Yea, opposing contraception is like opposing leukemia coverage

[BT]

Religious organization are no different then any other organization as soon as they go out into the private sector are hire workers.


Since when? I'm pretty sure there is caselaw that says the opposite.

[sirs]

Religious organization are no different then any other organization as soon as they go out into the private sector are hire workers.

Actually, they do......its called the 1st amendment, which applies at all times, to all Americans, both public and private sector.  Not surprised you're not up to speed on that, with your ignorance of the 2nd amendment

What didn't you understand? Try being specific.

BSB

I thought I made the question painfully clear.......how supposedly am I being ignorant, in your grand proclamation following my post.  You were trying to justify the ridiculous connections between medications prescribed for some illness/injury, and use of birth control for no such illness.  Then came the even futher irrational effort to connect the taliban <--> catholic church <--> pedophiles <--> anyone that doesn't agree with you on abortion, using the notion of forcing people/children to do...whatever, as in giving them no choice. 

It was bad enough in trying to make those connections, but apparently when your barrels were empty, you decided just to simply call me ignorant, when I demonstrated there's no such act of forcing women to do anything.  They can even chose to use birth control, or not.  Their choice, their penny

I hope that was specific enough for you.  Can't get much more detailed

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Constitution guarantees people the right to their own opinions and how to exercise them so long as it does not interfere with others. The Church gets no such a pass. If a person chooses to obey their own views rather than those of an employer (church or not) the citizen's rights should always come first.

The Roman Catholic Church (and some others as well) is a dogmatic, undemocratic organization. Its rights should NEVER trump those of individuals who choose to disagree with it.

[BSB]

I don't call you ignorant because my gun is empty. I call you ignorant because that's what you are. 99.99999% of the time your nonsense isn't worthy of a reply. I wish to hell it wasn't so, I'd like some interesting debate, but it is.

BSB

[sirs]

LOL....so ONCE AGAIN, you provide nada, squat, zip, as it relates to why I'm supposedly ignorant on this or any other issue.  Just your say so, and ..........that's it

Here's a hint, debate requires dialog, it requires substance, it requires effort.  Just because you don't like my positions, or how I post them, doesn't mean you can't make an effort to try.  and if you don't want to try, fine.  But don't think just radiating your self perceived all knowing opinion on matters, and then refusing to justify or back them up, gets you some ring of debate immunity.  You're going to get called on it, again, and again, and again......until you start WANTING to have some interesting debate at least

[BSB]

I've made it quite clear Sirs many times. When the Church hires a worker they must provide them with the same benefits any other employer has to provide. Get it?

BSB

[Xavier_Onassis]

The fact that he always fails to"get it" is why it is not worth discussing anything with him.

The only thing that might convince him in this argument would be if we could somehow get him pregnant.

[BT]

When the Church hires a worker they must provide them with the same benefits any other employer has to provide.

No they don't and they definitely do not have to provide a policy that contains coverage that goes against their religious beliefs.

In lieu of insurance they could compensate their employees for the same amount of money that the forced policy would cost and be done with the entire controversy. If the employees are not happy with that arrangement well they have the choice to seek employment elsewhere.

Seems like a win win . The employee has coverage and the church maintains its beliefs.

[sirs]

When the Church hires a worker they must provide them with the same benefits any other employer has to provide.

No they don't and they definitely do not have to provide a policy that contains coverage that goes against their religious beliefs.

BINGO.  Not to mention Birth Control is not a "medical benefit" for any diagnosed illness or acute injury.  If other insurances want to provide them, fine, THEIR CHOICE.  If a Church wants to provide them, again, THEIR CHOICE.  To mandate that they do against their religious beliefs is very much anti-choice, not to mention Anti-1st amendment. 

You'd think someone who supports the deflective notion of "pro-choice", would grasp that concept

[kimba1]

on further thought maybe not. Awhilwe ago a former co-worker quite her job to go to another firm with favorable benefits. meaning employees should be able to decide if they want to stay on a job with less favorable benefits.
hell
take me for example. I`m taking a job now with such crappy insurance ,the only reason I have it is thats the only plan my job has. I`m actually paying full cost for my medical and zero coverage from insurance. I am quitting that job as soon as kaiser accepts me.
Meaning people can choose to not take a job with lousy benefits (ex. no birth control)  if anything I wished my job informed what kind of insurance I be getting. this job litterally cost me money from day one.

[BSB]

"No they don't and they definitely do not have to provide a policy that contains coverage that goes against their religious beliefs"

Says who?


BSB

[sirs]

Says the Founding Fathers, such as Madison & Jefferson, via the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that says who

[BT]

"No they don't and they definitely do not have to provide a policy that contains coverage that goes against their religious beliefs"

Says who?


BSB

I think one of the lower courts has already forwarded the Hobby Shop case to the Federal Circuit Court which will eventually lead it to SCOTUS. And the Hobby Shop is not a religious organization. Its owners have deeply religious beliefs, and this regulation infringes upon that.

[BT]

Apparently Hobby Shop is appealing directly to the Supreme Court

In the meantime:
Forty-two separate lawsuits challenging the mandate have been filed on behalf of religious schools, hospitals and charities, for-profit businesses and individual states. Rulings in the cases have been split. Among for-profit businesses, four have been granted preliminary injunctions and two have been denied them.

[BT]

Also:
In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.

The Oklahoma City-based company and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government in September, claiming the mandate violates the owners' religious beliefs. The owners contend the morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's womb. They also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.

At a hearing earlier this month, a government lawyer said the drugs do not cause abortions and that the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.

In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/19/judge-rejects-hobby-lobby-case-against-obamacare-contraceptive-coverage-mandate/#ixzz2Jsep3bIM