Page 12 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 257

Thread: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

  1. #111
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    But it is their business, they do not have to hire people that are not followers of their religion, nor do they have to pay for their healthcare directly or indirectly if it is against their region.
    IF the people are following their religious principles, then they wouldn't be paying for any contraceptives at all because the people would choose not to get contraceptives in the first place. But we all know that people don't feel that way. The problem is that too many people, especially religious organizations, want to control other people's lives, decisions. They have no real right to demand that their employees don't try to not get pregnant. That is absurd, and I don't care if it violates what they perceive as their religious principles or not. They are not being forced to personally stop making babies.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #112
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    So... your great counterargument is that... there is an obvious need for the bill under discussion, as the kinds of abuses of people's rights that this bill is designed to prevent are prevalent.
    As a conservative put the emotional knee jerk desire to push a religious agenda aside and ask yourself the critical question that all responsible conservatives ask of any proposed law, "what might be the unintended consequences of this legislation?'

  3. #113
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,779

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    This bill is rather ridiculous.
    Not rather, completely.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #114
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    02-09-17 @ 10:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,721

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    IF the people are following their religious principles, then they wouldn't be paying for any contraceptives at all because the people would choose not to get contraceptives in the first place. But we all know that people don't feel that way. The problem is that too many people, especially religious organizations, want to control other people's lives, decisions. They have no real right to demand that their employees don't try to not get pregnant. That is absurd, and I don't care if it violates what they perceive as their religious principles or not. They are not being forced to personally stop making babies.
    Not paying for their employees abortions is not controlling their lives.

  5. #115
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,671

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    As a conservative put the emotional knee jerk desire to push a religious agenda aside and ask yourself the critical question that all responsible conservatives ask of any proposed law, "what might be the unintended consequences of this legislation?'
    It does the same thing that the 1st amendment does or is suppose to do. allow people to practice their religious views or practices without fear of the government stepping in and penalizing them for practicing their religious beliefs.

    that owners of companies can't be punished for exercising their first amendment rights.
    look at the chick fil a incident. they tried to demonize that place and it backfired they had more sales than ever before and had people lined up around the block.
    their sales are also still going strong.

    you say you don't like religious people forcing their views on you well other people don't like you forcing your views on them. it goes both ways.

  6. #116
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Your opinion, there are others



    The fun part
    Spin by TP....btw, a Soros/Podesta outfit that has real problems with truth. In any case, TP points out in their article that although it is their opinion that the requirement wrongly forced on LSoP may not end run them specifically, it may others. This is a sneaky, underhanded way of forcing an agenda on a group that this administration shouldn't be doing that to.

    I don't give a damn what those people that took the job with LSoP want to do with their time off, but let them take $5 of their own pay, and buy their own BC. IMHO, it is a back door, slimy way to undermine the Church, and religion to enter this arena and use government force to go after them.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #117
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    <snip>

    you say you don't like religious people forcing their views on you well other people don't like you forcing your views on them. it goes both ways.

    This is the problem. One side says that telling them to keep their religious beliefs out of the public forum, whether that forum be a business, public land or public schools, is "imposing" other beliefs upon them. No atheist, pagan, homosexual or other disliked segment of the population is trying to force their beliefs "down the throat" of the Christian. The 'others' simply want no preferential treatment to be given to any beliefs. Yet, somehow there is a portion of the Christian community in America which seemingly believes that if they aren't provided accommodations unavailable to all other citizens, then they, the Xians, are being oppressed.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  8. #118
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,671

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    This is the problem. One side says that telling them to keep their religious beliefs out of the public forum, whether that forum be a business, public land or public schools, is "imposing" other beliefs upon them. No atheist, pagan, homosexual or other disliked segment of the population is trying to force their beliefs "down the throat" of the Christian. The 'others' simply want no preferential treatment to be given to any beliefs. Yet, somehow there is a portion of the Christian community in America which seemingly believes that if they aren't provided accommodations unavailable to all other citizens, then they, the Xians, are being oppressed.
    telling someone to keep their religious views out of the public forum is unconstitutional please see the 1st amendment.
    the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that you do not give up your first amendment rights just because you are in a public setting.
    that include religious protections.

    sure they are. that is why they harass and sue and everything else. you accept my beliefs or i sue and force you to accept what i believe.

    all citizens have the same protections.

  9. #119
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Spin by TP....btw, a Soros/Podesta outfit that has real problems with truth. In any case, TP points out in their article that although it is their opinion that the requirement wrongly forced on LSoP may not end run them specifically, it may others. This is a sneaky, underhanded way of forcing an agenda on a group that this administration shouldn't be doing that to.

    I don't give a damn what those people that took the job with LSoP want to do with their time off, but let them take $5 of their own pay, and buy their own BC. IMHO, it is a back door, slimy way to undermine the Church, and religion to enter this arena and use government force to go after them.

    Sometimes hatred or distaste for a group causes people to forego actually reading posted links
    The nuns argue, incorrectly, that this form may also be used to induce their insurer to provide birth control to the workers in their nursing homes though a separate arrangement. That may be true in some cases, but it is not true here, as the nuns use an insurer who is also exempt from compliance with the requirement to provide birth control. So the punch line is that all the nuns needed to do is fill out the form, and then no one would provide birth control to anyone. Nevertheless, they did not wish to do this.
    The relevant federal statutes ERISA § 3(33)(C)(i) and ERISA § 3(33)(C)(ii)(II) & (C)(iii). Basically the courts have ruled for more than 30 years, if the body providing health insurance to church employees does not sell insurance to non-employees, the insuror is not required to provide services which violate their religious tenets.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  10. #120
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    telling someone to keep their religious views out of the public forum is unconstitutional please see the 1st amendment.
    the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that you do not give up your first amendment rights just because you are in a public setting.
    that include religious protections.

    sure they are. that is why they harass and sue and everything else. you accept my beliefs or i sue and force you to accept what i believe.

    all citizens have the same protections.

    You think then that the Oklahoma legislature installing a giant Ten Commandments memorial on the grounds of the state house and then refusing to accept similar sized monuments from other groups is protected by the First Amendment?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Page 12 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •