HHS mandate on Catholic and other religious institutions

• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1077448 wrote:But it is.
  
  They use their personal views to attempt to make other people do the things they believe. See any law banning x on Sunday, marriage laws, etc. I would have no problem with religion if they stopped trying to force people to do what they believe in/to not do what they don't. Doing that makes you an ****.

  They only force those who are part of the church. Otherss they seek to attempt to become members of their belief. They can't force them.
• Devils Advocate

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1077440 wrote:It's not the rhythm method

  Ok then.... Link Please.
  
  
  Or I'll take a couple guesses
  
  
  Sex only during Menstration? or maybe plan My family as it happens, since it's God's will?
• fish82

  

  Bigdogg;1077449 wrote:Already did. You do not know how to read a audited financial report. I am not here to hold your hand.

  I read the report. There's nothing in there demonstrating that they can't run without that revenue with some restructuring. Try holding your own hand.
  
  But just so we're clear, you're maintaining that an organization can not survive without revenue that doesn't even cover the cost of providing the service, right?
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1077454 wrote:They only force those who are part of the church. Otherss they seek to attempt to become members of their belief. They can't force them.

  No, they force other people.
  
  Gay marriage ring a bell? How about adoption/visitation/etc rights for those people? There is no reason that isn't religious to block those people from those things.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Devils Advocate;1077468 wrote:Ok then.... Link Please.
  
  
  Or I'll take a couple guesses
  
  
  Sex only during Menstration? or maybe plan My family as it happens, since it's God's will?

  
  I'm driving. I will when I get home later. It's pretty scientific.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1077474 wrote:No, they force other people.
  
  Gay marriage ring a bell? How about adoption/visitation/etc rights for those people? There is no reason that isn't religious to block those people from those things.

  Yes there is. Many people believe that marriage is a religious ceremony as opposed to a governmental contract solely.
• Bigdogg

  The recommendation was made from an independent panel of doctors and health experts. The Obama Administration weighed the costs and the benefits and correctly made the decision. Most reasonable people will come to the same conclusion. It will be a non issue to all but the far right talking heads. Personally, I would like to see the Catholic church spend their resources preventing their priest from raping children. Study's show 90% of Catholic women use contraceptives. Maybe they need to find out what their constituents want?
  
  http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/July/20/iom-report-contraceptives.aspx
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1077474 wrote:No, they force other people.
  
  Gay marriage ring a bell? How about adoption/visitation/etc rights for those people? There is no reason that isn't religious to block those people from those things.

  Plenty of non-religious people hold the same views.
• fish82

  

  Bigdogg;1077513 wrote:The recommendation was made from an independent panel of doctors and health experts. The Obama Administration weighed the costs and the benefits and correctly made the decision. Most reasonable people will come to the same conclusion. It will be a non issue to all but the far right talking heads. Personally, I would like to see the Catholic church spend their resources preventing their priest from raping children. Study's show 90% of Catholic women use contraceptives. Maybe they need to find out what their constituents want?
  
  http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/July/20/iom-report-contraceptives.aspx

  All true. That said, this excerpt from the First Amendment gives me pause:
  
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
  
  If they chose to challenge on purely constitutional grounds, it's a slam dunk. The language couldn't be clearer.
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;1077514 wrote:Plenty of non-religious people hold the same views.

  I have a hard time believing there's a large amount of non-religious people out there thinking "you know what, to hell with gay people! They shouldn't be able to do the things we do".
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;1077524 wrote:All true. That said, this excerpt from the First Amendment gives me pause:
  
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
  
  If they chose to challenge on purely constitutional grounds, it's a slam dunk. The language couldn't be clearer.

  Now you open a can of worms. Can religions discriminate simply because they say they're a religion and it's their belief?
  
  Are they above all laws as long as they say it's what they believe?
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1077505 wrote:Yes there is. Many people believe that marriage is a religious ceremony as opposed to a governmental contract solely.

  Then don't fucking marry gay people. It's pretty damned simple. No one has proposed forcing Catholics or Baptists to marry gay people in their churches.
  
  But you're an asshole if you think that the government should have a ban on them.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1077530 wrote:Then don't fucking marry gay people. It's pretty damned simple. No one has proposed forcing Catholics or Baptists to marry gay people in their churches.
  
  But you're an asshole if you think that the government should have a ban on them.

  Negged. Con_Alma is far from an a-hole.
• I Wear Pants

  If marriage is a religious ceremony then why is the government involved at all or why are there tax breaks for being married? Probably becuase without that there would be nothing to stop gay people from being married.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1077528 wrote:I have a hard time believing there's a large amount of non-religious people out there thinking "you know what, to hell with gay people! They shouldn't be able to do the things we do".

  Why do you insist on putting words in others' mouths 24/7?
  
  Anyhoo...they don't think "you know what, to hell with gay people!" They merely think that marriage is defined as a guy/girl thing. Depending on the poll, between 49-55% of Americans don't support gay marriage. Every time it's gone before the people via referendum it's been shot down. I doubt all of them are religious whacknuts.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1077540 wrote:If marriage is a religious ceremony then why is the government involved at all or why are there tax breaks for being married? Probably becuase without that there would be nothing to stop gay people from being married.

  I think marriage is given a tax break because the government wants to give people the incentive to marry each other and have children. These children are in a much more protective state because they have two caregivers in the same household able to provide care for that child. I don't really see any reason why two gays can't get married and provide the same stable household environment; thus receiving the same tax break.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1077529 wrote:Now you open a can of worms. Can religions discriminate simply because they say they're a religion and it's their belief?
  
  Are they above all laws as long as they say it's what they believe?

  Not providing birth control is in no way even close to "discrimination." I'm not sure how you came up with that one.
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;1077542 wrote:Why do you insist on putting words in others' mouths 24/7?
  
  Anyhoo...they don't think "you know what, to hell with gay people!" They merely think that marriage is defined as a guy/girl thing. Depending on the poll, between 49-55% of Americans don't support gay marriage. Every time it's gone before the people via referendum it's been shot down. I doubt all of them are religious whacknuts.

  And those 49-55% of people are in all probability religious.
  
  Find me an atheist that thinks gay marriage should be illegal.
  
  It's gone down via referendum because we've got a ton of fundie morons.
  
  Edit: I didn't put words in anyone's mouths. You said there are a lot of non-religious people who think gay marriage should be illegal. I think that's an absurd argument, though I don't have a study to whip out of my ass right now. But I find it hard to believe there are a bunch of atheists that think that gay people should be banned from being married, adopting children, or being given visitation rights.
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;1077550 wrote:Not providing birth control is in no way even close to "discrimination." I'm not sure how you came up with that one.

  I was saying that you could use the same justification to allow discrimination. Not that not providing birth control is discrimination.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1077552 wrote:And those 49-55% of people are in all probability religious.

  From a pure statistical sampling standpoint, it's highly unlikely.
  

  I Wear Pants;1077552 wrote:Find me an atheist that thinks gay marriage should be illegal.

  I don't hang with any atheists. TBQH, I find them on the whole to be more annoying than the douches who show up on my doorstep trying to save me.
  

  I Wear Pants;1077552 wrote:It's gone down via referendum because we've got a ton of fundie morons.

  Solid rebuttal. I surrender. :rolleyes:
• I Wear Pants

  At least 83% of people in the US identify themselves as affiliated with some sort of religion so I don't get how you're contending that it's unlikely that the 49-55% of anti-gay people are religious.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1077556 wrote:I was saying that you could use the same justification to allow discrimination. Not that not providing birth control is discrimination.

  Got it. I figured that's what you meant after reading it again.
  
  That said, possibly. Many religions already do just that here in the good ol' US of A, and no one seems to care. I find it ironic that you people turn yourselves inside out to kowtow to the Muslims for instance, when their pattern of misogyny and discrimination against women in the name of religious beliefs is well documented.
  
  Again, I'm not arguing for/against on spiritual/moral/ethical grounds....merely constitutional. And as I stated, from that particular standpoint, it's a slam dunk.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1077579 wrote:At least 83% of people in the US identify themselves as affiliated with some sort of religion so I don't get how you're contending that it's unlikely that the 49-55% of anti-gay people are religious.

  Dude. Think about it. "Are you a Christian?" "Yeah, I'm a Christian." It's that simple. People who have never been within 100 feet of a church will answer "yes" if asked that question.
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;1077584 wrote:Dude. Think about it. "Are you a Christian?" "Yeah, I'm a Christian." It's that simple. People who have never been within 100 feet of a church will answer "yes" if asked that question.

  Do you have a better study or more accurate one or...?
  
  Besides that query, you fail to realize that even if a bunch of people aren't very good Christians or Jews or whatever, they still think they are and identify with those views.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1077552 wrote:And those 49-55% of people are in all probability religious.
  
  Find me an atheist that thinks gay marriage should be illegal.
  
  It's gone down via referendum because we've got a ton of fundie morons.
  
  Edit: I didn't put words in anyone's mouths. You said there are a lot of non-religious people who think gay marriage should be illegal. I think that's an absurd argument, though I don't have a study to whip out of my ass right now. But I find it hard to believe there are a bunch of atheists that think that gay people should be banned from being married, adopting children, or being given visitation rights.

  Your fallacy comes where you equate the "non-religious" with atheists. They're not the same thing.