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.

(Hot Air)   Federal Appeals Court decides that the Obamacare mandate that forces religious groups and religious people to violate their religious beliefs might violate a part of the constitution   (hotair.com) divider line 300
    More: Interesting, United States courts of appeals, obamacare, Law and Justice, merits of the case, religious denomination, irreparable injury, federal district court, HHS  
•       •       •

1643 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Nov 2012 at 9:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 09:11:31 AM  
FTA: The Daily Caller notes that the injunction does not address the merits of the case, which in fact none of the cases yet have done.

This is neither a surprise nor a victory.
 
2012-11-29 09:25:40 AM  
I thought SCOTUS already decided this issue...
 
2012-11-29 09:26:56 AM  
just subpoena god, until he straightens this out we won't know for sure.
 
2012-11-29 09:29:12 AM  
Health insurance shouldn't be viewed as a benefit, even though that's how it's been considered up until now. An acceptable health insurance plan is a minimum guarantee of healthcare. And much like a respirator, employers should not be able to offer substandard safety equipment. And what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable safety equipment should be left solely to professionals, and never to the arbitrary and capricious religious preferences of the employer.

The right thing to do of course is remove health insurance from the employer's purview.

But failing this, the right thing to do is for the employer to either offer standard plans, or don't offer plans at all, and leave it to the employee to figure it out for themselves.
 
2012-11-29 09:29:57 AM  
The 8th circuit:
Arkansas Iowa Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

/just for reference
 
2012-11-29 09:38:15 AM  

BunkyBrewman: The 8th circuit:
Arkansas Iowa Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

/just for reference


that kind of explains a few things.
 
2012-11-29 09:41:28 AM  
If we can force the Amish to put reflectors on their buggies, we can force Catholic hospitals to offer birth control to their workers.
 
2012-11-29 09:42:51 AM  

vernonFL: If we can force the Amish to put reflectors on their buggies, we can force Catholic hospitals to offer birth control to their workers.


Especially when they won't have to pay for it.
 
2012-11-29 09:46:07 AM  
how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"
 
2012-11-29 09:48:01 AM  

incendi: FTA: The Daily Caller notes that the injunction does not address the merits of the case, which in fact none of the cases yet have done.

This is neither a surprise nor a victory.


It is a surprise, and it is a partial victory. You have to make a prima facie showing of a "substantial likelihood" of success on the merits for an injunction to issue.

IOW, the court is leaning in favor of the argument.
 
2012-11-29 09:48:47 AM  

FlashHarry: how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"


It doesn't. But the Catholic church is required by jesus chapter balls verse my ass to be the eternal victim. Always and forever, amen.
 
2012-11-29 09:48:48 AM  

FlashHarry: how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"


Well, you know, it's not like Jesus ever healed anyone for free, or anything like that.

Snark aside, it probably has something to do with birth control.

/DRTFA
 
2012-11-29 09:51:07 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Health insurance shouldn't be viewed as a benefit, even though that's how it's been considered up until now. An acceptable health insurance plan is a minimum guarantee of healthcare. And much like a respirator, employers should not be able to offer substandard safety equipment. And what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable safety equipment should be left solely to professionals, and never to the arbitrary and capricious religious preferences of the employer.

The right thing to do of course is remove health insurance from the employer's purview.

But failing this, the right thing to do is for the employer to either offer standard plans, or don't offer plans at all, and leave it to the employee to figure it out for themselves.


It would also reduce the burden on small businesses, and encourage entrepreneurs if they don't feel tied to one employer just for the health plan.

Universal healthcare: it works.
 
2012-11-29 09:51:47 AM  

FlashHarry: how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"


Because they are held at gunpoint and forced to start a business, and then comply with regulations for said business.

Don't like complying with business regulations on a religious basis? Feel free to give away all your possessions, take up your cross and follow Jesus. He was pretty clear about what you need to do if you want to enter the kingdom of heaven, and it doesn't sound much like entrepreneurship.
 
2012-11-29 09:52:12 AM  
As someone in an earlier thread asked, would this mean an employer who is a Jehovah's Witness could refuse to offer coverage for blood transfusions?

Could a Christian Scientist refuse to cover medical treatment completely?
 
2012-11-29 09:52:18 AM  

vernonFL: If we can force the Amish to put reflectors on their buggies, we can force Catholic hospitals to offer birth control to their workers.


Health insurance is part of an employee benefits package. It is actually a taxable benefit which the employee pays taxes is on. So it is the employee who is technically being forced to pay for other people's birth control.
 
2012-11-29 09:55:35 AM  

gilgigamesh: Could a Christian Scientist refuse to cover medical treatment completely?


Ask Representative Lamar Smith, your new chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

gilgigamesh: It is a surprise, and it is a partial victory. You have to make a prima facie showing of a "substantial likelihood" of success on the merits for an injunction to issue.


I suppose you're right. I doubt the final resolution will be in the hands of this court, though. They do, however, get to screw their employees a little bit longer, so huzzah for them.
 
2012-11-29 09:57:06 AM  

FlashHarry: how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"


The president is black.
 
2012-11-29 09:57:33 AM  
Remember when all these vocal Christians opposed their tax dollars funding an unprovoked war in the Middle East, since Jesus spoke a few times against violence and acting out in hatred and anger?


Guess that would have involved reading the bible a little more, and reading usually isn't these people's strong suit.
 
2012-11-29 09:58:46 AM  

gilgigamesh: As someone in an earlier thread asked, would this mean an employer who is a Jehovah's Witness could refuse to offer coverage for blood transfusions?


pfft fark that, that's small potatoes, you want to really avoid covering anything immediately convert to a Christian Scientist the day your business opens.
 
2012-11-29 09:58:53 AM  

Weaver95: BunkyBrewman: The 8th circuit:
Arkansas Iowa Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota

/just for reference

that kind of explains a few things.


Hey now, just because we (Minnesotans) are surrounded by idiots doesn't mean we should be lumped in with them. We did vote down the gay marriage ban and the voter ID amendments.
 
2012-11-29 09:59:18 AM  
I should be able to impose my religious beliefs on my employees. That's one of the benefits of being a job creator.
 
2012-11-29 09:59:21 AM  

Weaver95: I thought SCOTUS already decided this issue...


No, they just focused on the individual mandate and the penalties for state non-compliance with new Medicare funding. This is a completely different angle.

FlashHarry: how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"


The private entity, despite not being classified as a religious institution, is strongly associated with religion and finds it offensive to be required to pay for services that violate the tenets of the religion they're tied to. Chik-fil-A, for example, might not want to put money into an employee insurance plan that covers abortion because they're pretty fundie.
 
2012-11-29 10:00:20 AM  
Someone needs to start a religion for rational people. We could be excused from over half the laws on the books.
 
2012-11-29 10:00:52 AM  
Is there some reason "employers" can't simply teach their employees to be "good Christians" and not ask for contraception? Whatever happened to the good old days where businesses could dictate behavior?
 
2012-11-29 10:01:07 AM  

FlashHarry: how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"


I've asked my more conservative friends to explain that to me and...well, they can't quite put it into words.

friend: this violates my beliefs!
me: 'you aren't getting birth control or an abortion are you?'
friend: 'well...no. but that stuff is wrong!'
me: 'for YOU maybe, but not for anyone else. how is someone else having access to those services somehow a sin for you?'
friend: 'because i'm paying for it!'
me: 'but you aren't paying for it. your employer is...'
friend: 'but...it's wrong!'
me: 'yes, I understand that abortion and birth control are against your religious beliefs. however, someone ELSE availing themselves of those services using funds provided from their employer and their own contributions does not impact you in any way.'
friend: 'but it's a SIN!'
me: '*sigh*

then there's the flip side that conversation, which deals with employers forcing religious beliefs on their employees.

friend: 'employers shouldn't be forced to provide abortion if it violates their religious beliefs! that's wrong!'
me: 'why would you let an employer make your health care decisions for you? isn't that weird? its a decision that's between you and your doctor.'
friend: abortion is a sin! its WRONG!
me: well yes, I mean I acknowledge that you believe that...but what I am saying is that its weird to take a stance of freedom and self determination and then cede that right to your employer. I thought the Republicans believed in all that freedom stuff?
friend: that's different. this is forcing employers to let employes sin!
me: religious quandary about free will aside for the moment, shouldn't medical decisions be made between a doctor and the patient? why would an employer get to say what course of treatment you can get and what you can't? seems rather invasive and embarrassing. do you really want your boss knowing about your viagra perscription?
friend: you just don't understand. I have to go listen to Rush Limbaugh now.
me: *sigh*
 
2012-11-29 10:01:19 AM  

Sleeping Monkey: Someone needs to start a religion for rational people.


Reality has existed for a while.

/or has it
 
2012-11-29 10:01:50 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Health insurance shouldn't be viewed as a benefit, even though that's how it's been considered up until now. An acceptable health insurance plan is a minimum guarantee of healthcare. And much like a respirator, employers should not be able to offer substandard safety equipment. And what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable safety equipment should be left solely to professionals, and never to the arbitrary and capricious religious preferences of the employer.

The right thing to do of course is remove health insurance from the employer's purview.

But failing this, the right thing to do is for the employer to either offer standard plans, or don't offer plans at all, and leave it to the employee to figure it out for themselves.


A pleasant mix of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide should be considered an employee benefit.
 
2012-11-29 10:02:53 AM  

incendi: I suppose you're right. I doubt the final resolution will be in the hands of this court, though. They do, however, get to screw their employees a little bit longer, so huzzah for them.


It will make the final decision for states in the 8th circuit, at least until the Supremes decide to take it up.
 
2012-11-29 10:03:00 AM  
If this passes can we convert to Ethiopian Zion Coptic and then force Obamacare to buy us weed as part of our health insurance?
 
2012-11-29 10:03:59 AM  

Epoch_Zero: FlashHarry: how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"

The president is black.


This
 
2012-11-29 10:04:18 AM  
Christians are opening up a can of worms.........Why not form a religion that is against taxes, or one that has rape and murder as part of their doctrine? Religious beliefs is not immunity from the law.
 
2012-11-29 10:04:36 AM  

bulldg4life: I should be able to impose my religious beliefs on my employees. That's one of the benefits of being a job creator.


I'm starting to believe that's what Republicans actually want to see codified into the law books. which I suppose is wonderful for the christian evangelicals...but what happens when the boss is a muslim, jew or pagan?
 
2012-11-29 10:04:38 AM  
No shiat.
 
2012-11-29 10:04:53 AM  
The bible has a word for the in-your-face christians of today: Pharisee.

i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-29 10:05:12 AM  
Do you run a business or a church? It's really that simple.
 
2012-11-29 10:05:21 AM  

sprawl15: The private entity, despite not being classified as a religious institution, is strongly associated with religion and finds it offensive to be required to pay for services that violate the tenets of the religion they're tied to. Chik-fil-A, for example, might not want to put money into an employee insurance plan that covers abortion because they're pretty fundie.


So if I run a business and my religious beliefs dictate that women should never be treated as the equal of men, I should get out of having to follow any discrimination laws, right?
 
2012-11-29 10:05:26 AM  
Just because I make a religion that views minimum wage as evil doesn't mean I can ignore the law
 
2012-11-29 10:05:30 AM  

FlashHarry: how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"


It doesn't. The con here is to make idiots think it does so that they can vote the black man outta office not vote the next Dem into office.
 
2012-11-29 10:06:11 AM  

Citrate1007: Christians are opening up a can of worms.........Why not form a religion that is against taxes, or one that has rape and murder as part of their doctrine? Religious beliefs is not immunity from the law.


Approves:

i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-29 10:06:15 AM  

sprawl15: The private entity, despite not being classified as a religious institution, is strongly associated with religion and finds it offensive to be required to pay for services that violate the tenets of the religion they're tied to. Chik-fil-A, for example, might not want to put money into an employee insurance plan that covers abortion because they're pretty fundie.


Actually, the employer pays for a health insurance package. Providing contraceptives may or may not be part of that package. The cost of an insurance policy is based on risk and past payout. Since one pregnancy can easily cost as much as 30 years of contraceptives, it is an actual cost reduction to provide contraceptives. Insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of revenue on direct medical costs now, so the saving should result in a lower cost for that package.

Therefore, the private entity is actually not spending a single penny on contraception and is likely saving money on the deal.
 
2012-11-29 10:06:21 AM  

sprawl15: Weaver95: I thought SCOTUS already decided this issue...

No, they just focused on the individual mandate and the penalties for state non-compliance with new Medicare funding. This is a completely different angle.

FlashHarry: how exactly does it "force people to violate their religious beliefs?"

The private entity, despite not being classified as a religious institution, is strongly associated with religion and finds it offensive to be required to pay for services that violate the tenets of the religion they're tied to. Chik-fil-A, for example, might not want to put money into an employee insurance plan that covers abortion because they're pretty fundie.


Quakers are forced to pay for the military... so pardon me if I dont give a shiat if catholics pay gor other peoples birth control
 
2012-11-29 10:06:45 AM  

Weaver95: bulldg4life: I should be able to impose my religious beliefs on my employees. That's one of the benefits of being a job creator.

I'm starting to believe that's what Republicans actually want to see codified into the law books. which I suppose is wonderful for the christian evangelicals...but what happens when the boss is a muslim, jew or pagan?


Then you can force him to provide bacon or shellfish in the break room.
 
2012-11-29 10:06:52 AM  

Jackson Herring: A pleasant mix of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide should be considered an employee benefit.


Trace noble gasses provided on a pre-tax basis, capped at 1% of employee breath volume.
 
2012-11-29 10:07:28 AM  

Citrate1007: Christians are opening up a can of worms.........Why not form a religion that is against taxes, or one that has rape and murder as part of their doctrine? Religious beliefs is not immunity from the law.


Especially one that...

A) does not force you, the religious employer, to pay for it...
b) does not force your religious employees to get the birth control

Birthcontrolgate vs. Benghazi - Poutrage.... 3,2, 1.... FIGHT!
 
2012-11-29 10:07:50 AM  
Here's the way this works: an employer contributes to an employees benefit. That employee then decides how that money is spent. Because it is their money to spend. Much like a paycheck. Or a retirement plan. The employer is not paying for anything other than their portion ofa comprehensive insurance plan. If employers don't like this system, they should follow their employees around writing checks for everything their employees spend money on up to the limits of their compensation.
 
2012-11-29 10:07:54 AM  
That's it, I'm going to go to court and argue that laws against murder violate my religious freedom by impairing my ability to sacrifice nubile young virgins to Quetzalcoatl.
 
2012-11-29 10:08:00 AM  

badhatharry: Then you can force him to provide bacon or shellfish in the break room.


Bacon should be mandatory anyway.
 
2012-11-29 10:08:45 AM  

gilgigamesh: It will make the final decision for states in the 8th circuit, at least until the Supremes decide to take it up.


I already said you're right once, what more do you want from me?!
 
2012-11-29 10:09:13 AM  
Subby picks his nose and eats it.
 
Displayed 50 of 300 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report