ZWICK 4 PREZ;1078524 wrote:No, you're the first to question the claims
/sarcasm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

Thanks for the link. I will think twice before questioning your source again.

Devils Advocate;1078459 wrote:The govt isn't mandating anything in anyones live. the govt is saying that birth control coverage should be available. No one is forcing anyone to TAKE birth control.

True...what they are doing is violating the First Ammendment in regards to the free exercise of religion by forcing Catholic organizations to provide it.

fish82;1078623 wrote:True...what they are doing is violating the First Ammendment in regards to the free exercise of religion by forcing Catholic organizations to provide it.

I guess that that is where our opinions clash.

No on is forcing the Cathilic church to do anything. They have a choice : recieve federal funding (via medicare or medicaid) or not.

Devils Advocate;1078676 wrote:I guess that that is where our opinions clash.

No on is forcing the Cathilic church to do anything. They have a choice : recieve federal funding (via medicare or medicaid) or not.

So holding "funding" hostage isn't prohibiting the "free exercise" of said religion? It's a slam dunk if they choose to challenge it.

fish82;1078689 wrote:So holding "funding" hostage isn't prohibiting the "free exercise" of said religion? It's a slam dunk if they choose to challenge it.

Who says you can't practice your religion? The government isn't mandating that someone has to take BC. LOL

fish82;1078689 wrote:So holding "funding" hostage isn't prohibiting the "free exercise" of said religion? It's a slam dunk if they choose to challenge it.

If the church feels so strongly about the issue because of the principals (IE bith control) Then they should refuse to do business with the federal government.

If the Catholic Church chose this path, It would gain some credibility with me.



But I suspect that this is all coming down to money, and the Hospitals need to send the checks to the Diocese and or the Vatican.

They will cave before the Feds do.

Devils Advocate;1078702 wrote:If the church feels so strongly about the issue because of the principals (IE bith control) Then they should refuse to do business with the federal government.

If the Catholic Church chose this path, It would gain some credibility with me.



But I suspect that this is all coming down to money, and the Hospitals need to send the checks to the Diocese and or the Vatican.

They will cave before the Feds do.

Possibly....although I don't see why they don't just show the Diocese the balance sheet showing that the "funding" doesn't even cover the cost of providing the service. I would think they'd be smart enough to see that they'd be better off in the long run to just kick the government to the curb.

sleeper;1078693 wrote:Who says you can't practice your religion? The government isn't mandating that someone has to take BC. LOL

Wow...quite the constitutional scholar, aren't we? Take a break from the "poop as song titles" thread, do some research on the various interpretations of "free exercise" and get back to me.

fish82;1078715 wrote:
Wow...quite the constitutional scholar, aren't we? Take a break from the "poop as song titles" thread, do some research on the various interpretations of "free exercise" and get back to me.

Pot shots aside, if you take federal money than you forfeit the ability to intervene with their law. Since churches are all about money, they will concede this point. This is nothing more than showing up to try to retain a semblance of faith and belief.

sleeper;1078719 wrote:Pot shots aside, if you take federal money than you forfeit the ability to intervene with their law. Since churches are all about money, they will concede this point. This is nothing more than showing up to try to retain a semblance of faith and belief.

So anyone who receives federal money of any kind can just assume that the First Amendment will apply to them when it's convenient for the government. Got it. :rolleyes:

fish82;1078741 wrote:So anyone who receives federal money of any kind can just assume that the First Amendment will apply to them when it's convenient for the government. Got it. :rolleyes:

Yes. You have the right to refuse federal money if you so choose and do your own thing.

sleeper;1078749 wrote:Yes. You have the right to refuse federal money if you so choose and do your own thing.

Yep just like Reagan did to the states with federal highway dollar and raising the drinking age. Two days in a row fish getting it handed it to him by sleeper

Bigdogg;1078773 wrote:Yep just like Reagan did to the states with federal highway dollar and raising the drinking age. Two days in a row fish getting it handed it to him by sleeper

You should swing on his nuts some more. Your similarities are numerous...you make a cute couple.

That said, enlighten me how forcing states to raise their individual drinking ages to 21 is a remotely plausible and intelligent analogy to violating an amendment to the farking US Constitution. Thanks. :rolleyes:

sleeper;1078749 wrote:Yes. You have the right to refuse federal money if you so choose and do your own thing.

The act by the government of forcing them to choose one or the other is a violation of the First Amendment. Seriously dude...you can't be this stupid in real life.

Con_Alma;1078267 wrote:There is no court ruling indicating that State Santioning of any marriage is a right. It should be ended.

It doesn't matter if they have sex or not. Sex isn't the issue. The State shouldn't decide who gets to enter a contractual relationship.

In the Loving Case, the Supreme Court ruled that since state sanctioned marriage was a basic right, states could not deny that basic right to interracial couples.

fish82;1078785 wrote:The act by the government of forcing them to choose one or the other is a violation of the First Amendment. Seriously dude...you can't be this stupid in real life.

No it isn't. Link me to the part of the constitution that says the federal government has no say in who and who they can't fund.

^^^so let me get this straight....so you are in favor of the Federal government and its agencies holding funds hostage to achieve arbitrary rulings by departments that are not accountable to the people? Yes or no? You are correct that they do this, but are you in favor of it?

While the feds may be able to hold funds hostage...they cannot arbitrarily change the law or hold churches tax exempt status hostage provided they follow the rules for tax exempt entities (which also include private and public colleges, charitable foundations and organizations, community sports organizations, etc).
http://clergytaxes.com/church.htm#2 Has nothing to do with God. They are not businesses no matter how you try to spin it. In fact, if they are involved with, or make money from any activity that is not expressly related to tax exempt activity, they are required to pay tax on that money.

You lose...spread your hatred of religion somewhere else.

sleeper;1078827 wrote:No it isn't. Link me to the part of the constitution that says the federal government has no say in who and who they can't fund.

Sigh. Funding has zero to do with it. The funding is just the mechanism they're using to interfere with their ability to freely exercise their religion in a manner of their choosing. It's not that difficult.

Even Bam gets it...as he's already starting to backpedal.

sleeper;1078827 wrote:No it isn't. Link me to the part of the constitution that says the federal government has no say in who and who they can't fund.

Among his self professed many talents, fishie is an expert in Constitutional law just ask him. I seriously doubt Obama and his team of advisers have not thoroughly thought this out. He may give them more time but the bottom line it is the right thing to do and the majority of people will support it in spite of what he or the right wing radicals say. It will be funny to watch their head explode.

Sorry fish

fish82;1078783 wrote:enlighten me how forcing states to raise their individual drinking ages to 21 is a remotely plausible and intelligent analogy to violating an amendment to the farking US Constitution. Thanks. :rolleyes:

You want federal money, you provide this set of benefits. Anyone that agrees to be a Medicare or Medicaid provider already has a long list of requirements called conditions of participation that they have to meet to bill for services. You should know this since you seem to know everything You are too easy!

Take a look here. I been doing this 25 years now but you are the expert?

https://www.cms.gov/CFCsAndCoPs/06_Hospitals.asp

Is the federal government handing out money to churches or subsidizing their insuance premiums?...because if they are not, then that arguement is moot.

HitsRus;1078976 wrote:Is the federal government handing out money to churches or subsidizing their insuance premiums?...because if they are not, then that arguement is moot.

An excellent point, but an argument can be made that any provision of business perks that reduces a tax burden is subsidized.

Ergo, a large pharmaceutical company that provides an automobile for its sales reps or an accounting firm that provides lunches for its staff on Fridays are subject to regulation, thus this administration may require that in the former instance the vehicle MUST be produced by Government Motors (I mean GM), and in the latter instance all lunches must be approved by the FLOTUS.

I'm being sarcastic, but it isn't that much of a stretch.

Bigdogg;1078971 wrote:You want federal money, you provide this set of benefits. Anyone that agrees to be a Medicare or Medicaid provider already has a long list of requirements called conditions of participation that they have to meet to bill for services. You should know this since you seem to know everything You are too easy!

Take a look here. I been doing this 25 years now but you are the expert?

https://www.cms.gov/CFCsAndCoPs/06_Hospitals.asp

Do any of the current conditions of participation clash with the First Amendment? I'll help you....the answer is no.

Try again. Usually the stuff that I've been doing for 25 years, I'm a little better at...but I guess that's just me.

The more I think about it I should probably delete my post above before someone from the current administration reads it and gets big ideas about how the federal government can be even more intrusive.

fish82;1078882 wrote:Sigh. Funding has zero to do with it. The funding is just the mechanism they're using to interfere with their ability to freely exercise their religion in a manner of their choosing. It's not that difficult.

Even Bam gets it...as he's already starting to backpedal.

You need federal funding to practice your religion? It's about money, and churches only care about money. Thanks for proving my point.

HitsRus;1078879 wrote:^^^so let me get this straight....so you are in favor of the Federal government and its agencies holding funds hostage to achieve arbitrary rulings by departments that are not accountable to the people? Yes or no? You are correct that they do this, but are you in favor of it?

I'm in favor of the freely elected federal government representing the people of this country controlling who receives money from the taxpayers. Clearly this is something taxpayers wants and if the church doesn't want to play by the rules, they don't deserve the funds.