HHS mandate on Catholic and other religious institutions

• Manhattan Buckeye

  sleeper;1079095 wrote:I'm in favor of the freely elected federal government representing the people of this country controlling who receives money from the taxpayers. Clearly this is something taxpayers wants and if the church doesn't want to play by the rules, they don't deserve the funds.

  Given the outrage form this atrocious decision and the administration's backpedaling, I don't think most taxpayers want this.
  
  Contraception is available to every American. No one is stopping anyone from buying condoms at the pharmacy or purchasing an insurance plan that covers the birth control pill. If people feel that strongly that birth control should be "free" (quotes intentional because nothing is "free", everything "free" is paid by someone) they can start a charity to provide said free services.
  
  Going down a path where the government isn't just restricting behavior, but mandating behavior is very, very scary.
• sleeper

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1079104 wrote:Given the outrage form this atrocious decision and the administration's backpedaling, I don't think most taxpayers want this.
  
  Contraception is available to every American. No one is stopping anyone from buying condoms at the pharmacy or purchasing an insurance plan that covers the birth control pill. If people feel that strongly that birth control should be "free" (quotes intentional because nothing is "free", everything "free" is paid by someone) they can start a charity to provide said free services.
  
  Going down a path where the government isn't just restricting behavior, but mandating behavior is very, very scary.

  So would you join me in the fight to petition the government to stop mandating me to pay taxes? I don't see the difference between the government mandating me to cover the baby boomers reckless spending vs. the government telling a business that if you want federal insurance funding then you need to follow the rules.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Isn't part of the issue that there isn't a "want" about it, with the HC bill this is now mandatory, no exceptions (other than the very limited ones proposed by the HHS).
  
  We need the federal government for certain issues, (legitimate) interstate commerce and judiciary matters, international relations and defense, protection of the Constitution and our basic rights, etc. For that some type of revenue is needed, thus taxes are necessary
  
  What we don't need is the fed's growth to the point it has that was never intended, our federal government shouldn't be an arbiter of our non-criminal or non-Constitutional behavior, or what businesses survive or fail, or otherwise picking winners and losers.
  
  Heck if anything, why do we even have a Dept. of HHS? How does it reasonably address Constitutional concerns and interstate issues?
• sleeper

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1079196 wrote:Isn't part of the issue that there isn't a "want" about it, with the HC bill this is now mandatory, no exceptions (other than the very limited ones proposed by the HHS).
  
  We need the federal government for certain issues, (legitimate) interstate commerce and judiciary matters, international relations and defense, protection of the Constitution and our basic rights, etc. For that some type of revenue is needed, thus taxes are necessary
  
  What we don't need is the fed's growth to the point it has that was never intended, our federal government shouldn't be an arbiter of our non-criminal or non-Constitutional behavior, or what businesses survive or fail, or otherwise picking winners and losers.
  
  Heck if anything, why do we even have a Dept. of HHS? How does it reasonably address Constitutional concerns and interstate issues?

  The sad part is I agree with you. I'm all for less government and lower taxes.
  
  However, I'd love it if part of my mandatory taxes went for preventing more welfare babies rather than continue the system we have now.
• fish82

  

  sleeper;1079092 wrote:You need federal funding to practice your religion? It's about money, and churches only care about money. Thanks for proving my point.

  I'd love to see you in a logic class sometime. That would be entertaining.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1078798 wrote:In the Loving Case, the Supreme Court ruled that since state sanctioned marriage was a basic right, states could not deny that basic right to interracial couples.

  Marriage may be a basic right, not the State sanctioning of it.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1079362 wrote:Marriage may be a basic right, not the State sanctioning of it.

  The Loving case was about state sanctioned marriage being denied to interracial couple. And the Supreme Court said that state sanctioned marriage was a basic right.
• Con_Alma

  It did not state that the State is necessary for that basic right to be granted. Why would someone need permission to act of a basic right? It simply doesn't make sense.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1079382 wrote:It did not state that the State is necessary for that basic right to be granted. Why would someone need permission to act of a basic right? It simply doesn't make sense.

  Of course it was about the right to state sanctioned marriage. It was not about the right to cohabit but about the right to have a state sanctioned marriage which according to them is a basic right. State sanctioned marriage like voting is a basic right and with both rights their are certain actions you must take in order to qualify for the right. With both you establish residence and sign up, register.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1079388 wrote:..... With both you establish residence and sign up, register.

  No, no, no. You are required to do more than sign up. They can deny you the ability to marry based on law. Basic rights do not require permission from the State.
  
  The Loving case was about marriage not about State sanctioning of marriage.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1079507 wrote:No, no, no. You are required to do more than sign up. They can deny you the ability to marry based on law. Basic rights do not require permission from the State.
  
  The Loving case was about marriage not about State sanctioning of marriage.

  just the same as voting, you fulfil certain pre requistites and you exercise the right. pre requisites have been elminated when found to be used to deny people basic rights for voting and for marriage.
• Con_Alma

  The Loving case was not about the right for a State to sanction marriage. There's no need to have a prerequisite. If it's a basic right, permission need not be granted.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1079529 wrote:The Loving case was not about the right for a State to sanction marriage. There's no need to have a prerequisite. If it's a basic right, permission need not be granted.

  permission is not granted anymore than permission is granted to vote. You fulfil certain prerequistes and you exercise the right.
• Con_Alma

  Licensing is granting approval or permission. There is not reason for it. One should be able to marry without State involvement. A relationship contract should be no different than a business contract. A license should not be required.
• sleeper

  

  fish82;1079358 wrote:I'd love to see you in a logic class sometime. That would be entertaining.

  My logic is perfect. Thanks.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1079529 wrote:The Loving case was not about the right for a State to sanction marriage. There's no need to have a prerequisite. If it's a basic right, permission need not be granted.

  Then what was it about?
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1079730 wrote:Then what was it about?

  race based legal restriction on marriage
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1079735 wrote:race based legal restriction on marriage

  But what was their reason for saying you cannot discriminate based on race? Did they call marriage a right?
  
  If they did then they were talking about state sanctioned marriage (because otherwise it wouldn't have been in court as you can't really have a case against someone just for not marrying you. Just like how churches will be allowed to say "we don't do same sex marriages" if/when that is legalized).
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1079786 wrote:But what was their reason for saying you cannot discriminate based on race? Did they call marriage a right?
  
  If they did then they were talking about state sanctioned marriage (because otherwise it wouldn't have been in court as you can't really have a case against someone just for not marrying you. Just like how churches will be allowed to say "we don't do same sex marriages" if/when that is legalized).

  It is not the marriage that is in dispute on my behalf. It is the right for all to have a State grant permission and sanction such an act. It is not necessary nor is it a right. to have such State action. The case did not address that.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1079796 wrote:It is not the marriage that is in dispute on my behalf. It is the right for all to have a State grant permission and sanction such an act. It is not necessary nor is it a right. to have such State action. The case did not address that.

  If you're arguing that you don't think the state should be involved in marriage at all then we agree.
  
  But the state does sanction all legal marriages so any case involving whether or not marriage is a right is inherently a case involving state sanctioned marriage so isadore was (this pains me to say) correct in that regard.
• fish82

  

  sleeper;1079629 wrote:My logic is perfectly circular. Thanks.

  You're welcome.
• sleeper

  

  fish82;1079951 wrote:You're welcome.

  No it isn't. Nice try. You're mad because the government doesn't want to give you special treatment because your parents indoctrinated you into a belief that you cannot rationalize, justify, or logically defend.
  
  Welcome to the real world.
• fish82

  

  sleeper;1079980 wrote:No it isn't. Nice try. You're mad because the government doesn't want to give you special treatment because your parents indoctrinated you into a belief that you cannot rationalize, justify, or logically defend.
  
  Welcome to the real world.

  I'm not even catholic, broski. Cool deflection though.
  
  Oh, FYI:
  

  Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:
  "Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."
  Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.
  

  Compare to:
  

  sleeper;1079092 wrote:You need federal funding to practice your religion? It's about money, and churches only care about money. Thanks for proving my point.

  Circular. You might say perfectly circular.
  
  I think we're done...don't you?
• sleeper

  

  fish82;1080081 wrote:I'm not even catholic, broski. Cool deflection though.
  
  Oh, FYI:
  
  
  
  Compare to:
  
  
  
  Circular. You might say perfectly circular.
  
  I think we're done...don't you?

  That was a waste of a post. You didn't say anything of value. Thanks for playing.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^you haven't said anything of value in the whole fucking thread. As fish said...Your arguement and logic is faulty, based on generalizations and an obsession to bash religion.