Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 131
  1. 02-10-2012 #51
    ElNono
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord23
    For those of you that agree with the Catholics' indignation in this matter, if this had been a case of Islamic charities refusing to provide coverage for female employees who are victims of domestic violence because their holy book actually advocates wife-beating ... would you support their right to deny such coverage because it is important to their faith?
    Sharia Law!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote ElNono is offline
  2. 02-10-2012 #52
    CosmicCowboy
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    Quote Originally Posted by clambake
    touched a nerve with cc.
    Not a bit. As I have stated many times in here you guys constantly confuse Fox NEWS (Shepard Smith for one being pretty fair and impartial) with Fox commentators (OReilly, Hannity, etc.) which are NOT news and don't claim to be.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote CosmicCowboy is offline
  3. 02-10-2012 #53
    CosmicCowboy
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    Quote Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
    So why can't denying a benefit due to religious belief be illegal?
    Well, you can start with the very definition of "benefit"...it's something freely given and not mandated.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote CosmicCowboy is offline
  4. 02-10-2012 #54
    clambake
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    fox, cnn, whoever should limit catholic news to nothing but child rape.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote clambake is offline
  5. 02-10-2012 #55
    Warlord23
    Real Warrior Warlord23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    6,025
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    Pretty weak analogy. The precedent for certain religious beliefs being illegal is clearly established. The one you mentioned being one...Polygamy being another that immediately comes to mind...
    The legality of wife-beating isn't relevant here. The Islamic organization is not promoting/condoning wife-beating, it simply doesn't recognize wife-beating as a valid reason for medical coverage.

    In both cases (the Catholic one and my fictional analogy),
    - the woman needs medical assistance
    - according to the employer, the need for which medical assistance is sought is incompatible with the teachings of their faith
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Warlord23 is offline
  6. 02-10-2012 #56
    CosmicCowboy
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    And BTW, I could give a one way or the other on this issue. I am by no stretch defending the catholic churches position on contraception or abortion...just their cons utional right to have a position.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote CosmicCowboy is offline
  7. 02-10-2012 #57
    CosmicCowboy
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord23
    The legality of wife-beating isn't relevant here. The Islamic organization is not promoting/condoning wife-beating, it simply doesn't recognize wife-beating as a valid reason for medical coverage.

    In both cases (the Catholic one and my fictional analogy),
    - the woman needs medical assistance
    - according to the employer, the need for which medical assistance is sought is incompatible with the teachings of their faith
    I choose not to debate your fictional analogy.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote CosmicCowboy is offline
  8. 02-10-2012 #58
    clambake
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    And BTW, I could give a one way or the other on this issue. I am by no stretch defending the catholic churches position on contraception or abortion...just their cons utional right to have a position.
    thats what i'm saying. their behavior hasn't earned cons utional rights. and we should tax the holy ing out of them.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote clambake is offline
  9. 02-10-2012 #59
    ChumpDumper
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,411
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    Well, you can start with the very definition of "benefit"...it's something freely given and not mandated.
    Unless it is mandated.

    So why could it not be illegal?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote ChumpDumper is offline
  10. 02-10-2012 #60
    ChumpDumper
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,411
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    And BTW, I could give a one way or the other on this issue. I am by no stretch defending the catholic churches position on contraception or abortion...just their cons utional right to have a position.
    People who believe in polygamy have a cons utional right to their position too.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote ChumpDumper is offline
  11. 02-10-2012 #61
    CosmicCowboy
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    Quote Originally Posted by clambake
    thats what i'm saying. their behavior hasn't earned cons utional rights. and we should tax the holy ing out of them.
    The issue of whether churches and non-profits should or should not be taxed is not addressed in the cons ution. It's basically just a tax code issue as far as i know. I can see both sides of the argument.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote CosmicCowboy is offline
  12. 02-10-2012 #62
    johnsmith
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    I'm Catholic and I haven't raped any kids.........yet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote johnsmith is offline
  13. 02-10-2012 #63
    CosmicCowboy
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    Quote Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
    People who believe in polygamy have a cons utional right to their position too.
    I believe the Supreme Court in Reynolds vs. US disagreed with chumpdumper.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote CosmicCowboy is offline
  14. 02-10-2012 #64
    clambake
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    The issue of whether churches and non-profits should or should not be taxed is not addressed in the cons ution. It's basically just a tax code issue as far as i know. I can see both sides of the argument.
    cool. i would like for them to be the first example. as punishment.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote clambake is offline
  15. 02-10-2012 #65
    clambake
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    Quote Originally Posted by johnsmith
    I'm Catholic and I haven't raped any kids.........yet.
    well....you're just not trying.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote clambake is offline
  16. 02-10-2012 #66
    FuzzyLumpkins
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,886
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    Not a bit. As I have stated many times in here you guys constantly confuse Fox NEWS (Shepard Smith for one being pretty fair and impartial) with Fox commentators (OReilly, Hannity, etc.) which are NOT news and don't claim to be.
    And I have stated many times that you have idea how a news cast's material is selected or how that can have an impact. Just because the talking heads do not get angry and spit vitriol about Democrats does not mean that what they do choose to talk about can slant things one way or another.


    Its not a hard concept and its been shown as with the case of Ron Paul how they do that. That you think that their news cast is not slanted just further's my views on your a en labor and en lement boy.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote FuzzyLumpkins is offline
  17. 02-10-2012 #67
    ChumpDumper
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,411
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    I believe the Supreme Court disagrees with chumpdumper.
    Actually no. They agree that they can hold any position they want.

    They just can't act on the one about polygamy.

    I don't see how this is any different.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote ChumpDumper is offline
  18. 02-10-2012 #68
    TeyshaBlue
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,321
    Quote Originally Posted by clambake
    well....you're just not trying.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote TeyshaBlue is offline
  19. 02-10-2012 #69
    johnsmith
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    Quote Originally Posted by clambake
    well....you're just not trying.
    Noted.....more effort to follow.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote johnsmith is offline
  20. 02-10-2012 #70
    CosmicCowboy
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    Quote Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
    Actually no. They agree that they can hold any position they want.

    They just can't act on the one about polygamy.

    I don't see how this is any different.
    The difference seems to be in prohibiting an action as opposed to REQUIRING an action.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote CosmicCowboy is offline
  21. 02-10-2012 #71
    ChumpDumper
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,411
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    The difference seems to be in prohibiting an action as opposed to REQUIRING an action.
    It's prohibiting their choice to ignore a law due to religious belief.

    Same thing.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote ChumpDumper is offline
  22. 02-10-2012 #72
    CosmicCowboy
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    Quote Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
    It's prohibiting their choice to ignore a law due to religious belief.

    Same thing.
    But the law doesn't require them to offer insurance at all.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote CosmicCowboy is offline
  23. 02-10-2012 #73
    ChumpDumper
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,411
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    But the law doesn't require them to offer insurance at all.
    The law doesn't require polygamists to marry anyone at all.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote ChumpDumper is offline
  24. 02-10-2012 #74
    CosmicCowboy
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,136
    Quote Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
    The law doesn't require polygamists to marry anyone at all.
    pffffft

    you can do better than that.

    see definition of polygamy.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote CosmicCowboy is offline
  25. 02-10-2012 #75
    ChumpDumper
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,411
    Quote Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
    pffffft

    you can do better than that.

    see definition of polygamy.
    I did. You can believe in polygamy without doing it.

    Sorry your sauce is weak.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote ChumpDumper is offline
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

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
  •  

Forum Rules