Duck Dynasty Plucked

DutchKillsRambo said:

How do you view insurance then? Maybe it's me, but I think it's always been a type of tax. My car insurance makes money off me and its mandated. My health insurance makes money off me and its mandated. If it were up to me, I dunno if I would buy both these things. I dunno I guess I just look at it as money that I could have except the government says I have to spend it on these things. Kinda like a tax. I personally don't like my health insurance company paying out for obese, alcoholic, chain-smokers, but they do. And with gusto as thats how they make the most money. Should I be able to opt out because my beliefs say we shouldn't be spending millions of dollars on end of life care for those that never cared for their lives?

Click to expand...

If the first amendment said, "Congress shall make no law that offers aid and comfort to fat, ugly people", then you would have a legitimate argument.

I am only mildly being a smart ass here. Religion and its free exercise is a special case, and it is black letter law. Why not just make it illegal to practice Catholicism in the US since its principles are not conformed to ACA?

We got into a shooting war when we revolted against unjust rule by the British. Every step down the path of fascism puts us closer to another revolt.

Many young, healthy people did not buy health insurance, and many will continue to forgo it.

beenthere said:

LOL Is this Buckyology

Thought you'd just throw out that straw man, did you. Show me in the first amendment where it has to be a religious organization!
It's talking about individual rights, not organizational rights.
FAIL

Click to expand...

every individual at hobby lobby can choose not to take birth control in keeping with their religious beliefs. thus their free exercise of religion has not been prohibited in any way.

"congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free exercise thereof"

do you see anything in there about being allowed to impose your religious beliefs on other people?*

I always thought it was funny that right wingers and holy rollers hate paying taxes knowing it goes to welfare, yet hate to pay taxes to give people the access to contraceptives so they can have less kids causing less unplanned pregnancies, which is why alot of people are on welfare in the first place...

Makes perfect sense......

desert dude said:

*Why not just make it illegal to practice Catholicism in the US since its principles are not conformed to ACA?

Click to expand...

you are so persecuted.

UncleBuck said:

this thread started off with right wing racists shouting that free speech is dead because a bigot can't be bigoted without consequences.

now this thread is puttering along with right wing racists shouting that freedom of religion is dead if you're not allowed to impose your religion on others.

nothing will satisfy right wing racists. they will always find a new way to form a narrative of persecution against them.

those poor right wingers.

Click to expand...

Why do you hate white people, look in the mirror bud, no matter how much you preach, you won't turn black.

desert dude said:

If the first amendment said, "Congress shall make no law that offers aid and comfort to fat, ugly people", then you would have a legitimate argument.

I am only mildly being a smart ass here. Religion and its free exercise is a special case, and it is black letter law. Why not just make it illegal to practice Catholicism in the US since its principles are not conformed to ACA?

We got into a shooting war when we revolted against unjust rule by the British. Every step down the path of fascism puts us closer to another revolt.

Many young, healthy people did not buy health insurance, and many will continue to forgo it.

Click to expand...

Your conflation makes no sense. The government isn't interfering with the practice of Catholicism: the church can preach whatever it wants without any consequence whatsoever. That doesn't mean the church is exempt from the laws applicable to all other people. They aren't being persecuted. No one said "Fuck the Catholic Church, let's find a way to really piss them off and offend their god."

UncleBuck said:

every individual at hobby lobby can choose not to take birth control in keeping with their religious beliefs. thus their free exercise of religion has not been prohibited in any way.

"congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free exercise thereof"

do you see anything in there about being allowed to impose your religious beliefs on other people?*

Click to expand...

So, why is the state imposing its religious beliefs on the Catholic church?

tokeprep said:

Your conflation makes no sense. The government isn't interfering with the practice of Catholicism: the church can preach whatever it wants without any consequence whatsoever. That doesn't mean the church is exempt from the laws applicable to all other people. They aren't being persecuted. No one said "Fuck the Catholic Church, let's find a way to really piss them off and offend their god."

Click to expand...

The Catholic church is being forced to pay for contraceptives for its employees. That is in direct opposition to their beliefs and explicitly prohibited by the US constitution.

desert dude said:

So, why is the state imposing its religious beliefs on the Catholic church?

Click to expand...

that birth control pills prevent ovarian cysts, mitigate menstrual pains, and aid responsible family planning practices is not religious belief, it is simple scientific fact.

your persecution narrative only works in whatever other white supremacy groups you happen to be a member of.

budbro18 said:

I always thought it was funny that right wingers and holy rollers hate paying taxes knowing it goes to welfare, yet hate to pay taxes to give people the access to contraceptives so they can have less kids causing less unplanned pregnancies, which is why alot of people are on welfare in the first place...

Makes perfect sense......

Click to expand...

Well, here's whats wrong with your premise.

By saying tax payers should pay for birth control because they would save money down the road by not paying for the child's welfare, is implying that the tax payers are responsible for other peoples sexual practices or children in the first place.
I don't think so.

Now this, makes perfect sense.

desert dude said:

The Catholic church is being forced to pay for contraceptives for its employees. That is in direct opposition to their beliefs and explicitly prohibited by the US constitution.

Click to expand...

no, it is not.

you are simply misguided and have fallen victim to dubious arguments being advanced by racists and white supremacists like yourself.

you also think the first amendment gives you the rights to keep blacks out of your hotel or restaurant.

hobby lobby is being held to the same standards as every other business: offer contraceptives as part of your health insurance plan (paid for by whoever buys the insurance, not even mandatory to offer it).

no one has to use them, hobby lobby does not even need to offer health insurance.

hobby lobby is not even a religious organization.

you are simply trying to advance a shitty, stupid narrative of persecution at the hands of the black man. like i said, it only works in whatever white supremacy circles you run in.

desert dude said:

The Catholic church is being forced to pay for contraceptives for its employees. That is in direct opposition to their beliefs and explicitly prohibited by the US constitution.

Click to expand...

Quakers paying for offensive combat is in opposition to their beliefs. That is irrelevant. They can believe in and preach whatever they want, but that doesn't entitle them to an exemption from paying taxes.

If you think the constitution says otherwise, it means you don't understand what the constitution says.

desert dude thinks the hobby lobby contraception fight is a valiant and noble cause, but if muslims try to build a mosque on ground zero, he calls their exercise of first amendment rights "extending the middle finger".

but he is not a bigot or racist in any way.

oh, and he's totally not religious. it hurts him to defend religion, which is why he will only ever defend christianity or catholicism, and never islam. ya know, the whiter religions.

tokeprep said:

Quakers paying for offensive combat is in opposition to their beliefs. That is irrelevant. They can believe in and preach whatever they want, but that doesn't entitle them to an exemption from paying taxes.

If you think the constitution says otherwise, it means you don't understand what the constitution says.

Click to expand...

and hasn't o'care been delacred a tax?? so, my point with the quakers paying taxes that in turn go towards military spending is the same as saying christians are being forced to pay for birth control, another form of tax, no?

and if you're a christian, why on earth would you even want birth control, if the church thinks it's so bad and all?? i can't believe you fail to see just because something is offer, and is part of the package deal, you're not being forced to use every feature of what's on offer..
this is why i brought up the prostate exams earlier.. obviously, a women would never find cause for one, but in fact, it's part of their insurance policy, and therefore one of it's features, not that a women would ever use it.. same as birth control for men and or christians who don't want or have a need for it.. just because it's part of a bigger program, doesn't mean you have to use it.
while i agree i can't think of a religion where sticking a finger up the arse is against their beliefs, i don't see how having birth control on offer is against the constitution.. if part of o'care read that you HAD to buy and use birth control, i'd agree, but that's simply not the case.. far, far from it in fact..

tokeprep said:

Forcing churches to comply with the laws imposed on all other people is not prohibiting the practice of religion. The fact that the Catholic Church officially opposes contraception has nothing to do with the free practice of their religion, because it doesn't inhibit them at all. The fact that they don't like the obligation is not the same as saying they're prohibited from practicing their religion.

The Catholic Church can preach against contraception all it likes. It can do whatever it wants to preach against contraception; it can counsel people against contraception at its pleasure. That does not excuse them from complying with a government mandate that applies to all other people.

Click to expand...

Here's where you're wrong.

Look up the word exercise and use it in context of the 1st Amendment.
Exercise means to put into place or to carry out the function of.
Using your argument that the church can still preach, only means the pastor or priest can sermon. But it still restricts the parishioners to carry out their beliefs. Preaching is not exercising, carrying out the sermon is.

racerboy71 said:

and hasn't o'care been delacred a tax?? so, my point with the quakers paying taxes that in turn go towards military spending is the same as saying christians are being forced to pay for birth control, another form of tax, no?

Click to expand...

I raised that point in another post. John Roberts--not just the court's liberal side--have labeled Obamacare costs as a tax. That's the end. If they said it's a tax, it's a tax.

and if you're a christian, why on earth would you even want birth control, if the church thinks it's so bad and all?? i can't believe you fail to see just because something is offer, and is part of the package deal, you're not being forced to use every feature of what's on offer..
this is why i brought up the prostate exams earlier.. obviously, a women would never find cause for one, but in fact, it's part of their insurance policy, and therefore one of it's features, not that a women would ever use it.. same as birth control for men and or christians who don't want or have a need for it.. just because it's part of a bigger program, doesn't mean you have to use it.
while i agree i can't think of a religion where sticking a finger up the arse is against their beliefs, i don't see how having birth control on offer is against the constitution.. if part of o'care read that you HAD to buy and use birth control, i'd agree, but that's simply not the case.. far, far from it in fact..

Click to expand...

The church remains free to advise its believers that contraception is sin, and they can preach that all they like, every Sunday if they want. That's why the free exercise of religion isn't infringed by the Obamacare mandate. Forcing them to pay for contraception coverage is no different than forcing Quakers to pay for offensive wars, which has been happening in this country since the Quakers first existed under the present constitution.

I would suggest that our comrades in disagreement are ignoring hundreds of years of court cases that have conclusively decided the constitutional issue raised.

UncleBuck said:

that birth control pills prevent ovarian cysts, mitigate menstrual pains, and aid responsible family planning practices is not religious belief, it is simple scientific fact.

Click to expand...

And the majority of us smoke weed for medicinal purposes.

beenthere said:

Here's where you're wrong.

Look up the word exercise and use it in context of the 1st Amendment.
Exercise means to put into place or to carry out the function of.
Using your argument that the church can still preach, only means the pastor or priest can sermon. But it still restricts the parishioners to carry out their beliefs. Preaching is not exercising, carrying out the sermon is.

Click to expand...

Has your definition of "exercise" been adopted by the courts of the United States? If not, you have no point. If you believe in the constitution, you are bound by the court cases, not by your dictionary definitions and personal interpretations of words.

ACA gives the religious nuts an out with Conscience objection clause. But it is not a pick and choose, you either take it or leave it - in full.

If Obama care is a tax, and religious organizations are tax exempt, then why do they have to pay into it at all?

On the other hand, I'm not on the side of the religious institutions here. The most private relationship one can have is with their doctor. The church, although opposed to contraception, has no business interfering with whatever medical assistance it's employees seek. No employer does.