Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 141
  1. #51
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Ohio Archy going the same way

    Ohio Catholic School Contracts Controversy Dismissed as Overblown

    “We do consider all of our teachers, including those who are not Catholic, to be ministers of the Church, because our schools are a ministry — that’s the reason we open up the doors in the morning. It’s not just to provide a great education, great discipline, although we do that: It’s to spread the Gospel.”

    The contract gives examples of prohibited conduct, including “public support of or publicly living together outside marriage, public support of or sexual activity out of wedlock, public support of or sexual lifestyle, public support of or use of abortion … public membership in organizations whose mission and message are incompatible with Catholic doctrine or morals.”

    The wording is important, Andriacco said, for its concern with public — not private — acts and its extension beyond the bounds of the classroom: “A teacher’s function as a role model doesn’t end at the classroom door.”


    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news...-as-overblown/

    =========================

    Stoking Fire: Why Are Some Teachers Being Asked to Swear Allegiance to Catholic Doctrine?


    While the exact wording of each contract varies, the bottom line, he says, is that faculty teaching in Catholic elementary, middle, and senior high schools in affected areas need to heed the party line and sign a multi-page contract indicating that they oppose abortion, contraception, extramarital sex, premarital sex, masturbation, pornography, in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and sexuality. What’s more, Berkowitz explains, this applies regardless of whether a teacher is Catholic and regardless of the subject taught.

    http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/06/19/stoking-fire-teachers-asked-swear-allegiance-catholic-doctrine/



  2. #52
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    If other family-owned corporations choose to emulate Hobby Lobby and win an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for broad coverage of contraception, cost will become a higher barrier for more women. Emergency contraception costs, on average, $45 without insurance.




    If you don't have $45 dollars to spare on emergency contraception I'd suggest not having unprotected sex. And this is coming from a non-Christian.

  3. #53
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734


    If you don't have $45 dollars to spare on emergency contraception I'd suggest not having unprotected sex. And this is coming from a non-Christian.
    No . Or give the dude a choice. Wrap it or pony up the $45 for the morning after pill.

  4. #54
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    bull , per usual, right wingers perverting the 1st amendtment like they pervert murderously the 2nd amendment.

    there was nothing FORCING the closely-held religious extremist to give the contraception to the employees. the employees were not FORCED to use the contraception




    Of course the employers were being forced to offer the contraception options as a minimum requirement of their broader insurance package. Not only that but the employer had to pay 100% making them in their minds morally culpable. Boo, you are so blindly full of .

  5. #55
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    told ya

    Pacific Islanders on Hawaiian police force say it's their religious right to have tattoos.

  6. #56
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    You sure are a hysterical little Boutons. This ruling only applied to 4 current drugs that abort the fertilized egg.

    I could give a if women use the morning after pill but some people do. The SCOTUS ruling was totally consistent with the first amendment.
    ya gotta keep up, CC

    SCOTUS: Ruling Applies Broadly To Contraception Coverage

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

    The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.

    Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices.


    Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.


    They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to workers.


    The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.


    Two Michigan-based companies, Autocam Corp. and Eden Foods Inc., both lost their cases in the lower courts. The justices ordered the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decisions against the companies.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sc...+%28TPMNews%29


  7. #57
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    the Court’s ruling also serves as a reminder of just how cautiously the GOP must tread when speaking on any issue in a social and cultural context. In 2012, Republicans paid a heavy price for their increasingly militant and unpopular positions on social issues, and in 2014 they cannot afford to speak too loudly on social issues just months ahead of midterm elections.

    As a Democracy Corps analysis pointed out in February, 2012, the public has long disagreed with Republicans on contraception and Planned Parenthood funding. According to the survey, voters “wonder why at a time of great economic distress, Republicans are consumed with denying birth control coverage for women.”

    With theHobby Lobby ruling dominating the news, the GOP must again confront contraception and women’s access to health care services, among other social issues – ones on which women and young voters tend to side with Democrats.


    Voters have not shifted towards the Republican point of view on the issue. Just one day before the Supreme Court released its Hobby Lobby decision, Reuters revealed the findings of a new Reuters/Ipsos poll: When asked “whether employers should be able to choose what forms of contraceptives their health plans provide based on their religious beliefs,” 53 percent of Americans disagreed — and only 35 percent agreed.


    A Gallup poll released in May similarly found that a massive 89 percent of Americans — including 88 percent of Republicans — say that the use of birth control is morally acceptable.

    http://www.nationalmemo.com/gop-forc...-lobby-ruling/

    ok, polls, but will Repugs who disagree with their politicians/SCOTUS5 abstain or vote Dem?

    Repugs have their wedge issues, dividing, weakening America bitterly, but the side of the wedge they pander to/dupe is quite a bit smaller than the other side of the wedge.




  8. #58
    Veteran Aztecfan03's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Post Count
    4,292
    No . Or give the dude a choice. Wrap it or pony up the $45 for the morning after pill.
    Or take the free birth control, that is still covered, ahead of time.

  9. #59
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TheSanityAnnex's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    21,376
    Or take the free birth control, that is still covered, ahead of time.
    Personal responsibility is a lost art.

  10. #60
    Veteran
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    8,957
    I'm tired of the celebrations of gay marriage rulings and birth control . I want to hear about some news that helps the majority of America ie jobs and student loan debt. How is our wonderful congress and amazing president gonna help a broths out on dat ? I don't give a if two men want to get married and or if a woman wants a pill that prevents a guy's from making a mistake in her. I don't care. America is a business.

  11. #61
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    I'm tired of the celebrations of gay marriage rulings and birth control . I want to hear about some news that helps the majority of America ie jobs and student loan debt. How is our wonderful congress and amazing president gonna help a broths out on dat ? I don't give a if two men want to get married and or if a woman wants a pill that prevents a guy's from making a mistake in her. I don't care. America is a business.
    the Repugs you elected, esp the your tea baggers like Cruz, Lee, will block all progress in Congress.

    Look at the number of bills passed in the past 2,3 years in comparison with other legislative years. law-less is really Repugs descrption of themselves.

    The gamed, rigged status quo is vastly in favor of the 1%, the corps, so they have $Bs to spend electing/maintaining the Repug/tea party turds to clog up Congress, defund govt, de-populate govt, and will sue/impeach Obama for trying to do anything by executive order, which in fact is VERY limited.

  12. #62
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514

    Hobby Lobby Is Only the Beginning

    The larger controversy, however, won’t be settled so easily.

    Supporters of the mandate countered that a victory for the plaintiffs would allow large corporations, under the cover of religious freedom, not just to impede women’s exercise of their reproductive rights but also to defy civil rights statutes with impunity.

    Amid this heated talk, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that this was a statutory case, not a case decided under the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion.

    The statute in question, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, states that the government “shall not substantially burden” the exercise of religion without satisfying a demanding legal test.


    It is worth noting that the act was championed by President Bill Clinton and passed in 1993, with near unanimity, by a Democrat-controlled Congress. The act was drafted in response to a controversial 1990 Supreme Court decision that made it easier — far too easy, according to critics of all political stripes — for the government to burden the exercise of religion.

    The decision in Hobby Lobby was no shock to anyone familiar with the heavy weight that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act places on religious accommodation. The fate of the case was sealed 21 years ago — not by a slim majority of the court, but by virtually every member of Congress. In a dissenting opinion on Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby was one of “startling breadth,” but the statute itself is deliberately broad.


    The first source of controversy is the collapse of a national consensus on a key element of religious liberty: accommodation. Throughout American history, there has been widespread agreement that in our religiously diverse and widely devout country, it is good for the government to accommodate religious exercise. We have disagreed about particular accommodations (may a Muslim police officer wear a beard, despite police department policy?), and especially about whether religious accommodations should be ordered by judges or crafted by legislators. But we have generally agreed that our nation benefits when we help rather than burden those with religious obligations. That consensus seems, quite suddenly, to have evaporated.

    A second source of controversy is that many people view the Hobby Lobby case as concerning not just reproductive rights but also, indirectly, rights for gays and lesbians. Advocates for same-sex marriage have long insisted that their own marriages need not threaten anyone else’s, but citizens with religious objections to same-sex marriage wonder whether that is entirely true: Will a small-business owner be sued, for instance, for declining to provide services to a same-sex couple?

    Conversely, and understandably, gay and lesbian couples wonder why they do not deserve the same protections from discrimination granted to racial and other minorities. For both sides, Hobby Lobby was merely a prelude to this dawning conflict.


    The third source of controversy is a change in our views of the marketplace itself. The marketplace was once seen as place to put aside our culture wars and engage in the great American tradition of buying and selling. The shopping mall has even been called the “American agora.” But today the market itself has become a site of cultural conflict. Hobby Lobby is one of many companies that seek to express faith commitments at work as well as at home and that don’t see the workplace as a thing apart from religion. Many companies preach and practice values, religious and otherwise, that are unrelated to market considerations.


    A country that cannot even agree on the idea of religious accommodation, let alone on what terms, is unlikely to agree on what to do next. A country in which many states cannot manage to pass basic anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation is one whose culture wars may be beyond the point of compromise.

    And a nation whose marketplace itself is viewed, for better or worse, as a place to fight both those battles rather than to escape from them is still less likely to find surcease from struggle.


    Expect many more Hobby Lobbies.


    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/opinion/for-the-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-is-only-the-beginning.html?_r=0

    "religious freedom", "religious accommodation" for "Christians" is their "right" to impose their religion on everybody else, granting no one freedom FROM their religion.

    And let's see if those Pacific islander police in Hawaii will be able to work with their tattoos uncovered

    And lets see if a turbaned/bearded Sihk is ever allowed to be a policeman, or in the military.






  13. #63
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    The US screws up, while Europe doesn't

    European rights court rules in favor of French burqa ban

    The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday rejected a claim by a young Muslim woman that France's ban on the wearing of burqas and niqabs in public violates her rights.

    The French law banning the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil with an opening for the eyes, went into effect in April 2011.


    It has pitted religious freedom advocates against those who say the Islamic veil is demeaning to women and inconsistent with France's rigorously enforced secularism.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/world/europe/france-burqa-ban/

    "France's rigorously enforced secularism" of course dates to the French Revolution that over through the toxic, corrupt 100s-years oppression by the royalty + Catholic church.

    Contrast with the US Christian Taleban supremacists LYING that US was founded as Christian country, and that Ten Commandments/Bible should replace the US penal code.



  14. #64
    Deandre Jordan Sucks m>s's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Post Count
    9,768
    This is what you really mean to say
    >names himself boner-ific
    >obsessed with male n!gg3rs

    got confirmed

  15. #65
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    in theory, the impact could be wide, depending on what other matters of conscience corporations choose to uphold:

    The Supreme Court ruled Monday that "closely held corporations" cannot be forced to pay for their employees' birth control if they have religious objections -- a decision hailed by religious groups and denounced by women's groups.
    So what exactly is a "closely held corporation?" And how many people will this effect?


    Some initially thought that this verbiage effectively narrowed the decision to a limited number of businesses, but it's actually the same language Hobby Lobby sought in seeking its exemption from the contraception mandate. It's also a term that covers a lot of businesses and Americans -- like, a lot.


    Here's how the IRS defines "closely held corporation":



    1. Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
    2. Is not a personal service corporation.


    Basically, "closely held" is a term that covers as much as 90 percent (or more) of all businesses, according to a 2000 study.


    But while it covers the vast majority of employers, it doesn't necessarily cover the vast majority of employees. That's because publicly traded companies tend to have many more employees than private ones.


    Still, according to studies from Columbia University and New York University, closely held corporations employed 52 percent of the American workforce and accounted for slightly more than half -- 51 percent -- of economic output from the private sector.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...trol-decision/

  16. #66
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I'm not against birth control, but I am against authoritarians trying to force their views on others.

  17. #67
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    George Takei: What if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims imposing Sharia law on workers?

    Former Star Trek actor George Takei blasted Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court allowing the craft store Hobby Lobby to opt out of the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act.
    In a post on the website for his new play, Allegiance, the openly gay Takei called Monday’s decision “a stunning setback for women’s reproductive rights.”

    “The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion,” Takei wrote.

    “Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).”

    “(O)ne wonders,” he said, “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”


    Takei pointed out what many have noted, that Hobby Lobby has invested in multiple companies that manufacture abortion drugs and birth control. The company receives most of its merchandise from China, a country where overpopulation has led to mandatory abortions and sterilizations for women who try to have more than one child.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/0...e+Raw+Story%29



  18. #68
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Here's that Hobby Lobby slippery slope in action

    Who could have predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court was going to empower religious organizations to start screaming for federal exemptions to everything they find icky? Pretty much everyone, actually, saw that coming andhere's the first of it. A group of faith leaders, including an Obama supporter, has asked the administration to allow them to continue to discriminate against the gays in their hiring practices.

    Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion.

    "We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious iden y and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need," the letter states. […]

    It comes from as group of faith leaders who are generally friendly to the administration, many of whom have closely advised the White House on issues like immigration reform. The letter was organized by Michael Wear, who worked in the Obama White House and directed faith outreach for the president's 2012 campaign. Signers include two members of Catholics for Obama and three former members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.


    "This is not an antagonistic letter by any means,"
    Wear told me.

    But in the wake of Hobby Lobby, he said, "the administration does have a decision to make whether they want to recalibrate their approach to some of these issues."

    The leaders state that without the religious exemption to the executive order on federal contractors, "this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom." They base their argument on both the new political reality of
    Hobby Lobby and on the fact that the Senate-passed Employment Non-Discrimination Act includes such an exemption for religious organizations. The difference between ENDA and the pending executive order is that the latter applies only to federal contractors, not to all employers with more than 15 employees.

    The White House hasn't released the order yet, and didn't comment on the issue to The Atlantic's Molly Ball, who reported this story.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...8Daily+Kos%29#

    ing Christian, self-righteous haters, 'em all.



  19. #69
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    right wing intellectual/thought leader with a great solution: "Stop ing, ladies!"


    Limbaugh returns to shaming: Women who need the pill should stop doing ‘a certain thing


    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/0...e+Raw+Story%29

  20. #70
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    why is this being called a war against women? are men outraged that companies don't provide free Trojans?

    obvious decision in a stupid case. if you wanna , do it on your own time and your own budget. its a choice you make and are free to make

  21. #71
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    insurance covers "floppy " drugs. I figure the old white Christian men know that problem up close

  22. #72
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    insurance covers "floppy " drugs. I figure the old white Christian men know that problem up close
    i thought this case was about contraceptives?

  23. #73
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    i thought this case was about contraceptives?
    goddam, you're stupid.

    Why didn't Hobby Lobby also wanted to block floppy drugs.

    Many women take the pill for medical problems, not so they can be s.

    Many women take the pill so they won't get pregnant then get fired, not so they can be s.

    Many women do contraception because they can't afford more kids, are working on the careers (US is ONLY industrial country with no national pregngancy leave), don't want any more kids, NOT because they want to be s.

    goddam, you're stupid.
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-02-2014 at 04:27 PM.

  24. #74
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    goddam, you're stupid.

    Why didn't Hobby Lobby also wanted to block floppy drugs.

    Many women take the pill for medical problems, not so they can be s.

    Many women take the pill so they won't get pregnant then get fired, not so they can be s.

    Many women do contraception because they can't afford more kids, are working on the careers (US is ONLY industrial country with no national pregngancy leave), don't want any more kids, NOT because they want to s.

    goddam, you're stupid.
    Viagara isn't a contraceptive you ing idiot.

  25. #75
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    Viagara isn't a contraceptive you ing idiot.
    I think his point is about happily funding medical things that will facilitate intercourse but refusing to do the same for medical things that might deal with its consequences, which are borne, decidedly, by women.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •