• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholics sue Obama over birth control mandate

Why should someone's religion excempt them from the laws of a country that they are in?

That has to be determined by the Supreme Court.

But it seems clear that the government should not be telling religions what to do any more than religions should be telling governments what to do. Both must be held in check.
 
That has to be determined by the Supreme Court.

But it seems clear that the government should not be telling religions what to do any more than religions should be telling governments what to do. Both must be held in check.

I am talking about my opinion not the SC opinion. Nothing in our constitution that I am aware of states whether or not anyone has a right to be exempt from laws so the SC doesn't have much to rule on that I can think of.
 
Why should someone's religion excempt them from the laws of a country that they are in?

Our constitution prohibits laws that arbitrarily infringe on religion. Requiring Muslim or Jewish restaurants to serve pork serves no public purpose, nor does requiring a self-insured Catholic organization to provide birth control serve a public purpose.
 
Our constitution prohibits laws that arbitrarily infringe on religion. Requiring Muslim or Jewish restaurants to serve pork serves no public purpose, nor does requiring a self-insured Catholic organization to provide birth control serve a public purpose.

The question for me is not whether or not it serves a public service. The question for me is whether or not a persons religion should exempt them from the law. I do not think a person's religion should exempt them from the law, nor should it get them any special rights or treatment from the government. That is not equality.
 
Our constitution prohibits laws that arbitrarily infringe on religion. Requiring Muslim or Jewish restaurants to serve pork serves no public purpose, nor does requiring a self-insured Catholic organization to provide birth control serve a public purpose.

No infringment has taken place. No one is forced to use contracptions. The ones likely to use it, do so of their own free will and are not clergy.
 
No infringment has taken place. No one is forced to use contracptions. The ones likely to use it, do so of their own free will and are not clergy.

They are asking the Church to pay for contraceptives. If someone is using them of their own free will, as you say, then let them pay for it.
 
No infringment has taken place. No one is forced to use contracptions. The ones likely to use it, do so of their own free will and are not clergy.

It is not those that use the benefit that are being forced, it is those forced to provide that benefit that is being challenged. Surely, even you, can see that simple fact.
 
They are asking the Church to pay for contraceptives. If someone is using them of their own free will, as you say, then let them pay for it.

No, I'm asking them to pay for insurance. How that insurance is used is up to the employee. If no one uses it, none are paid for. If the employee believes differently, as many do as they are not clergy or even neccessarily of such a faith, they choose and are nto going against their beliefs. The insurance, once given as compensation, is theirs.
 
It is not those that use the benefit that are being forced, it is those forced to provide that benefit that is being challenged. Surely, even you, can see that simple fact.

I know. But they can't challenge this any more than they could challenge minimum wage. The comepnsation, once given belongs to the employee, not the employer.
 
They are asking the Church to pay for contraceptives. If someone is using them of their own free will, as you say, then let them pay for it.

No.. they aren't..

This is about health insurance not religion.

Not everyone who works in Cathlolic hospitals is Catholic... and most Catholics use some form of BC anyway.
 
They are self insured now. Why would the government interfere in any way?

And how are contraceptives expected to cure anything?

Makes no difference. None at all. The user is the employee. And they determine, as they do with their cash, how they spend their compensation. It ceases to be the churches the second they give it as compensation.
 
No one at all is forcing anyone to use the contraceptives so your question is not equal. A better question would be if there was a law forcing all restaraunts [sic] to offer pork on the menu and every restaurant was required to offer it, should muslims be excempt? I'd say no. Again no one is forcing any one to use contraceptives.

Of course, if you think (even ignoring any religious issues) that any level of government ought to have the power to require all restaurants to serve pork, then you are missing the point entirely.
 
Of course, if you think (even ignoring any religious issues) that any level of government ought to have the power to require all restaurants to serve pork, then you are missing the point entirely.

Perhaps you would consider reading that post in its entirety?
 
The question for me is not whether or not it serves a public service. The question for me is whether or not a persons religion should exempt them from the law. I do not think a person's religion should exempt them from the law, nor should it get them any special rights or treatment from the government. That is not equality.

This is not a matter of exempting religious people from the law. This is a case where the law itself is unconstitutional. Try to keep up.
 
This is about health insurance not religion.

Not everyone who works in Cathlolic hospitals is Catholic... and most Catholics use some form of BC anyway.

The government has no business mandating what health insurance should cover - for anyone. That's a decision that should be made between buyer and seller of the insurance product.
 
This is a matter of exempting the church. Have you read through this thread or did you just skip to the end?

I've read it all through, and suggest you do the same. The issue at hand is whether the regulation is legal.
 
I've read it all through, and suggest you do the same. The issue at hand is whether the regulation is legal.

You have it wrong though. It is about business and institutions that are not chuches can be exempt from the law. Nothing in that has much at all to do with the constitution.
 
You have it wrong though. It is about business and institutions that are not chuches can be exempt from the law. Nothing in that has much at all to do with the constitution.

So the Catholic institutions close, and those employees have neither a job, or health coverage. That make you happy?

Or, the other solution is to simply fire all non Catholics, and only treat baptised Catholics.

Good job.

J-mac
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
 
So the Catholic institutions close, and those employees have neither a job, or health coverage. That make you happy?

Or, the other solution is to simply fire all non Catholics, and only treat baptised Catholics.

Good job.

J-mac
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Around 80% or more of Catholics use birth control of some form or another. It is a very small minority of Catholics that have an issue with this law, and those would be the ones who probably feel it is their business to mandate what others do with their bodies just because of their own beliefs.
 
So the Catholic institutions close, and those employees have neither a job, or health coverage. That make you happy?

Or, the other solution is to simply fire all non Catholics, and only treat baptised Catholics.

Good job.

J-mac
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Happy? No. Nor do I believe that will ever happen. The back lash they would receive would be devestating, and on top of the child abuse scandel? NO.

And if they could get all catholic employees, they would do that. Outside of the small cloistered group of male hierarchy, in the US, a the majority have little problem with contraceptions. That information has been posted. If the Church wants to destroy itself, it is free to do so. No one can force them to do otherwise. But once given as compensation, the inusrance belongs to the employee. They decide how they use it.
 
I don't see why religious employers should be exempted from a requirement that other employers have to abide by. Apparently, contraception requirements were deemed to be in the public interest and I don't see how Catholic hospitals and other related employers can claim religious exemption. Muhammad Ali tried to pull off the same religious exemption gig, it didn't work. They have a better chance trying to abolish the whole requirement for all employers rather than trying to set up a religious exemption just for them.
 
Around 80% or more of Catholics use birth control of some form or another. It is a very small minority of Catholics that have an issue with this law, and those would be the ones who probably feel it is their business to mandate what others do with their bodies just because of their own beliefs.

When they are providing the compensation... Yeah.
 
Back
Top Bottom