A tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit

I like that. The court has said that you (the Obama Administration) promised. Now do it.

Telling the truth has always been the best way to go. Here we have a strike for honesty.

• Link
• Report this comment

Even the courts don’t trust what comes out of obozo’s mouth, how rich is this?

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry living up to a promise, gimme a break!

• Link
• Report this comment

Are they going to make him live up to the promise of

If you like your insurance, you can keep it.
ACA will bend the cost curve, bringing down the cost of healthcare.
ACA will insure that, 30 million uninsured people, have access to affordable health care.

• Link
• Report this comment

Poll: Obama approval highest since bin Laden killed

oh, that bites…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Religion and religious freedom is secondary to the concerns of society. Failing to provide contraceptives leads directly to the rise in abortions.

Which way do you people want it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Poll: Obama approval highest since bin Laden killed

Proving again, that PT Barnum knew a great deal about humanity.

• Link
• Report this comment

The federal government, and this administration in particular, is adamant about eliminating individual rights in favor of more power to the state. (Constitution? What Constitution?) Time to change the flag…put a big hammer and sickle instead of 50 stars in the corner.

• Link
• Report this comment

Failing to provide contraceptives leads directly to the rise in abortions.

Its priorities Finn, buy a condom, or get an abortion. What else will a dollar buy. Lets see, a Honey Bun or some safe sex?

• Link
• Report this comment

that will need protections in the future.

We have and use protections, Finn, that is why we are dwindling.

• Link
• Report this comment

This is what obozo and his robutts consider a “success” -

Still, taxpayers will almost certainly lose billions of dollars in the $49.5 billion GM bailout. If the government sold the rest of its stock at current prices, taxpayers would lose more than $13 billion.

• Link
• Report this comment

What happened to HIPAA? You know, the law to supposedly ensure our PRIVACY with regard to our own medical records? If you’re an employer of a certain size, you offer a health insurance plan to your employees. Yay, you.

What G–D— business is it of yours what happens between your employee and his or her doctor when he or she access the services of a physician and/or pharmacist with the health insurance that he or she pays into, and is part of his or her compensation package?

Seriously? “I don’t want my group insurance to cover hemorrhoid treatment, because those are the result of in immoral DIET, and I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s self-indulgent choice to eat sandwiches made with white bread instead of righteous, godly whole-wheat!” Geeebus.

How does sticking your hypocritical, meddling, self-righteous nose into somebody else’s doctor visits equate to FREEDOM? Jimminy H. Christmas on peppermint stick, how stupid would a person have to be to think this selective meddling = “religious freedom?” We know very well what this is about, and it’s got nothing to do with “freedom.”

• Link
• Report this comment

It comes down to a put up or shut up mandate from the courts? As he is oft to do, Obama was probably hoping the controversy would just go away. Now he’s forced to work for his pay….$400,000. Coincidence?

From downstairs:

Bingo, breckenridge.

I second that emotion.

Loopholes, tax credits are but another form of taxation on the unsuspecting middle-class. No party favors or favorites.

• Link
• Report this comment

@@
And you personify the clueless

Shirnty shirnt

• Link
• Report this comment

If I’m not mistaken there a couple medical conditions that BC pills can be prescribed, other than wanting free love…

• Link
• Report this comment

After the ACA was ruled to be in fact legal under the Constitution of these United States and my resounding EC beat down last month, you libs need to let’s us relish in this small victory….

Lord knows we need one about now…

Great article Kyle…. You get them libs

• Link
• Report this comment

Let’s see how long it takes John Q to go off the deep end this time. He’s already started with one foot over the cliff due to his name calling with no substance posts (one of Kyle’s rules already being broken).

Oh, and Rightwing Troll, to answer your question (yet again) regarding my employment status below, I retired on my own terms a few years ago, I work on rare days when I want to, and do not (yet) receive any government payback of what was taken from me by force (that will be about a decade or so from now). If you wish to know anything else that would prove you wrong about my personal life, I believe the term is – sod off.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well that didn’t take long . . . .

• Link
• Report this comment

Rightwing Troll @ 12:17,

You are correct; there are a number of medical conditions treated by this class of drugs. Imagine how mortified a modest, proper, God-fearing lady would (should) be if forced to explain her medical condition to her employer to justify treatment. Gracious! A lady does not discuss the condition of any of her lady parts with anyone but her doctor and close family. The very idea that she would have to produce “proof” that her need is “legitimate” and not the result of some sick desire for “free love…” is an insult to any and every woman.

Medical privacy is a right that should not be up for discussion, let alone egregious political exploitation!

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

The Catholic Church via some of the entities does in fact offer birth control coverage via their insurance?

Is this done exclusively where they have no choice in regards to state law?

• Link
• Report this comment

But Tuesday’s ruling is important because the Obama administration is now legally obligated to follow through with its promise to rewrite the rule to accommodate religious liberty.

Should read religious ignorance.

• Link
• Report this comment

“That’s irrelevant.” – We’ll agree to disagree on that one. I think it is VERY relevant.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I want to reassure Finn (11:50) that he need not worry about the “dwindling minority of angry white males”. No indeed.

The 2010 census showed that 72.4% of the USA population were in the white category. Now, about half of those are white men, some angry and many young and vigorous and all doing their part for the country. Same for women.

So don’t you worry, Finn. .All is well!!!

.

• Link
• Report this comment

If those colleges ONLY hired Catholics, then you and the universities would have a point.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

How about the Archdicese of NY, Marquette University and others that offered coverage before any state law mandated it?

Nope, you don’t see any discrepancies in that “payer conscience” diatribe…

• Link
• Report this comment

It is possible for those employees who don’t want to work for religious institutions to find employment elsewhere. If you don’t like the employers coverage then go somewhere else.

“But I shouldn’t have to do that. They should be forced to violate their conscience for me.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Peadawg,

If those employees don’t like the rules of the Catholic employer then they can go work somewhere else.

• Link
• Report this comment

Or are you all counting on the administration to try to weasel out of it by coming up with a rule change that represents a distinction without a difference?

Of course they are going to weasel out of it. Politicians are weasels by nature. It’s like a chronic liar that lies for no reason other than the thrill of lying…

• Link
• Report this comment

Matz @ 12:07 makes an excellent poinit, Kyle.

Where do you draw the line? If a business owner is Seventh Day Adventist, and a vegan because of his beliefs, should he be able to refuse to purchase health care for his employees’ heart attacks, since a vegetarian diet is better for the heart?

How about a Jehovah’s Witness, who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions? Should he be able to restrict his employees’ insurance coverage to exclude blood transfusions?

No, this isn’t about religious freedom – it’s simply a way for cons to toss out barriers for people who need health insurance.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If those employees don’t like the rules of the Catholic employer then they can go work somewhere else.” – Yup b/c getting a job just like that is sooooo easy these days.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

No you are being “ignorant” or “at least ignoring” the facts. You want to talk about “payer conscience” and “religious liberty”! Yet before any law mandate coverage the Catholic Church was already doing it in numerous places.

Had they only done it where mandated, which is not the case, your “religious liberty” stance might hold a little more water than a paper bag.

• Link
• Report this comment

No, this isn’t about religious freedom – it’s simply a way for cons to toss out barriers for people who need health insurance.

Birth control is integral to health insurance? Has anyone ever whipped out their insurance card to buy a box of rubbers?

• Link
• Report this comment

Same with Boehner.

He wants to close loopholes instead of raising marginal rates.

Why ? Because its easier to open them back up in a few years when nobody is looking.

• Link
• Report this comment

Birth control is integral to health insurance?

To poor single mothers it is.

BTW if you want to cut down on abortions.

Pass out condoms.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten

December 19th, 2012
1:02 pm
No, this isn’t about religious freedom – it’s simply a way for cons to toss out barriers for people who need health insurance.

Exactly. This is the sort of loophole they look for. Pretty soon every business in America will just ignore Obamacare because of Religious loopholes.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/16/hows-that-obamacare-waiver-workin-out-for-ya/

Might as well join the businesses and unions. Or would you like to deny them the opportunity to obtain a waiver based on your hatred of the concept of god and bigotry toward religious people and their rights?

• Link
• Report this comment

Cheesy,

How about people make wiser choices with their bodies instead of unprotected sex all the time?

Couldn’t do that because it puts responsibility of the individual. Sorry, I got it now.

• Link
• Report this comment

That whole Bill of Rights thing really sticks in the liberal craw doesn’t it? Religious freedom and gun freedom would be out the window if that document were written today.

Total nonsense.

By the way its right to bear arms.

Not guns.

Big difference.

That was written when at most you could get off 2 shots a minute and the British might be back soon.

Not even relevant to today

And its freedom FROM religion. Not freedom to oppress me with your silly superstitions about men in robes in the clouds.

• Link
• Report this comment

BenDaho

You are aware that the waivers are not never ending and when those orgs have to comply, they are not exempt from portions of the ACA as is being discussed here today right?

• Link
• Report this comment

I wonder if the press pays for it’s employees contraception? Kyle, does the AJC?

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. Wingfield: “This isn’t about any decisions made in the privacy of a doctor’s office. This is about the federal government telling a religious college or hospital that it has to pay for something in violation of the religious beliefs upon which it was built.”

Bullpatties. This is about legalizing gender-based discrimination in the workplace. A group health insurance policy that excludes a category of drugs used to treat illnesses specific to women — on some alleged “moral” basis — is setting a different standard of access to care for its male and female employees. These prescriptions prevent and treat conditions that are painful, incapacitating, and potentially fatal. Your argument that it’s not about what happens in the doctors office flies right out the window the minute you acknowledge that it might be okay if it’s “medically necessary.” If the doctor prescribes it and she uses it, then it IS necessary. The specific reason is not her employer’s business, and it’s not yours.

One cannot pretend to be for equal rights under the law and say it’s legal for employers to provide for medical coverage for male, but not female employees because they “believe” their hangups about the sexual behavior of others somehow their business.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Religious freedom and gun freedom would be out the window if that document were written today.”

Judging by the posts from the Left on this and other blogs, the Constitution wouldn’t even be written at all. The phrases “limited government power” and “individual freedom” send them into conniption fits.

• Link
• Report this comment

Agreed.

We simply have to crack down on these sluts, prostitutes and FemiNazis, Kyle.

And for $49.99 (plus shipping and handling) Mr. Limbaugh will send you his videos of them in action!

It’s all good though. Seriously, it is.

The Misogynist Party has not won a majority of female voters in this country for seven straight elections. And it looks like they never will again. At least not until the worst of these old guard bigots all die off, anyway.

And to the extent that the electoral results for the tea soaked neocons are the same as they were in this most recent one, I am thrilled.

BTW, the disgusting Mssrs. Akin and Mourdoch say hello from the unemployment line! Hopefully the mooches in the 47% (LOL!) will find a job before their benefits run out!

• Link
• Report this comment

Attaboy Kyle,

Stay the course and keep moving backwards.

I am going to crawl out on a limb and predict the gop will lose the next election.

• Link
• Report this comment

Would someone tell the terminally ignorant Lil BB, the issue was whether the group insurance that women PAY FOR will cover contraceptives.

I guess when you are a Republican, being an inveterate liar is easier, though…

• Link
• Report this comment

What’s the issue here?

That you are an incessant liar.

• Link
• Report this comment

“And its freedom FROM religion.”

You may not re-write the Constitution, Cheesy.

Just as there is no verbiage in the Constitution about the “separation of church and state”, there is none which states “freedom FROM religion”; merely that Congress shall not establish a national religion or create laws that restrict someone from practicing their beliefs.

Nice try, though.

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet: You keep lying and saying they want their birth control for free.
———

Shouldn’t be a problem for you to show us where I did that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tibs… I know about you than I wish to know, in no small part due to your own actions and shortcomings… I know you used to be part of the problem that you endlessly shriek and rail on about, and you believe yourself to have the only answers (which are the same old failed policies that you advocated previously) and you feel you and your ilks are the only solution, even though our current problems are as much you and yours responsibility, as it is me and mine.

You feelings towards me are duly noted and reciprocated in whole, your labels and sterotypes are outdated and don’t even begin to fit me, but you live up to every stereotype attributed to you and your ilks daily, no on a minute by minute basis here.

Please feel free to do the same. Until then I will continue to communicate with you and yours here in the same fashion that you choose to communicate with us.

Yours truly,
RWT

• Link
• Report this comment

The only religious freedom we need is the freedom to be left alone by religious people, the freedom to not be proselytized to, the freedom to have our government, laws, and legal policies left alone by the religious zealots who wish to force their dogma on everyone else. Any “religious institution” who doesn’t like the law has two choices, in my opinion: (1) give up your tax exempt status, or (2) be forced to pay the entire cost of raising any unwanted child (for their whole life) if the employer’s policy is not to pay for birth control.

• Link
• Report this comment

“pay for my preferences”

You’re as dishonest as Lil Barry.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nice try Peadawg, but you lifted those words from a sentence suggesting a charity provide free contraceptives.

You’re pathetic.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, there goes any chance of a decent discussion of religious liberty. Free speech applies to all;, even for the prejudiced, and they love to show their dirty laundry here.

Maybe a ban on the word “liar” might help. It seems to be a favorite. facsimile from rote and limited minds..

• Link
• Report this comment

Unionized Teachers, So Vilified By the Right, Are the Heroes of Sandy Hook

~Daily Kos

ouch!

• Link
• Report this comment

Peadawg, the man is hopeless. But usefu.

To that point, I have had an epiphany with the election on November 6th.

For forty years I have watched these frauds closely and they were able to act in the most irresponsible and disgusting ways possible with complete impunity. And I honestly wondered if there would ever be any consequences for them.

But thanks to the (W)orst Ever and the disease called neoconservatism, that has changed. And dramatically.

So now, I am a BIG fan of the rabid right wing.

Bring on more fascism! Bring on more in the War on Women! Bring on more Global Cooling!

And though I am a very patient man, I am more than ever, heartened by what I see in this country in the past six years. The writing is on the wall, but to the semi-literates in the hijacked and hemorrhaging GOP, it might as well be in Latin.

They will not evolve, so they will die.

And I will bide my time and watch and cheer…

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, the union apologists must really be desperate for a talking point after their Michigan beatdown.

• Link
• Report this comment

Aquagirl: That’s the issue here…a group of people is included in a benefit or service, and one part of the group is being denied access on account of their gender.
———————-

What are men getting that women aren’t?

• Link
• Report this comment

protects atheists from the religious, certainly not the other way around

Ok, let’s try to find the logic in this gem. Is it that birth control is anti christian? It’s an atheist institution? LOL

Or, how about we try to figure out how the atheiests are pushing their beliefs and institutions onto christians….perhaps in some way similar to the opposite — like not being able to walk out of your house in December without getting inundated with some retail stuff designed to celebrate the birth its namesake. Or having to go to court so this cult can’t put one of it creeds (10 commandments) in our court rooms.

• Link
• Report this comment

And yes Kyle, via the examples I presented they are violating their own “principles” of “religious liberty”.

Again, they can do as they wish, but I will call them and whomever out on this issue when all fats are not presented because of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

• Link
• Report this comment

Facts

• Link
• Report this comment

From the day he was born iggy has had a problem with honesty.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wheaton College? No

Lawsuits from Catholic Church and affiliated orgs over same issue? Yes

What else can I assist you with today

• Link
• Report this comment

Clarify your question, PresRo.

• Link
• Report this comment

When I say DC. I mean the city not the Feds. My bad on that lack of clarity.

Crying about “religious liberty” while you are already providing coverage via certain orgs under your umbrella is nothing but a political ploy.

Their right to take whatever legal action that they are able to pursue, but the hypocrisy rains down like electoral votes rained down on me last month.

• Link
• Report this comment

Speaker of the House Nasty Pelosi

December 19th, 2012
2:54 pm
Does anyone else think JammiesWet just might be a stark raving lunatic?

I’ll bet there’s a lot of mumbling going on in that basement.

Me thinks RamWet thinks a conservative tinkled in his fruit loops or poked a hole in one of his condoms…

• Link
• Report this comment

As some of you have suggested, I find the use of contraceptives far, far preferable to abortions. But I do not believe others should be obligated by law to pay for my preferences, or anyone else’s preferences, in violation of their religious beliefs.

Kyle I think we are pretty close on this one.

Which is saying something.

Very glad to see your position on contraceptives.

Its maddening to me that Evangelicals oppose birth control but at the same time oppose abortions. That just makes zero sense.

You can blah blah about personal responsibility all you want.

Me I’m realistic and a bit more pragmatic.

• Link
• Report this comment

My religion doesn’t believe in cancer, so none of
my 20 employees will be covered.

They should just pray it away.

• Link
• Report this comment

If the Catholics, and all other Christians, would just submit testable evidence that would support their religious beliefs, I would not mind them having so much influence on healthcare and others matters of interest.

As it is, all they have is blind faith, and it’s very difficult in this age of science and technology to understand why myths still govern so much of our political and social behavior.

• Link
• Report this comment

Religion has no influence on healthcare, carlosgvv. If you want some healthcare, no religion can stop you from getting it. They might, however, object to your demand that they be required to pay for it.

• Link
• Report this comment

carlos,

All you have is your blind faith that there isn’t a God the Father and creator.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If the Catholics, and all other Christians, would just submit testable evidence that would support their religious beliefs, I would not mind them having so much influence on healthcare and others matters of interest.”

Why don’t we begin with you submitting evidence that there is no God?

“all they have is blind faith”

All you have is “blind faith” that there isn’t a God. I’d much rather be in my position than yours.

• Link
• Report this comment

The whole issue is a huge hypocrisy on the part of the Catholic church, and inconsistency on the part of Kyle.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Exercise means “putting into action.” How does paying for health care, which includes contraceptives for some employees of church-affiliated institutions, prohibits anybody else to exercise of religion? It is against their faith that they are paying for something they consider a sin? Then what about the money they pay in wages, which can be used to commit sins? Are they going to demand next that the employees will swear they will not use that money for anything sinful?

No constitutional right is absolute, and certainly not the free exercise of religion clause, if that exercise violates another important law. Why should this very tenuous issue of faith have precedence over a federal law?

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV: Exercise means “putting into action.”
——————-

What does “free” mean?

• Link
• Report this comment

Meat of the House, Benji Benghazi and christian fraud,

I’m here to help you work out your anger issues.

You know, scream your impotent screams at me so you don’t go all James Adkisson on society.

(Your families and society thank me.)

• Link
• Report this comment

carlos

You seem to forget that this country was founded by people with faith. That is why we see “In God we trust.” Most first generation Americans were Christian yet they could draw up a constitution that respected everyone, religious or not. .

Don’t try to change history to justify your own lack of faith. I’m sorry you miss so much with your blind misrepresentation. Your loss.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m sorry but you don’t really have a “moral” leg to stand on. If we called “birth control” what it really is – “hormone control” – what would be the big f’ing deal? Plenty of women take hormone control to treat a variety of conditions and disorders and a side effect of that is they are also prevented from becoming pregnant with correct usage. Many women take hormone control and don’t have sex. And so what if they do? Plenty of married women take hormone control to prevent pregnancy. The sluts!

And no one has seen fit to challenge the argument put forth earlier by Matz. What about religions that oppose blood tranfusions, etc? Where do they get to draw the line? Frankly, I pay a premium every month and therefore I am paying for the healthcare I receive. My employer has no place to tell me how I can and cannot manage my own health, nor do my coworkers.

I don’t like the idea of “paying” for someone’s lung cancer treatment because they smoked their whole lives or their diabetes medication because they can’t keep their weight under control. But that’s how health insurance works. Jesus, single payer please!

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks, RAFE,. I may follow up on your suggestion. Bye bye washing machine..

• Link
• Report this comment

PRINCETON, NJ — Americans are most likely to say that an increased police presence at schools, increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and decreased depiction of gun violence in entertainment venues would be effective in preventing mass shootings at schools. Americans rate the potential effectiveness of a ban on assault and semi-automatic guns as fourth on a list of six actions Gallup asked about.

The American people aren’t as dumb as the liberals are.

• Link
• Report this comment

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/19/cnn-poll-bare-majority-now-support-major-gun-restrictions/?hpt=hp_t2

52 percent of Americans now favor MAJOR gun restrictions.

• Link
• Report this comment

My apologies for the late response.

@@

And you personify the clueless

Shirnty shirnt

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

• Link
• Report this comment

“That is exactly what I expected from you four Christian Academy adolecent homeschoolers.”

Rejoice that you have received exactly what you expected.

• Link
• Report this comment

For decades, most employers have been providing benefits for employees, including health insurance. There were employment agreements between employers & employees. If employers did not offer benefits, the employees had no obligation to work there. If employees already had health insurance (for example, thru spouses’ employers), employees could negotiate to receive higher wages rather than benefits. Employees have always had the right to choose whether to participate in & partially pay for group health insurance.

For the first time in American history, Obamacare is REQUIRING employers to provide health insurance to its employees, whether the employees want or need it or not. For the first time in our history, Obamacare is REQUIRING employers to provide health insurance to its employees’ families. For the first time in our history, Obamacare is dictating that employees can contribute only up to 9% of the cost of Obamacare. For the first time in our history, Obamacare is dictating that employee health insurance must be comprehensive, eliminating the lower cost health savings plans, etc. (If you like it, you can’t keep it.)

There have always been employers who provided health insurance benefits to its employees that did not cover contraceptives, etc. for various reasons, one of which was conscious, i.e. religious beliefs. For the first time in our history, the federal govt. is telling religious institutions that they can no longer practice their religion in the same manner in which they have for centuries.

The progressive movement must destroy American institutions to be successful. Obamacare prohibits the free exercise of religion. Obamagun will infringe upon our rights to keep & bear arms.

• Link
• Report this comment

The level of discourse here is about “normal”…

If you don’t like the word “liar” being bandied about, then you all should stop lying.

If 40% of the country is “conservative” and 35% moderate, then that speaks volumes to how dishonest you all were to lose an election that should’ve been a walk in the park, both yourelves and your candidate had not one shred of honesty amongst you all, and the American people saw that.

You lost not because Obama promised anybody anything, but because you all couldn’t stop lying.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nice try, Aquagirl, but fail.

The KKK isn’t a religious organization,

Says who? You? That’s your opinion, and it’s worth less legally than a stick of gum. Hope your ego can take it.

so the do not have constitutional protections in this regard. You’d know that if you ever bothered to read that document.

If you’d ever bother to read the Constitution you’d realize there is NO definition of religion. If the KKK says “we won’t cover sickle-cell treatment because it’s God’s curse on the Children of Ham” that’s their interpretation of God’s word.

That’s the problem with unbridled secular accommodation of the god-told-me-so card. There’s no burden of proof that god told you so. All you have to do is say it. As far as I can tell Wheaton is generic evangelist Christian. You clearly don’t need a denomination to claim religious belief.

BTW…The LDS defined people of African descent as under the curse of Ham and African-American men were not eligible to the priesthood until the ’70’s. So it’s not like there’s no precedent for this type of thought.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

Let me help you: Georgetown University for starters. They are not even mandated by law in DC to offer, but have for years and still do.

Before it was state law they offered coverage at Marquette University & Catholic West Healthcare.

There are numerous examples if you want to get out of the echo chamber and look at the facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Carlos

It does not matter to me if you are an atheist or an agnostic. I am sorry you have missed the joy of Christian faith, the gospel of love one another.by one who loved us all.

You are always welcomed at our church. The doors are open. No questions about your faith or anything else. Just enjoy the peace. Give it a try.among people who care.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey President Romney, where’s your friend Black Label?

Sockpuppet.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil Barry

He is trying not to get banned like you have been in the past

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, it’s a good thing we don’t live in a democracy

Wow.

The made up Republican claptrap around here never ends does it?

Democracy -noun
1) Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The KKK isn’t a religious organization”. “Says who? You?”
———-

Just for the record, the IRS decides which organizations are churches.

• Link
• Report this comment

President Romney,

I have no idea why some Catholic Universities are more liberal than others. I only explained what I thought was the principle promoted by the Catholic church about contraceptives. As I said, I am not a member of the Catholic church.

Maybe you can explain ;the difference.in policy. .

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

I am not Catholic, but now they have some discrepancies (hypocrisies) when stating “religious liberties” in regards to contraceptive coverage.

In some states they are mandated, so that is beyond their control. However there are numerous cases were they have covered contraceptives in states that do not mandate coverage or before a given state mandated coverage.

To be honest, I would be much more receptive to their stance if they were suing to be totally exempted from the ACA as compared to the “religious liberty” argument that they already go against.

• Link
• Report this comment

Their own “religious liberty” argument is laughable based on the fact that the Catholic Church through several of their affiliates under their umbrella already offer contraceptive coverage.

With a co-pay.

Obamacare mandates they receive birth control WITHOUT having to pay—free of charge—passing the cost onto people whose religious beliefs are then compromised.

• Link
• Report this comment

“IF” means they’d had to submit to meeting standards for a religion, which they have not (and I suspect they won’t ever) do.

So you’re saying Wheaton College meets the standards for a religion? They don’t. They identify as Christian, and say birth control violates their religious beliefs as Christians. The KKK could launch a “christian” college and claim exemptions under their religious beliefs, whatever they might be. There is no agreement of what Christians believe.

And while I disagree with [the LDS church] previous thought, it did not interfere with someone’s life, liberty or property, Aquagirl.

So your point is the LDS church never got as snotty and entitled as Wheaton or other “christian” entities? The fact the LDS didn’t behave as complete a-holes means nothing—except they’re less nosy, judgmental, and entitled as the current crop of jerks like Wheaton. And boy, considering the LDS….that’s saying something.

You absolutely can’t defend why your blanket pass of “_____ violates my Christian beliefs, so I get to do what I want.” I have you punked on that one. Squirm all you like.

Now when the LDS claimed Jesus or Kolob or whatever entitled them to 15 wives, the government told them to pound sand. If they want to live with 15 women and call them all wives, it’s a free country. What they CAN’T do is insist non-Mormons cover their 15 wives under spousal insurance, etc. That’s stretching your personal Jeebus-told-me practice into secular life. We’ve always limited such things.

The U.S offers great latitude in personal practice of religion. But there’s always little tin pot dictators who think they should be able to run businesses like their church. They’re control freaks. If Wheaton thinks Jesus would want them to spend big bucks in court, I say bully for them. Bankruptcy would be a fine ending to their wannabe kingdom.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet

There is also another word in the dictionary.

Republic–noun–

A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

We are a democratic Republic.. Why? Because there is another definition of democracy.

Democracy (noun)

A state in which the supreme power is invested in the people and exercised directly by them rather than by elected representatives.

See the difference. We ELECT our representtives which makes us a republic, a democratic republic.

• Link
• Report this comment

I did not know universities practiced religion. I thought individuals did. And who protects the rights of the individuals who want birth control as part of Obamacare but whose employers are imposing their will?

• Link
• Report this comment

Nasty, I accept your juvenile surrender.

Dusty.

A state in which the supreme power is invested in the people and exercised directly by them rather than by elected representatives.

Please provide the link for that definition, OK? I searched for that exact phrase and cannot find it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty @ 5:38 pm

Dusty,

Please, please, do not go into that nonsense of a debate about whether we are a democracy. The US is a democracy, it is a republic, it is a representative democracy, it is a constitutional republic, it is all those things and more. The UK is a monarchy, and it is still a democracy, a parliamentary democracy, but still a democracy. The US is not a direct democracy, but neither is any other country.

• Link
• Report this comment

I know this goes into moderation but tomorrow does come;

AmVet,

My second definition of democracy came from THE AMERICAN COLLEGE DICTIONARY published by Random House
——————————————-

MARK V

You said USA was not a direct democracy. Right. It is a democratic republic……uh huh..

As to my religion;, I’ll be thinking!! In the meantime, please read the New Testament as that will help you understand what you question.

So Good night and Good morning .and may we all be happy in the pleasure of (I hope) sunshine…

• Link
• Report this comment

100 browniepoints for religious liberity and another 100,000 women voters to leave the GOP. Already messing with SS. Next up, more voter suppression. 2014 is alreaady looking better for the Dems.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s beyond pathetic that folks can’t pay $9 a month for their own birth control.

One suspects it isn’t about birth control at all, but about jamming the religious.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Failing to provide contraceptives leads directly to the rise in abortions.”

That pretty much sums up the ideology to a tee, IF one is not GIVEN contraceptives (from others), then one is unable to make the choice to not have an abortion………

Thanks Finn for the update.

• Link
• Report this comment

The cost of contraceptives would be a big deal if the price was out of reach for people. But when Target and Walmart are offering oral contraceptions for $9 a month? And what does a box of condoms go for–under $20? Or is it folks just want someone else to take responsibility for their actions?

• Link
• Report this comment

This is a very straightforward issue – if a college or a hospital or any other type of organization that is religiously affiliated accepts ANY federal dollars then they do not have the right to set their own policies on birth control coverage. If they don’t accept federal dollars, or are willing to give up federal dollars (fat chane) then they can choose not to cover birth control.

Although I’m a pure fiscal conservative and a staunch advocate of forced population control (we should not allow anybody on any form of public assistance to have children under any circumstances) I’m willing to give on this in order to protect sanctity of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Unfortunately the religious right will never do the same and will continue their attempts to legislate a perverse interpretation of the Bible. Attempts that are entirely unconstitutional.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ray – A Sherman would not be the best option.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh the irony of Christian Tyranny!

Kyle “Religious Liberty” cuts both ways and if Conservative Christians were truly concerned about religious liberty they wouldn’t spend so much time, energy and money trying to enforce their religious views on the rest of the country through the legislative process. Such as promoting prayer in schools and funneling public tax dollars earmarked for public schools to religious based charter schools.

Making their howls against making religious institutions and business owned by Christians to pay for contraceptives under Obama Care both ironic and hypocritical.

• Link
• Report this comment