it is just common sense
and natural law that people have freedom to choose how to pay for their heath care.

The ACA doesn't 'discriminate' against anyone, the notion is unfounded and ridiculous.

 

[emilynghiem]

"The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty?"" The court may have said it functions as a tax for the purposes of constitutionality, but the law's words have not been changed. Let us be clear: Within the Individual Mandate is a shared responsibility payment to be collected by the IRS.

And if such a "shared responsibility payment" were required to go into Christian programs,
such as spiritual healing to reduce the cost of disease and crime and make health care free or lower cost,
people like Dante Luddly and other liberals would be screaming for "free choice to pay for other choices"
besides just Christian policies as the "only way" ENDORSED by the govt that counts for exemptions from the tax.

If only people who use the Christian system got exempted, and everyone else got taxed,
that would be clearly discrimination. But if it is a secular system, based on the POLITICAL belief
that "health care is a right" that CAN be imposed by govt as LAW. by the same people who
would SCREAM if Christian beliefs were established by federal law and all taxpayers were REQUIRED to fund it
as a "shared responsibility." Oh, wow.

 

[emilynghiem]

The 'individual mandate' is nothing more than a bluff, as indeed it 'mandates' nothing:

“The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws.

The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien.

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice.”

Obamacare Tax Or Penalty Call It What You Want But IRS Won t Be Able To Collect It - Forbes

So it's okay to pass a law that discriminates against people by creed, or belief in how to pay for health care,
as long as the fine is unenforceable???

So how is this supposed to pay for health care if it isn't enforceable?

If this was such an urgent matter of public welfare, that it necessitated a tax and depriving people of liberty and choice, why isn't so urgent to make it enforceable to collect that money?

Doesn't sound very urgent to me, then.
Makes it sound even more like a bogus gesture to stand for health care reform.

So why not make it optional if it is not enforceable, and ACKNOWLEDGE it is just common sense
and natural law that people have freedom to choose how to pay for their heath care.

The ACA doesn't 'discriminate' against anyone, the notion is unfounded and ridiculous.

Oh yeah? why are people exempted from taxes who believe in buying insurance through govt.
And people who BELIEVE in paying for health care by investing in medical education,
hospitals and other means AREN'T exempted. Because this doesn't fall under the
GOVT REGULATIONS on religious exemptions. how is that not discriminating by CREED.

by REQUIRING people to PROVE their system meets requirements before qualifying for exemption
when insurance was NOT proven. So one belief that insurance will work is treated differently
and exempted from taxes though it is NOT proven but FAITH based, and other choices are taxed.

how is that not discriminating? because the people who wrote or endorsed the bill
BELIEVED in certain choices so they exempted those. and don't BELIEVE in other
choices such as free market so they don't count those equally as options for exemption.

they don't even seem to acknowledge this is a matter of sacred beliefs and religiously
held CREED concerning Constitutional principles. That is the saddest thing. That is like people making a law that bans Shariah, without understanding that Shariah means all the exercises in Islam including the charity and prayers. Oh wait, when Conservatives made that mistake, they were corrected and criticized for it. But when liberals step on the beliefs of others, they applaud themselves for standing up against the opposition. They don't recognize Constitutional beliefs as valid, but have made them out to be the enemy here. As something wrongful to be wiped out.

 

[emilynghiem]

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

back to topTitle 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
==================

Here Dante
Are the actions of leaders and members of teh Democrat party to suppress the Constitutional beliefs of opponents to the ACA mandates in the spirit of "conspiring to violate civil rights"

If this borders on criminal, then that's where I would say criminal law might apply.

If you still think this is a civil dispute, that's fine, too.

Either way, it is still the abuse of govt office, authority, law, process and resources
to favor one set of beliefs about health care and govt over another set of beliefs that is being
fined while the other is being exempted. That is discriminating on the basis of creed not to treat them
as equal choices. So that is my complaint.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 'individual mandate' is nothing more than a bluff, as indeed it 'mandates' nothing:

“The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws.

The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien.

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice.”

Obamacare Tax Or Penalty Call It What You Want But IRS Won t Be Able To Collect It - Forbes

So it's okay to pass a law that discriminates against people by creed, or belief in how to pay for health care,
as long as the fine is unenforceable???

So how is this supposed to pay for health care if it isn't enforceable?

If this was such an urgent matter of public welfare, that it necessitated a tax and depriving people of liberty and choice, why isn't so urgent to make it enforceable to collect that money?

Doesn't sound very urgent to me, then.
Makes it sound even more like a bogus gesture to stand for health care reform.

So why not make it optional if it is not enforceable, and ACKNOWLEDGE it is just common sense
and natural law that people have freedom to choose how to pay for their heath care.

The ACA doesn't 'discriminate' against anyone, the notion is unfounded and ridiculous.

Oh yeah? why are people exempted from taxes who believe in buying insurance through govt.
And people who BELIEVE in paying for health care by investing in medical education,
hospitals and other means AREN'T exempted. Because this doesn't fall under the
GOVT REGULATIONS on religious exemptions. how is that not discriminating by CREED.

by REQUIRING people to PROVE their system meets requirements before qualifying for exemption
when insurance was NOT proven. So one belief that insurance will work is treated differently
and exempted from taxes though it is NOT proven but FAITH based, and other choices are taxed.

how is that not discriminating? because the people who wrote or endorsed the bill
BELIEVED in certain choices so they exempted those. and don't BELIEVE in other
choices such as free market so they don't count those equally as options for exemption.

they don't even seem to acknowledge this is a matter of sacred beliefs and religiously
held CREED concerning Constitutional principles. That is the saddest thing. That is like people making a law that bans Shariah, without understanding that Shariah means all the exercises in Islam including the charity and prayers. Oh wait, when Conservatives made that mistake, they were corrected and criticized for it. But when liberals step on the beliefs of others, they applaud themselves for standing up against the opposition. They don't recognize Constitutional beliefs as valid, but have made them out to be the enemy here. As something wrongful to be wiped out.

The ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to do or buy anything, consequently there's no 'discrimination.'

The ACA doesn't 'exclude' anyone from buying health insurance, consequently there's no 'discrimination.'

The ACA doesn't 'single-out' a suspect or particular class of persons for 'exclusion,' nor 'compel' a suspect or particular class of persons to buy health insurance, consequently there's no 'discrimination.'

What part of no discrimination do you not understand.

 

[Dot Com]

The 'individual mandate' is nothing more than a bluff, as indeed it 'mandates' nothing:

“The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws.

The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien.

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice.”

Obamacare Tax Or Penalty Call It What You Want But IRS Won t Be Able To Collect It - Forbes

So it's okay to pass a law that discriminates against people by creed, or belief in how to pay for health care,
as long as the fine is unenforceable???

So how is this supposed to pay for health care if it isn't enforceable?

If this was such an urgent matter of public welfare, that it necessitated a tax and depriving people of liberty and choice, why isn't so urgent to make it enforceable to collect that money?

Doesn't sound very urgent to me, then.
Makes it sound even more like a bogus gesture to stand for health care reform.

So why not make it optional if it is not enforceable, and ACKNOWLEDGE it is just common sense
and natural law that people have freedom to choose how to pay for their heath care.

been there/done that & HC costs gobbled-up 17% of GDP and had > 60% of bankruptcies caused by medical bills. Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com Where you been? The only way to control costs is to have as many people with "skin-in-the-game" as possible.

 

[rdean]

that it's been relegated to a once-a-year holiday.

Religious Freedom Day
Each year, the President declares January 16th to be Religious Freedom Day, and calls upon Americans to "observe this day through appropriate events and activities in homes, schools, and places of worship."

Are you kidding?

Obama and Democrats have raised the standards of freedom to all new heights!

You can even take your personally and religiously held sacred beliefs, such as
the belief that "health care is a right" and impose them by law on the entire nation,
imposing tax penalties on anyone who refuses to follow your mandates.
And require citizens pay tithes to exchanges you create under your beliefs.

Plenty to celebrate there!
Haven't you heard all the screaming and shouts of joy???

The old Jesus Christians used to say "help the poor and the sick".

The new Jesus Christians say let them die.

 

[Meriweather]

The old Jesus Christians used to say "help the poor and the sick".

The new Jesus Christians say let them die.

No.

Past times: "We Christians, as individuals, or as Christian community, will help the poor and sick."

Present times: "Give us your money and then get out of the way, Christians! Instead, we, the government bureaucracy, will help the poor and sick, also paying our bureaucrats a fine salary and retirement to act as the middleman between the "givers" and those receiving."