• 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

mpg said:
Employers aren't people?
Click to expand...

They are and with the recent supreme court ruling so are corporations therefore they are afford the same constitutional protections as a person.

It's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying they don't have to pay their employees because they might use the money to buy a condom.
Click to expand...
nice strawman fail.
 
mpg said:
An employer should be allowed to give anything they choose as compensation to their employees, as long as the employee agrees to it as terms of their employment.
Click to expand...

What they are giving us insurance. Nothing more. Just as cash is nothing more than cash. What we are taking about is how it is used. No one has to use insurance or cash on anything they disagree with. Controlling how the employee uses insurance is really no different than controlling how they spend their cash.
 
mpg said:
You're just paraphrasing what I said. The government is telling people what kind of insurance they can and can't buy.
Click to expand...

No.

when they government says a car must meet certain standards, are they telling them what car they can buy? No. You guys always exaggerate. I wish I understood why.
 
Boo Radley said:
What they are giving us insurance. Nothing more. Just as cash is nothing more than cash. What we are taking about is how it is used. No one has to use insurance or cash on anything they disagree with. Controlling how the employee uses insurance is really no different than controlling how they spend their cash.
Click to expand...

You don't understand how insurance works which is the problem. Until obamacare a company didn't owe you insurance. as long as they paid you and you agreed to it they didn't have to offer insurance. companies offer insurance as a way to attract employee's.

now when you sign up for work you get whatever insurance the company offers. you can't go to the insurance company and go i don't like this i want to add that. you can get a separate policy on your own if you don't have something that you want. you don't own the insurance policy though the company does.
 
Boo Radley said:
No.

when they government says a car must meet certain standards, are they telling them what car they can buy? No. You guys always exaggerate. I wish I understood why.
Click to expand...
Actually, they ARE telling them what cars they can buy - we just don't see the ones we're not allowed to buy because they never make it as far as the dealerships.

There are plenty of cars made overseas that are not permitted to be sold in the US.
 
The Mark said:
What the heck is the choice then.

Get rid of Obamacare?
Click to expand...

Enforce it equally on everyone. Adherence to a religion does not exempt you from the law. So long as a law is not designed to inhibit or prohibit the exercise of a religion, then it is fine. And let's be honest, paying for insurance that covers birth control is a looooooong way from inhibiting or prohibiting someone from proclaiming Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. These issues over reproductive rights are peripheral to the religions involved. No law can interfere with those sorts of core beliefs, but they most certainly can with the peripherals. A meat processing factory, for example, could not get out of safety regulations merely because its owners sincerely believed that following Kosher or Halal rules were sufficient to make meat safe or holy or whatever. But no law should ever penalize them for not operating on Saturday or Friday, respectively. The difference comes from the impact on the community and employees, the proximity to the central tenets of the faith, and which components are purely about personal belief. An opinion is always protected. The manifestations of that opinion aren't always.

ludin said:
Wrong. the constutition clearly states that the government cannot interfere with the practice of religion. taking birth control is not a religious practice. being against birth control is a religious practice.
Click to expand...

If the rule is so ironclad, then what's to stop anyone from claiming anything as a religious practice? Is it up to the government to arbitrate what is or is not a legitimate religious practice? And isn't that WAY too much entanglement between government and religion?

Also, your other two quotes are not by me. The way you have them posted attributes them to me. You might want to repost the rest of this post and properly credit the quotations.
 
If the rule is so ironclad, then what's to stop anyone from claiming anything as a religious practice? Is it up to the government to arbitrate what is or is not a legitimate religious practice? And isn't that WAY too much entanglement between government and religion?
Click to expand...

there is a list of federally acknowledged religions. you must belong to and show that you are of that faith.
clearly being a catholic nun does this.
 
ludin said:
there is a list of federally acknowledged religions. you must belong to and show that you are of that faith.
clearly being a catholic nun does this.
Click to expand...

Who keeps this "list" and where can I see who is on it?


>>>>
 
I think there is a bigger, and more important point that is being missed here.

The federal government has imposed a law, the compliance with which can easily be found to seriously violate the religious and moral beliefs of a substantial portion of Americans.

While we are arguing about which Americans ought or ought not be able to obtain the necessary exemptions from this law, in order to violate their religious and conscience rights; we are missing the point that the very fact that this conflict exists at all is a clear indication that the government, in imposing this law in the first place, has very far overstepped its legitimate authority. The violation of individual rights that this law imposes, and the inequality that must be created in carving out exceptions to this law to avoid these rights violations; very far outweighs any legitimate government interest that can possibly be claimed in defense of this law.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I think there is a bigger, and more important point that is being missed here.

The federal government has imposed a law, the compliance with which can easily be found to seriously violate the religious and moral beliefs of a substantial portion of Americans.

While we are arguing about which Americans ought or ought not be able to obtain the necessary exemptions from this law, in order to violate their religious and conscience rights; we are missing the point that the very fact that this conflict exists at all is a clear indication that the government, in imposing this law in the first place, has very far overstepped its legitimate authority. The violation of individual rights that this law imposes, and the inequality that must be created in carving out exceptions to this law to avoid these rights violations; very far outweighs any legitimate government interest that can possibly be claimed in defense of this law.
Click to expand...


No individual is required to take birth control under this law. And we are a nation I hope that respects individual rights
 
winston53660 said:
No individual is required to take birth control under this law. And we are a nation I hope that respects individual rights
Click to expand...

As long as this particular law is in effect, and as long as a substantial portion of the population is OK with it, then no, we are not a nation that respects individual rights. There is no way to reconcile the ObamaCare scandal as a whole, and especially this aspect thereof, with respect for individual rights.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
As long as this particular law is in effect, and as long as a substantial portion of the population is OK with it, then no, we are not a nation that respects individual rights. There is no way to reconcile the ObamaCare scandal as a whole, and especially this aspect thereof, with respect for individual rights.
Click to expand...

Absolute BS Bob, it is up to the individual to choose not the church to choose for them.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Well, now it's up to government to choose. And you're OK with this?
Click to expand...

Government only gave the option. It is up to the individual whether or not they take the pill and conform to their employers dictate
 
winston53660 said:
Government only gave the option. It is up to the individual whether or not they take the pill and conform to their employers dictate
Click to expand...

Government gave nothing.

This should be entirely up to the individuals involved. It should be between an employer and an employee to negotiate the terms of that employment, and of compensation therefore, and if that compensation is to involve health insurance, then it should be between the employee, the employer, and the health insurance provider to negotiate the details of what that insurance will or will not cover.

There is nowhere in this transaction that government has any business being involved.

We have here a conflict that exists only because government has stuck its nose where it has no business sticking it. Without government's completely-unwarranted interference, there would be no conflict between an employee's “right” to “free” birth control, and an employer's right not to pay for what that employer considers to be immoral.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Government gave nothing.

This should be entirely up to the individuals involved. It should be between an employer and an employee to negotiate the terms of that employment, and of compensation therefore, and if that compensation is to involve health insurance, then it should be between the employee, the employer, and the health insurance provider to negotiate the details of what that insurance will or will not cover.

There is nowhere in this transaction that government has any business being involved.

We have here a conflict that exists only because government has stuck its nose where it has no business sticking it. Without government's completely-unwarranted interference, there would be no conflict between an employee's “right” to “free” birth control, and an employer's right not to pay for what that employer considers to be immoral.
Click to expand...

Great so an employee of the Jehovah Witness's can be denied a blood transfusion under insurance just because that is what the church believes. Bob it is up to the individual not the church.
 
winston53660 said:
Great so an employee of the Jehovah Witness's can be denied a blood transfusion under insurance just because that is what the church believes. Bob it is up to the individual not the church.
Click to expand...

Or he can choose to work for a different employer.

Or he can negotiate an employment contract in which the employer isn't responsible for his health insurance at all, and instead increases his pay by the amount that the employer would otherwise spend on insurance, and which the employee could then use to buy his own insurance without there being any possible conflict with the employer's beliefs.

There are probably any number of other possible arrangements that could be made, that would satisfy the needs, wants, and moral/religious beliefs of all involved.

But government has intervened in such a manner as to make all these other more reasonable alternatives illegal, to the detriment of all involved.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Government gave nothing.

This should be entirely up to the individuals involved. It should be between an employer and an employee to negotiate the terms of that employment, and of compensation therefore, and if that compensation is to involve health insurance, then it should be between the employee, the employer, and the health insurance provider to negotiate the details of what that insurance will or will not cover.

There is nowhere in this transaction that government has any business being involved.
Click to expand...

We tried that and people screwed it up. They ran up the medical costs for everyone to the point where it threatens our financial security.

The market failed. Get over it
 
winston53660 said:
Great so an employee of the Jehovah Witness's can be denied a blood transfusion under insurance just because that is what the church believes. Bob it is up to the individual not the church.
Click to expand...


Kos-1-07-teaser.jpg
 
Can't wait for the pope to come out with a comment on how stupid this fight is for the church and just blow these nuns' suit out of the water.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Or he can choose to work for a different employer.

Or he can negotiate an employment contract in which the employer isn't responsible for his health insurance at all, and instead increases his pay by the amount that the employer would otherwise spend on insurance, and which the employee could then use to buy his own insurance without there being any possible conflict with the employer's beliefs.

There are probably any number of other possible arrangements that could be made, that would satisfy the needs, wants, and moral/religious beliefs of all involved.

But government has intervened in such a manner as to make all these other more reasonable alternatives illegal, to the detriment of all involved.
Click to expand...

You are living in a dream land here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom