Religion And Birth Control: Not Just a Gop Fight

Judged:

1

Karma is a_______ wrote:

maybe you should do your homework first. some history on the case
The EEOC first took up the case in 2005, which as you may recall President Bush was in fact in office. Ergo, the EEOC was acting under the stewardship of Bush.
"On May 15, 2005, Perich filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that Hosanna-Tabor’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC and Perich then filed suit in federal district court alleging that the church had retaliated against Perich – in violation of the ADA – by rescinding her call after it learned that she had a disability and was contemplating legal action. On Oct. 23, 2008, the district court decided against Perich, ruling that since she had been called as a commissioned minister, her firing was subject to the ministerial exception and thus was not within the court’s purview. On March 2, 2010, this decision was overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that Perich was not covered by the ministerial exception because most of her duties – teaching nonreligious subjects – were secular. The church then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which on March 28, 2011, agreed to hear the case.

Judged:

1

1

1

scout wrote:

True Christians were backed by anti-Christ Catholics!
What happened, America?
Just how can it be possible that the tiny Christian remnant finds help within the Catholic Church, long dead to Christ?
How?
EVEN ISLAM IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH!
What happened, America?

scout wrote:

True Christians were backed by anti-Christ Catholics!

cjrian wrote:

<quoted text>
And the Court ruled that the government had no place injecting itself into church decisions
Yer point?

Judged:

1

1

1

swampmudd wrote:

<quoted text>"I am" was a term used by the Jews for God.(I am that I am, you may call me I am) "To be one with" means you totally believe in. To one with the President does not means you are the President. While we are at it the term "forty days and forty nights" was a slang expression meaning for a long but unknown amount of time. Moses was on the mountain for forty days and forty nights. Noah drifted for forty days and forty nights. Jesus fasted for forty day and forty nights. It would be like today saying he was gone for a coons age. It does not mean he was gone for the average life span of a coon. Forty days and forty night was not meant to be an exact number of days and night. The Pharisees attacked Jesus because he questioned their authority. The Pharisees had set themselves up to be the sole interpreters of Gods law and therefore above the masses. They had become corrupted with their power and Jesus often showed contempt for them. Jesus was preaching equality (we are all equal in the eyes of the lord) which was a threat to their authority. Most of the charges they brought against Jesus were pure spin of the type that Fox News engages in today. Simply reading the Bible is not enough. You must also understand the politics and customs of the time to have a clearer understand of what Jesus was preaching.

Judged:

2

1

1

cjrian wrote:

<quoted text>
Potential employees know the terms and conditions of employment BEFORE they accept a position, do they not?
Yer point is irrelevant

Judged:

1

cjrian wrote:

<quoted text>
And the Court ruled that the government had no place injecting itself into church decisions
Yer point?

scout wrote:

<quoted text>
You're ignorant.

Judged:

1

1

1

cjrian wrote:

<quoted text>
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.(2012)
Gee, I didn't know GW was still in office
Silly me!
(or is placentaBOY a liar?)

Judged:

1

1

1

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
The suit was originally filed in 2006 then apeealed, and them appealed to the Supreme Court which in 2012 overturned the ruling.
Of course a fool or LIAR would emphaize the date of the final Supreme Court ruling came down.

Judged:

1

1

Karma is a_______ wrote:

Has anyone considered looking at this from the non catholic employee's point of view?
first, this rule affects catholic organizations whose primary purpose is not of religious service, but community, such as hospitals. Where they do not serve Catholics exlusively, but communities of many faiths and do not employee only catholics.
from the non-catholic employee's point of view, the catholic church is imposing its religious dogma on them.

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
my point was that the poster was stating that the Obama administration was at war with christianity. I was merely pointing out that the case started under the Bush administration....but I guess your intelligence is too limited to understand that

Judged:

1

PlacitasRoy wrote:

The suit was originally filed in 2006 then apeealed, and them appealed to the Supreme Court which in 2012 overturned the ruling.
Of course a fool or LIAR would emphaize the date of the final Supreme Court ruling came down.

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave wrote:

Swampy and Sheik it is obvious that you are anti-Catholic and anti-religion. We get that. However,your arguing faith and it won't fly. The issue is not religion. It is not even the rights of women. It is the fact that a gov't institution is dictating a policy that goes too far in that it is forcing Catholics to support something they are against in their theology. We give conscientious objectors a pass in being in the military do to their religion. This is the issue. No one is keeping anyone from obtaining contraception. It is available for free in thousands of clinics. It is unconscionable to me to cross that line of demarcation that the Supreme court has time and time again upheld about the separation of church and state. It matters not that most of us use contraception in some way shape or form. That is not a reason to force a religous entity to pay for it. You want religion out of public schools then you should also want gov't out of Catholic schools. It is the other side of the same piece of bread.

Judged:

2

2

2

cjrian wrote:

<quoted text>
It's the final ruling that matters
Not any lower court rulings

liza wrote:

You know this is just the beginning...This is
just a "baby step" as to what hes up to!!!
Wait until he gets another term. America,
you "ain't seen nothing yet"! Let him in your
bedroom, and you will pay.. Your 14 yr. old is
subject to his plan also. Granny, you will be
paying to see what will happen to your granddaughter

swampmudd wrote:

<quoted text>A true Christian is a person who believes in the teaching of Jesus, not the doctrines of a church. Jesus never made claims of a trinity. He did say he was the son of God. But he also said we are all Gods children. All of us Gods sons and daughters. He never made claims of “being a God” It was the early Catholic Church that elevated him to a deity in order to sell they religion to the pagans.

Judged:

1

1

1

Elliot Wave wrote:

<quoted text>Your priest tell this horse$hit or were you defrocked for pedophilia.