Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Should religious institutions pay for their employee's contraception policies?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dobagoh

Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Uccisore:
No, in such a case the law may well violate the First Amendment. We would evaluate it with something like the Sherbert Rule which you hinted at.

And yet again, you cite Sherbert yet fail to describe how forcing institutions to provide insurance plans which provide for BC, somehow burdens an individual's freedom in religious conscience.

Quote:
If those taxes are used for something they find evil, then yes, of course paying taxes might violate their principles! First let me remind you that Churches are tax exempt for partly this very reason. Let me go on to say that, as you pointed out, we are allowed to compel religious groups to violate their principles if we have a pressing need that can't be violated in any other way - raising taxes to fund a military obviously qualifies.

So is the regulation of interstate commerce.

Quote:
It's one of two duties the federal Government actually ****ing has according to the Constitution.

This is the stupidest thing I've seen you write so far in this thread.

Quote:
Raising taxes to pay for abortions apparently does not qualify. Forcing employers to provide birth control coverage obviously doesn't qualify in the same way the second example doesn't qualify. The need for birth control is not pressing enough, and/or it can be met in another way (such as people buying it their ****ed selves).

Yes it does. It's a regulation of interstate commerce by making sure insurance costs are as uniform as possible across the nation.

Quote:
You could care less about the landmark Supreme Court decision that declared the position you took one post ago? Well...OK. But whatever precedent you ARE using to declare that birth control is a fundamental human right in America, my point still stands- something being a human right apparently doesn't establish a mandate to provide it.

Roe v. Wade isn't the landmark Scotus decision on birth control as a fundamental right. That would be Griswold v. Conn. LOL


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Uccisore

Senior Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Powerstoned:
So again no answer, really Elan? You do it all the time, why I even pose a question to you anymore makes me the fool now, my bad. Have you ever worked for a church and got a paycheck from them? I have at 2 different churches. There are lots of things they can't force on you as a paid employee. Can you be forced to pray? No. Forced to attend sermons, no. You can't be openly anti-christian, and work for them sure, but they don't have total control of you like you're proposing. Most courts won't touch religious lawsuits out of fear of political suicide, we both know that, but paid employees do have rights, even in churches.

Again, the church gets insurance companies to strip out their BC coverage to women in their policies. They're not simply selecting policies without BC coverage. They're going out of their way to discriminate one group in our society. Any time you want to have a discussion, where you actually share your pov in half the detail as i do, friend me ingame or let me know.

I realise the constitution is written so we can not require someone to purchase a product, but say you want to purchase a fleet vehicle in this country, and you don't believe in seatbelts, any company/club/whatever, shouldn't be able to force car manufacturers to remove the seat belts before purchasing them and then require their employees to drive without them.



You know I'm not Elan, right?

Anyway, we both acknowledge that Churches can fire you for violating their principles (being anti-Christian and such), so my point is clear- employers can and do enforce their moral beliefs on their employees, especially when promoting moral beliefs is the purpose of the employing organization's existence. This is not complicated.

Your seat belt example doesn't make any sense. A business buying a fleet of vehicles obviously is CHOOSING to doing so because they need them to conduct business, so of course they are going to have to abide by the rules of the road (such as seatbelt laws), and 'not believing in seatbelts' has nothing to do with that.

What we're talking about here is the Catholic Church being forced by law to buy something they have no need for- insurance for their employees- which is probably a violation of the Constitution in and of itself, but is especially a big deal because that coverage includes services the Church finds to be immoral.

In order to make your example make sense, imagine if Obama passed a law saying all employers HAD TO buy cars for their employees. Amish and Mennonite employers (farmers hiring people to work their fields) say it violates their rights because owning cars is against their religious beliefs. This would obviously be a violation of the Free Exercise clause, and **** it, an abuse of power besides, just like the church/birth control thing is.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Uccisore

Senior Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Dobagoh:
And yet again, you cite Sherbert yet fail to describe how forcing institutions to provide insurance plans which provide for BC, somehow burdens an individual's freedom in religious conscience.


The Catholic Church doesn't want to subsidize medical procedures and treatments it considers to be immoral, the proposed law is forcing them to do so. It's a clear violation of religious conscience- in order to find the individuals involved, you simply need to track down who is writing the checks or signing the policies.

Quote:

So is the regulation of interstate commerce.
Yeah, the commerce clause Obama is using to defend his healthcare plan, which has been found unconstitutional in two different courts (or is it three now?) The idea that 'regulation of interstate commerce' is going to allow the Feds to force private citizens and organizations to buy things from other private citizens and organizations is never going to stand up in court, even without the religious entanglements.


Quote:

Yes it does. It's a regulation of interstate commerce by making sure insurance costs are as uniform as possible across the nation.


Roe v. Wade isn't the landmark Scotus decision on birth control as a fundamental right. That would be Griswold v. Conn. LOL
Griswold was the establishment of a right to privacy, contraceptives just happened to be the specific example involved. Roe v Wade established birth control (specifically abortion) as a human right protected under the new 'right to privacy'. It's a simple mistake, I can forgive you for making it in the midst of your Catholic-hating irrationalism.

However, you still failed to address my point (that's three times now!)- recognition that people have a right to something doesn't constitute a mandate for it to be provided to them. As long as the U.S. Gov't is barred from using public money for abortion, your argument has nothing to stand on. You're probably smart to try to shift the defense to the commerce clause, since your first amendment (and blossoming 14th) angle is falling apart completely.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shambolaz

Member

02-22-2012

Churches aren't exempt from paying for what they disagree with on religious grounds. Quakers, who are pacifists, still pay taxes that go in part towards the military. Hence, Catholic employers can legally be required to pay for their employee's contraception.

Of course, this problem, such as it is, arises due to the private nature of much of the American health care system. Socialized health care would solve this predicament.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Uccisore

Senior Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Shambolaz:
Churches aren't exempt from paying for what they disagree with on religious grounds. Quakers, who are pacifists, still pay taxes that go in part towards the military. Hence, Catholic employers can legally be required to pay for their employee's contraception.


Funding a military is one of the two expenses the Constitution specifically says the Federal Government is allowed to draw taxes for. Contraception is not the other one.
If Quakers sued to not have to pay taxes to support the military, the lawsuit would fail because the Government has a compelling interest in generating funds for the nation's defense. The challenge to this insurance law can't be defended like that at all.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shambolaz

Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Funding a military is one of the two expenses the Constitution specifically says the Federal Government is allowed to draw taxes for. Contraception is not the other one.
If Quakers sued to not have to pay taxes to support the military, the lawsuit would fail because the Government has a compelling interest in generating funds for the nation's defense. The challenge to this insurance law can't be defended like that at all.


Provision for the general welfare is the second, which justifies funding for contraception. You'd have to espouse an extremely narrow reading of the Constitution to disagree.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dobagoh

Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Uccisore:
The Catholic Church doesn't want to subsidize medical procedures and treatments it considers to be immoral, the proposed law is forcing them to do so. It's a clear violation of religious conscience- in order to find the individuals involved, you simply need to track down who is writing the checks or signing the policies.

If so, there's no indication the Sherbet rule applies, since that applies to individuals persons, the wording in the opinion is quite specifically tailored to individuals, and not institutions.

Quote:
Yeah, the commerce clause Obama is using to defend his healthcare plan, which has been found unconstitutional in two different courts (or is it three now?) The idea that 'regulation of interstate commerce' is going to allow the Feds to force private citizens and organizations to buy things from other private citizens and organizations is never going to stand up in court, even without the religious entanglements.

I think you underestimate the current political leanings of today's scotus.

Quote:
Griswold was the establishment of a right to privacy, contraceptives just happened to be the specific example involved. Roe v Wade established birth control (specifically abortion) as a human right protected under the new 'right to privacy'. It's a simple mistake, I can forgive you for making it in the midst of your Catholic-hating irrationalism.

If you want to get technical like the ****** you are, Roe v. Wade established the right of privacy between a woman and her doctor, not reproductive rights, generally, including abortion. I mean, yea, banning the sale of contraceptives really implicates the right to privacy (lol). I guess maybe in magical fantasy lands it does.

Quote:
However, you still failed to address my point (that's three times now!)- recognition that people have a right to something doesn't constitute a mandate for it to be provided to them. As long as the U.S. Gov't is barred from using public money for abortion, your argument has nothing to stand on. You're probably smart to try to shift the defense to the commerce clause, since your first amendment (and blossoming 14th) angle is falling apart completely.

I'm not even arguing that. You asked why I fixated on women's right issue when I could have used a plethora of other points to support my argument. I told you why. I'm not saying employers have a government mandate to provide fundamental rights under the Constitution to their employees (which is a ****ing retarded argument to begin, and so ****ing stupid, I don't see how it's even remotely imaginable that you thought I was pushing this angle).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dobagoh

Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Uccisore:
Funding a military is one of the two expenses the Constitution specifically says the Federal Government is allowed to draw taxes for. Contraception is not the other one.

1. Taxes aren't being used to provide contraceptives to individuals.
2. You are full of ****. Nowhere in the Constitution does anything like that statement exist.
3. The two primary authors of The Federalist Papers set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations on the meaning of the taxation clause "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States":
James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

The distinction being academic in nature, and your interpretation wholly unsupported by the framers of the Constitution themselves.

Quote:
If Quakers sued to not have to pay taxes to support the military, the lawsuit would fail because the Government has a compelling interest in generating funds for the nation's defense. The challenge to this insurance law can't be defended like that at all.

Even assuming tax money was spent to provide contraceptives to individuals, the government has a compelling interest in things like providing for the public health. You fail again.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

venaven

Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
HomelessToilet:
All the percentages you spew out mean jack **** if only 1 person is forced to pay for contraception against their will in a religious institution. There is no hypocracy, even if 99% percent of Christians thought it was okay to use birth control, the 1% would win the arguement. FAITH IS NOT ABOUT A POPULAR VOTE IN AMERICA. This is about the 1st amendment, not about percentages of christians who think its okay to use birth control. Why can't Democrats get that through their thick skull...

Btw, faith is not a personal agenda. Maybe you forgot what America is all about. You're just bitter because the Republicans actually caught the Dems in a serious breach of the US Constitution, and they're allllllllllll friggin trying to play the game of...."oh this many people think its okay!!" or "This Catholic hospital says its ok" IT DOESNT MATTER.

Nobody is stopping you from moving to Canada where everyone is middle class and average and pays 6 bucks for a gallon of milk, 50 bucks for a case of beer, and of course your beloved "free" healthcare that takes 6 months to get into the doctors office.


Where everyone is middle class.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, are you serious? Canada is capitalist with some democratic socialist policies, it's no Sweden in terms of flat income. Perhaps that would be a better example.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Uccisore

Senior Member

02-22-2012

Quote:
Dobagoh:

The distinction being academic in nature, and your interpretation wholly unsupported by the framers of the Constitution themselves.


The point is that "We don't have to pay taxes because we're against the military" is going to fail, and fail hard, because the Federal Government's absolute strongest compelling interest is collecting taxes for the ****ing military. I didn't bring up the analogy, the ****** who created this abortion of a thread did. I'm explaining why the analogy fails, and you're riding me because the analogy fails? Can you at least pay the **** attention to what you're responding to if you're going to act like you know what you're talking about?


Quote:

Even assuming tax money was spent to provide contraceptives to individuals, the government has a compelling interest in things like providing for the public health. You fail again.


"Providing for the public health" is so broad it could literally mean anything from condoms to toothpaste to bus passes. The Gov't cant justify every little thing it wants to do just by sticking that label on it, though I grant you Obama is certainly the kind of man that will try. The courts will look at the specifics- that contraceptives are cheap as dirt compared to other health treatments, that they aren't life-saving, that they violate a long-standing and well known creed of several major religious institutions in the country, and the lastly anybody that's even eligible for an employee insurance plan is wealthy enough to pay for their own ****ed pills by definition, and they'll see that the violation of the free exercise clause doesn't rise to the level of a compelling state interest.


You keep saying 'providing for the public health' and other general statements, like we're talking about children's ****ing leukemia treatments or something, and you're making these arguments as if Obama's other attempts to force people to buy insurance haven't been declared unconstitutional OVER AND OVER again even without the religious entanglements.