Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 257

Thread: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

  1. #121
    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 Somerville View Post
    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?
    They paid for it and installed it?

  2. #122
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,843

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    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?
    They paid for it and installed it?
    This 'reply' is not answering the question I posed.
    “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

  3. #123
    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 Somerville View Post
    This 'reply' is not answering the question I posed.
    The question you asked used my question as a premise. Is that premise true?

  4. #124
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:44 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,742

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    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?
    this has nothing to do with what we are discussing. you as a person do not give up your 1st amendment rights just because you enter a public domain. just like a student in school can bring a bible in and read it during his free time. the SCOTUS is very clear on this policy.

    the OK thing is a separate issue. we are talking about an individual private person.

  5. #125
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,843

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    this has nothing to do with what we are discussing. you as a person do not give up your 1st amendment rights just because you enter a public domain. just like a student in school can bring a bible in and read it during his free time. the SCOTUS is very clear on this policy.

    the OK thing is a separate issue. we are talking about an individual private person.

    Maybe you should read the OP, specifically the following “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.”
    “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

  6. #126
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,843

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    The question you asked used my question as a premise. Is that premise true?
    No, it is not. My question came before your question so unless one of us has a Tardis, your 'reply' is not one.
    “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

  7. #127
    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

    So they paid for it and installed it?

  8. #128
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Sometimes hatred or distaste for a group causes people to forego actually reading posted links
    I read you link to think progress Somer, but I question why you totally ignored the part that I pointed out. You couldn't have missed it, it is right before the bold part you posted here....Let me highlight it for you...

    The nuns argue, **, 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.

    **I removed "incorrectly" because it is opinion of the writer, not fact.**
    You'll notice the relevant part as I highlighted it...This case in the court system, so we will see how it plays out. But weight has to be given that a Liberal justice in Sotomayor [sic] is the one who ordered the stay.

    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 that may well be the case in the LSoP argument in front of the court. But as I see it, and as reported by the NYTimes,

    "...The injunction means that they will not be forced to sign and deliver the controversial government forms authorizing and instructing their benefits administrator to provide contraceptives.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/us...nuns.html?_r=0
    See, the whole thing that the administration, and its supporters fail to grasp in situations like this, is that even if the administration says that it is not forcing a group like LSoP to directly provide BC, or abortion services, it is telling them that they must sign a document saying that it is ok if their insurer does....That is a defacto tacid approval of these services, and thus by extension forcing them to provide the service anyway...It is underhanded in its devious method....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #129
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:44 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,742

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Maybe you should read the OP, specifically the following “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.”
    this still doesn't disprove my point. none of the people running or operating those things give up their 1st amendment rights unless you can provide some evidence that they do. The SCOTUS has ruled on this many many times.

    There is already a gay couple in london that has sued the church there for not recognizing their marriage and won't allow it to be performed in the church.
    it is just a matter of time before it happens here which again is a violation of the 1st amendment, but you don't see to care about that.

  10. #130
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    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.
    It seems to me that Chic Fil A is proof of why they do not need this bill.

Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •