How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Another constitutional fracturing or no?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Another constitutional fracturing or no? Thoughts?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


25 posted 02-06-2012 04:31 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

So, John, you don't think religious institutions have to worry about job safety or unemployment insurance because the Constitution exempts them from employment regulations?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


26 posted 02-06-2012 05:04 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


What does the Constitution say?


.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


27 posted 02-06-2012 05:40 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Which part, John? The First Amendment protects individuals from government intervention in both the establishment and exercise of their religious beliefs. I can't find any section that gives employers similar protections? Can you?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


28 posted 02-06-2012 06:42 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


29 posted 02-06-2012 08:47 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I've read the passage, John. Do you have a point to make?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


30 posted 02-07-2012 11:49 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


The passage is the point Ron.

Where we might disagree
is on "compelling interest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitatis_Humanae#Summary_of_the_declaration
.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


31 posted 02-07-2012 01:51 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Within this conversation, John, the passage is irrelevant.

It applies to religions, not to employers, and in no event does it grant religious carte blanch. They still have to adhere to local building codes, they still have to obey traffic laws, and they still have to offer their employees the same basic protections every other employer does. The Constitution does not place them outside the law, and it certainly doesn't place them above the law.

If the new employment laws restricted, prohibiting, or in any way tried to regulate the way a religion worshipped, then the law would very likely be unconstitutional. This law does none of that, however. Catholics can still preach against the evils of controlling human reproduction. Catholics can still refuse contraception and reject abortion, each according to their conscience. The law in no way impedes what THEY do as a religion.

And, uh, the phrase "compelling interest" isn't part of the First Amendment? Nor does it appear in the text of your linked Wiki article.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


32 posted 02-07-2012 03:08 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause


It compels Catholics as employers
to fund the provision of a product which
terminates human life which Catholics hold
begins at conception.  

Now they can simply
get out of being employers I guess . . .
or can they insist their employees be Catholic
and those they serve be Catholic?


“As Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops put it, "When you go to a Jewish deli, you are not expecting pork chops."”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-  02-05/contraception-mandate-religious-freedom/52975796/1


PS

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290081/mandatory-abortion-coverage-richard     -doerflinger

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290366/three-things-everyo   ne-should-know-about-hhs-mandate-nikolas-t-nikas


.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (02-07-2012 05:30 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


33 posted 02-07-2012 07:37 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
It compels Catholics as employers to fund the provision of a product which terminates human life which Catholics hold begins at conception.  

As employers, John, they already do that.

They pay their employees wages, which are then taxed and used to buy guns. They buy supplies, which similarly results in taxes being levied. Their money already goes straight from the collection plate to the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. So long as they want to be of this world, doing more than worshiping and teaching, so long as they employ the services of people who want to do more than worship and teach, they will be of the WHOLE world, the bad right along with the good.

Catholics don't believe in contraception. Jehovah's Witnesses will routinely refuse blood and certain blood products. Christian Scientists similarly refuse vaccinations and are on official record as saying faith healing is every bit as responsible a choice as is biomedical care. Where do you want to draw the line, John? In my opinion, every faith has the right to live -- and die -- by their own beliefs. They do not, however, have the right to force those beliefs on their employees, their vendors, or anyone else simply because there has been an exchange of money.

quote:
"When you go to a Jewish deli, you are not expecting pork chops."

No, John, but when you go to work for a Jewish deli, you don't become a Jew. Nor can the owner of the deli forbid you from using your paycheck to buy all the pork chops you can eat. Likewise, when you go into a Catholic church, school or hospital, you shouldn't expect them to be handing out contraceptives. But if you go to work for anyone, be they Catholic or not, you should rest easy knowing they have no legal right to withhold payment simply because they don't agree with how you spend your money.

p.s. I'm afraid I didn't have time to follow all your links this time, John. I'll be happy to listen to your thoughts, of course, when you find the time and inclination to pen them.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


34 posted 02-08-2012 12:31 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
Below minimum wage? Don't take the job. No overtime pay? Don't take the job. They might decide to dock your pay this month for something beyond your control? Don't take the job. Unsafe working conditions? Don't take the job. The list goes on and on.



But those aren't things that people have religious issues about.  At religious institutions I think things that people have sincere religious issues about should usually be allowed to be addressed by the institution and according to the religious nature of that institution that the person chooses to go to.   If the religious institution and its employers can't insist on religious things or things for religious reasons, then where is their religious freedom and how can they uphold the religious nature of the institution?  

I don't see anything abusive or harmful about insisting on a dresscode that would include burkas, or a service that includes praying according to the custom of the religion, or not being covered for contraceptives and abortion at a religious institution that is religiously against it.  I wouldn't choose these things for a religious institution if I were running one, and  most others probably wouldn't either, but they are differences based on different religious beliefs/morals and those things should be allowed to have priority at institutions that are specifically religious.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


35 posted 02-08-2012 01:58 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If the religious institution and its employers can't insist on religious things or things for religious reasons, then where is their religious freedom and how can they uphold the religious nature of the institution?

They can insist on anything they want, Ess. For themselves. Not for the rest of the world, and certainly not at the expense of the law. When they worship, they can exist outside the world. When they hire people or engage in commercial transactions, even if doing so is motivated by their religious tenets, they become part of our world and must attend the same laws and regulations as everyone else.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


36 posted 02-08-2012 02:17 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“The religious exemption is absolutely meaningless. The so-called religious exemption is written so narrowly that, as one commentator noted, even Jesus and his twelve disciples wouldn’t qualify. Here’s why: A “religious employer” is defined in the rule as an organization that meets all four of the following criteria: (1) the organization’s purpose is the inculcation of religious values (Catholic food banks are out); (2) the organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic universities are out); (3) the organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic hospitals are out); and (4) the organization is a nonprofit that is a house of worship or religious order. Given that houses of worship and religious orders exist with a mission to serve the least amongst us regardless of their faith, that means requirement (3) is not met, so everyone is out.”


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290366/three-things-everyo ne-should-know-about-hhs-mandate-nikolas-t-nikas


So a hospital run by Catholics employing only Catholics serving only Catholics
would not be exempt.


.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


37 posted 02-08-2012 02:43 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The so-called religious exemption is written so narrowly that, as one commentator noted, even Jesus and his twelve disciples wouldn’t qualify.

While I don't normally respond to off-site comments (you can't have a dialog with someone who isn't here), this one is so inane and condescending as to require at least a passing reference.

I can't find anywhere in the NT where Jesus hired someone to do His job. Can you? However, if Jesus had become an employer, I feel confident He would have willingly "rendered unto Caesar the things which were Caesar's."

quote:
So a hospital run by Catholics employing only Catholics serving only Catholics would not be exempt.

I don't know, John, show me one that meets that criteria? And then show me what other legal requirements they have escaped.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


38 posted 02-08-2012 05:20 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


'However, if Jesus had become an employer, I feel confident He would have willingly "rendered unto Caesar the things which were Caesar's."'


Perhaps he saw the problem beforehand
and decided it wasn't worth it . . .


"don't know, John, show me one that meets that criteria? And then show me what other legal requirements they have escaped."


History is full of legal
persecutions


By the way the answer is no; such a hospital
would not be exempt because it is a hospital.

.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


39 posted 02-10-2012 02:10 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I'm with Essorant on this, within reason, Religious Organizations should not be forced to pay for practices which violate very specific doctrines that have long been held (all the more since the stance is a passive one).  And, these stances should be well known to all who contract to be employed by the RCs.  If the Obama Administration is gung-ho about "Health Care" for all with no exceptions, let them pick up the slack for those employees who choose birth control and abortion, and preserve the right of Catholics not to participate in it at the violation of their own conscience.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 02-10-2012 08:36 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No exceptions??? That's a fairy tale since he has already given exceptions to thousands of people.

The White House is trying hard to wiggle out of this one....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


41 posted 02-10-2012 02:11 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
No exceptions??? That's a fairy tale since he has already given exceptions to thousands of people.

Have you got some examples Mike?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


42 posted 02-10-2012 07:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

(NaturalNews) If Obamacare is everything the administration claims it to be, then why are government officials secretly handing out exemption waivers to friends and insiders? A Washington Times report explains that since the health care bill was passed last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued at 733 exemptions-and-counting to friends of the White House in order to shelter them from the massive insurance rate hikes that the rest of America will get stuck paying, that is if the bill is not overturned or declared unconstitutional.

It began with 111 waivers, which gradually rose to 222, and that has now topped 733. Recipients include various cities and states, businesses, and unions, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). SIEU, of course, contributed $27 million to the Obama campaign back in 2008, so perhaps the union's waiver was a friendly "thank you" gift.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031181_Obamacare_waivers.html#ixzz1m1mFHxvG

Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm

Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district was the hands-down winner in the latest set of health care law waivers announced by the Obama administration.

More than three dozen businesses with locations in Pelosi's district were granted temporary exemptions from the law in April, according to information released by the Department of Health and Human Services. The businesses -- mostly restaurants and cafes, with a few upscale hotels and clubs mixed in -- accounted for about 20 percent of all waivers granted last month.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/restaurants-cafes-pelosis-district-eat-health-care-law-waivers/#ixzz1m1nYfLYQ
Take a few minutes of your time and there are plenty more articles on the subject, grinch.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


43 posted 02-10-2012 08:24 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Mike,
Sorry, I thought you meant permanent exemptions -  I already knew about the temporary waivers -  by the way the number of people who'll benefit from them is currently up to 2.2 million.

They've got nothing to do with contraceptives though, they're a temporary measure to allow the insurers to comply with the new law without raising premiums and they expire no later than 2014.

The new legislation sets the minimum indemnity at $750,000, any employer who has a policy that doesn't meet this minimum standard can apply for a waiver above and beyond the provision that allows them to keep their grandfathered policy. The waiver is basically an insurance in case their existing policy is pulled before the insurance exchange is fully up and running.

My guess is the temporary waivers will increase in number as employers with really bad policies realise the risks involved in not applying.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


44 posted 02-10-2012 09:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Amid a backlash from many Catholics and proponents of religious liberty, President Barack Obama announced Friday that his administration will not require religious institutions like hospitals and universities to provide free contraception to their employees in their health insurance.

Speaking to reporters at the White House Friday, Obama offered a compromise that would allow women to obtain free contraception but would require them to obtain it directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control because of religious beliefs.

Obama's staff was deeply divided over the decision to require free contraception, with Vice President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, both Catholics, very opposed, ABC's Jake Tapper reported earlier this week.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-announce-accommodation-religious-groups-contraceptive-rule-enough-170500694.html
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


45 posted 02-11-2012 12:07 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Question:  If a Catholic institution
pays for health insurance from insurance
company A under an insurance policy
that excludes birth control
items it objects to, do that Catholic
institutions employees now still get those
items for free from insurance company A
if the Catholic institution has
a policy with insurance company A
or do the employees get the items
free from another/any other insurance company;
are the items being available contingent
on the Catholic Institution paying for
a policy with insurance company A?


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


46 posted 02-11-2012 07:44 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

The insurance company supplies a policy to the employer that doesn't include contraceptives and the same company offers an optional, add on, policy to the employee that is paid for by the insurance company.

Everyone's a winner.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


47 posted 02-11-2012 11:09 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

That sounds like a reasonable compromise.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


48 posted 02-11-2012 02:36 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


But it's contingent on the employer
buying a policy from the insurer; without
which the insurer offers nothing free?
And it's mandatory these free items be
offered as a consequence of the policy
being purchased?


In a simple case an  employer buys a policy
from an insurer who otherwise has no money;
how does the insurer pay for the free items?


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


49 posted 02-11-2012 02:57 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
In a simple case an employer buys a policy
from an insurer who otherwise has no money


Health insurers have no money! In which universe?



The insurers will pay for it out of their profits and they'll be happy to do it too if they have any sense because  not supplying contraceptives will cost them more in the long run.

.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Another constitutional fracturing or no?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors