[quote]Bismark wrote:
Are you against contraceptives in general, or just subsidized BC? It seems that a strict reading of the catechism is becoming increasingly rarer. I mean, a lot of catholic families put their daughters on BC because of the severity of their periods. I contend that it is in the national interest for BC to be readily available and encouraged.[/quote]
Doesn’t seem like you have read the catechism very strictly either. The Catholic Church has never condemned hormonal medication for legitimate medical purposes, provided there is no contraceptive intent.
I’m trying to get my facts straight on this case. Apparently this decision was only for birth control and does not apply to things like blood transfusions. What is their basis for that distinction and how will it hold up in court if challenged by jehovah witnesses?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I’m trying to get my facts straight on this case. Apparently this decision was only for birth control and does not apply to things like blood transfusions. What is their basis for that distinction and how will it hold up in court if challenged by jehovah witnesses?[/quote]
At this point my question is this, should the JW not be able to make his living because he sticks to his beliefs? Should a racist who refuses to comply still be able to put food on his family’s table?
Perhaps Obama’s over-reach (everyone will have to provide this coverage–instead of making sure exemptions were built) has exposed that the Federal Government really has no business trying to lock people out of earning their living. But, maybe everything else would have went unquestioned if orders of Nuns, Catholic TV Networks, Mennonite businesses, etc., would have been allowed to simply continue on continuing on. So maybe, if people really are worried about the stuff above taking place because of this ruling, they should be asking, “Obama, why did you have to go for broke? Why did you have to go all or nothing? Why wasn’t an exemption built in, therefore, avoiding court rulings that may or may not be used on other challenges?”
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I’m trying to get my facts straight on this case. Apparently this decision was only for birth control and does not apply to things like blood transfusions. What is their basis for that distinction and how will it hold up in court if challenged by jehovah witnesses?[/quote]
A good place to start answering your question would be:
Was this blood transfusion slippery slope a major issue before this ruling?
Are people forced to work for JW companies?
Are people forced to use the insurance provided by their employer?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I’m trying to get my facts straight on this case. Apparently this decision was only for birth control and does not apply to things like blood transfusions. What is their basis for that distinction and how will it hold up in court if challenged by jehovah witnesses?[/quote]
A good place to start answering your question would be:
Was this blood transfusion slippery slope a major issue before this ruling?
Are people forced to work for JW companies?
Are people forced to use the insurance provided by their employer?
[/quote]
None of that matters. I was simply asking about this which I have seen in various articles (worded differently) but none explain further.
“Monday’s opinion was written narrowly so as only to apply to the contraception mandate, not to religious employers who object to other medical services, like blood transfusions or vaccines.”
Is the above false? If not what is the basis for it being written narrowly?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I’m trying to get my facts straight on this case. Apparently this decision was only for birth control and does not apply to things like blood transfusions. What is their basis for that distinction and how will it hold up in court if challenged by jehovah witnesses?[/quote]
A good place to start answering your question would be:
Was this blood transfusion slippery slope a major issue before this ruling?
Are people forced to work for JW companies?
Are people forced to use the insurance provided by their employer?
[/quote]
None of that matters. I was simply asking about this which I have seen in various articles (worded differently) but none explain further.
“Monday’s opinion was written narrowly so as only to apply to the contraception mandate, not to religious employers who object to other medical services, like blood transfusions or vaccines.”
Is the above false? If not what is the basis for it being written narrowly?[/quote]
The basis is that they know the authority to make any of these demands/mandates is a mirage. And now, seeing that it has gone too far, (EWTN is fighting for exemption for cripes-sake!), they have to make questionable rulings. The entire enterprise is built on sand.
The real question is, “How did the federal government end up setting terms between two consenting adults (employer and potential employee) in a voluntary exchange?” The inevitable result, the logical end, is that the State must crush religion (whose freedom of expression it was actually supposed to safeguard) in order to carry out its new mission as Nanny. That, or it is stuck making rulings that seem, well, slippery. It’s arbitrary, but I celebrate the small victory.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The real question is, “How did the federal government end up setting terms between two consenting adults (employer and potential employee) in a voluntary exchange?” The inevitable result, the logical end, is that the State must crush religion (whose freedom of expression it was actually supposed to safeguard) in order to carry out its new mission as Nanny. That, or it is stuck making rulings that seem, well, slippery. It’s arbitrary, but I celebrate the small victory.[/quote]
The real outcome is soon the state will supplement the “birth control” now if insurance does not cover it and speed up the eventual single payer system
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
I would bet those corporations would find a way to justify to the Corporation God how this is good , so the Corporation does not burn in Corporation Hell
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
I would bet those corporations would find a way to justify to the Corporation God how this is good , so the Corporation does not burn in Corporation Hell [/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Still a freedom even if you don’t benefit from it, isn’t that better than nothing?[/quote]
Freedom to do what ? to who ? tightly held corporations to inconvenience us ?
that is almost as good as money = free speech
[/quote]
So, let’s imagine corporations are banned tomorrow. Even the tightly held ones. All business is individually held. Now the mandate has even more problems.
Or, the government says religious people can participate in tightly-held or whatever enterprises. But they must run them according to the State’s judgements on various religious beliefs and practices. So now the corporation is something to be competed against by privately/singularly headed businesses. A tool they don’t get to use unless they sign on to the State’s agenda. In short, punishment or reward depending on if one does or doesn’t sign onto the State ‘religion.’
If your bedroom is your business, surely their business is their business.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The real question is, “How did the federal government end up setting terms between two consenting adults (employer and potential employee) in a voluntary exchange?” The inevitable result, the logical end, is that the State must crush religion (whose freedom of expression it was actually supposed to safeguard) in order to carry out its new mission as Nanny. That, or it is stuck making rulings that seem, well, slippery. It’s arbitrary, but I celebrate the small victory.[/quote]
The real outcome is soon the state will supplement the “birth control” now if insurance does not cover it and speed up the eventual single payer system[/quote]
Of course.
Now think about just how powerful BC is. It can threaten freedom of religion, association, your choices (in a voluntary exchange) as the employer and employee, and help shuttle in the inevitable single-payer. I reckon it’ll happen in my lifetime. And I’ll say to noone and everyone in particular, “Told ya so!”
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
I would bet those corporations would find a way to justify to the Corporation God how this is good , so the Corporation does not burn in Corporation Hell [/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
[/quote]
What’s the difference between forcing companies to pay for BC insurance coverage and forcing companies to raise pay [b]specifically so employees can pay for it on their own[b/]?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Still a freedom even if you don’t benefit from it, isn’t that better than nothing?[/quote]
Freedom to do what ? to who ? tightly held corporations to inconvenience us ?
that is almost as good as money = free speech
[/quote]
So, let’s imagine corporations are banned tomorrow. Even the tightly held ones. All business is individually held. Now the mandate has even more problems.
Or, the government says religious people can participate in tightly-held or whatever enterprises. But they must run them according to the State’s judgements on various religious beliefs and practices. So now the corporation is something to be competed against by privately/singularly headed businesses. A tool they don’t get to use unless they sign on to the State’s agenda. In short, punishment or reward depending on if one does or doesn’t sign onto the State ‘religion.’
If your bedroom is your business, surely their business is their business.
[/quote]
I know it is six minutes but it says it so well . The ruling is rediculous allowing people to opt out because it is morally objectionable
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .
I would bet those corporations would find a way to justify to the Corporation God how this is good , so the Corporation does not burn in Corporation Hell [/quote]
