If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   The president's party can't seem to distinguish between defending rights and soliciting subsidies for fake freedoms   (reason.com) divider line 219
    More: Interesting, Nancy Keenan, force of law, Democrats, Jacob Sullum, Catholic University, Yahoo News, discrimination in the workplace, equality under the law  
•       •       •

1443 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Sep 2012 at 2:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



219 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-12 12:23:25 PM
Although Fluke could have picked a different school, she told The Washington Post last February, "I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care."

OMG SHE'S A MONSTER.
 
2012-09-12 12:49:55 PM

DamnYankees: Although Fluke could have picked a different school, she told The Washington Post last February, "I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care."

OMG SHE'S A MONSTER.


It's a valid point whether you agree or not. Point is that she could have attended any number of public and non-religious colleges that have no such restrictions. She chose to attend Georgetown which is a Catholic University and the Catholic religion is against birth control (also against pre-marital sex and sex is for procreation). If she didn't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church or wouldn't abide by them, why did she choose that school?

I'm not at all religious, but I also believe that the government shouldn't be forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control...something that is in direct violation of their religion. Don't like it? Don't go to school there. Nobody FORCED her to attend Georgetown and Georgetown shouldn't forced to bend to HER beliefs.

That being said, she did not deserve to be excoriated by Rush Limbaugh. It's one thing to disagree with Fluke, another thing to call her a slut on national radio.
 
2012-09-12 12:54:26 PM

slayer199: I'm not at all religious, but I also believe that the government shouldn't be forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control...something that is in direct violation of their religion.


Sure they should. Insurance companies should always cover medical standard of care.

The crux here should be that the university isn't FORCED to purchase insurance for its employees or students. If they don't like the medical standard of care, then they shouldn't buy it. They shouldn't BE ABLE to buy insurance that doesn't meet medical standard of care.
 
2012-09-12 12:55:54 PM

slayer199: It's a valid point whether you agree or not. Point is that she could have attended any number of public and non-religious colleges that have no such restrictions.


It's not a valid point anywhere but in a small sliver of American society. This is the same argument that goes back to the Civil Rights Act and banning discrimination in restaurants. If you're black, you don't have to go to that restaurant! That's not how society works. Privately owned simply does not mean you have the right to treat people in any way conceivable, and it has not been that way for a long time.

slayer199: I'm not at all religious, but I also believe that the government shouldn't be forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control...something that is in direct violation of their religion. Don't like it? Don't go to school there. Nobody FORCED her to attend Georgetown and Georgetown shouldn't forced to bend to HER beliefs.


How does this not equally flip the other way - if you're a college, you need to offer X, Y and Z. Don't like it? Don't open a school. Nobody FORCED the Church to open a university and people who choose to participate in the higher education system shouldn't be forced to bend to their beliefs.

Why is the school's choice valid and hers is not?
 
2012-09-12 12:59:33 PM

DamnYankees: It's not a valid point anywhere but in a small sliver of American society. This is the same argument that goes back to the Civil Rights Act and banning discrimination in restaurants. If you're black, you don't have to go to that restaurant! That's not how society works. Privately owned simply does not mean you have the right to treat people in any way conceivable, and it has not been that way for a long time.


Exactly. And health insurance should at least be looked at as a public accomodation, and probably even as a public utility. Insurance companies can't sell just any policy, because the health of the populace is at stake. And, thus, it is heavily regulated, as it should be. I think it's abominable that an employer of any stripe can pick and choose to remove medical standard of care from its policies.
 
2012-09-12 01:04:47 PM

DamnYankees: It's not a valid point anywhere but in a small sliver of American society. This is the same argument that goes back to the Civil Rights Act and banning discrimination in restaurants. If you're black, you don't have to go to that restaurant! That's not how society works. Privately owned simply does not mean you have the right to treat people in any way conceivable, and it has not been that way for a long time.


We're talking about birth control, not civil rights. Sex is an optional behavior...the color of your skin is not. Apples and oranges.

DamnYankees: How does this not equally flip the other way - if you're a college, you need to offer X, Y and Z. Don't like it? Don't open a school. Nobody FORCED the Church to open a university and people who choose to participate in the higher education system shouldn't be forced to bend to their beliefs.

Why is the school's choice valid and hers is not?


Uh, Georgetown University was established in 1789 as a Catholic University. And yes, if you attend there you SHOULD be forced to bend to their beliefs (or at least play along while you're there). Attendance there is optional and there are plenty of universities that are NOT Catholic to attend if you disagree.

Look, I get it. You don't like religion...hell, I don't either. Hell, I don't agree with the Catholic Church on the issue of birth control. But I fundamentally disagree with the government basically telling a Catholic University to go against their religion and provide birth control. The First Amendment protects the People from the government establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise of religion.
 
2012-09-12 01:09:18 PM

slayer199: We're talking about birth control, not civil rights. Sex is an optional behavior...the color of your skin is not. Apples and oranges.


Your analogy stinks. You can't analogize the activity to the status of the person. The right analogy would be:

Gender: sex :: race: eating/

You can't restrict someone's ability to to the activity based on the status. The comparison holds.

slayer199: Uh, Georgetown University was established in 1789 as a Catholic University.


I fail to see how this is relevant.

slayer199: And yes, if you attend there you SHOULD be forced to bend to their beliefs (or at least play along while you're there). Attendance there is optional and there are plenty of universities that are NOT Catholic to attend if you disagree.


You're repeating yourself, but not explaining yourself. Yes, attending a university is optional. But so is operating one. The argument is not about free markets and choice, but rather about which value we want to prioritize in society - non-discrimination against women or the freedom of religious institutions to engage in that discrimination based on religious beliefs. You are free to value one over the other, but lets be honest about what we're choosing between.

slayer199: But I fundamentally disagree with the government basically telling a Catholic University to go against their religion and provide birth control.


No one is doing that. Rather, the government is providing a condition to operating a public institution. Providing X, Y or Z in your health care plan is no more an infringement on civil rights than is telling Georgetown they need to have their buildings up to code. These are general rules that apply to all public institutions, not discrimination against religious groups.
 
2012-09-12 01:11:31 PM

DamnYankees: The argument is not about free markets and choice, but rather about which value we want to prioritize in society - non-discrimination against women or the freedom of religious institutions to engage in that discrimination based on religious beliefs. You are free to value one over the other, but lets be honest about what we're choosing between.


Precisely. Both parties are making a voluntary choice. Why should an institution's choice matter more than an individual's?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-12 01:15:17 PM

slayer199: DamnYankees: Although Fluke could have picked a different school, she told The Washington Post last February, "I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care."

OMG SHE'S A MONSTER.

It's a valid point whether you agree or not. Point is that she could have attended any number of public and non-religious colleges that have no such restrictions. She chose to attend Georgetown which is a Catholic University and the Catholic religion is against birth control (also against pre-marital sex and sex is for procreation). If she didn't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church or wouldn't abide by them, why did she choose that school?

I'm not at all religious, but I also believe that the government shouldn't be forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control...something that is in direct violation of their religion. Don't like it? Don't go to school there. Nobody FORCED her to attend Georgetown and Georgetown shouldn't forced to bend to HER beliefs.

That being said, she did not deserve to be excoriated by Rush Limbaugh. It's one thing to disagree with Fluke, another thing to call her a slut on national radio.


Yep. It's like segregation. If you don't like the segregated lunch counter go to one that has a back entrance for blacks.
 
2012-09-12 01:19:20 PM

DamnYankees: You're repeating yourself, but not explaining yourself. Yes, attending a university is optional. But so is operating one. The argument is not about free markets and choice, but rather about which value we want to prioritize in society - non-discrimination against women or the freedom of religious institutions to engage in that discrimination based on religious beliefs. You are free to value one over the other, but lets be honest about what we're choosing between.


So, you're saying a university more than 200 years old no longer has a right to operate as a religious institution and within the beliefs of their church? First off, I don't buy your analogy that it's discriminatory against women that a Catholic University does not wish to provide birth control since both birth control AND pre-marital sex are against their religion.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying I agree with Georgetown OR the Catholic Church, I just see this as government infringing on the rights of a religious institution to operate within their beliefs.
 
2012-09-12 01:23:22 PM

slayer199: So, you're saying a university more than 200 years old no longer has a right to operate as a religious institution and within the beliefs of their church?


If the beliefs of an old institution are discriminatory, then yes, they should have no right to do it.

Tradition is a sh*tty reason to do anything.
 
2012-09-12 01:25:39 PM

slayer199: So, you're saying a university more than 200 years old no longer has a right to operate as a religious institution and within the beliefs of their church?


I disagree with the binary nature of this question. Merely being forced to comply with one provision of a law which is at odds with one of their religious beliefs does not mean they "no longer have a right to operate as a religious institution". Imagine if Yeshiva University said everyone who worked there had to wear a yarmulka, and then there was a court ruling saying you can't compel people to do that. Does that mean Yeshiva University would no longer be operating as a Jewish school? Of course not.

slayer199: First off, I don't buy your analogy that it's discriminatory against women that a Catholic University does not wish to provide birth control since both birth control AND pre-marital sex are against their religion.


I'm not sure how "being against religion" makes something no longer discriminatory. They often go together.

slayer199: Keep in mind, I'm not saying I agree with Georgetown OR the Catholic Church, I just see this as government infringing on the rights of a religious institution to operate within their beliefs.


I understand that. I'm not accusing you of supporting the policy or buying into the philosophy.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-12 01:29:16 PM
Actually government has been regulation what conditions and treatments insurance companies cover for decades. The whole controversy is a manufactured.
 
2012-09-12 01:31:50 PM

DamnYankees: Your analogy stinks. You can't analogize the activity to the status of the person. The right analogy would be:

Gender: sex :: race: eating/

You can't restrict someone's ability to to the activity based on the status. The comparison holds.


Yes you can. One of the major sins in the Catholic Church is sex outside of marriage. By forcing them to provide birth control, you're telling them that the Church's long-standing policy and beliefs don't matter in the face of the government. Let me put it another way, if a Catholic University is forced by the government to provide birth control (which if you follow the teachings of the Church, birth control would be unnecessary because you're not supposed to have sex outside of marriage), it's going against one of the tenets of the Catholic Church.

While we'll agree that the Church's stance is backwards and deliberately naive, we'll disagree on their rights to have that belief. If you don't like it, don't attend Church or a Catholic University.
 
2012-09-12 01:35:38 PM

slayer199: By forcing them to provide birth control, you're telling them that the Church's long-standing policy and beliefs don't matter in the face of the government.


If this was true, they would provide birth control to married women. Do they?

slayer199: Let me put it another way, if a Catholic University is forced by the government to provide birth control (which if you follow the teachings of the Church, birth control would be unnecessary because you're not supposed to have sex outside of marriage), it's going against one of the tenets of the Catholic Church.


Yes, it is. That happens a lot in the world - we have laws that apply to everyone, and they sometimes conflict with religious rules. For example, the military long had a rule that you couldn't wear a turban in the army. Was this a gross violation of Sikh rights? It's arguable, and I believe the policy has been reversed, but it seems to me this doesn't make the army anti-Sikh. It just applies general rules, and religions, like any other form of belief, need to comply.
 
2012-09-12 01:38:55 PM

DamnYankees: Yes, it is. That happens a lot in the world - we have laws that apply to everyone, and they sometimes conflict with religious rules. For example, the military long had a rule that you couldn't wear a turban in the army. Was this a gross violation of Sikh rights? It's arguable, and I believe the policy has been reversed, but it seems to me this doesn't make the army anti-Sikh. It just applies general rules, and religions, like any other form of belief, need to comply.


They allowed that, BTW.
photogallery.sandesh.com 
It looks good!
 
2012-09-12 01:39:25 PM

hillbillypharmacist: DamnYankees: Yes, it is. That happens a lot in the world - we have laws that apply to everyone, and they sometimes conflict with religious rules. For example, the military long had a rule that you couldn't wear a turban in the army. Was this a gross violation of Sikh rights? It's arguable, and I believe the policy has been reversed, but it seems to me this doesn't make the army anti-Sikh. It just applies general rules, and religions, like any other form of belief, need to comply.

They allowed that, BTW.
[photogallery.sandesh.com image 450x337] 
It looks good!


Yeah, I mentioned that in the post.
 
2012-09-12 01:44:16 PM

DamnYankees: Yeah, I mentioned that in the post.


You made it sound like you weren't sure.
 
2012-09-12 01:45:04 PM

hillbillypharmacist: DamnYankees: Yeah, I mentioned that in the post.

You made it sound like you weren't sure.


Well I definitely didn't have an awesome biatchass picture proving my case.
 
2012-09-12 01:51:25 PM

DamnYankees: slayer199: By forcing them to provide birth control, you're telling them that the Church's long-standing policy and beliefs don't matter in the face of the government.

If this was true, they would provide birth control to married women. Do they?

slayer199: Let me put it another way, if a Catholic University is forced by the government to provide birth control (which if you follow the teachings of the Church, birth control would be unnecessary because you're not supposed to have sex outside of marriage), it's going against one of the tenets of the Catholic Church.

Yes, it is. That happens a lot in the world - we have laws that apply to everyone, and they sometimes conflict with religious rules. For example, the military long had a rule that you couldn't wear a turban in the army. Was this a gross violation of Sikh rights? It's arguable, and I believe the policy has been reversed, but it seems to me this doesn't make the army anti-Sikh. It just applies general rules, and religions, like any other form of belief, need to comply.


Not a good analogy.

Georgetown is a private Catholic University, not the military (which pretty much forces everyone to conform to the military way of doing things). While you, I, and 90% of the people on Fark may agree that the Church's teachings on birth control are backwards...I won't agree that the government has a right to force them to change their beliefs on the topic.

The essential problem I have with this entire line is that people want to support freedom of speech, religion, and press unless they disagree with it, then those freedoms be damned. You're seeing it as protecting the reproductive rights of Sandra Fluke against the ass-backwards teachings of a university. I'm seeing it as an issue protecting the rights of a private religious university against an overbearing government. We'll just have to agree to disagree as there's no real middle ground here (especially since I don't agree with the Church OR the University, but I'll defend them on philosophical grounds on this issue).
 
2012-09-12 01:56:21 PM

slayer199: Georgetown is a private Catholic University, not the military (which pretty much forces everyone to conform to the military way of doing things).


You're misunderstanding the analogy. I'm not analogizing the military to Georgetown. I'm analogizing Sikhs to Georgetown. It's the government creating the rule and applying to everyone, and sometimes religious persons (people or institutions) get it applied to them. I fail to see how this analogy fails.

slayer199: The essential problem I have with this entire line is that people want to support freedom of speech, religion, and press unless they disagree with it, then those freedoms be damned.


I feel like you are misrepresenting the debate. It's not about "disagreeing" with the speech. Religious institutions have plenty of speech that people disagree with and no one wants to restrict it. It's about one freedom butting up against another. And unless you understand that conflict, understand that IS the conflict, you won't be talking to people who disagree with you. You'll be talking to yourself.

slayer199: You're seeing it as protecting the reproductive rights of Sandra Fluke against the ass-backwards teachings of a university. I'm seeing it as an issue protecting the rights of a private religious university against an overbearing government.


This is absolutely correct, and you're now addressing the issue. What's more important - the individual right to health care, or the religious right to deny it. That's a debate, it surely is. But it isn't simply a matter of "disagreeing" with their speech or religious beliefs.
 
2012-09-12 02:00:30 PM

hillbillypharmacist: photogallery.sandesh.com
It looks good!


It does indeed. Do they have to wear the beret over that, or is that sufficient?
 
2012-09-12 02:06:04 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: It does indeed. Do they have to wear the beret over that, or is that sufficient?


I think it replaces the beret, thus:
www.ndtv.com
 
2012-09-12 02:13:57 PM

vpb: Actually government has been regulation what conditions and treatments insurance companies cover for decades.


And we're told that it's completely and totally farked up and must be fixed...by the same government that has "been regulation what conditions and treatments insurance companies cover for decades."

But they'll get it right this time.
 
2012-09-12 02:22:54 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: And we're told that it's completely and totally farked up and must be fixed...by the same government that has "been regulation what conditions and treatments insurance companies cover for decades."

But they'll get it right this time.


i291.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-12 02:31:21 PM

DamnYankees: slayer199: Georgetown is a private Catholic University, not the military (which pretty much forces everyone to conform to the military way of doing things).

You're misunderstanding the analogy. I'm not analogizing the military to Georgetown. I'm analogizing Sikhs to Georgetown. It's the government creating the rule and applying to everyone, and sometimes religious persons (people or institutions) get it applied to them. I fail to see how this analogy fails.

slayer199: The essential problem I have with this entire line is that people want to support freedom of speech, religion, and press unless they disagree with it, then those freedoms be damned.

I feel like you are misrepresenting the debate. It's not about "disagreeing" with the speech. Religious institutions have plenty of speech that people disagree with and no one wants to restrict it. It's about one freedom butting up against another. And unless you understand that conflict, understand that IS the conflict, you won't be talking to people who disagree with you. You'll be talking to yourself.

slayer199: You're seeing it as protecting the reproductive rights of Sandra Fluke against the ass-backwards teachings of a university. I'm seeing it as an issue protecting the rights of a private religious university against an overbearing government.

This is absolutely correct, and you're now addressing the issue. What's more important - the individual right to health care, or the religious right to deny it. That's a debate, it surely is. But it isn't simply a matter of "disagreeing" with their speech or religious beliefs.


Let me put it to you a different way so maybe you'll understand my POV.

Would you walk into a Catholic Church and tell them they could no longer teach that premarital sex is wrong? Would you walk into a mosque and tell a muslim that they had to display Mohammed on the wall? Would you walk into a Jewish temple and tell them they have to eat pork?

I'm making no distinction from the church and the University as religious institutions. Both are private with their own rules in accordance to the Catholic Church. Whether I disagree with their beliefs is irrelevant, they are protected by and from the government.
 
2012-09-12 02:36:31 PM

slayer199: Would you walk into a Catholic Church and tell them they could no longer teach that premarital sex is wrong?


No, because there's no compelling public policy argument or individual liberty at play here strong enough to overcome the right the church has to its religious freedom.

slayer199: Would you walk into a mosque and tell a muslim that they had to display Mohammed on the wall?


No, because there's no compelling public policy argument or individual liberty at play here strong enough to overcome the right the mosque has to its religious freedom.

slayer199: Would you walk into a Jewish temple and tell them they have to eat pork?


No, because there's no compelling public policy argument or individual liberty at play here strong enough to overcome the right the temple has to its religious freedom.
 
2012-09-12 02:37:56 PM

slayer199: Let me put it to you a different way so maybe you'll understand my POV.

Would you walk into a Catholic Church and tell them they could no longer teach that premarital sex is wrong? Would you walk into a mosque and tell a muslim that they had to display Mohammed on the wall? Would you walk into a Jewish temple and tell them they have to eat pork?

I'm making no distinction from the church and the University as religious institutions. Both are private with their own rules in accordance to the Catholic Church. Whether I disagree with their beliefs is irrelevant, they are protected by and from the government.


Why are churches required to refrain from supporting a particular candidate, then? How can the government tell them that they cannot speak these words?

Religious belief doesn't excuse you from all government regulation. They can choose to participate in the mart of medical insurance, but they have no standing to deny a person the medical standard of care just because they don't agree with it. The institution can choose not to participate if this situation is unacceptable. The rights of the individual trump the rights of an institution.
 
2012-09-12 02:38:05 PM
Blacks don't HAVE to attend Harvard, they can always go to the local community college, so I see no reason why the government should force them to let those negros in
 
2012-09-12 02:38:36 PM

slayer199: Let me put it to you a different way so maybe you'll understand my POV.

Would you walk into a Catholic Church and tell them they could no longer teach that premarital sex is wrong? Would you walk into a mosque and tell a muslim that they had to display Mohammed on the wall? Would you walk into a Jewish temple and tell them they have to eat pork?

I'm making no distinction from the church and the University as religious institutions. Both are private with their own rules in accordance to the Catholic Church. Whether I disagree with their beliefs is irrelevant, they are protected by and from the government.


So any attempt to get an organization to change it's policies is illegitimate in your opinion?
 
2012-09-12 02:41:04 PM

slayer199: We're talking about birth control, not civil rights. Sex is an optional behavior...the color of your skin is not. Apples and oranges.


So, then, what's your opinion on gay rights?
 
2012-09-12 02:41:12 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: It does indeed. Do they have to wear the beret over that, or is that sufficient?

I think it replaces the beret, thus:
[www.ndtv.com image 295x200]


That's kind of awesome.
 
2012-09-12 02:43:58 PM

slayer199: We're talking about birth control, not civil rights. Sex is an optional behavior...the color of your skin is not. Apples and oranges.


Wait wait, what?

I thought Sandra Fluke's testimony was about women who needed birth control for medical conditions (such as ovarian cysts) weren't able to get it because insurance wouldn't pay for it. It had nothing to do with sex.

Am I confused?
 
2012-09-12 02:44:47 PM
the Democrats immediately add that women have a right to obtain abortions "regardless of ability to pay," once again conflating freedom from coercion with a claim on other people's resources.

Subsidizing low income people getting abortions uses less of other people's resources in the long run. So how does a feeble and short sighted libertarian mind justify that?
 
2012-09-12 02:44:48 PM
Although Fluke could have picked a different school

abagond.files.wordpress.com

Could have picked a different school.


/I know that word is not allowed, but that picture is so powerful that I hope the mods leave it up. But if not, I understand.
 
2012-09-12 02:45:52 PM
Remember, we must always allow Muslims to kill our diplomats when conservatives engage in free speech, but always force conservatives to pay for the birth control and abortions of others even though they are morally opposed to such things. Any other position is racist.
 
2012-09-12 02:45:55 PM
Wasn't Georgetown one of those schools where students were required as part of their tuition to purchase health insurance - meaning that the university itself didn't contribute a single red cent? Why shouldn't Fluke complain that the is required to purchase health insurance that doesn't actually cover the health care she needs?

It's one things to complain about the government requiring you to buy insurance. It'd be another thing if the government required you to buy insurance, and then said that the insurance you just bought couldn't pay for what you need.
 
2012-09-12 02:46:03 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Wait wait, what? I thought Sandra Fluke's testimony was about women who needed birth control for medical conditions (such as ovarian cysts) weren't able to get it because insurance wouldn't pay for it. It had nothing to do with sex. Am I confused?


No, you're absolutely right, but Slayer's a [moron|troll].
 
2012-09-12 02:46:59 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I thought Sandra Fluke's testimony was about women who needed birth control for medical conditions (such as ovarian cysts) weren't able to get it because insurance wouldn't pay for it. It had nothing to do with sex.

Am I confused?


Yes, you are confused. You see, women who take birth control and have sex don't get what they deserve. It doesn't really matter why you're supposedly taking it. Birth control pills allow injustice, plain and simple.
 
2012-09-12 02:47:55 PM

slayer199: We're talking about birth control medication prescribed by a doctor, not civil rights. Sex is an optional behavior...the color of your skin is not. Apples and oranges.


Remember - SFluke was talking about a friend that had (IIRC) ortho PRESCRIBED FOR A MEDICAL CONDITION that wasn't "risk of pregnancy".

You want Georgetown University telling doctors what they can and cannot prescribe to treat certain conditions? How about baldness pills, which even if handled (not ingested) by pregnant women, can cause birth defects or miscarriages? How about Thalidomide, which is now being prescribed for treating leprosy and certain kinds of cancers? How about any of the thousands upon thousands of other medications (most prescription-only painkillers, too) that can cause birth defects and miscarriages - are we to deny doctors the ability to prescribe them because they may be used as abortifacients (sp)?
 
2012-09-12 02:49:05 PM

slayer199: Keep in mind, I'm not saying I agree with Georgetown OR the Catholic Church, I just see this as government infringing on the rights of a religious institution to operate within their beliefs.


Then perhaps this religious institution shouldn't accept millions in public funds if they want to deny healthcare on the basis of their particular superstition.
 
2012-09-12 02:49:59 PM

slayer199: Sex is an optional behavior


All of evolution and the very existence of humanity would like a word with you. Oh wait, you're retarded. Yes, sex is optional and please never have it.

slayer199: She chose to attend Georgetown which is a Catholic University and the Catholic religion is against birth control


Sorry did you say Georgetown was a Catholic University or a Catholic Church. You see, which one it is matters. It is very true the Catholic religion is against birth control. So we really need that answer, is Georgetown a Catholic University or a Catholic Church.

slayer199: I'm not at all religious, but I also believe that the government shouldn't be forcing religious institutions


Agreed. Again, is Georgetown a University or a Church. It matters.

slayer199: something that is in direct violation of their religion. Don't like it? Don't go to school there.


Right right, so is Georgetown a University where she would attend school or a Church where she would attend religious services? See because schools and churches are very different things.
 
2012-09-12 02:50:28 PM

beta_plus: Remember, we must always allow Muslims to kill our diplomats when conservatives engage in free speech, but always force conservatives to pay for the birth control and abortions of others even though they are morally opposed to such things. Any other position is racist.


OH MY GOD you're boring.
 
2012-09-12 02:50:36 PM
Libertarians really don't understand the concept of positive & negative freedoms huh?
 
2012-09-12 02:50:48 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: So, then, what's your opinion on gay rights?


Personally? I'm a libertarian that supports gay marriage, abortion, birth control, ending the war on drugs, etc. Do not confuse my personal beliefs with my principled defense of a religious institution expressing beliefs counter to my own.

That being said, religious institutions are given a lot of Constitutional leeway. You have institutions that are racist (Church of the Creator), allow/support drug use, that are sexist, anti-gay...whatever. My point is that as abhorrent that some of those beliefs may be, I will still argue for their right to have and express those beliefs without government intrusion.
 
2012-09-12 02:52:21 PM

Communist_Manifesto: Libertarians really don't understand the concept of positive & negative freedoms huh?


Nope, because fark you, they got theirs.
 
2012-09-12 02:52:51 PM

slayer199: Fluorescent Testicle: So, then, what's your opinion on gay rights?

Personally? I'm a libertarian that supports gay marriage, abortion, birth control, ending the war on drugs, etc. Do not confuse my personal beliefs with my principled defense of a religious institution expressing beliefs counter to my own.

That being said, religious institutions are given a lot of Constitutional leeway. You have institutions that are racist (Church of the Creator), allow/support drug use, that are sexist, anti-gay...whatever. My point is that as abhorrent that some of those beliefs may be, I will still argue for their right to have and express those beliefs without government intrusion.


No one has attempted to intrude on Georgetown's right to have and express their beliefs. Every person who is a member of the Georgetown community has every right not to take birth control pills.
 
2012-09-12 02:53:12 PM

slayer199: Fluorescent Testicle: So, then, what's your opinion on gay rights?

Personally? I'm a libertarian that supports gay marriage, abortion, birth control, ending the war on drugs, etc. Do not confuse my personal beliefs with my principled defense of a religious institution expressing beliefs counter to my own.

That being said, religious institutions are given a lot of Constitutional leeway. You have institutions that are racist (Church of the Creator), allow/support drug use, that are sexist, anti-gay...whatever. My point is that as abhorrent that some of those beliefs may be, I will still argue for their right to have and express those beliefs without government intrusion.


Do you believe that all employers should be able to pick and choose which prescriptions and medical procedures their employees should have access to?
 
2012-09-12 02:53:18 PM

Communist_Manifesto: Libertarians really don't understand the concept of positive & negative freedoms huh?


I think they understand it amazingly well. They just don't believe the latter should be protected.

The reality is the distinction between positive and negative freedoms is largely artificial and unsustainable when you really think about it.
 
2012-09-12 02:54:56 PM

hillbillypharmacist: slayer199: I'm not at all religious, but I also believe that the government shouldn't be forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control...something that is in direct violation of their religion.

Sure they should. Insurance companies should always cover medical standard of care.

The crux here should be that the university isn't FORCED to purchase insurance for its employees or students. If they don't like the medical standard of care, then they shouldn't buy it. They shouldn't BE ABLE to buy insurance that doesn't meet medical standard of care.


How is birth control a standard of CARE?
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report