• 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!

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns

Paschendale said:
It's the Bill of Rights that says they shouldn't get special treatment.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's exactly what the BoR does regarding religions.

Edit: Or, rather, it says the government cannot favor one religion over another,and cannot interfere with a religion (apart from laws that limit some practices).

Depending on how you interpreted that last bit, maybe this could be considered constitutional...hmm

Edit 2: Oh no, wiki-chain.

But this is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
I don't think that's exactly what the BoR does regarding religions.

Edit: Or, rather, it says the government cannot favor one religion over another,and cannot interfere with a religion (apart from laws that limit some practices).

Depending on how you interpreted that last bit, maybe this could be considered constitutional...hmm

Edit 2: Oh no, wiki-chain.

But this is interesting: Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Cannot favor one religion over another. That is, cannot make some religions (or non-religion) comply with a law while exempting some religions from it.

And as to free exercise, did you even read your own link? The first case it brings up, Reynolds v US, literally says that your own religious obligations don't exempt you from the law. The whole page is a continuation of that philosophy.

Let's be honest, if this were any group besides a Christian one, there wouldn't even be a case. Only one religion routinely gets this kind of special treatment at all in this country. Or did you notice that the cases about working on Saturday were about 7th day Adventists, not about Jews?
 
fmw said:
Sounds like they are now committed to hearing the case. Laws with political agendas are always bad laws. Yet the lawmakers continue passing them. We need to give them more and longer vacations.
Click to expand...

Political agenda? Other than the fact everything is political, isn't this the case if whose rights are we talking about? The employer or the employee? This seems like the crux of the issue to me.
 
Paschendale said:
Cannot favor one religion over another. That is, cannot make some religions (or non-religion) comply with a law while exempting some religions from it.

And as to free exercise, did you even read your own link? The first case it brings up, Reynolds v US, literally says that your own religious obligations don't exempt you from the law. The whole page is a continuation of that philosophy.

Let's be honest, if this were any group besides a Christian one, there wouldn't even be a case. Only one religion routinely gets this kind of special treatment at all in this country. Or did you notice that the cases about working on Saturday were about 7th day Adventists, not about Jews?
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting they be exempt from the law, just that they be exempt from having to purchase insurance that provides a service they disagree with religiously.

Although I suppose that is partially exempt from the law.

If this goes to court, it'll be interesting to see where the arguments go.
 
Boo Radley said:
Political agenda? Other than the fact everything is political, isn't this the case if whose rights are we talking about? The employer or the employee? This seems like the crux of the issue to me.
Click to expand...
Since when is a specific kind of health insurance a right?
 
mpg said:
Since when is a specific kind of health insurance a right?
Click to expand...
To use an absolutely terrible analogy, if you don't like consuming a small dog every week, but were required to do so by the terms of your health care plan, would you want that health care plan?
 
mpg said:
Since when is a specific kind of health insurance a right?
Click to expand...

When it's mine to use. When they pay me a salary, the money is mine and not theirs. When they provide insurance as part if MY compensation it is mine and not THEIRS. It is my right to use want us mine as I see fit.
 
The Mark said:
I'm not suggesting they be exempt from the law, just that they be exempt from having to purchase insurance that provides a service they disagree with religiously.

Although I suppose that is partially exempt from the law.

If this goes to court, it'll be interesting to see where the arguments go.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is being exempt from the law because you're part of one religion and not another. Would you be alright with a Wiccan employer making their employees work on Easter? It's not their religion to celebrate that day. At what point are you forcing the religion of the employer on the employee? The employer having any say in what kind of insurance the employee gets is definitely forcing one person's religion on the other. Meanwhile, putting money into a pot, some of which pays for things you don't like, but that you aren't personally engaged with, is not.
 
Boo Radley said:
When it's mine to use. When they pay me a salary, the money is mine and not theirs. When they provide insurance as part if MY compensation it is mine and not THEIRS. It is my right to use want us mine as I see fit.
Click to expand...
What if the employee doesn't even want health insurance? According to your logic, all compensation should be monetary, so the employee could use it for whatever they choose.
 
The article is very unclear as to what the actual issue is here. According to the Justice Dept, the Little Sisters are not required to purchase insurance that covers contraception, etc. But the LS's are saying that they do, which seems to be contrary to both what the Justice Dept is saying and what the law says (is ACA does exempt religious orgs like LS from having to purchase insurance that covers contraception, etc)

The Obama administration had argued that the Little Sisters of the Poor could opt out of the contraceptive coverage requirement by completing “a self-certification form” and providing it to the entity that administers their health benefits. Therefore, the Justice Department said, the contraceptive mandate imposes “no substantial burden on their exercise of religion.”

“To opt out of providing contraceptive coverage, Little Sisters need only certify that they are nonprofit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and that, because of religious objections, they are opposed to providing coverage for some or all contraceptive services,” the Justice Department told the appeals court on Monday.

The administration says it has exempted churches from the contraceptive coverage requirement and offered an accommodation to certain religious nonprofit groups. But the Becket Fund argued that “the ‘accommodation’ still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.”

“The Sisters would also be required to sign a form that triggers the start of that coverage,” it said. “In good conscience, they cannot do that. So the ‘accommodation’ still violates their religious beliefs.”
Click to expand...

It sounds as if their complaint is that filling out a form stating that they will not provide coverage for contraception etc because they are a religious org is somehow???? a sin.
 
mpg said:
What if the employee doesn't even want health insurance? According to your logic, all compensation should be monetary, so the employee could use it for whatever they choose.
Click to expand...

That's actually not what I said. I said insurance is compensation, and as such belongs to the employee.
 
Paschendale said:
Yes, that is being exempt from the law because you're part of one religion and not another. Would you be alright with a Wiccan employer making their employees work on Easter? It's not their religion to celebrate that day. At what point are you forcing the religion of the employer on the employee? The employer having any say in what kind of insurance the employee gets is definitely forcing one person's religion on the other. Meanwhile, putting money into a pot, some of which pays for things you don't like, but that you aren't personally engaged with, is not.
Click to expand...
Yet, as I understand it, an employer doing the "forcing" (not really, since working for them is voluntary) is not unconstitutional, but the government doing any forcing IS unconstitutional.
 
Paschendale said:
And offering a few religious denominations special privileges under the law isn't a political agenda? Religious groups need to pay their damn taxes like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
That's hysterical. Half the nation pays no income taxes at all and different politically connected groups get presidential exemptions from this law and you have the nerve to say this. Pathetic. Hysterical, but pathetic.
 
The Mark said:
Yet, as I understand it, an employer doing the "forcing" (not really, since working for them is voluntary) is not unconstitutional, but the government doing any forcing IS unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

An employer doing it is not unconstitutional. It's just illegal. An employer being exempt from the law by virtue of allegiance to one religious group or another is unconstitutional.
 
mpg said:
and how is that related to this topic?
Click to expand...

I explained that too. Did you miss it as well?

Compensation belongs to the employee and the employer. How I spend my money or use my insurance is up to me and not the employer.
 
Paschendale said:
An employer doing it is not unconstitutional. It's just illegal. An employer being exempt from the law by virtue of allegiance to one religious group or another is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Then it appears to be a choice between: "Do we make a religion purchase insurance that provides contraception, which is counter to their beliefs"

OR: "Do we give all religious institutions exemptions from this law."
 
Boo Radley said:
I explained that too. Did you miss it as well?

Compensation belongs to the employee and the employer. How I spend my money or use my insurance is up to me and not the employer.
Click to expand...

Right but the employer has the right not to cover certain things if they don't want to. they are the ones that set the policy with the insurance company not the employee.
by working and signing up for benefits you agree to whatever coverage they offer.

There are businesses who's owners like hobby lobby have religious objections to contraceptives just like this nun organization and other religious institutions. the government forcing them to cover that is a direct violation of the constitution.

since the Supreme court ruled earlier that corporations are considered people they get the same protections under the constitution as a person would which include religious freedom and practice of that religion.
 
The Mark said:
Then it appears to be a choice between: "Do we make a religion purchase insurance that provides contraception, which is counter to their beliefs"

OR: "Do we give all religious institutions exemptions from this law."
Click to expand...
OR we could try this unique approach--let everyone choose the health care insurance that meets their specific needs and pay for it themselves. That sort of liberty seems to have become unconstitutional.
 
The Mark said:
Then it appears to be a choice between: "Do we make a religion purchase insurance that provides contraception, which is counter to their beliefs"

OR: "Do we give all religious institutions exemptions from this law."
Click to expand...

The law provides an exemption for the Little Sisters. All they have to do is fill out and sign a form.

According to them, their religion doesn't allow them to fill out the form.
 
Boo Radley said:
I explained that too. Did you miss it as well?

Compensation belongs to the employee and the employer. How I spend my money or use my insurance is up to me and not the employer.
Click to expand...
Of course you should be able to use that insurance for whatever it covers. That has nothing to do with the government telling people what kind of insurance they can and can't buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom