Why is religious discrimination okay? And required by ACA?

[emilynghiem]

Why is religious discrimination okay? And required by ACA?

1. Supporters of ACA believe it works and offer proof that it "helps more people than it harms."

So do believers in Christianity, yet proponents of ACA would never agree to mandate that as a national policy.

Unlike ACA, Christianity is free and does not threaten to impose fines if people don't pay for Christian programs and use them. It still works to serve and help more people on a completely VOLUNTARY basis, with respect to Constitutional religious freedom to choose. Why can't ACA be optional to choose with equal respect for Constitutional freedoms?

Why can't people remain free to believe in and follow ACA voluntarily, as with Christianity, without fear of fine or punishment?

If Christianity cannot be imposed as the only way, why is it okay to impose ACA as the only way? if Christianity must be proven first and chosen freely, why not with ACA? If people can merely use "majority-rule" to mandate ACA for all people, based on faith that it works to solve more problems than it causes, what's to stop the majority of Americans from voting Christianity as mandatory for all because it would do more good?

The proof of the benefits of Christianity in helping more people and cutting costs of crime, disease and abuse in relationships, are well-known and even documented medically.

The testimonies of spiritual healing curing cancer, schizophrenia, abuse, addiction, and other physical, mental, and even criminal illness offer "proof" that it works; yet it is still reserved as a free choice and not mandated by law. Studies have shown that over 80% of illnesses are caused by "unforgiveness"; where forgiveness therapy is found in all methods of spiritual healing. Yet all these therapies based on forgiveness work by "FREE CHOICE" and "voluntary participation."

Why not ACA?

Christianity is optional and unlawful for govt to impose as a requirement to believe in, much less force citizens to pay for under penalty of law.

So why is it okay to require nonbelievers to participate, fund and believe in benefits of ACA? Why are states and businesses required to follow it, or face tax penalties even if they believe in other choices for paying for health care?

If other choices besides Christianity are respected under law, why does ACA impose fines on any other choice besides buying insurance under the regulations prescribed by federal government?

2. On political and religious discrimination by party: Why do believers in prochoice principles only defend party members who believe in abortion, but deny free choice to people who believe in free market health care? If the principle is the same, to keep federal government and politics out of personal health care decisions and private choices, why is it okay to block regulations on the choice of abortion but impose federal penalties on the choice of health care?

Isn't this discrimination by creed? Has ACA legalized federal regulations and penalties by creed?

If people denounce discrimination against homosexuality, where marriage is only allowed for heterosexual couples, why is it okay to discriminate against people of Constitutional beliefs? Where these views are denounced, denied and overruled as invalid: mocked as excuses to defend immoral greed, similar to arguments denouncing equal rights for gays as enabling immoral lust, or denouncing belief in abortion rights as irreponsible and legalizing murder.

Not only are prochoice advocates actively denying equal choice and discriminating against followers of other parties and political beliefs, including Constitutional beliefs in limits on federal government, but are rewarded for discrimination: by being exempted from taxes while Constitutionalists are fined who do not believe in federal authority to impose mandates to buy private insurance without a Constitutional amendment and/or vote by citizens and states.

Believers in the choice of abortion being legal, unregulated and unpenalized apply prochoice principles to DEFEND this choice, putting the "right to choose" ABOVE any other consequences to either women, children, or society for the implications of abortion. Political and religious beliefs in the "right to life" are placed second, if recognized at all, because the "right to choose" is championed as fundamental over faith-based arguments and beliefs in saving lives from being lost.

However, these same people advocate the "right to health care" based on political beliefs in government-managed health care and faith that more lives and costs will be saved, at the expense of free choice. For people of Constitutional beliefs, the "right to choose" is NOT DEFENDED but DENIED, INVALIDATED and PENALIZED for those who believe in freedom in health care choices, which the federal government now regulates the ACA.

Why the double standard? Doesn't this constitute religious discrimination to defend and exempt from penalty the "right to choose" for people who believe the choice of abortion should be legal, but to regulate and punish the "right to choose" for people who believe in paying for their own health care outside government regulations. What crime is committed, and where is the due process to prove that citizens had any ill intent before depriving us of liberty?

3. As for penalizing criminals and holding citizens responsible for their own costs, why the double standard on "involuntary servitude"? Taxpayers already pay millions if not billions of dollars per state on prosecution, incarceration, health care and other costs for inmates convicted of crimes; yet these criminals are NOT required to work to pay their own costs, even if their violent acts put themselves or innocent people in the hospital at public expense.

Defenders of ACA argue that taxpayers should be forced to be responsible for their own health care costs. Opponents argue they didn't agree to the terms and conditions of buying private insurance, and being forced to purchase or to pay fines to government taken from salaries amounts to "involuntary servitude" where no crime was committed or proven by due process.

Why is restitution and reimbursement not pursued for people who have committed crimes and been convicted under due process, because fear of imposing "involuntary servitude" and abusing the labor of inmates. But it's okay to force "involuntary servitude" by taxing the labor of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS without consent or representation on the terms of the contract before we are held to it?

If convicted criminals in prison still deserve human rights not to be forced to work to offset costs of care, why don't law-abiding citizens deserve not to be forced against our will? When we have committed no crime, and should not be assumed in advance to have any such ill intent.

Why are we punished for our Constitutional beliefs in freedom and civil liberties, while those who have different political beliefs than us are rewarded with exemptions and allowed to mandate their beliefs as a "national religion" that all citizens are required to follow or be fined?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no double standard. Churches must follow the fire codes, regardless of what their Holy book says. Same thing in this case. We make the laws and your faith has to be adjusted at times. The Supreme Court is perfectly okay with that, and so are most of us.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why is religious discrimination okay? And required by ACA?

One small but important correction:

Obamacare does not require religious discrimination. It requires that people give up "the free exercise thereof", as the 1st amendment puts it.

No other Federal, state, or local laws do this... or if they do, they are as unconstitutional as Obamacare is.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why is religious discrimination okay? And required by ACA?

One small but important corection:

Obamacare does not require religious discrimination. It requires that people give up "the free excercise thereof", as the 1st amendment puts it.

No other Federal, state, or local laws do this... or if they do, they are as unconstitutional as Obamacare is.

States that comply receive their federal funding; states that don't get funding withheld.

Either way, if States follow the beliefs of ACA supporters to get funding, they discriminate against opponents of ACA; and if they endorse the opposers of ACA, they block funding to those who believe in ACA and federal funding under it.

So either way the States are forced to violate the beliefs of people on the other side
because the beliefs are equally divided among the state population.

One side is going to be discriminated against.

Even I as a citizen am in a position either to be forced to endorse this law or reject it.

As of this point, I do not have the equal choice to separate the two beliefs and let ACA be supported voluntarily by those who believe in it. That is not a choice right now.
====== [MENTION=30065]dblack[/MENTION] [MENTION=20394]rdean[/MENTION] [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION] [MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] [MENTION=30955]Rottweiler[/MENTION]

if you can please reply to the OP, please mention
other people on both sides of this issue to add their comments and clarifications
we need to address this, and present it to Congress, Governors and Party leaders.
people on both sides should have rights to their beliefs, and develop them as free and equal choices independent of each other where they disagree

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no double standard. Churches must follow the fire codes, regardless of what their Holy book says. Same thing in this case. We make the laws and your faith has to be adjusted at times. The Supreme Court is perfectly okay with that, and so are most of us.

So why aren't the political parties required to either follow the Constitution
or respect Constitutional beliefs even if they don't agree with them?

If I don't agree with Muslim beliefs, I can still respect their free choice not to be penalized.
I don't have to agree with Atheists, to respect their free choice not to be forced to follow Christianity they don't believe in.

In fact, since Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public institutions because it "offends their beliefs"
why this attack on Constitutionalists for defending their beliefs from being penalized by law?

Why the double standard with Constitutional beliefs in limited government and personal responsibility to pay for one's own health care without federal mandates?

It's not like people are asking to do anything illegal under their beliefs.

If the choice of abortion is not considered illegal
why is the choice of paying for health care being penalized like a crime?

It's not as if insurance is the "only way" to pay for health care,
so why is that being penalized as if it is federally necessary?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No other Federal, state, or local laws do this... or if they do, they are as unconstitutional as Obamacare is.

That's total nonsense you know? We have lots of laws on the books that limit religion, and they are constitutional according the last source of appeal here, the Supreme Court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Free exercise of religion even in private association (e.g., human sacrifice) can be forbidden by the secular power.

Secular codes in the public market place must be followed by all businesses.

 

[Katzndogz]

IF employers were refusing to hire women who were sexually active, or fired those that they found out were, then you would have a case. Merely refusing to pay for someone else's birth control is not discrimination. The employee is absolutely free to procure their own birth control.

 

[Katzndogz]

Suppose it was a muslim restaurant. The restaurant lets all employees eat off the menu for their lunch. One waitress doesn't want what's offered. She wants a BLT instead. Citing religious freedom the restaurant refuses to provide bacon. The waitress may bring her own BLT.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

IF employers were refusing to hire women who were sexually active, or fired those that they found out were, then you would have a case. Merely refusing to pay for someone else's birth control is not discrimination. The employee is absolutely free to procure their own birth control.

You can fire a woman for that. There was a case about it. He was a dentist and she was too hot for the wifey.

 

[emilynghiem]

NOTE: human sacrifice violates laws against murder.
(technically by religious freedom, if people agree to sacrifice themselves,
they could argue constitutionally for that right which is different from sacrificing others)

if abortion rights don't count as murder
then why is free choice of health care penalized?

Where is the equivalent harm or crime caused by asking to retain previous freedom to pay for health care without govt mandates?

Jake we had this freedom before the bill was passed to pay for health care, insurance, or raise money for charity to pay costs.
That is nowhere NEAR the level of allowing murder for religious reasons.
Again, look at abortion, that is not penalized either because of prochoice arguments.
That is closer to legalizing murder than paying for one's own health care without mandates or penalties!

Free exercise of religion even in private association (e.g., human sacrifice) can be forbidden by the secular power.

Secular codes in the public market place must be followed by all businesses.

Belief in "right to health care" is religiously held; it is still a CREED under the Fourteenth Amendment
as are Constitutional beliefs in free market choices.

So it cannot be made into secular law without consent of all the people affected.

People who believe in this so inherently that "their way is right," they cannot imagine people don't agree with them, are like the fundamental Christians who don't think their views are
"religious beliefs" either. To them it is just the truth.

But since there are people who disagree with "right to health care"
and DON'T share this belief but religiously believe otherwise,
this proves there is a religious bias.

it is expressed as a political belief, but is in effect the same or similar to a religion.

NOTE: If you do not agree with me because you do not share my "political beliefs or creed"
both are beliefs/creeds/interpretations are still protected equally under the Fourteenth Amendment.
That is why I ask to separate these beliefs, and not impose either one by federal law.

My belief in isonomy allows for both right to health care, right to choose, right to life
and free market beliefs equally without banning or penalizing ANY of them.

ACA falls short of this equal protection and nondiscrimination by penalizing some and funding others including exempting from fines.
So that is NOT equal, but discrimination by CREED.

Jake you do NOT have to agree with my Constitutional beliefs,
and I do NOT have to agree with right to health; we can still agree
to RESPECT these beliefs equally under law and not force mandates or fines people don't consent to.

I am arguing that blocking or fining EITHER right to health care or right to choose
from being practiced without penalty is unconstitutional discrimination against those creeds.
We don't have to agree on the actual creeds to protect them equally under law.

 

[emilynghiem]

No other Federal, state, or local laws do this... or if they do, they are as unconstitutional as Obamacare is.

That's total nonsense you know? We have lots of laws on the books that limit religion, and they are constitutional according the last source of appeal here, the Supreme Court.

A. limiting religion is one thing

it is another thing to "limit religion" for ONE set of beliefs
while banning similar limits for ONE'S OWN set of beliefs.

that is where the discrimination comes in.

for "right to choose" when it comes to health care,
that is now penalized if you don't BUY INSURANCE

for "right to choose" when it comes to abortion,
that is not being penalized

one political belief is being penalized
while the other is not, both based on the same concept of
"free choice to make health care decisions without penalty by govt"

B. Notes: the discrimination is even more pronounced because
1. it is divided along PARTY lines which points to
endorsing one set of political beliefs over the other.
this can be remedied by treating both parties as religions,
and not allowing either one to impose their policies or agenda on
the other much less on the public by majority rule.

if we require religious groups and leaders to keep their
biases and beliefs out of public policy, then
political beliefs and parties should be treated the same.

Otherwise that is also discriminating by creed,
allowing and rewarding political parties to get away
with things that we don't allow with other religious principles.

2. the consequences and beliefs about allowing free choice abortion are
about more serious risks of damage that the consequences
of allowing free choice in paying for health care other
ways besides insurance. That is harmless in comparison.

So if we allow free choice with abortion where the risks are even greater of enabling damage or risk of destroying lives, surely that shows discrimination about where the
"freedom to choose" is being enforced or denied.

 

[Clementine]

Why is religious discrimination okay? And required by ACA?

One small but important correction:

Obamacare does not require religious discrimination. It requires that people give up "the free exercise thereof", as the 1st amendment puts it.

No other Federal, state, or local laws do this... or if they do, they are as unconstitutional as Obamacare is.

Except certain ones who claim it's against their religion to have insurance. No adjustment there. Some aren't held accountable for mistreating women either. So much for laws when certain ones claim religious freedom.

As far as Obamacare, we have congress, the president and others exempt. They want out of it totally, yet fight others who have issues with one little part of it. And, honestly, birth control is not expensive to begin with. Why does insurance have to cover every little thing? Maybe that is just part of the reason it's so damn expensive. Insurance was meant for catastrophic events, not minor costs.

There are reasonable laws, such as it being a crime to steal or murder. Then there are unreasonable laws that some little tyrants impose. ACA is not reasonable, especially when the ones who wrote it, voted for it, supported it and will uphold it don't have to follow it.

I guess people shouldn't work for a company if they don't like the way they do things. Not like they can't work elsewhere. I'm sure more liberal companies will have huge support for abortion, so go apply there.

 

[P@triot]

There is no double standard. Churches must follow the fire codes, regardless of what their Holy book says. Same thing in this case. We make the laws and your faith has to be adjusted at times. The Supreme Court is perfectly okay with that, and so are most of us.

What a completely asinine thing to say. If a fire code said that you could not practice your religion, the fire code would be thrown out.

The reason the fire code can co-exist with the church is because it is not in direct opposition to the 1st Amendment. It it were, it would lose.

Even though you don't like it (and even though you're too immature to understand it), you have a Constitutional right to freedom of religion in this country. And Constitutional rights trump the ACA.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no double standard. Churches must follow the fire codes, regardless of what their Holy book says. Same thing in this case. We make the laws and your faith has to be adjusted at times. The Supreme Court is perfectly okay with that, and so are most of us.

What a completely asinine thing to say. If a fire code said that you could not practice your religion, the fire code would be thrown out.

The reason the fire code can co-exist with the church is because it is not in direct opposition to the 1st Amendment. It it were, it would lose.

Even though you don't like it (and even though you're too immature to understand it), you have a Constitutional right to freedom of religion in this country. And Constitutional rights trump the ACA.

Freedom of Religion does not allow one to ignore the laws of this country. That's not much freedom actually. Try to understand that little puppy...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No other Federal, state, or local laws do this... or if they do, they are as unconstitutional as Obamacare is.

That's total nonsense you know? We have lots of laws on the books that limit religion, and they are constitutional according the last source of appeal here, the Supreme Court.

A. limiting religion is one thing

it is another thing to "limit religion" for ONE set of beliefs
while banning similar limits for ONE'S OWN set of beliefs.

that is where the discrimination comes in.

for "right to choose" when it comes to health care,
that is now penalized if you don't BUY INSURANCE

for "right to choose" when it comes to abortion,
that is not being penalized

one political belief is being penalized
while the other is not, both based on the same concept of
"free choice to make health care decisions without penalty by govt"

B. Notes: the discrimination is even more pronounced because
1. it is divided along PARTY lines which points to
endorsing one set of political beliefs over the other.
this can be remedied by treating both parties as religions,
and not allowing either one to impose their policies or agenda on
the other much less on the public by majority rule.

if we require religious groups and leaders to keep their
biases and beliefs out of public policy, then
political beliefs and parties should be treated the same.

Otherwise that is also discriminating by creed,
allowing and rewarding political parties to get away
with things that we don't allow with other religious principles.

2. the consequences and beliefs about allowing free choice abortion are
about more serious risks of damage that the consequences
of allowing free choice in paying for health care other
ways besides insurance. That is harmless in comparison.

So if we allow free choice with abortion where the risks are even greater of enabling damage or risk of destroying lives, surely that shows discrimination about where the
"freedom to choose" is being enforced or denied.

All religions are required the follow the law of the land. The rest of what you posted is words without meaning.

 

[P@triot]

There is no double standard. Churches must follow the fire codes, regardless of what their Holy book says. Same thing in this case. We make the laws and your faith has to be adjusted at times. The Supreme Court is perfectly okay with that, and so are most of us.

What a completely asinine thing to say. If a fire code said that you could not practice your religion, the fire code would be thrown out.

The reason the fire code can co-exist with the church is because it is not in direct opposition to the 1st Amendment. It it were, it would lose.

Even though you don't like it (and even though you're too immature to understand it), you have a Constitutional right to freedom of religion in this country. And Constitutional rights trump the ACA.

Freedom of Religion does not allow one to ignore the laws of this country. That's not much freedom actually. Try to understand that little puppy...

Junior here isn't bright enough to understand that the highest law of the land dictates freedom of religion. It trumps any and all lower laws (psst....it's called the Supremacy Clause junior - now Google it quickly and then tell us is only exist in the "mormon version of the bible" )

Therefore, anything from fire codes to the ACA loses if it is in conflict with a religion. Now come on junior, tell us again about the "laws of this country". I always enjoy when you illustrate your ignorance!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What a completely asinine thing to say. If a fire code said that you could not practice your religion, the fire code would be thrown out.

The reason the fire code can co-exist with the church is because it is not in direct opposition to the 1st Amendment. It it were, it would lose.

Even though you don't like it (and even though you're too immature to understand it), you have a Constitutional right to freedom of religion in this country. And Constitutional rights trump the ACA.

Freedom of Religion does not allow one to ignore the laws of this country. That's not much freedom actually. Try to understand that little puppy...

Junior here isn't bright enough to understand that the highest law of the land dictates freedom of religion. It trumps any and all lower laws (psst....it's called the Supremacy Clause junior - now Google it quickly and then tell us is only exist in the "mormon version of the bible" )

Therefore, anything from fire codes to the ACA loses if it is in conflict with a religion. Now come on junior, tell us again about the "laws of this country". I always enjoy when you illustrate your ignorance!

It's wonderful, and childish, that you believe such a thing but it's utterly wrong. If you were right the Mormons would have Polygamy and they don't because it's banned at a state level. And so ends your argument that the religion wins since it doesn't.

 

[KNB]

Why do people still need religion? I can understand health care, but why religion?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why do people still need religion? I can understand health care, but why religion?

Humans are mostly frightened children, like little puppy. They fear death most of all, so they invent ways to survive it, hence Jesus and other gods.