• 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

Somerville said:
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.
Click to expand...

And this discrimination is constitutional and therefore legal.
 
j-mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
scatt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Somerville said:
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
Click to expand...

Which is protected also.
 
At some point one has to wonder why opponents post comments which seemingly prefer denying reality over acceptance of readily available facts.

Facts in the case of the Little Sisters
1) They don't have to pay for contraceptive services for their employees
2) The group providing insurance is also a church-owned company
4) As a religiously-based corporation, the insurer is not required to provide coverage of contraceptive services
5) To gain the exemption granted to all religious groups, a representative of the Little Sisters had to sign a form - they refused to sign
6) The court decision which affirmed the religious order's right to deny contraceptive services also stated the nuns have to “inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing”

NOW, shall we disregard the ad hominem attack on Think Progress and discuss the facts or shall we disregard reality and wander off into LaLa Land?
 
Somerville said:
At some point one has to wonder why opponents post comments which seemingly prefer denying reality over acceptance of readily available facts.

Facts in the case of the Little Sisters
1) They don't have to pay for contraceptive services for their employees
2) The group providing insurance is also a church-owned company
4) As a religiously-based corporation, the insurer is not required to provide coverage of contraceptive services
5) To gain the exemption granted to all religious groups, a representative of the Little Sisters had to sign a form - they refused to sign
6) The court decision which affirmed the religious order's right to deny contraceptive services also stated the nuns have to “inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing”
Click to expand...

Okay, Agent J.

Kobie said:
Care to point out which part of their opinion is incorrect?
Click to expand...

They admit they form requires the insurer to provide that which the Little Sisters do not have to provide. Then say it doesn't.
 
Somerville said:
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.
Click to expand...

If one person's conscience offends another person's delicate sensibilities, that just too F'n bad...Isn't that what the progressive outlook is?
 
scatt said:
Okay, Agent J.



They admit they form requires the insurer to provide that which the Little Sisters do not have to provide. Then say it doesn't.
Click to expand...


The government says the requirements for the insuror to supply contraceptive coverage do not apply in this instance because the insuror is also a religious organisation and not a profit-seeking corporation. What is so difficult to comprehend? Why is the Little Sisters group unwilling to sign a form that says why it refuses to pay for contraception?
 
Somerville said:
Why is the Little Sisters group unwilling to sign a form that says why it refuses to pay for contraception?
Click to expand...

Because that form requires the insurer to provide that which the Little Sisters do not have to provide.

Which was in the bill the whole time, and there on purpose as a go around.
 
scatt said:
Because that form requires the insurer to provide that which the Little Sisters do not have to provide.

Which was in the bill the whole time, and there on purpose as a go around.
Click to expand...


WRONG! as you have been in almost every reply in which you make a statement, not those in which your 'answer' is a question.
 
Even your horrible, joke of a citation that is every ThinkProgress link ever, admits it. It was a go around for religious protections. You do not want to offer abortion medicines/procedures and contraception? Okay, the law requiring you to get an insurer then requires your insurer to cover it.
 
scatt said:
Even your horrible, joke of a citation that is every ThinkProgress link ever, admits it. It was a go around for religious protections. You do not want to offer abortion medicines/procedures and contraception? Okay, the law requiring you to get an insurer then requires your insurer to cover it.
Click to expand...


One might think that some replies are meant more as attempts to instigate personal attacks in hopes of having opponents suspended from the forum. I'm sure that is not your intention.


from post #83
4) As a religiously-based corporation, the insurer is not required to provide coverage of contraceptive services
Click to expand...
 
It was smart of you to stop your claim about the topic. Here is my response, that you overlooked because you think, ThinkProgress can actually be used as a citation ever.

It was a go around for religious protections. You do not want to offer abortion medicines/procedures and contraception? Okay, the law requiring you to get an insurer then requires your insurer to cover it.
 
Phil E Buster said:
And religious conservatives are worried about the progressive liberals advancing the reach of Sharia Law and Muslim doctrine? Oy vey!
Click to expand...

iguanaman said:
And I thought the claims of Sharia Law making inroads in America were all just a hoax. This law is unconstitutional and will never stand up in court.
Click to expand...

Dammit, you guys beat me to it. :lol:
 
Jerry said:
Why would gays want to belong to an organisation which thought they were bad people? You don't see many blacks signing up for the KKK. I just don't get. Gays, stop beating this dead horse. It's their tree house they can hang a "no X allowed" sign if they want. Don't like it, don't go there, I know I won't and I'm not gay. No problem.
Click to expand...

Often because they are the only organizations that are within their area and they cannot move elsewhere.
 
CriticalThought said:
Often because they are the only organizations that are within their area and they cannot move elsewhere.
Click to expand...

As if you have a "right" to certain private businesses existing.
 
scatt said:
But you do, because you support state intervention into marriage.
Click to expand...

The state has already intervened into marriage. And since it is not going to get out, it needs to play fair.
 
CriticalThought said:
The state has already intervened into marriage. And since it is not going to get out, it needs to play fair.
Click to expand...

Fair is of course subjective. And you do not want fair, you want the word marriage.
 
CriticalThought said:
Often because they are the only organizations that are within their area and they cannot move elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Well, then that's just tuff. I'm all for the state giving marriage, but private organisations should remain free to decline if they want. It's not like gays are the only people being discriminated against by these churches. Most Lutheran churches have legally-enforceable bi-laws specifically barring women from holding positions of authority. I don't like that, so I don't attend. No problem.
 
Last edited:
scatt said:
But you do, because you support state intervention into marriage.
Click to expand...
Yes.

scatt said:
Fair is of course subjective. And you do not want fair, you want the word marriage.
Click to expand...
So? It's not like I'll have to remarry my X if gays can marry. We can give gays 'marriage' and I'll still be on the other side of the country from that bitch in the morning. No problems.
 
scatt said:
Fair is of course subjective. And you do not want fair, you want the word marriage.
Click to expand...

The word is semantics. It is what it represents that matters.

It seems the people who really undermine marriage are those who are more worried about language and their ability to exclude than the integrity of the actual union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom