California's act of tyranny

[RS Davis]

[glow=red,2,300]Terence Jeffrey Wrote:[/glow]"What if a state legislature enacted, and a state Supreme Court upheld, a law forcing family businesses operated by Orthodox Jews to remain open on the Sabbath? Surely, reasonable people -- including those who don't share Jewish views on the Sabbath -- would recognize this as a crass and unconstitutional act. So, too, should they regard the law upheld this week by a 6-1 decision of the California Supreme Court that orders various institutions of the Roman Catholic Church to purchase insurance that will provide artificial birth control to
church employees."

- Rick

[outgirl]

I agree with this decision. I'm sick of religious organizations getting all of these exemptions. The Catholic church has money out the ass. I will accept that it is the view of the church that birth cont. is wrong, lol however the decision to follow that doctrine is still free will. The church should still have to provide the same insurance benefits to their employees as provided in the coverage. Oh and fuck the catholic church.

[whatever]

RS said:

- Rick

Ah! Rick, you almost have something there I disagree with! But I haven't made up my mind. This one is a toughie for me.
My rule of thumb; if the gov wants to get their sticky paws in it, it's probably a good idea gone bad.

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

I agree with this decision. I'm sick of religious organizations getting all of these exemptions. The Catholic church has money out the ass. I will accept that it is the view of the church that birth cont. is wrong, lol however the decision to follow that doctrine is still free will. The church should still have to provide the same insurance benefits to their employees as provided in the coverage. Oh and fuck the catholic church.

Again, this is the government poking its nose where it doesn't belong, and the result is a 1st Amendment violation of freedom of religion. I suspect the businesses will just stop carrying insurance altogether is this is not overturned. So much for those workers.

- Rick

[RS Davis]

whatever said:

My rule of thumb; if the gov wants to get their sticky paws in it, it's probably a good idea gone bad.

Agreed. Nice to see your face around here!

- Rick

[Dr Snootch]

If 90% of Californians are getting birth control with their insurance, I fail to see why a law is necessary. To be perfectly honest, I fail to see how requiring any company to offer birth control with their medical insurance is Constitutional. Sex is still an act of free-will, isn't it?

[outgirl]

With all due respect, I don't understand you people.

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

With all due respect, I don't understand you people.

Hahaha.... ;D

What do you mean?

- Rick

[outgirl]

I don't understand why it's a problem for the catholic church to provide their employees with the same benefits given to any other person with the same policy offered by the provider. If you are a worker in the church, well maybe thats one thing but what if you are employed in a hospital or university that is owned by the church? It wasn't a requirement to be a Catholic if you were a nurse working at St. Louis University hospital when it was owned by the Catholic church. As a non catholic employee, they can not force me to follow their doctrine. If the hospital offers coverage, what right do they have to dictate what my medical needs may be?

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

I don't understand why it's a problem for the catholic church to provide their employees with the same benefits given to any other person with the same policy offered by the provider. If you are a worker in the church, well maybe thats one thing but what if you are employed in a hospital or university that is owned by the church? It wasn't a requirement to be a Catholic if you were a nurse working at St. Louis University hospital when it was owned by the Catholic church. As a non catholic employee, they can not force me to follow their doctrine. If the hospital offers coverage, what right do they have to dictate what my medical needs may be?

You're right - they cannot force anyone to follow their doctrines. Likewise, the government cannot force them to follow it's doctrines. It cannot force them to fund what they consider to be sin. It would be the same as your employer being forced to fund James Dobson or Fred Phelps.

- Rick

[outgirl]

I hate organized religions! The problem is that the sheer existance of certain groups violates the rights of others. Groups like Fred Phelps violates my right to feel safe. Yea, I know that I don't really have that right. Got it. But I still feel violated as I'm sure a black person might if they were watching the KKK march down their street. I know that the church has every right to their beliefs but if they are going to get involved in the corporate world, then religion shouldn't be an issue. Just as John Ashcrofts religious views should not dictate policy to the rest of us. I feel like such a heathen at times but I just don't think the church's rules should apply to me.

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

I hate organized religions!

For the most part, they hate you, too.

outgirl said:

The problem is that the sheer existance of certain groups violates the rights of others. Groups like Fred Phelps violates my right to feel safe. Yea, I know that I don't really have that right. Got it. But I still feel violated as I'm sure a black person might if they were watching the KKK march down their street. I know that the church has every right to their beliefs but if they are going to get involved in the corporate world, then religion shouldn't be an issue. Just as John Ashcrofts religious views should not dictate policy to the rest of us. I feel like such a heathen at times but I just don't think the church's rules should apply to me.

Well, we are not talking about the corporate world here. We're talking about Catholic Charities (who helped me pay my electric bill recently, btw), which is a non-profit church organization.

Still, if they were a corporate entity, I would feel the same. The First Amendment theoretically protects their right to practice their religion, and the government telling them they must support and fund something they don't agree with is a violation of their civil rights, just as the government telling religions they cannot, according to their faith, marry homosexuals.

- Rick

[RS Davis]

This is why we don't want the government telling religions what they can and cannot do and what they must or must not support:

Ministers Arrested for Performing Same-Sex Marriages.

- Rick

[whatever]

Yes, I agree.

I hope I didn't embarrass Unitarians and Libertarians everywhere when that guy on CA got an attitude. Put them in jail indeed, what a awful thing to want to happen. Put him in jail for being so damn mean.

This is a link to the post I'm talking about.
forums.stltoday.com/viewtopic.php?t=139330&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

I think it's just wrong to say what he did
"I hope they give these ministers the max of 2 years in jail. Don't defy the government. The erosion of societal values will tear us at our seams. "

I gave him what for. But I only do that to evil posters, I promise!