Headso: AmorousRedDragon: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 480x480]

yeah but he also came out in favor of weed being legal so that's nice...

He's a broken clock, just like Ron Paul

You know what your problem is Bevets? You are incapable of debating logically because of your religiously motivated bias.
We have fun ridiculing you over and over because of your mental incapacities.
Sad really.

When the Catholic church decides to participate in the business arena they are no longer exempt from the rules that other businesses must abide by. End of story.

That is why the PM of Italy is now demanding the Vatican pay taxes on their 110,000 pieces of property, including the lavish waterfront condos.

So in short, STFU because you are once again WRONG on this issue.

Teufelaffe: lordaction: All the Republicans are doing is keeping the government out of the bedroom. Why do Democrats want to legislate women's reproductive health? I thought it was "My body My choice". Why do I have to pay for someone else's choice of recreational activity anyway? That makes absolutely no sense.

How does a mandate that applies to private health insurance companies result in you having to pay for someone else's recreational activity?

So then the health insurance companies are being required by the federal government to provide birth control free of charge? They are not going to recoup that cost by charging anyone anything?

I wonder how long it'll be until a Republican comes up with the perfect way to sidestep the whole issue of birth control and gay marriage and just starts suggesting everyone have anal sex.

(Santorum need not apply)

Geotpf: lordaction: All the Republicans are doing is keeping the government out of the bedroom. Why do Democrats want to legislate women's reproductive health? I thought it was "My body My choice". Why do I have to pay for someone else's choice of recreational activity anyway? That makes absolutely no sense.

It's medical care. If the government requires medical care to be provided, it should be provided as well.

Yeah, yeah, I know Republicans are against government mandates in medical care, and, in their minds, that is what they are arguing about. But to women, it looks like they are being called sluts, especially since they are, um, in fact, being called sluts. And, believe it or don't, women vote, and they don't tend to vote for people that call them sluts.

And anyone saying "oh, they'll forget about it by November" clearly doesn't know any women.

Overfiend: I didn't know Drew and the Admins were paid by the Democratic Party. Explains the hard left this site has taken over the past couple of years!

You learn something new every day...

I can smell your butt hurt from here.
Did you ever consider that over the past couple of years that the RW has taken a hard right to the point where they are being called on it?

Birth control is less expensive than baby deliveries and less expensive than uteran cyst removal. Providing birth control helps lower insurance premiums and that helps lower taxes.

Why do Republicans want higher taxes?

apoptotic: And anyone saying "oh, they'll forget about it by November" clearly doesn't know any women.

lordaction: Why do I have to pay for someone else's choice of recreational activity anyway?

Because that's what insurance is? Insurance also covers injuries sustained while dancing, even if it's being paid for by a Baptist employer. You have to provide basic protections for your employees (or, rather, are strongly encouraged through subsidy incentives to do so), because picking and choosing what coverage your employees get based on your religion constitutes forcing non-members to obey your religion, which is illegal due to the law surrounding the first amendment.

If your response is "hurr, durr, they're religious institutions, so their employees should follow the religion", then you're an idiot. The institutions in question are not religious institutions, they're secular institutions that receive funding from religious sources, like hospitals and colleges and so on. If they want to reincorporate as actual religious institutions, they're welcome to go for it and forego all of the subsidization and legal benefits they're afforded as hospitals rather than churches.

Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: Your whole argument falls apart when you understand that the birth control mandate NO LONGER APPLIES TO EMPLOYERS AND ONLY TO HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDERS. Sorry for the caps and such, but I'm hoping that might get the Bevets quote-bot to at least pause for a moment before continuing to post stupidity.

I think it is important to remember that his exemption, such as it is, only applies to religious institutions and their affiliated entities and not for individuals for whom the 1st Amendment was written to protect.

Right, but once you stop telling the churches that they have to pay for contraception and tell the corporations they they have to foot the bill, it stops being a 1st Amendment issue.

only if you apply that exemption to individuals as well.

The mandate doesn't apply to individuals, so why would there be a need for an exemption for individuals?

Individuals who are employers - as in not church or church affiliated institutions. Joe Murphy who is a practicing Catholic and has 50 electrical contractors working for him

"The New York Times reports Murkowski "sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman - with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall" at a closed door GOP caucus meeting this week."

But, hey, I'll vote for along with you guys anyway, because a woman is supposed to follow whatever a man tells her to do.

quickdraw: So your point is that people are hopeless and that all the outrage I see is just wishful thinking on my part? How old are you? Are you too young to remember the Vietnam war?

you're comparing the anger over a pointless boondoggle of a war that killed like 58,000 Americans to this issue? The sad part is we got in a number of pointless wars even after Vietnam so in the end we didn't even really learn a whole lot. Just that it was important to make the services volunteer so it's just mostly poor people with no connections who get killed.

Headso: Janusdog: Headso: Janusdog: Headso: Janusdog: People in general don't care until shiat affects them directly.

But this issue is impacts a relatively small group of people, the principle of it is what is farked up and it is a good example of the kind of bigotry that make up the republican platform but I don't think in the end that many people will be without birth control.

What? Are you kidding?

women of a certain age getting bc through insurance at a job with a religious kook boss that would have otherwise voted republican if not for this issue?

Religious kook boss? You mean like all the women who work for every Catholic university and Catholic Health Care system...which, oh, by the way, Catholic systems are pretty much THE the fastest growing hospital systems in the US?

That is NOT a small amount of people.

IMO that is a relatively small amount of people, especially when you factor in the caveats about age and them being independent voters that might be swayed by this issue's direct impact on their lives.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/healthcare/documents/2005fac t saboutcatholichealthcare.pdf

Not sure if the number of employees are in there, but this should get you more familiar with the reach of Catholic systems. And that's not including Catholic colleges.

skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: Your whole argument falls apart when you understand that the birth control mandate NO LONGER APPLIES TO EMPLOYERS AND ONLY TO HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDERS. Sorry for the caps and such, but I'm hoping that might get the Bevets quote-bot to at least pause for a moment before continuing to post stupidity.

I think it is important to remember that his exemption, such as it is, only applies to religious institutions and their affiliated entities and not for individuals for whom the 1st Amendment was written to protect.

Right, but once you stop telling the churches that they have to pay for contraception and tell the corporations they they have to foot the bill, it stops being a 1st Amendment issue.

only if you apply that exemption to individuals as well.

The mandate doesn't apply to individuals, so why would there be a need for an exemption for individuals?

Individuals who are employers - as in not church or church affiliated institutions. Joe Murphy who is a practicing Catholic and has 50 electrical contractors working for him

If I were a newly married Christian service member should I also be able to avoid deployment until after my 1 year anniversary? Or not pay taxes? Or get a year paid vacation?

Deuteronomy 20:5
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

Overfiend: I didn't know Drew and the Admins were paid by the Democratic Party. Explains the hard left this site has taken over the past couple of years!

You learn something new every day...

This has been mentioned a few times, FARk used to lean a LOT more Libertarian but lately has tacked quite a bit left, I attribute this to a few things:

1. Most conservatives prefer to stick to sites that validate their worldview.
2. A lot of the more moderate conservatives stayed conservative, but the democratic party tacked right and gobbled them up (see:Weaver95)
3. Conservative arguments/talking points after the election of Obama became laughably retarded as a whole poriton of their base went literally insane (obama is a muslim, Obama faked his Birth certificate, Obama is a sekrit mooslim socialist) and thus became easier to ridicule.
4. Conservatism used to be an ideology based on ideas (see: Buckley) now it just seems like their entire platform is thinly veiled racism and sublimated rage at the "other". Lots of Farkers, who tend to skew younger gave up in disgust.

i know from my own standpoint I used to identify myself as "Libertarian," my wife was a big Ayn Rand fan. Now we are both emberassed that we ever considered being in the same universe as those lunatics.

Even back in 1975, the 'Coal Miner's Daughter' knew birth control was a good thing.

_{War on Women. Period.}

apoptotic: And anyone saying "oh, they'll forget about it by November" clearly doesn't know any women.

I'm guessing that there will be a fairly quiet spring and summer, followed by sudden and incessant complaining in October

skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: Your whole argument falls apart when you understand that the birth control mandate NO LONGER APPLIES TO EMPLOYERS AND ONLY TO HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDERS. Sorry for the caps and such, but I'm hoping that might get the Bevets quote-bot to at least pause for a moment before continuing to post stupidity.

I think it is important to remember that his exemption, such as it is, only applies to religious institutions and their affiliated entities and not for individuals for whom the 1st Amendment was written to protect.

Right, but once you stop telling the churches that they have to pay for contraception and tell the corporations they they have to foot the bill, it stops being a 1st Amendment issue.

only if you apply that exemption to individuals as well.

The mandate doesn't apply to individuals, so why would there be a need for an exemption for individuals?

Individuals who are employers - as in not church or church affiliated institutions. Joe Murphy who is a practicing Catholic and has 50 electrical contractors working for him

He has never had the right to enforce his religious restrictions on his employees, their wives, or their children.

I thought that much was clear.

We cannot keep carving out specific religious exemptions in laws(I.E. Peyote should be legal across the board), as it results in unnecessary entanglement with religion.

It's bad enough we allow the government to define what qualifies as a church and give them preferential tax status, but to allow them to parcel out whether or not your boss can violate your right to privacy based on his religion?

Holy farking Christ, it's it unacceptable.

Deneb81: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: Your whole argument falls apart when you understand that the birth control mandate NO LONGER APPLIES TO EMPLOYERS AND ONLY TO HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDERS. Sorry for the caps and such, but I'm hoping that might get the Bevets quote-bot to at least pause for a moment before continuing to post stupidity.

I think it is important to remember that his exemption, such as it is, only applies to religious institutions and their affiliated entities and not for individuals for whom the 1st Amendment was written to protect.

Right, but once you stop telling the churches that they have to pay for contraception and tell the corporations they they have to foot the bill, it stops being a 1st Amendment issue.

only if you apply that exemption to individuals as well.

The mandate doesn't apply to individuals, so why would there be a need for an exemption for individuals?

Individuals who are employers - as in not church or church affiliated institutions. Joe Murphy who is a practicing Catholic and has 50 electrical contractors working for him

If I were a newly married Christian service member should I also be able to avoid deployment until after my 1 year anniversary? Or not pay taxes? Or get a year paid vacation?

Deuteronomy 20:5
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

why is it that people have such a hard time following a discussion?

We are offering an exemption to institutions but not to individuals in the name of First Amendment protections. That is stupid.

IXI Jim IXI: apoptotic: And anyone saying "oh, they'll forget about it by November" clearly doesn't know any women.

I'm guessing that there will be a fairly quiet spring and summer, followed by sudden and incessant complaining in October

Republicans in the latter half of November will be left pleading "What did I do? What did I do?" with tears streaming down their faces.

Urbn: Let's see Republicans can't run on Nat'l Security because Obama kicked their asses on that issue; they can't run on the economy because they tanked it in the first place and it's actually improving despite their efforts to stall it; they can't run on immigration because conservative/religious Latinos might be the only sizable minority group that could still conceivably vote for them; they've tried the energy angle but it's gained no traction and Obama kinda kicks their ass with his 'how about we diversify and do more than just domestic drilling' energy platform; so they've settled on an...attacking women's reproductive rights platform....

Really GOP? This is the best you could come up with?

Unfortunately, yes.
Have you seen the candidates they are offering this go round? 300 million people in the country and this is the best the GOP can do.

/Derp on, Grand Ol'Party! Derp on!

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Those Republicans! All about "freedom" and "jobs, jobs, jobs!"

[blog.christianitytoday.com image 640x480]

And abortion restrictions. But I'm sure they're done now.

Even Lake Michigan is getting in on the action.

Bevets: The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

The Catholic Church isn't being compelled to do jack shiat. They have affiliates with non-religious basis - Catholic Charities, for instance - that get federal grants. And you don't get to have tax money given to you unless that money is used for non-religious activities. Thus, refusing to cover a non-church employee's birth control for religious reasons is a serious violation of the First Amendment, as you're using tax dollars to pay that employee's benefits.

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed.

The US was founded in 1776, not 1976.

Humanae Vitae (1968) - in 1963, John XXIII established a commission to reconsider the Church's position on birth control. The majority report of the commission recommended allowing birth control for married couples. Much like we look at the most recent Supreme Court decisions on specific issues, Humanae Vitae is the most recent official policy of the Church, and is more recent than "long before the United States even existed."

The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church.

So, federal money was FORCED on the church's affiliated groups. Poor guys, having money shoved down their throats along with the strings attached to said money. They already meet the usual requirements - no religious indoctrination or promotion of Catholicism - even though they're supposed to spread the faith just like any Christian denomination. If they can avoid that, why is birth control any different? Because they ARE seeking this conflict.

meat0918: He has never had the right to enforce his religious restrictions on his employees, their wives, or their children.

I thought that much was clear.

absolutely clear.

meat0918: We cannot keep carving out specific religious exemptions in laws(I.E. Peyote should be legal across the board), as it results in unnecessary entanglement with religion.

why can't we? Has the 1st amendment grown passe?

meat0918: allow them to parcel out whether or not your boss can violate your right to privacy based on his religion?

wow, I have never suggested that.

meat0918: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: Your whole argument falls apart when you understand that the birth control mandate NO LONGER APPLIES TO EMPLOYERS AND ONLY TO HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDERS. Sorry for the caps and such, but I'm hoping that might get the Bevets quote-bot to at least pause for a moment before continuing to post stupidity.

I think it is important to remember that his exemption, such as it is, only applies to religious institutions and their affiliated entities and not for individuals for whom the 1st Amendment was written to protect.

Right, but once you stop telling the churches that they have to pay for contraception and tell the corporations they they have to foot the bill, it stops being a 1st Amendment issue.

only if you apply that exemption to individuals as well.

The mandate doesn't apply to individuals, so why would there be a need for an exemption for individuals?

Individuals who are employers - as in not church or church affiliated institutions. Joe Murphy who is a practicing Catholic and has 50 electrical contractors working for him

He has never had the right to enforce his religious restrictions on his employees, their wives, or their children.

I thought that much was clear.

We cannot keep carving out specific religious exemptions in laws(I.E. Peyote should be legal across the board), as it results in unnecessary entanglement with religion.

It's bad enough we allow the government to define what qualifies as a church and give them preferential tax status, but to allow them to parcel out whether or not your boss can violate your right to privacy based on his religion?

Holy farking Christ, it's it unacceptable.

The health insurance he provides his employees is not private information. What they do with it might be, but if he negotiates prices with the insurance company to not include specific things that is between him and his employees.

I would also find it acceptable if the money he was paying toward the premium went to the employee directly to purchase a health plan they found acceptable.

Jim_Callahan: lordaction: Why do I have to pay for someone else's choice of recreational activity anyway?

Because that's what insurance is? Insurance also covers injuries sustained while dancing, even if it's being paid for by a Baptist employer. You have to provide basic protections for your employees (or, rather, are strongly encouraged through subsidy incentives to do so), because picking and choosing what coverage your employees get based on your religion constitutes forcing non-members to obey your religion, which is illegal due to the law surrounding the first amendment.

If your response is "hurr, durr, they're religious institutions, so their employees should follow the religion", then you're an idiot. The institutions in question are not religious institutions, they're secular institutions that receive funding from religious sources, like hospitals and colleges and so on. If they want to reincorporate as actual religious institutions, they're welcome to go for it and forego all of the subsidization and legal benefits they're afforded as hospitals rather than churches.

My response is that the government has no right to legislate what goods or services a business has to sell. I could care less if they are religious.

serial_crusher: Non-procreative uses of Viagra would be immoral for reasons other than the Viagra.

Just like how uses of Birth Control could also fix related health concerns, but that doesn't matter because it is, by nature, non-procreative. Even though Viagra is used in a non-procreative fashion 99% of the time also.

Teufelaffe: lordaction: All the Republicans are doing is keeping the government out of the bedroom. Why do Democrats want to legislate women's reproductive health? I thought it was "My body My choice". Why do I have to pay for someone else's choice of recreational activity anyway? That makes absolutely no sense.

How does a mandate that applies to private health insurance companies result in you having to pay for someone else's recreational activity?

Exactly. What right does the government have to tell a private business what goods or services it has to sell. Direct conflict with the free market and private property rights.

skullkrusher: Deneb81: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: skullkrusher: Teufelaffe: Your whole argument falls apart when you understand that the birth control mandate NO LONGER APPLIES TO EMPLOYERS AND ONLY TO HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDERS. Sorry for the caps and such, but I'm hoping that might get the Bevets quote-bot to at least pause for a moment before continuing to post stupidity.

I think it is important to remember that his exemption, such as it is, only applies to religious institutions and their affiliated entities and not for individuals for whom the 1st Amendment was written to protect.

Right, but once you stop telling the churches that they have to pay for contraception and tell the corporations they they have to foot the bill, it stops being a 1st Amendment issue.

only if you apply that exemption to individuals as well.

The mandate doesn't apply to individuals, so why would there be a need for an exemption for individuals?

Individuals who are employers - as in not church or church affiliated institutions. Joe Murphy who is a practicing Catholic and has 50 electrical contractors working for him

If I were a newly married Christian service member should I also be able to avoid deployment until after my 1 year anniversary? Or not pay taxes? Or get a year paid vacation?

Deuteronomy 20:5
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

why is it that people have such a hard time following a discussion?

We are offering an exemption to institutions but not to individuals in the name of First Amendment protections. That is stupid.

Why is it that you argue an individual business owner should get an exemption from this birth control in insurance law, but consider it silly that an individual should get an exemption from deployment by the military?

Why does John Murphy the business man get an exception based on his religion when John Smith the soldier doesn't? Especially when John Murphy 's decision affects all 50 of his employees families.

This issue can be resolved quickly. Ladies, your sex store is now closed. See how fast your husbands start making calls.

Deneb81: Why is it that you argue an individual business owner should get an exemption from this birth control in insurance law, but consider it silly that an individual should get an exemption from deployment by the military?

why don't you use an actual, real life example, where people with religious objections can qualify for conscientious objector status?

Deneb81: Why does John Murphy the business man get an exception based on his religion when John Smith the soldier doesn't? Especially when John Murphy 's decision affects all 50 of his employees families.

nice strawman dude

smeegle: This issue can be resolved quickly. Ladies, your sex store is now closed. See how fast your husbands start making calls.