Obama vs. religious freedom

Posts: 2340

KarenT wrote:

The advent of Viagra was when i got really angry over my insurance policy not covering birth control (except tubal ligation). We can pay for men to make whoopee, but not provide protection against unintended pregnancies. Hooray for the rules finally catching up!

Yup. Unless Santorum and some of the more retarded members of the conservative party have their way, since they're actively trying (or at least campaigning) to ban all contraception. And happy wonders why I was upset? He must either not be married or have any females in his family, 'cause the idea that a politician could or would want to ban any medically necessary procedure should be a) absolutely enraging to anyone who knows someone who needed (or could need) the procedure, and b) anathema to a "small government" conservative.

Posts: 3424

Heretic wrote:

Yup. Unless Santorum and some of the more retarded members of the conservative party have their way, since they're actively trying (or at least campaigning) to ban all contraception. And happy wonders why I was upset? He must either not be married or have any females in his family, 'cause the idea that a politician could or would want to ban any medically necessary procedure should be a) absolutely enraging to anyone who knows someone who needed (or could need) the procedure, and b) anathema to a "small government" conservative.

Read my first sentence at the beginning of this thread.
I am married, and my wife and daughter use or have used contraception. I wouldn't even bother getting outraged about people attempting to ban contraception. There is no chance in hell that will ever even come close to happening.
This whole thing is a 1st amendment issue to me - no more, no less.

Posts: 2340

happy jack wrote:

I wouldn't even bother getting outraged about people attempting to ban contraception. There is no chance in hell that will ever even come close to happening.

So are you against the "personhood" laws, since they would effectively ban hormonal birth control? The fact that the Republican party is spending quite a bit of time and money on this issue doesn't worry you at all? They certainly don't have a record of voting with logic and reason in mind - Palin, creationism, global warming skepticism, Obama's birth certificate, voter IDs, drug testing for welfare recipients, etc.

happy jack wrote:

This whole thing is a 1st amendment issue...

...that wasn't an "issue", until recently, in the 28 or so states where similar legislation has been in place for quite some time now. It's quite telling that there wasn't a fanatical objection when any of that was put into place. And the fact that absolutely none of the idiots worried about first amendment violations have yet to criticize the exact same religious violation when it comes to Viagra or Cialis exposes this whole argument as the usual hypocritical partisan hackery, the "it's only bad 'cause Obama did it", we've come to know and loathe from the Republican party.

Posts: 341

Isn't there a word for that?

Quote:

Before current birth-control fight, Republicans backed mandates

Republicans are fighting a birth-control rule in President Obama's healthcare law, but several states have enacted contraceptive mandates with the support of GOP lawmakers and governors.

February 15, 2012|By Kim Geiger and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

Reporting from Washington — Since President Obama moved to require Catholic hospitals and universities to offer their employees contraceptive health benefits, Republicans have rushed to accuse the administration of an unprecedented attack on religious freedoms.

None has been more forceful than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who accused Obama of "a direct violation of the 1st Amendment." But years before the current partisan firestorm, GOP lawmakers and governors around the country, including Huckabee, backed similar mandates.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

Posts: 3424

Heretic wrote:

The fact that the Republican party is spending quite a bit of time and money on this issue doesn't worry you at all?

Nope.
Ain't gonna happen, so why worry?

Posts: 2340

I hope you're right.

Posts: 2340

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

The same people upset over this contraception issue are the same people who were fighting against women and civil rights.

Really?
They must be awfully old by now.
Where do they find the energy?

Poll: GOP Voters In Deep South Think Obama Is Muslim, Unsure On Interracial Marriage

Quote:

Interracial marriage laws were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967, but a significant minority of Mississippi and Alabama apparently still long for their return, or are at least ambivalent about the idea. In Alabama, 67 percent of respondents said interracial marriage should be allowed, but 21 percent said it should be illegal and another 12 percent were not sure. Mississippi Republican voters were even more divided: Only 52 percent said such marriages should be legal, versus 29 percent who said they should be banned and 17 percent who were unsure.

I guess it's only news to you that the people who opposed (and still do) the advancement of civil rights in this country often/nearly always cite the Bible as their justification. Women's rights, African American rights, interracial rights, gay rights, etc. Such ignorance is by no means gone from our culture by any stretch of the imagination. If we're going to give religion a pass, we really have to give religion a pass, right? That was your whole argument. So should any of these backwater rednecks be able to exempt the spouse of an employee in an interracial marriage from health benefits, in part or in whole, based on their "moral objections" to the marriage? And if not, why is not okay to do it to such an employee (trampling all over the first amendment rights of the employer), but perfectly fine to do it to my wife?

Posts: 2340

Focus on the Family to push ballot initiative to ban state government interference

Quote:

Focus on the Family will build a coalition to back a constitutional amendment prohibiting state government from interfering with the religious freedom of a person or religious organization.

The draft language states that government may not directly or indirectly burden a person or organization by withholding benefits, assessing penalties or excluding a person or group from government programs or facilities.

Read: they want to stick it to the gays like the South wants to stick it to the blacks. And here's the text of the actual amendment:

Quote:

Section 32. Religious Liberty.
(1) Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty.
(2) The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government prove it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.
(3) A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

At least they recognize offering health care services to people they don't like or services they don't like is not a direct violation of their faith, exactly as I stated:

Quote:

There's nothing in religious doctrine actually holding employers cosmically responsible; their soul's not in jeopardy. That still lies with the individual actually using the contraception. Free will and all.

But hey, this is America, "not the Soviet Union", and I'm free to impose my religious beliefs on my employees.

And just how awesome is it that Republicans are paving the way for Sharia law with this "freedom of religion above all else" nonsense?