Any Other Dems Slightly Scared Now?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about Catholics - who most certainly are a minority in America? Is their faith not under attack with Obamacare forcing them to purchase contraception?

Are we SERIOUSLY getting in this s*** again... whether or not you're a religious institution, if you're a secular employer, yes you should be obliged to cover all employees.

I wasn't thrilled that Obama backed down on that one (which he did BTW)... but it was a workable compromise and the only people who kept on with it... basically are people who need to find things to offended by and claim victim status.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why doesn't Obama give the Catholic church a waiver, like they requested?

[Oakvale]

Quoting this because you apparently all missed it -

People: you're trying to reason with someone who has repeatedly claimed that Obama is a Muslim. He's either a troll of the first degree or a delusional idiot. Either way...

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The constitution protects freedom of conscience and religion. Those who are Catholic should not be forced to pay for health care that includes contraception and abortion. Would you want to be paying for health insurance that included coverage for Exodus?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Quoting this because you apparently all missed it -

People: you're trying to reason with someone who has repeatedly claimed that Obama is a Muslim. He's either a troll of the first degree or a delusional idiot. Either way...

I know I know... but when someone spouts pure s*** it's hard to not respond...

[Wisconsin+17]

Hey Sibboleth, you never answered my question - do you agree with Opebo that only white people can be racist?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The constitution protects freedom of conscience and religion. Those who are Catholic should not be forced to pay for health care that includes contraception and abortion. Would you want to be paying for health insurance that included coverage for Exodus?

You have your own conscience and freedom of religion... but that doesn't exclude you from satisfying the legal requirements of being a secular employer.

In the end, Obama backed down, and took the responsibility off the religious-backed institutions/businesses who had problems with it...

This is only an issue because your baseless conspiracies theories remain exactly that, baseless and those you think have merit, are only because you understand so little.

[Averroës Nix]

[Oakvale]

[J. J.]

Well, in terms of job creation, Obama is making him look like a genius. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, in terms of job creation, Obama is making him look like a genius. 

Objectively, the job losses of Obama's first year in office (ie, nearly all of them) can only be attributed to Bush.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The constitution is the higher law. We have an obligation to defy laws that are unconstitutional.

Would you have dragged a slave who escaped from his plantation back to his plantation, because that's what the fugitive slave law required?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's an issue because I'm a Catholic school teacher. And yes, I'm going to defy the mandate.

[Averroës Nix]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The constitution is the higher law. We have an obligation to defy laws that are unconstitutional.

Would you have dragged a slave who escaped from his plantation back to his plantation, because that's what the fugitive slave law required?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's an issue because I'm a Catholic school teacher. And yes, I'm going to defy the mandate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You are perfectly free to follow your religious conscience... by resigning from your job.

If you want to keep it, do what you are supposed to.

[J. J.]

Well, in terms of job creation, Obama is making him look like a genius. 

Objectively, the job losses of Obama's first year in office (ie, nearly all of them) can only be attributed to Bush.

Objectively, they got substantially better under the first four years GWB:  http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, in terms of job creation, Obama is making him look like a genius. 

Objectively, the job losses of Obama's first year in office (ie, nearly all of them) can only be attributed to Bush.

Objectively, they got substantially better under the first four years GWB:  http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

The first four years, sure.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My contract - signed before Obamacare was passed - explicitly states that I am to follow the doctrines of the Catholic church and that my conduct must be in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

Obamacare requires me to fund abortion and contraception - ergo, I cannot participate in Obamacare or any health insurance scheme which provides funding for either of these.

My hands are tied - I have to follow the agreement already signed and I'm not going to violate my employment contract just because Obama says so. Obama can go pound sand.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why doesn't Obama give the Catholic church a waiver, like they requested?

Um, he has.

1. In the original law, Obama said churches with a moral objection to pharmacological birth control would not be required to offer that coverage to employees. That included the Catholic church.

But Obama went further than that.

2. In January 2012, he said nonprofit religious-affiliated organizations not offering contraception and sterilization coverage in their health plans would have an extra year to comply.

3. In February 2012 he nonprofit church-affiliated entities would not have to provide contraception in their health plans, but female employees wanting coverage could obtain it directly from the insurance companies.

What the bishops want is for the birth control coverage provision to be excluded from health plans covered by places such as sporting goods stores or construction owners just because the owner happens to be Catholic. The problem with that is, if you accept that principle, then it becomes potentially immoral to pass any law forbidding the exercise of a religious practice. What if a secular school whose owner happened to be Christian tried to use I Timothy "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." to justify hiring discrimination against women teachers? Would that be allowed in a secular school, or should it only be allowed within churches?

Obama's position is actually the conservative one here, it rests on principles long established governing the boundary between civil law and religious practice in America. Within these boundaries it fully cedes to the Catholic church all possible freedoms on this issue.

[Beet]

And for instance, I Ephesians 5:22-24 could be used to argue that it's unconstitutional to ban marital rape. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."

There has to be a compromise between religious practice and civil values. Within the church and religious organizations, the maximal possible freedom should be given for practice, but we can't make an exception to every law such that people who claim religion don't have to follow it.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama has said many things, that did not turn out to be true. This is one of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How magnaminous. Giving us an extra year in order to retain our civil rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why am I, a teacher, being required to pay for contraception and abortion? I should be protected as should all Catholics irrespective of our occupation from being forced to pay for this. Our rights do not vanish just because Obama wishes that they would. We have a right to freedom of conscience and religion, and that includes the right to practice our religion without infringement from the federal government.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is consistant with conscience rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it is in accordance to the protection of freedom of conscience and religion preserved in the constitution of the United States.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, you are aware that Obama has attempted to bar the Church from choosing their own priests? He got slapped down, hard, by the Supreme Court 12-0 over this.

It's not just about the distinction between what goes on inside the church and outside the church. This is about freedom of conscience.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense, it's merely the first step to abolish effective practice of Catholicism within the United States. Obama has already tried to take control of the Church via appointing his own ministers (similar to what has been tried in China, and in England and many other countries in the past).

The United States was founded on the principle that Congress should not favor one religion over another and that religious practice was protected in the US - where it was not free elsewhere. In England at the time, the Catholic could not vote, and could not effectively hold public office, while in America they were free to do both.

Obama's edict represents a profound step backwards, farther back than America has ever travelled.

As Justice Roberts said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Church has every right to choose their own servants, not the State, and not Obama.

Going on:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can read the full opinion here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

Unanimous rejection of Obama's law.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, you are aware that Obama has attempted to bar the Church from choosing their own priests? He got slapped down, hard, by the Supreme Court 13-0 over this.

...what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense, it's merely the first step to abolish effective practice of Catholicism within the United States. Obama has already tried to take control of the Church via appointing his own ministers (similar to what has been tried in China, and in England and many other countries in the past). [/quote]

...what?

[afleitch]

I understand religious freedom and religious conscience. But does it really have to trump everything? Why should someone be denied coverage because of their providers 'religious objections'?

[Oakvale]

Quoting this because you apparently all missed it -

People: you're trying to reason with someone who has repeatedly claimed that Obama is a Muslim. He's either a troll of the first degree or a delusional idiot. Either way...

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then they are free to seek employment with an employer who does provide these services. That's how the free market works. If an employer wants to provide full contraceptive services to all their employees - I have no problem with that. But an employer should also have the option to provide no contraceptive services too.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then they are free to seek employment with an employer who does provide these services. That's how the free market works. If an employer wants to provide full contraceptive services to all their employees - I have no problem with that. But an employer should also have the option to provide no contraceptive services too.

So if exemptions for religious 'conscience' are okay, why not other forms of 'conscience.' What if a white man consciouslly objects to mixing of the races? Should he be free to refuse to provide services to people as a result? That's the question I was asking; why does religious conscience trump everything else?