Catholic Bishops Group Denounces Contraception Compromise

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the back and forth.
Pick it up tomorrow if you're in for it.
Gonna go get a drink-it's my birthday.
See ya

Judged:

1

1

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
To be honest, I'm having a hard time with trying to decipher if reproductive rights for women are a "choice" or not. Lots of telling people what they have to do to support "a personal decision I make for myself", isn't it?

Judged:

1

1

1

GBA wrote:

<quoted text>
What underlies Feminazi BS.
Control freaks! Authoritarian biatches! Narcissistic attention seekers!
I am sick of Feminazi' that spew this crap it is what women want, we women, us women....
Get this straight you don't speak for any woman other than yourself.
Woman don't get to speak on behalf of other woman.
You don't get to tell other women what to think or believe anymore than a man does.
You don't get to use another women's money for your BS.
If you want an abortion pay for it yourself.
If you want to sleep around pay for it yourself.
If you want birth control pay for it yourself.
You are supposed to be a big girl. Well big girl's pay their own way and they don't cry for others to pick up the tab for their playing around.

Judged:

1

1

1

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>Then it's settled. Insurance companies will pay for it.

So you have no valid objection.

Judged:

1

1

1

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>Oh I missed this crazy. Hey moron, you don't have to use the birth control if you don't want to. It's clear who are the anti sex, misogynist control freeeks in this debate.

What if other employees starting objecting to "having to pay" for your child bearing healthcare costs, you stinking cretin?

What goes around, comes around, I guess is the way it should be.

Judged:

2

2

1

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
To be honest I think you're a stinking liar.
These secular women at the hospitals and universities chip into their healthcare costs via deductions, via co pays and via their labor to these non church institutions. And they pay taxes, too.
The fact that Planned Parenthood is far from everywhere is what you "sex for procreation" religious freeeks like about that idea. You want to limit women's sexual freedom, and to a lesser extent, everyone's. And the right wing is now trying to defund Planned Parenthood, even as you disingenuously offer Planned Parenthood as a fix. Horsesht.
Now, your above nonsense would make more sense if you were equally upset about having to pay into health care costs - via taxes or via your health care premiums and co pays - for all those very costly tobacco users, or abusers of alcohol, or obese people. But you aren't equally upset about all those things.
This is about your "religious" anti sexual freedom agenda and it always was. Not "having to pay" for it.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
"Quakers ALSO get CO waivers"
Catholic Churches get BC waivers. And each individual decides whether to opt for BC coverage or not.
"Paying income tax is a matter of federal law and it got adjudicated."
Obamacare is also a matter of federal law, and if the SCOTUS upholds it this summer the Catholic argument is moot, based on the logic of your comment above.
"The Quakers lose every time. Look up why they lose and you'll have your response."
This sounds very ominous. If you clearly have an opinion on this, why withhold it? Because it weakens your argument, as I suspect?

Judged:

2

2

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
OK-I'll be happy to blame Kellie Ferguson for spouting it and you for pasting it as an argument.
As I've said, a Catholic business owner will sue and will win on first amendment grounds.

Judged:

1

1

1

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
AS Jon Stewart said: "To those opposing the mandate liberty means liberty for employers, employees can go f*ck themselves.” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-on-bir...
Even with this Reich-wing ACTIVIST Supreme Court the employers won't stand a snowball's chance in hell
" In 2004, the California Supreme Court upheld that state’s law, in a suit brought by Catholic Charities, on a vote of 6-1.
The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn’t qualify as a “religious employer” because it didn’t meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation):
The organization’s primary purpose is “the inculcation of religious values.”
It primarily employs people of that religion.
It primarily serves people of that religion.
It’s a registered nonprofit organization.
Two years later, in 2006, New York’s top state court rejected a claim by Catholic Charities and several other religious groups that the state’s contraceptive coverage law discriminated against them because it exempted churches but not their religiously-affiliated groups.
“When a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees’ legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit,” the justices wrote."

Judged:

1

1

1

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
AS Jon Stewart said: "To those opposing the mandate liberty means liberty for employers, employees can go f*ck themselves.” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-on-bir...
Even with this Reich-wing ACTIVIST Supreme Court the employers won't stand a snowball's chance in hell
" In 2004, the California Supreme Court upheld that state’s law, in a suit brought by Catholic Charities, on a vote of 6-1.
The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn’t qualify as a “religious employer” because it didn’t meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation):
The organization’s primary purpose is “the inculcation of religious values.”
It primarily employs people of that religion.
It primarily serves people of that religion.
It’s a registered nonprofit organization.
Two years later, in 2006, New York’s top state court rejected a claim by Catholic Charities and several other religious groups that the state’s contraceptive coverage law discriminated against them because it exempted churches but not their religiously-affiliated groups.
“When a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees’ legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit,” the justices wrote."

Judged:

2

2

2

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
and the church is buying the insurance. In the in the end the policy will change either by the president or the courts.

Judged:

2

2

2

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
and the church doesn't have to pay for BC. And they won't.
The liberals are the control freaks as they are the only ones trying to force someone to do something.

Judged:

2

2

1

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
AS Jon Stewart said: "To those opposing the mandate liberty means liberty for employers, employees can go f*ck themselves.” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-on-bir...
Even with this Reich-wing ACTIVIST Supreme Court the employers won't stand a snowball's chance in hell
" In 2004, the California Supreme Court upheld that state’s law, in a suit brought by Catholic Charities, on a vote of 6-1.
The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn’t qualify as a “religious employer” because it didn’t meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation):
The organization’s primary purpose is “the inculcation of religious values.”
It primarily employs people of that religion.
It primarily serves people of that religion.
It’s a registered nonprofit organization.
Two years later, in 2006, New York’s top state court rejected a claim by Catholic Charities and several other religious groups that the state’s contraceptive coverage law discriminated against them because it exempted churches but not their religiously-affiliated groups.
“When a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees’ legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit,” the justices wrote."

Judged:

2

1

1

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
You are WRONG! The insurance is employee compensation. The corporation is using employees' wages to purchase a group policy.

Judged:

2

1

1

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah - Those damned old liberals! FORCING corporations to safely process meat. Safely handle hazardous waste. Forcing them to observe wage & hours regulations. ect.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>You are WRONG! The insurance is employee compensation. The corporation is using employees' wages to purchase a group policy.

Judged:

1

1

1

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah - Those damned old liberals! FORCING corporations to safely process meat. Safely handle hazardous waste. Forcing them to observe wage & hours regulations. ect.

Judged:

1

1

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>Roy

You're making McGruff's argument for him.

You're saying that the employer provides the insurance which provides the BC.