"Seperation" goes both ways.. (or does it?)

[Sarevok]

LOL

I agree with this.

 

[amadeus]

I try to use terms like "fascist" as little as possible, but the American "Civil Liberties" Union goes above and beyond ridiculous, by using the court to force a religious institution to provide things that go against that very institution.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

It's a little thing I like to call "the law". Dunno how ya'd go about translating that into Texan.

 

[amadeus]

Simply because something is the law doesn't mean it is a just law. This is a total violation of the rights of the employer.

Besides, the law even for secular institutions is ridiculous. People should provide contraceptives for themselves.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Simply because something is the law doesn't mean it is a just law.

Oho!

This is a moment in history! Rmsharpe gulping down several megabytes' worth of his own words! Gavin Newsom called, he wants a formal apology. On flowery stationary too.

This is a total violation of the rights of the employer.

Forcing the employer to pay minimum wage, provide health care coverage, etc, is a violation of the "rights of the employer"?

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

This is a moment in history! Rmsharpe gulping down several megabytes' worth of his own words!

I am "gulping" down nothing. If a law is unjust, it must be repealed.

Gavin Newsom called, he wants a formal apology. On flowery stationary too.

How many times must I repeat myself? The way to change laws like this is not to break them.

Forcing the employer to pay minimum wage, provide health care coverage, etc, is a violation of the "rights of the employer"?

I believe it is, but it is not likely they will ever be repealed. This, however, is ridiculous.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Well, the debate isn't about the merits of those laws themselves - that's another thread - but whether the charity organization is under their jurisdiction.

 

[MrPresident]

"But the Supreme Court ruled that the charity is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly preaching Catholic values."

Doesn't this encourage religious charities to stick solely to religious affairs? Shouldn't we rather be encouraging all charities to do all they can to help those in need?

"The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling and called it "a great victory for California women and reproductive freedom.""

Reproductive freedom? I got to get me some of that!

 

[Dr Jimbo]

This discussion is idiotic - if the good catholic employees don't want to use birth control, they don't have to. Non-catholic employees shouldn't be obliged to follow their employer's whims. If Bill Gates turned Buddhist, would it be ok if all Micro$oft employees had to wear yellow togas?

Originally posted by GrandMasta Nick
If you cannot afford the pills, you gotta wear rubbers.

Pills is cheaper.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Exactly what does this contraception coverage entail?

It does seem weird to me that these charities should not be considered religious employers.

 

[bigfatron]

One day Sharpy will be old enough to find out why reproductive control is important

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Speedo
[Catholic Charities [...] does not demand that its workers be Catholic or share the church's philosophy.

In light of which, the court's decision is not flat-out wrong, it's just a bad decision. The name of the charity should be a dead giveaway as to whether this is a religious institution.

The U.S. Constitution can be divided into two separate, equally important parts: the First Amendment, and everything else. Better to err on the side of First Amendment absolutism.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by bigfatron
One day Sharpy will be old enough to find out why reproductive control is important

Really.

Am I the only one here that recognizes people can buy contraceptives for themselves?

20 years down the road we'll see the California supreme court forcing employers to wipe people's rear ends and spoon feed them.

 

[thestonesfan]

Disturbing. The government is clearly overstepping its bounds here. I hope this is repealed.

The ACLU cheering this on really shows some blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Stapel]

Though I strongly disagree with the views of the catholic church, I applaud them for their healthcare charity program.

It appears that the church's 'labour conditions' do not cover all aspects of 'healthcare' for their employees.
But these emplyees know they work for a 'company' with certian values. They are not forced to work there.

This is the 2nd time today I agree with Speedo.

Can this be compared with a law we have in Holland since last january? It sais all companies should provide 'smokefree' labour spots for all employees. When the company's business is offering people a place to smoke, this law seems quite ridiculous.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Really.

Am I the only one here that recognizes people can buy contraceptives for themselves?

20 years down the road we'll see the California supreme court forcing employers to wipe people's rear ends and spoon feed them.

Aren't you always griping about poor people having kids and stealing your money through welfare? You should be overjoyed about the prospect of employees (who, in this scenario, I doubt are very rich) getting birth control coverage.

 

[amadeus]

Replacing one spendfest policy with another isn't making me happy.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Replacing one spendfest policy with another isn't making me happy.

Except this way you don't have to pay. (Unless you run your own company, that is.)

 

[Hundegesicht]

Maybe rmsharpe is catholic? In that case I'd be a little annoyed at having my tithes go to pay for some bloke in SF's rubbers too.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

RMS is Minnesotan... probably a Lutheran.

I actually tend to agree that employees should buy their own contraceptives... but that's not the subject of debate. Just whether the charity falls under the law or not.