It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mastahunta
Compromise is a thing Liberals and people who believe in representative government practice.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
I suggest you go back and read the entire thread. You will see that the person I was responding to did indeed want to decide what the Catholic Church believes and they did indeed want to take away their First Amendment rights to act on those beliefs.
For reference for those who want to know what Hyperbole is - Hyperbole definition
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There's nothing the gov't is doing to make Catholics take, provide or pay for birth control.
Your hyperbole is an obvious and intentional exaggeration.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by mastahunta
Compromise is a thing Liberals and people who believe in representative government practice.
What Obama did does not qualify as 'compromise'. Again ... he tried to pull something that was unconstitutional. Even Joe Biden says they screwed it up. Obama's backpeddling and being forced to work within the Constitution is not a 'compromise'. It's just his unconstitutional agenda getting shot down. To call it 'compromise' is just a sugar coating spin.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There's nothing the gov't is doing to make Catholics take, provide or pay for birth control.
Again .. read the thread. The posters (2 of them) were saying that they wanted it that way.
THAT is what we were discussing.
I agree with BH, you are being a drama queen here.
am I the government??? I have read in the past several days three posters suggesting that
Obama be executed for one reason or another. Does that mean the GOP is trying execute Obama?
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Again .. read the thread.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
The posters (2 of them) were saying that they wanted it that way.
Originally posted by nenothtu
But then there's that pesky First Amendment that guarantees religious freedom... which can often be found being exercised by a ... church! The Constitution is not being "extended" to cover the church, that coverage is BUILT IN to it.
The individual's rights are not being abrogated - they have other recourse to exercise them that violating the rights of another in favor of theirs. Their rights do not extend to forcing someone else to pay for their recreational activities.
No, conservative ideology insists that the individual pay his own way. No organization is "deciding for" individuals in this case, they are only saying what they will not pay for - the individual is still free to get it by another route.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by nenothtu
This isn't about play, this is about medical need.
Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by nenothtu
But then there's that pesky First Amendment that guarantees religious freedom... which can often be found being exercised by a ... church! The Constitution is not being "extended" to cover the church, that coverage is BUILT IN to it.
But, I often see the argument that individual rights are more important and that corporations should be second, if at all. I'm sure it being "BUILT IN" for institutions, corporations, organizations, etc. is subject to interpretation.
But the employer also has the right to stop offering healthcare coverage and just pay the employee the corresponding amount so that she can take care of it herself.
No, conservative ideology insists that the individual pay his own way. No organization is "deciding for" individuals in this case, they are only saying what they will not pay for - the individual is still free to get it by another route.
Sure they are, when they decide to offer healthcare as part of payment and what coverage consists of instead of letting the employee take care of it themselves. How is this consistent with "individuals paying their own way"?
Originally posted by nenothtu
It is plain English. Any average American 8th grader can read and understand it, so no, it's not open to "interpretation".
What a useless idea. If she's not making enough to cover her bills, she should look into that, rather than expecting someone to cover her ass one way or the other. Raises are based on merit and work done, not "medical needs". An increase in wages to "cover it" should properly be accompanied by an increase in work load to justify the raise.
No, they're not. If I don't like what a job offers, I don't take that job. No one decides for me that I have to just accept what's offered. I go down the road if I don't like it. No one forces me.
You must not understand the English phrase "paying your own way", or you wouldn't be asking why expecting someone else to pay it is not consistent with "paying your own way".