Excuse me? Remember he fines that are to be levied on those (aka Catholics) not in compliance with the secular demands of the Socialist Gov’t.?Pay double? I am sure that free birth control will call for double the cost of insurance…
Also, kids certainly cost a lot more than birth control.
Heaven forbid people be forced to control themselves. That would be terrible and make life completely unlivable. [/sarcasm]
No, I am not ignoring it at all. That was my point, neither the employee not the employer have the right to use the money for the health benefits in a way they seem fit, it is the government decides for them and it does not call it an added tax. In my preferred case the control is defined a by a two-parties agreement while in this case is defined by the government, it is a loss of freedom not an increase of it.
The problem with this line of thinking is that neither Catholics in general nor the USCCB is trying to compell anyone to do or not do anything. That 75% is completely free to act in accordance with whatever moral principles they want.
What makes it most ironic is that it is perfectly legal to compell behavior of employees Catholic schools, for example, have codes of conduct that make it an offense to act in an non-Catholic way. If you get an abortion, remarry or go for IVF, you can, quite legally, be fired. I contemplated applying for a job at a Baptist university a few years ago. Their policies compelled all employees to refrain from drinking, smoking and cursing during working and non-working hours. Quite legal. Why does noone have a problem with that but somehow it’s morally offensive to object to paying for other people’s behavior choices?
I think the Baptists are taking it a bit too far, but I honestly don’t have an issue with any of that, so long as it’s not unreasonable.The problem with this line of thinking is that neither Catholics in general nor the USCCB is trying to compell anyone to do or not do anything. That 75% is completely free to act in accordance with whatever moral principles they want.
What makes it most ironic is that it is perfectly legal to compell behavior of employees Catholic schools, for example, have codes of conduct that make it an offense to act in an non-Catholic way. If you get an abortion, remarry or go for IVF, you can, quite legally, be fired. I contemplated applying for a job at a Baptist university a few years ago. Their policies compelled all employees to refrain from drinking, smoking and cursing during working and non-working hours. Quite legal. Why does noone have a problem with that but somehow it’s morally offensive to object to paying for other people’s behavior choices?
It was a bit too far for me too. I didn’t even apply.
But it is perfectly in line with their moral teaching and they were quite upfront about it. I don’t expect a Baptist institution to condone drinking (let alone pay for it) and no one should expect a Catholic institution to pay for contraception. It’s not like the Catholic Church suddenly decided to adopt a no contraception policy. Or, to put it another way, “well I don’t agree with them so their beliefs are evil and my beliefs are not.”
So then they should comply. Pretty simple.Excuse me? Remember he fines that are to be levied on those (aka Catholics) not in compliance with the secular demands of the Socialist Gov’t.?
Indeed? Comply with tyranny? Methinks not.
I am just happy that obama is making sure that people can’t force their backwards religious beliefs on their employees.Indeed? Comply with tyranny? Methinks not.
It never ceases to amaze me how willingly some people give up their inalienable rights. Rights that are **not ‘**granted’ by Gov’t.
You know… little things like Life (for the preborn as well) Liberty** (for Religion) and the Pursuit of Happiness ( and not have the hard won earnings of workers to be stolen by a Gov’t that taxes exobitantly for Politicians in Power to pander for votes)
To put it succinctly: Gov’t. is* not* God.
The People are not made for the state. The state was made for the people.
I realize this is a concept not often grasped by those that proclaim themselves to be Liberal. Or Democrat.
I also understand that it may be, for some souls, to be rather challenging to stand up for that which is right. Not many chose the road less traveled.
Or to put it in a Scriptual context: The road to hell is wide. Yes?
First of all most people that identify as catholics use birth control. Secondly there are lots of people that use birth control in committed relationships. And third, whose business is it of yours if someone wants to have recreational sex? Some of u need to get off your high horses.Indeed. Why should Catholics be forced to pay for the secularists’s irresponsible recreational sex?
These are life style choices. Make better choices.
**
Au contraire. May I suggest you apply some Critical Reasoning in regard to the ramifications of your philosophical stance? I believe one can learn Critical Reasoning while on horseback…or not… It is up to you, actually…**First of all most people that identify as catholics use birth control.
Bold Lettering mine:
**You can cite a source? Indeed. Even If true- is it relevant to the issues we are discussing? The first Amendment, Conscience vioaltion for those that actually practice the fullness of the Faith, and the fact that I am forced to pay for *their ***
choces that frequently lead to the death of a child. Please. Do not endeavor to induce me to repeat myself again and again and again.
Secondly there are lots of people that use birth control in committed relationships.
Oh yes? And…? Quality of relationship is a determining factor now, is it?
And third, whose business is it of yours if someone wants to have recreational sex?
Their choices often leads to the death of a child and costs me money and forces me to vioalte my conscience, Deeeeeeeeeep Siiiighhhhhh… Moan! yet once again I have to lay it out… I simply do not get why he does not get it yet…
Some of u need to get off your high horses.
I see… So it is your assertion that Obama is against those that are with… 'Backward’ was it (?) Religion-yes? Curioser and curioser…considering Obama** refers to himself as a Christian.
Heh heh heh… I guess the **real **evidence is presenting itself…as delineated by your statement.Oh yes? Then why are the Democrats forcing their appearant particular brand of Religion of Atheism on the people?
They will be paying fines which will increase over time. You don’t know who we are dealing with. Kathleen Sebelius is a fanatic, and Obamacare gives her extraordinary powers. Just as she ordered the insurance companies to provide for contraceptives and abortifacients, so she can order them to provide surgical abortions, including late term abortions. How? Because all she needs is the cover of the medical profession which now says that such abortions are just medical treatment. Ever since Roe v. Wade, abortion providers have tried their best to conceal how radical the decision was. Try to get hold of Sarah Weddington’s argument before the Supreme Court. Sarah asked for nothing less than the unimpeded right of a woman to prevent her bearing a child, from the moment she has intercourse till the moment the child exits from the womb. The Court gave what she wanted, but concealed the fact with the supposed limitations of the trimester scheme. With “Casey” that garment was cast off, and we are left with, well, the legal right is now settled law. Just as settled as ***Plessy vs. Fergusion ***was settled law in 1936.