The Senate.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by finnbow

There's an opt out provision for religious employers.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/politi...ontraceptives/

Again, this is all a red herring and the GOP is cynically using to rile up their base.

Obama's administration is in court right now with the Little Sisters Of the Poor.

You can't say thats BS. Even Obama was Questioned about it on the Super Bowl Interview.

Your Opted out is what is on the BS list

Not to mention that article is very old. The lies are showing up now remember.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Obama's administration is in court right now with the Little Sisters Of the Poor.

You can't say thats BS. Even Obama was Questioned about it on the Super Bowl Interview.

Your Opted out is what is on the BS list

Not to mention that article is very old. The lies are showing up now remember.

The Sisters don't want to sign the form that will provide them relief. Screw 'em (figuratively, not literally).

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The Sisters don't want to sign the form that will provide them relief. Screw 'em (figuratively, not literally).

lol your going to hell Finn.

Say your prayers

[finnbow]

Chew on this a bit:

Amanda Marcotte of Slate.com put her finger on the spectacle of plaintiffs "trying to weasel out of nothing more onerous than signing a piece of paper." Yet there's one crowning absurdity she missed, but has been noted by the government: The sisters' insurer is also exempt from the mandate, because the health plan isn't governed by ERISA, the federal law under which the mandate is imposed. In other words, signing the form doesn't lead to contraceptive services either. That's acknowledged by the feds.

This is the point at which the lower court plainly lost its patience. The plaintiffs' claim "reads too much into the language of the Form, which requires only that the individual signing it certify that her organization opposes providing contraceptive coverage," wrote District Judge William J. Martinez. And in this case, he added, the form "does not authorize any organization to deliver contraceptive coverage to Little Sisters' employees.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...,2347913.story

If you don't believe this is a red herring, it's because you don't want to believe it.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Chew on this a bit:

Amanda Marcotte of Slate.com put her finger on the spectacle of plaintiffs "trying to weasel out of nothing more onerous than signing a piece of paper." Yet there's one crowning absurdity she missed, but has been noted by the government: The sisters' insurer is also exempt from the mandate, because the health plan isn't governed by ERISA, the federal law under which the mandate is imposed. In other words, signing the form doesn't lead to contraceptive services either. That's acknowledged by the feds.

This is the point at which the lower court plainly lost its patience. The plaintiffs' claim "reads too much into the language of the Form, which requires only that the individual signing it certify that her organization opposes providing contraceptive coverage," wrote District Judge William J. Martinez. And in this case, he added, the form "does not authorize any organization to deliver contraceptive coverage to Little Sisters' employees.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...,2347913.story

If you don't believe this is a red herring, it's because you don't want to believe it.

I'm not a lawyer and you know what happens when you get two lawyers in the same room. They both walk out richer.

Will see when the dust settles

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Well it's more than that. Something being forced on people that don't agree as to their religion.

We have separation of church and state, or did no one tell you?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by merrylander

We have separation of church and state, or did no one tell you?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

No Polygamy is against the law, but that doesn't mean I agree with that.

Care to elaborate? Just what is the extent of the protection of religious organizations and religious practices?

Should any balancing factors be applied?

Do religious rights trump all others?

Does it matter whether a religious organization is operating in a secular capacity?

Or should business enterprises totally unrelated to a religious organization be able to dictate the beliefs and practices of their employees?

Enlighten us.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Care to elaborate? Just what is the extent of the protection of religious organizations and religious practices?

Should any balancing factors be applied?

Do religious rights trump all others?

Does it matter whether a religious organization is operating in a secular capacity?

Or should business enterprises totally unrelated to a religious organization be able to dictate the beliefs and practices of their employees?

Enlighten us.

Regards,

D-Ray

Indian casinos should be able to sell peyote, and Rastafarians should be able to set up on every street corner and sell ganja. And of course, Christian Scientists should be able to burn down hospitals without being charged with arson and the Amish should be able to demand horse-drawn ambulances. And of course the Mt. Sinai Hospital system should be able to refuse service to uncircumscribed males or compel circumcision before they treat your broken leg, while refusing to serve anything but matzo ball soup and pastrami sandwiches (no cheese).

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Indian casinos should be able to sell peyote, and Rastafarians should be able to set up on every street corner and sell ganja. And of course, Christian Scientists should be able to burn down hospitals without being charged with arson and the Amish should be able to demand horse-drawn ambulances. And of course the Mt. Sinai Hospital system should be able to refuse service to uncircumscribed males or compel circumcision before they treat your broken leg, while refusing to serve anything but matzo ball soup and pastrami sandwiches (no cheese).

One of my favorite things to watch is seeing someone's hideously weak argument taken to the point of absurdity just to showcase how poor it is at face value.

Well done, sir. Well played.