Obama Admin Argues Gov. Can Violate Religious Beliefs

This article is from breitbart.com

Here is a quote from the article

Attorneys for the Obama administration have argued, first, that the government can make a requirement that violates religious beliefs, and, second, that a private company cannot reflect the religious faith of its owners.

And here is a quote from the government cited in the article

Weingartz Supply Company and Mr. Weingartz’s challenge rests largely on the theory that a self-described secular corporation established to sell outdoor power equipment can claim to exercise religion and thereby avoid the reach of laws designed to regulate commercial activity. This cannot be.

… Weingartz Supply Company is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular entity by definition does not exercise religion…

www.breitbart.com / big governement

And so it begings.

Nanny state government is now dictating what [color=gold] is and [color=gold] is not an act of religion while simultaneously cloaking itself in the aura of constitutional authority.

I've been following this for a while,
and I'm forced to ask.

Why is the secular federal government willing to destroy
sucessful businesses just to force all America to pay for Abortions.

Do they hate women that much?


Mike Grouchy

In case the reader missed it,
Here is a previous ATS article.

Hobby Lobby could face 1.3 Million in fines : Per DAY!


Mike Grouchy

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
This article is from breitbart.com

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
I've been following this for a while.

For starters, If you're spending your time "following" anything on "Breitbart.Com," you should have no expectations whatsoever of attaining a reasonable understanding of the issue at hand, at least not from that source. Personally, I have more respect for used T.P. than I do for any opinion being propagated by Breitbart.Com

With respect to the opinion being put forth by the attorneys representing the Obama administration, the answer is really quite simple. They're absolutely correct!

IMO, to approach the situation any other way would only serve to open the door for the biggest corporate tax/regulation loophole in American history.

If corporations/businesses are allowed to declare that they are "religious entities" for the purpose of exempting themselves from regulation/taxation, then we may as well concede that those pesky rules & taxes and are just for the little people. If corporations are allowed to declare immunity from taxes & regulations via their newfound religious designations, it would surely decimate the revenue side of the federal budget and open the door to unfettered pollution as well.

"I'm a church, he's a church, they're a church, wouldn't you like to be a church too?" Yeah Right!

Well done, destroying breitbart.com.

I've been following the HHS Mandate Lawsuits for a while.
Not the site of the article itself.

Contraception is availiable [color=gold] everywhere.

The only dangerous precedent here
is the sleeping public letting the Fed tell them what is and is not a religion.


Mike Grouchy

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Well done, destroying breitbart.com.

Breitbart.com destroys itself via their constant string of twisted propaganda articles and they do quite an excellent job of it, completely without my help.

They'll destroy your own credibility here on ATS as well if you continue to utilize them as a source for information. If you don't believe me than just keep using them, it's your choice.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Contraception is availiable [color=gold] everywhere.

The only dangerous precedent here
is the sleeping public letting the Fed tell them what is and is not a religion.

Mike Grouchy

Yes, contraception is indeed available everywhere and it's being provided by insurance companies across this nation at no cost to the provider. In other words, birth control is "cost neutral" to the insurance company in that they save as much money, not paying for birth related expenses, as they spend providing the birth control.

So, if it's not really about cost, then what? Sounds to me like it's about allowing an employer to impose his personal religious beliefs into the lives of his employees, whether they want them or not. So who's telling who what?

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
This article is from breitbart.com

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
I've been following this for a while.

For starters, If you're spending your time "following" anything on "Breitbart.Com," you should have no expectations whatsoever of attaining a reasonable understanding of the issue at hand, at least not from that source. Personally, I have more respect for used T.P. than I do for any opinion being propagated by Breitbart.Com

With respect to the opinion being put forth by the attorneys representing the Obama administration, the answer is really quite simple. They're absolutely correct!

IMO, to approach the situation any other way would only serve to open the door for the biggest corporate tax/regulation loophole in American history.

If corporations/businesses are allowed to declare that they are "religious entities" for the purpose of exempting themselves from regulation/taxation, then we may as well concede that those pesky rules & taxes and are just for the little people. If corporations are allowed to declare immunity from taxes & regulations via their newfound religious designations, it would surely decimate the revenue side of the federal budget and open the door to unfettered pollution as well.

"I'm a church, he's a church, they're a church, wouldn't you like to be a church too?" Yeah Right!

edit on 19-9-2012 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

Media Matters a better source for you? How about HuffPost or Politico? Is Jesse Jackson a Rev that's entitled to religious tax status? How about that felon of a liar Al Sharpton? How about Obama's church and the Rev. Wright? Should that church have special tax status for preaching political insurrection?

Originally posted by Bilk22

Media Matters a better source for you? How about HuffPost or Politico? Is Jesse Jackson a Rev that's entitled to religious tax status? How about that felon of a liar Al Sharpton? How about Obama's church and the Rev. Wright? Should that church have special tax status for preaching political insurrection?

Sorry, I must have missed something. Have any of these organizations that you listed here asked for a religious designation and/or exemption to providing birth control services to their employees?

All the talk about govt not controlling the religious beliefs of what private companies SAY is bull.
This chicago councilman denied a chickfilet permit strictly based on what the owner SAID:

articles.chicagotribune.com...

Originally posted by Flatfish

Yes, contraception is indeed available everywhere and it's being provided by insurance companies across this nation at no cost to the provider. In other words, birth control is "cost neutral" to the insurance company in that they save as much money, not paying for birth related expenses, as they spend providing the birth control.

Actually,

The savings to the insurance company is $600,000
per woman they can prevent from having a child.

Additionally many people of faith would gladly have paid $6 a month
to [color=gold] not have contraception/abortion covered.

Why is the governement selling our unborn children to the Insurance companies bottom line.

They hate women,
that's why.

And to prove it they are rolling out Huge unpayable fines,
if people of faith don't start paying for other people's rubbers.

1.3 Million per day,
penalties for Hobby Lobby.
This is a position that you are trying to ... what's the word ... defend?


Mike Grouchy

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Additionally many people of faith would gladly have paid $6 a month
to [color=gold] not have contraception/abortion covered.

And just how many of those "faithful" people would be women? If I'm not mistaken, somewhere in the neighborhood of 98% of all women use birth control at one time or another in their lives. Sounds like "faithful" men attempting to control their women to me.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Why is the governement selling our unborn children to the Insurance companies bottom line.

They're not, plain & simple. Furthermore, Breitbart and you saying they are doesn't make it so either.

What they're doing is; They're attempting to insure that all women have equal access to healthcare regardless of who they may be employed by. I know, it sounds way too fair right?

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
They hate women,
that's why.

And to prove it they are rolling out Huge unpayable fines,
if people of faith don't start paying for other people's rubbers.

1.3 Million per day,
penalties for Hobby Lobby.
This is a position that you are trying to ... what's the word ... defend?

Yep! And they don't "have" to pay a single dime in fines either, they may "choose" to, but they don't have to. All they have to do is to provide healthcare to their female employees without injecting their own personal religious beliefs into the mix. See how easy that is?

You must get your information from TV,
cause these specious arguments lack knowledge.

And if your playing to some imaginary audience
you have me at a disadvantage, as I do not watch the idiot box.

Let's review the facts.

1.3 Million in Fines a day for having a belief against contraception
contraception already availiable everywhere
The government enforcing this against people of faith.
Abortion saves the insurance company lots of money, in the long term

I'm sorry,
In my study of reality
I've lost track of which imaginary audience you were playing too.

Cause it sure isn't women.


>.>



I hate to be the one to tell you,
but in the final analysis you are spin doctoring for the insurance companies.


Mike Grouchy

If we're going to use facts, let's a least agree to get them straight.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

1.3 Million in Fines a day for having a belief against contraception

Not for having a belief, for imposing your beliefs on your employees.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
contraception already availiable everywhere

This really has no bearing on the issue either way.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

The government enforcing this against people of faith.

Actually, it's the government protecting women from people of faith.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Abortion saves the insurance company lots of money, in the long term

If you have any documentation for this claim, I'd sure like to see it.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
I hate to be the one to tell you,
but in the final analysis you are spin doctoring for the insurance companies.

Hardly, I'm for a "Medicare For All," not-for-profit system. Of course, those who really are in the pockets of the health insurance industry, namely the GOP, wouldn't let my representatives have a seat at the table. Remember?

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Abortion saves the insurance company lots of money, in the long term

If you have any documentation for this claim, I'd sure like to see it.

Here is the HHS secretary quote.

"adding contraception and having some employees take advantage of that, lowers the overal cost of the Health plan"

- [color=gold] Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Kathleen Sebelius

Here is the video link to her saying it.

www.pbs.org / newshour / june 12 / contraception
12:02 running time
quote is at timestop 8:45 - 9:53


Mike Grouchy

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by

mikegrouchy
I hate to be the one to tell you,
but in the final analysis you are spin

doctoring for the insurance companies.

Hardly, I'm for a [color=gold] "Medicare For All," not-for-profit system.
Of course, those who really are in the pockets of the health insurance industry,
namely the GOP, wouldn't let my representatives have a seat at the table.
Remember?

Holy #.

You totally got me here.

/no sarcasm at all

I agree with you.


I'm for "Medicare For All" as well.


I would call it "Care for all" and include
stamps as well, but I figure a rich person
is gonna spend their ten bucks a day on
coffee, and a poor person will save it up
and stock the freezer. But I don't
understand why only some people get food
stamps, but other Americans don't.

It costs more to selectively administrate
the program, than actually reaches the
recipients.

In other words it would be cheaper to give
it to all Americans. Than to continue
with the massive overhead we have.


In fact I think that ALL the trouble and
tension over health/welfare/and food stamps
is in the selective administration of them.

I never understood why they don't just give
it to everyone. In the corporate and
military worlds, for food, it was called
per-diem. Which meant,
your-daily-allotment-of-food.


If it's good enough for the Military, and
the Corporate world ...

In fact, even Mc D's, AT&T, and the Mouse,
should get their $10.00 a day.


The incentive to advance
will still remain,
and we will only loose all the public
resentment.


As a Catholic I have no problem with
individual responsibility.

It's when
the insurance companies
found a way to profit from loss of life
that I started investigating this HHS Mandate.
and started reporting the facts,
where I found them.





It's been good talking with you.


Mike Grouchy