• 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!

Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

buck said:
People should be able to gather in their house and read nearly any book they want. Want to study the torrah? Great. Anyway, you said no such case existed and now we have learned of at least one - and it was just one that I recall.. That the law was later changed doesn't negate the point that they were being discrimated against..
Click to expand...

I think the problematic part is that I wouldn't care what they do but I would be aggravated with 50 people parked in a residential area every Sunday. Just like I'm sure if I decided to have some film night and invited 30-50 people over my neighbors would get aggravated.

In this case...only one of us would actually have their fine stick. So who would be discriminated against here?
 
Somerville said:
YOU made a statement (paraphrase) "Obamacare is trying to make the Little Sisters of the Poor pay for contraception services"
Click to expand...

yep.

I posted a link
Click to expand...

Congratulations.

You refused to accept a factual statement and then turn my followup into a personal attack on you.
Click to expand...

Factual is your opinion. And your follow is what it is...

One more time "Another example of just why political conversations so often turn into circle spinning. I post, "Do a bit of non-biased reading to find the true story." and the response seemingly says I don't care what I read or hear that contradicts my beliefs because I KNOW THE TRUTH!"

Why is pointing out that a statement made was untrue seen as "arrogance"?
Click to expand...

See the bold part there...Nothing after that is what I said, that is you putting words in my mouth, and what's funny is you complain about spinning, yet you can't address my words honestly...What a joke....

also - Alexis de Tocqueville never wrote your sig.
Click to expand...

Been through this all before...I don't know why the quote bugs you socialists so much, but I find it funny that it does...
 
the constitution already protect religious beliefs and practices. the problem is that judges are not upholding the constitution in fact they are ignoring it.
 
j-mac said:
yep.



Congratulations.



Factual is your opinion. And your follow is what it is...
Click to expand...


Factual is not an opinion, it is a statement of reality.

I provided a link that showed your statement to be incorrect. You show us a link that your statement is correct. If you can't, I must think that your claim "the Little Sisters of the Poor are being forced to pay for contraception" is not factual.
 
Somerville said:
Factual is not an opinion, it is a statement of reality.

I provided a link that showed your statement to be incorrect. You show us a link that your statement is correct. If you can't, I must think that your claim "the Little Sisters of the Poor are being forced to pay for contraception" is not factual.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Well your "link" is bull ****....I give you the LATimes....

The sisters had two options: Provide coverage for contraception to their employees, in violation of their Roman Catholic beliefs, or pay hefty tax fines for failing to comply with the law.

The Obama administration offered church-related organizations, including the Little Sisters, an accommodation, allowing them to opt out of the mandate if they signed a self-certification form.

The compromise would mean the sisters would not have to provide contraceptive coverage themselves, but in many cases their workers would be able to get birth control from their insurance carriers.

Some Catholic groups accepted that compromise, but many, including the Little Sisters, did not.

"The mandate violates our religious freedoms," said Mother Loraine Marie Clare Maguire, provincial superior of the congregation's Baltimore province.


Obamacare lawsuit forces order of nuns into the public eye - latimes.com
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Yeah? Well your "link" is bull ****....I give you the LATimes....

The sisters had two options: Provide coverage for contraception to their employees, in violation of their Roman Catholic beliefs, or pay hefty tax fines for failing to comply with the law.

The Obama administration offered church-related organizations, including the Little Sisters, an accommodation, allowing them to opt out of the mandate if they signed a self-certification form.

The compromise would mean the sisters would not have to provide contraceptive coverage themselves, but in many cases their workers would be able to get birth control from their insurance carriers.

Some Catholic groups accepted that compromise, but many, including the Little Sisters, did not.

"The mandate violates our religious freedoms," said Mother Loraine Marie Clare Maguire, provincial superior of the congregation's Baltimore province.


Obamacare lawsuit forces order of nuns into the public eye - latimes.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


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.
 
Somerville said:
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.
Click to expand...

They would get it through the company paid for provider, which is literally paying for it. And if the workers do not have the same beliefs they can be fired, especially by religious institutions since the unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
 
scatt said:
They would get it through the company paid for provider, which is literally paying for it. And if the workers do not have the same beliefs they can be fired, especially by religious institutions since the unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Click to expand...


WRONG! Try again. The case you cite has one provision that still allows some employees of religious organisations to sue the group. I'm sure you know the qualification but ...
 
Somerville said:
The case you cite has one provision that still allows some employees of religious organisations to sue the group.
Click to expand...

Sue what group?
 
Somerville said:
WRONG! Try again. The case you cite has one provision that still allows some employees of religious organisations to sue the group. I'm sure you know the qualification but ...
Click to expand...

scatt said:
Sue what group?
Click to expand...

The religious organisation which is the employer of the aggrieved employee
 
Here are the posts in this little kerfuffle

scatt said:
They would get it through the company paid for provider, which is literally paying for it. And if the workers do not have the same beliefs they can be fired, especially by religious institutions since the unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Click to expand...
Somerville said:
WRONG! Try again. The case you cite has one provision that still allows some employees of religious organisations to sue the group. I'm sure you know the qualification but ...
Click to expand...
scatt said:
Sue what group?
Click to expand...
Somerville said:
The religious organisation which is the employer of the aggrieved employee
Click to expand...
scatt said:
Sue them for what?
Click to expand...
Somerville said:
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you trying to get me to post something offensive?
Click to expand...

scatt said:
None of the above. Why would they sue?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking these questions? It all goes back to your claim the employees of the Little Sisters can be fired if they don't have the same beliefs as their employer (Little Sisters of the Poor in this case). A claim that you seem to think is supported by the decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I then say you are WRONG, at which point you seem to be wandering off the trail by asking such elementary questions that one might think you don't comprehend the ramifications of the Hosanna-Tabor judgment.
 
scatt said:
They cannot be fired?
Click to expand...

Your statement, one more time, "if the workers do not have the same beliefs they can be fired, especially by religious institutions"

The answer to that is NO. An employee cannot be fired for having a religious belief that differs from that of their employer.

You made the claim. You provided a SCOTUS decision that does not support your claim.

NOW, would you care to dispute my statement that Hosanna-Tabor does not support your claim? Or will you continue to play word games? If the last is your style, then this is my last post answering to you.
 
Somerville said:
An employee cannot be fired for having a religious belief that differs from that of their employer.
Click to expand...

Yes, at religious institutions you can as per one unanimous decision.
 
scatt said:
Yes, at religious institutions you can as per one unanimous decision.
Click to expand...

WRONG! Go and read the decision. There is one stipulation, one condition of employment which allows a religious group to fire an employee for nothing more than a difference in religious belief. If that condition is not met, then Hosanna-Tabor doesn't apply.

Try and figure it out. I've had enuff.
 
Somerville said:
There is one stipulation, one condition of employment which allows a religious group to fire an employee for nothing more than a difference in religious belief.
Click to expand...

You almost got it.
 
scatt said:
They would get it through the company paid for provider, which is literally paying for it. And if the workers do not have the same beliefs they can be fired, especially by religious institutions since the unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
beefheart said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't forget also 2 senators and however many federal reps to weigh the rest of the country down with.
 
Somerville said:
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"
Click to expand...

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.
 
Somerville said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChezC3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom