Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 257

Thread: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

  1. #71
    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
    No it isn't. They would be paying for insurance, not what the people use the insurance for. That is none of the religious institution's business.
    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.

  2. #72
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by beefheart View Post
    This bill is from the talibornagain wing of AZ that does whatever the ALEC theocrats tell them to do. We have the worst legislators in AZ, conspiracy theorists, birthers, and flat out racists and theocratic ninnies.
    Don't forget also 2 senators and however many federal reps to weigh the rest of the country down with.

  3. #73
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,123

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



    Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

    What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

    White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"
    Why wouldn't not allowing the refusal of hiring anyone who behaves openly and without shame in a manner in which the religious organization, business owner's religious beliefs, et al is open and honestly again be a violation of said person, org, corp, institutions religious liberty?

    Does an employer not have a right to employ whom he chooses?

    Like I said from day one, you can't legislate an infringement on a person's conscience and call it freedom.

    It is the greatest violation of a person's right that can be made.

  4. #74
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    See that bolded phrase - The Little Sisters ARE NOT PAYING FOR CONTRACEPTION They, as are many other religious groups which claim discrimination, are attempting to impose their RELIGIOUS beliefs on others who don't hold the same religious beliefs.
    No, they are not, no one is forced to work for them. Btw, the SC agrees and has halted enforcement while the case plays out. That's not good for dear leader.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #75
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,781

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    Why wouldn't not allowing the refusal of hiring anyone who behaves openly and without shame in a manner in which the religious organization, business owner's religious beliefs, et al is open and honestly again be a violation of said person, org, corp, institutions religious liberty?

    Does an employer not have a right to employ whom he chooses?

    Like I said from day one, you can't legislate an infringement on a person's conscience and call it freedom.

    It is the greatest violation of a person's right that can be made.
    It is still discrimination based upon one's religious views. Whether such discrimination is justified because of one's religious, political and/or sexual beliefs does not negate the the fact that such actions are discrimination.
    “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. #76
    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
    It is still discrimination based upon one's religious views. Whether such discrimination is justified because of one's religious, political and/or sexual beliefs does not negate the the fact that such actions are discrimination.
    And this discrimination is constitutional and therefore legal.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,781

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    No, they are not, no one is forced to work for them. Btw, the SC agrees and has halted enforcement while the case plays out. That's not good for dear leader.
    Your opinion, there are others

    How To Read The Supreme Court's Order In That Case Involving The Colorado Nuns | ThinkProgress

    The background here is that most employers are required to include contraception coverage in their employer-provided health plans. Certain religious non-profits are exempt from this requirement, but the government has to have some way to identify who is and is not invoking this exemption. Hence the form, which is the mechanism a group uses to inform the government that they wish to invoke their exemption. 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 fun part
    Under the Court’s order, the nuns have to “inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing” that they intend to invoke their exemption, but they “need not use the form prescribed by the Government and need not send copies to the third-party administrators” of their health plan. So the nuns essentially won the right to use a different piece of paper than the government wanted them to use to supply the government with exactly the same information it requested in the first place.
    “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. #78
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,781

    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.
    The specific case being argued is not about hiring people but about medical insurance. The nuns are paying for healthcare insurance for their employees, they just don't want that insurance to cover contraceptive services,

    See post #77
    “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

  9. #79
    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
    The specific case being argued is not about hiring people but about medical insurance. The nuns are paying for healthcare insurance for their employees, they just don't want that insurance to cover contraceptive services,

    See post #77
    Which is protected also.

  10. #80
    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
    Your opinion, there are others



    The fun part
    Thinkprogresss as a citation? Haha.

Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •