Yea, opposing contraception is like opposing leukemia coverage

[BT]

It doesn't matter what the Pope would like. The US Church is reacting to an unconstitutional intrusion into their affairs by a bungling bureaucracy,

Their employees who wish contraceptives can obtain them at the pharmacy of their choice.

[sirs]

As much as they want in fact.  No one is denying/preventing women BC.  Is it intellectual dishonesty by the left Bt, or just simply unable to see the forest thru the trees, with so much straw, when any time the Catholic church is pulled into the discussion?

[BSB]

No one is telling the Church what to do with their priests or nuns or anyone who works within the Church itself. But when they step outside that capacity and run a hospital, say, hiring workers regardless of their religious affiliation, all bets are off.  They're no more special then a Buddhist Temple that runs a bakery on the side and hires a baker off the street. Those Buddhists would have to follow all employer employee laws.

You have be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see the this.  It's very easy. Of course the Buddhists wouldn't piss and moan. They'd just follow the law like good citizens.


BSB

[sirs]

Sorry, the Constitution applies to the church, every day of the week, not just Sundays.  Nor is the Church preventing anyone from aquiring anything they want.  They simply have the Constitutional protection of not having to provide them, against their religious beliefs

If you have a problem with the law, there's this thing called a Constitutional Convention, where you can amend the Constitution. 

Good luck with that

[BSB]

No one has tested the constitutional viability of the Church's claim in this regard at the Suprem Court level. So your claims are bullshit sirs. Nothing new in that though. Everything you post is bullshit.   


BSB

[sirs]

The 1st amendment speaks for itself...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof  Not supporting, or in this case, providing BC, is an "exercise thereof"

So your claims of BS, are as ususal, BS.  Nothing new there

But, you always have a Constitutional Convention to fall back on.  As I said, good luck with that

[BT]

What we know from the first go-round with Scotus is that at least 3 on the court were ready to rule mandates unconstitutional. I don't see how Roberts can twist this mandate into being a tax. And with tthe additional conflict of themandate with the 1st amendment i would be quite willing to bet that the courts find this particular mandate unconstitutional.

Those in New England may disagree,as they see fit.