Analogy to the Catholics being forced to pay for BC

[pornstarwannabe]

First some background since the issue got muddy real fast.
a. Obama stated he was forcing Catholic Institutions to pay for BC
b. There was a huge outcry from the Right. For whatever reason, the Catholic institutions stated this was against their religious beliefs
c. Obama pulled back on the mandate, so now the Insurabce companies (and not the Catholic institutions), will pay for BC

The issue took on legs, and spun into other areas of healthcare concerning women. So I'd like for you to examine an analogy for the BC issue itself, before it spun out ouf control (i.e. #a).

Is this a suitable analogy? lets discuss.

a. Most medical plans offer counseling for behavioral issues
b. An Atheist organization is mandated by the Government to pay for counseling services that are administrated by Religious organizations. The counselors are Clergy.

So, would that situation cause an outcry among the Left and/or Right?

EDIT:
Change post.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Modified OP by not asking for an analogy. Let's hear you comments. Am I on or off base?

 

[mercury14]

Modified OP by not asking for an analogy. Let's hear you comments. Am I on or off base?

Off base.

And there's no such thing as an "atheist organization" in the United States.

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

First some background since the issue got muddy real fast.
a. Obama stated he was forcing Catholic Institutions to pay for BC
b. There was a huge outcry from the Right. For whatever reason, the Catholic institutions stated this was against their religious beliefs
c. Obama pulled back on the mandate, so now the Insurabce companies (and not the Catholic institutions), will pay for BC

The issue took on legs, and spun into other areas of healthcare concerning women. So I'd like for you to examine an analogy for the BC issue itself, before it spun out ouf control (i.e. #a).

Is this a suitable analogy? lets discuss.

a. Most medical plans offer counseling for behavioral issues
b. An Atheist organization is mandated by the Government to pay for counseling services that are administrated by Religious organizations. The counselors are Clergy.

So, would that situation cause an outcry among the Left and/or Right?

EDIT:
Change post.

you're right on bro

Stew

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Off base.

And there's no such thing as an "atheist organization" in the United States.

But assuming there was a Small Business owned by an Atheist, like a hardware store with enough employees such that he would have to follow the mandate, would I be off base if the Atheist Small Business owner did not want to accept the government's mandate? If so, why?

 

[mercury14]

But assuming there was a Small Business owned by an Atheist, like a hardware store with enough employees such that he would have to follow the mandate, would I be off base if the Atheist Small Business owner did not want to accept the government's mandate? If so, why?

It would not be Constitutional to force people to be involved with Religion. Therefore your question doesn't make sense.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

It would not be Constitutional to force people to be involved with Religion. Therefore your question doesn't make sense.

So it's unconstitutional to force someone into religion, but constitutional to force someone out of their existing, or a part thereof, religion?

 

[badbabysitter]

So it's unconstitutional to force someone into religion, but constitutional to force someone out of their existing, or a part thereof, religion?

That's not even remotely true....if I'm an orthodox jew and employ roman catholics, my health coverage will never force them to be not catholic

 

[Liar]

So it's unconstitutional to force someone into religion, but constitutional to force someone out of their existing, or a part thereof, religion?

If you partake in a practice that comes with certain laws and regulations, you follow said laws and regulations. If you for religious reasons, or any other reasons, refuse to follow said laws and reguations, you are free to not partake in the activity that demands these things from you. Or petition your legislators for a change in said laws and regualtions. This does not, in the words of your Constitution, prohibit the free exercise thereof.

However, such a change would need to be general, and not an excemption for just your religion and your religion's pet issue. Since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

 

[mercury14]

So it's unconstitutional to force someone into religion, but constitutional to force someone out of their existing, or a part thereof, religion?

That didn't happen.

Catholic universities and hospitals have to offer birth control to employees because they're engaging in regulated commerce. At that point they're not acting simply as a religion but stepping out into the free market. They're free to choose not to engage in regulated commerce, and they're free to simply not offer insurance.

 

[eyer]

If you partake in a practice that comes with certain laws and regulations, you follow said laws and regulations. If you for religious reasons, or any other reasons, refuse to follow said laws and reguations, you are free to not partake in the activity that demands these things from you. Or petition your legislators for a change in said laws and regualtions. This does not, in the words of your Constitution, prohibit the free exercise thereof.

However, such a change would need to be general, and not an excemption for just your religion and your religion's pet issue. Since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

You are what you eat, squirrel...

 

[badbabysitter]

You are what you eat, squirrel...

then you must be a big lump of bullshit, mixed in with poultry feathers

 

[RoryN]

LOL. The OP doesn't know what an analogy is.

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

LOL. The OP doesn't know what an analogy is.

he meant homologous bro!

Stew

 

[TexasWife25]

Catholics aren't being forced to pay for birth control.

 

[Wok]

The right answer for every PSW thread = liberals!

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Catholics aren't being forced to pay for birth control.

Link

Excerpt from linked article:
Ever since the Obama administration touched off a furious national debate with its decision to require all employers to facilitate and subsidize "free" birth control coverage for their employees, advocates on both sides of the question have sought to position themselves as representative of mainstream public opinion. Opponents of the unconstitutional mandate have seized upon national polling from Rasmussen Reports, while Obama supporters frequently cite DailyKos-affiliated Democratic pollster PPP. Here's a look at the two polls' respective outcomes, which seem irreconcilable:


Then Obama had to backtrack. Even Libs were on his ass. Link.

 

[Liar]

You are what you eat, squirrel...

Are you callin me a pussy?

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Are you callin me a pussy?

You're a squirrel... I think he meant to say you are Nuts!

 

[Liar]

You're a squirrel... I think he meant to say you are Nuts!

*headdesk*

 

[TexasWife25]

1st, there is a fundamental difference in "Catholic forced to buy birth control" and "Employers not allowed to block birth control in their insurance coverage".
2nd, I dont remember anyone ruling the mandate was in any way "unconstitutional"

....Opponents of the unconstitutional mandate....

"Over all, 63 percent of Americans said they supported the new federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control, according to the survey of 1,519 Americans, conducted from Feb. 13 to Feb. 19 for the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/u...n-birth-control-coverage-poll-finds.html?_r=1


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8ghP1LtVeRM/TzHJ6d5duZI/AAAAAAAAEiA/YPnxmnIwekc/s1600/Birth%2BControl%2B28%2Bstates%2Bmandate.jpg


More then half of the country is already under this mandate, and the new federal mandate is actually more lenient toward faith based employers then some state laws.

The real question should be, the Catholic church has already accepted the new amendments to the mandate, so if they are content, why are we still arguing this?

 

[eyer]

Are you callin me a pussy?

In that sexual vein, I might...

...but it'd be inaccurate since it omits the other half of your diet.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

why did I even bother to try to make an analogy. The Libs on this board are perfectly OK with the healthcare mandate, perfectly OK with Obama's "I won't raise taxes on couples earning under $250K." But when Obama stated that his healthcare Mandate was a Tax, the Libs just said "It aint't a tax regardless of what Obama said, and ya know what else? Our taxes won't go up for under 250K couples regardless of what anybody said"

Damn, DON'T drink any more cool aid.

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

why did I even bother to try to make an analogy. The Libs on this board are perfectly OK with the healthcare mandate, perfectly OK with Obama's "I won't raise taxes on couples earning under $250K." But when Obama stated that his healthcare Mandate was a Tax, the Libs just said "It aint't a tax regardless of what Obama said, and ya know what else? Our taxes won't go up for under 250K couples regardless of what anybody said"

Damn, DON'T drink any more cool aid.

you're cool bro!

Stew

 

[mercury14]

why did I even bother to try to make an analogy.

There's no analogy at all in your OP. Why do you keep saying there is?

The Libs on this board are perfectly OK with the healthcare mandate, perfectly OK with Obama's "I won't raise taxes on couples earning under $250K." But when Obama stated that his healthcare Mandate was a Tax, the Libs just said "It aint't a tax regardless of what Obama said, and ya know what else? Our taxes won't go up for under 250K couples regardless of what anybody said"

Damn, DON'T drink any more cool aid.

I'm fine with how health care reform is funded, yes.