The Attorney General just admitted that the Federal Government commited a Hate Crime

a reply to: Sremmos80

Not sure what you are arguing...

Second

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Im not saying they are exempt... They got an amendment for them and their staff... Purely based on the increased cost for them... And it infuriated me.

Lots of folks don't know how to pay for it, yet over paid members in Congress and their staff get federal help...

It's a total crock... Republican or Democrat it doesn't matter they are all part of the problem.. The only thing I really hang on the Democrats is they let the Lobbyists write the law... Hence no single payer no price controls... Once those went out it became a bloated mess that would only screw people in the long run.

Either way it's late I'm out..

a reply to: Irishhaf

For many years, Congress has acted in their own best interest, making laws that apply only to them, their staff and their family, or exempting themselves from laws the rest of us have to follow. I share your resentment.

But that has nothing to do with the issue of the nuns.

The only thing I really hang on the Democrats is they let the Lobbyists write the law...

And Republicans don't? Sorry, that's equally the fault of both parties in Congress. Trying to hang anything on one party or another just shows bias. They're both scum. There are VERY FEW people in Congress who give a damn about the people of this country.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Part of employing people is these things called "terms and conditions of employment", many of which are laid down in law.

"Forcing" "nuns" to pay for their employees health insurance that includes birth control is not extortion, doesn't' stop the nus from exercising their religion, and is no more unreasonable than allowing employees to pay for their own birth control out of wages and salaries - which would also be paid "by the nuns".

Or do you think that employers should be allowed to prohibit the spending of wages and salaries on birth control because they have a religious objection to using it themselves too??

It's a non-argument.

It's a very good argument.

Let's take the same principle and look at it in another scenario. I'll use a big glaring example because I can't be bothered with subtlety at the moment.

Imagine you know someone who owes you money, so you and a friend decide to go to their house to "encourage" them to repay you. Your friend says "You should take a gun and shoot them if they don't pay up." You refuse, saying "I'm not prepared to shoot anybody, sorry, but you can bring a gun and do it if you like." You visit the person, they refuse to pay, so your friend shoots them.

In many jurisidictions, you would both be guilty. Saying "I won't do it, so you can do it" doesn't absolve you, because you are still complicit.

That is the same principle in this case. The nuns are saying that signing the paperwork is the equivalent of saying "I won't, but you can", which makes them complicit.

Why does it matter if the employee can still spend the money on contraceptives? Because there is choice. Whether the money is paid by the nuns or the government, that payment is still identified as being for contraception. There is no element of choice. Whoever pays it, the nuns still feel complicit in the provision of funding specifically for contraception.

Once the money is paid to the employee, however, that employee is free to choose how it is spent. It is not specifically for contraception.

So it is absolutely not a non-argument. It's actually a very difficult position for the nuns and I sympathise greatly. I don't have any objections whatsoever to contraception but I appreciate that they do, and that it is part of a much wider established theological approach not just a random personal dislike.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Violater1

because then others will make sure that their employees have coverage.

Why do people care so much about other peoples birth control...

They don't

But some want to FORCE others to PAY for THEIR birth control!
Use YOUR OWN money!

This is why i can't understand you Americans sometimes...expecting anyone other than themselves to pay for their own contraception is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is expecting employers to pay for it. I mean, what the hell has a persons desire to not get pregnant got to do with an employer?

Here's an idea...they could always just not have sex? It's not like burying the sausage is compulsory or anything!

New Information

Even if the Sisters signed that form, their employees still can't get contraception coverage from the insurance company, because they operate under a "church plan".

The nuns sued for NO REASON!

The nuns' insurance is issued by the Christian Brothers and, as such, is considered a "church plan" which is not required to provide birth control coverage. The court decision states that "it is clear Christian Brothers need not, and will not, provide contraceptive coverage if the Little Sisters opt out of the Mandate." The nuns are "seeking legal relief from a non-existent problem."

Source 1

As it turns out, the group operates under a “church plan,” a belatedly recognized category that means Little Sisters employees can’t get contraception coverage directly from the organization’s insurance company, as is the case for employees of most exempted nonprofits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). So the Little Sisters are fighting against signing a form that, even if signed, wouldn’t lead to contraception coverage for its employees anyway.

Source 2

Here's the Form All it does is certifies that the organization has religious objections. It does not "allow" or "encourage" the insurance company to provide contraception at all.

I certify that, on account of religious objections,the organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization holds itself out as a religious organization.

I declare that I have made this certification, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct. I also declare that this certification is complete.

Surely the Little Sisters have read and understand this ruling... or their lawyers have... so why are they fighting it and taking it to the Supreme Court? It seems to me it's a simple case of throwing their religious weight around. If their only objection was paying for contraception, OR permitting someone else to pay it, why don't they sign the innocuous form, which ONLY states their religious objection, and move on, knowing that Christian Brothers will not provide contraceptive coverage?

What are these innocent Little Sisters up to?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

When it was written tge dems had a super majority did they not... That pretty much made the republicans a non issue.

I have no doubt some republicans pushed some junk into this pig... But since dems had at worst a majority they bear the Lions share of the blame.

I agree they both suck, but it's disingenuous to say they hold equal blame in this, when 1 party held all the cards when this law was written and passed, then signed into law.

Like it love it, hate it... This law belongs to the Democrats.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Mainly that you said only democrats have thier own special rules.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Part of employing people is these things called "terms and conditions of employment", many of which are laid down in law.

"Forcing" "nuns" to pay for their employees health insurance that includes birth control is not extortion, doesn't' stop the nus from exercising their religion, and is no more unreasonable than allowing employees to pay for their own birth control out of wages and salaries - which would also be paid "by the nuns".

Or do you think that employers should be allowed to prohibit the spending of wages and salaries on birth control because they have a religious objection to using it themselves too??

It's a non-argument.

It's a very good argument.

Let's take the same principle and look at it in another scenario. I'll use a big glaring example because I can't be bothered with subtlety at the moment.

Imagine you know someone who owes you money, so you and a friend decide to go to their house to "encourage" them to repay you. Your friend says "You should take a gun and shoot them if they don't pay up." You refuse, saying "I'm not prepared to shoot anybody, sorry, but you can bring a gun and do it if you like." You visit the person, they refuse to pay, so your friend shoots them.

In many jurisidictions, you would both be guilty. Saying "I won't do it, so you can do it" doesn't absolve you, because you are still complicit.

That is the same principle in this case. The nuns are saying that signing the paperwork is the equivalent of saying "I won't, but you can", which makes them complicit.

Why does it matter if the employee can still spend the money on contraceptives? Because there is choice. Whether the money is paid by the nuns or the government, that payment is still identified as being for contraception. There is no element of choice. Whoever pays it, the nuns still feel complicit in the provision of funding specifically for contraception.

Once the money is paid to the employee, however, that employee is free to choose how it is spent. It is not specifically for contraception.

So it is absolutely not a non-argument. It's actually a very difficult position for the nuns and I sympathize greatly. I don't have any objections whatsoever to contraception but I appreciate that they do, and that it is part of a much wider established theological approach not just a random personal dislike.

Thank you! Exactly my point! Any sound minded,Constitutional loving, freedom respecting, and honorable, non-hating human being, would understand. This double standard that the A.G. is allowing is despicable in the least.

Trools!!! Stop with the baby killing agenda. I get, You hate people, and think it's OK to kill humans in the womb.
My Opinion that I write about, is the A.G. can and will prosecute you, with their own discretion, but violate it's own laws! It's unjust! It's hypocritical and discriminatory!

a reply to: Violater1

By that logic, we are all complicit in bombing innocent civilians across that globe, by paying taxes!

This Little Sister protest is a non-issue. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act is clear on this. Little Sister are out of luck!

originally posted by: Violater1
This double standard that the A.G. is allowing is despicable in the least.

What double standard? Can't you answer that question?

And did you notice that the whole case is moot, because even if the nuns sign the form, their insurance company doesn't provide contraception anyway? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you just parroting talking points because you have no case?

What double standard?

originally posted by: Violater1
Trools!!! Stop with the baby killing agenda. I get, You hate people, and think it's OK to kill humans in the womb.

Ah! I see! Now that's some killer logic right there! Good argument! :rolleyes:

a reply to: Violater1

Please do some reading on what a contraceptive is and how it works.

A contraceptive does not kill a baby.

Your logic is flawed and you refuse to answer the question on how the AG is applying this law selectively.

It is so freedom loving to tell someone else what they can do with their body.
Very constitutional too..

a reply to: Sremmos80

Ahh....

Meant that whether or not congress has an exemption depends on if your a Democrat or not, my bad for not being clear.

Hey no hard feelings...i need to stay out of some discourse...I get a little too embroiled. Please accept my apologies. ..btw the stop was an accident. You are a good poster, we may disagree sometimes but I appreciate you mind.




eply to: Sremmos80

a reply to: BlueJacket

I would be more then willing to accept your apology, thanks for that

And ya no hard feelings at all.