The Coming Christian Revolt

The Coming Christian Revolt

There are 283 comments on the Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy story from Jul 19, 2014, titled The Coming Christian Revolt. In it, Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy reports that:

From behind a smoking sniper rifle high atop his ivory tower peers the secular-"progressive."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#171 Jul 27, 2014
Corbutt of the Joke wrote:
<quoted text>
You're contradicting yourself. You stated some fictional belief of yours that companies should not and are not forced into contracts they don't like.
They are all the time as part of doing business. One example is the ACA. The ACA has lots of requirements.
You only made your silly remark to somehow suggest that as a "reason" that birth control would not have to be covered. It is not such a reason. Because companies must meet contractual requirements set by the government all the time. As with the ACA....
Naturally this point is too subtle, and therefore you will twist it into something else yet again.
The ACA is not a contractual requirement. It's a regulatory requirement. Thank God I stayed awake during Civics class.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#172 Jul 27, 2014
Corbutt of the Joke wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Employee benefits are not charitable offerings. You argument is absurd. It's part of wage package for most accounting purposes, for most job search purposes. Of course companies expect any costs of benefits for employees to be covered by the work of the employees. In addition to any premiums or co pays made by the employees.
2. You are saying the birth control is different in your witless arguments about healthcare "privacy."
Other parts of healthcare are covered. They are no more or less private than the birth control use is. Yet you say somehow _only_ about the birth control that it and it alone cannot be paid for because of "privacy" issues. You delight in not making sense.
.....and I'm glad I stayed awake in Econ.

"Of course companies expect any costs of benefits for employees to be covered by the work of the employees."

Um, employee labor expense doesn't correlate directly with revenue; there isn't a direct causal relatioonship. If Jim Bob makes a widget at my factory at a $22/hr wage, that $22 is an operational expense. A cost of doing business. I still have to recoup that expense by selling the widget (after I pay to get the widgets to an outlet, etc.)
Dan

Omaha, NE

#173 Jul 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are not. The government and insurer already have the authority to do that. They could do it if they want to. They're going to the employer first to see if they would like to. If not, then they'll handle it.
<quoted text>
Yes, because he approves of it. If the official didn't personally approve of it, he could refuse.
<quoted text>
Correct, and I find their definition of participation to be absurd.
<quoted text>
No way. It IS just "count me out". It is the government's policy to go to the employer *first* and determine if they have opted in or out. The LSOP is in no way "authorizing" anything because the other parties don't need any authorization to commit those actions. The LSOP have no authority over the government nor the insurer.
"No, they are not. The government and insurer already have the authority to do that. They could do it if they want to. They're going to the employer first to see if they would like to. If not, then they'll handle it."

False. Utterly untrue to the point of being an outright lie, in fact. The govrnment and the insurer CANNOT provide the coverage without the LSOP signing off the form which forces the alternate provision of coverage. If they could do it now without action on part of the LSOP, they wouldn't be IN court now. You can't wish the sky away from being blue just because you think it should be green.

"Correct, and I find their definition of participation to be absurd"

par·tic·i·pa·tion
[pahr-tis-uh-pey-shuhn] Show IPA

noun
1. an act or instance of participating.(*My note: i.e. signing off to permit the alternate delivery of coverage)

2. the fact of taking part, as in some action or attempt (*My note: i.e. signing off to permit the alternate delivery of coverage)

Looks like they're using the word correctly.

"No way. It IS just "count me out". It is the government's policy to go to the employer *first* and determine if they have opted in or out. The LSOP is in no way "authorizing" anything because the other parties don't need any authorization to commit those actions. The LSOP have no authority over the government nor the insurer"

Again, false to the point of being a deliberate lie.

Yes or no-if the LSOP does not sign the form, can the government employ the alternate means of provision of coveage?

The US Solictor General, who's arguing the administration's case in this matter, says "no".

"With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves the relief they seek from this Court — an exemption from the requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision," the U.S. Solicitor General wrote in a 37-page motion seeking denial of a permanent injunction."

"The Catholic nonprofit argued that, while it would not directly have pay for the benefits under ObamaCare regulations, opting out would simply “authorize someone else to provide” services to which it objects.

http://thehill.com/regulation/healthcare/1943...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#174 Jul 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
False. Utterly untrue to the point of being an outright lie, in fact. The govrnment and the insurer CANNOT provide the coverage without the LSOP signing off the form which forces the alternate provision of coverage.
That's only based on the rules the government is making. They require no "authorization" from LSOP. They could directly provide BC if they wanted to. The insurer could also directly provide BC if they wanted to.
Dan wrote:
Looks like they're using the word correctly.
I disagree. Giving notification that you do not wish to participate is not participation. The fact that the government waits on that notification before acting does not make you a participant.

This is self-martyrdom. The government has gone through hoops to give them a out from a reasonable, productive regulation, and it's still not good enough.

Govt: You should provide this coverage.
LSOP: We don't want to.
Govt: Ok, then we will along with the insurers. Just sign this form so we have confirmation of your wishes.
LSOP: NO

They're being babies. Professional victims.
Dan wrote:
Yes or no-if the LSOP does not sign the form, can the government employ the alternate means of provision of coveage?
Yes. They could simply alter the existing process or enact new legislation which will provide all Americans with such coverage.

I don't feel like they have any obligation to do so. Signing a piece of paper to opt out is not an infringement on religious freedom.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#175 Jul 27, 2014
This conversation has become completely unproductive.

We're not going to agree on what constitutes participation, and that is the thread on which everything lies.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#176 Jul 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
This conversation has become completely unproductive.
We're not going to agree on what constitutes participation, and that is the thread on which everything lies.
Yeah. I believe that "participation" means what the dictionary says it does, and you don't.

If they do nothing at all, then they aren't particpating.

If they have to lift one finger so that contraceptive coverage is provided, then they're participating-beacuse they're taking an action that results in something. Signing the form is "doing something". Participating in the process of provision of contraceptives. No signature, no provision of contraceptives. Eben the US government's attorney believes they have to do something-sign. You, of course, define things differently.

No two ways about it, and you'd still disagree.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#177 Jul 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That's only based on the rules the government is making. They require no "authorization" from LSOP. They could directly provide BC if they wanted to. The insurer could also directly provide BC if they wanted to.
<quoted text>
I disagree. Giving notification that you do not wish to participate is not participation. The fact that the government waits on that notification before acting does not make you a participant.
This is self-martyrdom. The government has gone through hoops to give them a out from a reasonable, productive regulation, and it's still not good enough.
Govt: You should provide this coverage.
LSOP: We don't want to.
Govt: Ok, then we will along with the insurers. Just sign this form so we have confirmation of your wishes.
LSOP: NO
They're being babies. Professional victims.
<quoted text>
Yes. They could simply alter the existing process or enact new legislation which will provide all Americans with such coverage.
I don't feel like they have any obligation to do so. Signing a piece of paper to opt out is not an infringement on religious freedom.
The conversation hasbecome unproiductive because you've resorted to lying. Sorry to drop that, but it's evident.

First off, yeah, things that happen with government mandates are typically due to rules the government is making. Duh.

"Govt: You should provide this coverage.
LSOP: We don't want to.
Govt: Ok, then we will along with the insurers. Just sign this form so we have confirmation of your wishes.
LSOP: NO"

That's not what's in play here. You cannot simply ignore the fact that the signature enables provision of the coverage from the alternate means. Yet, you continue to do so. If you're not just lying here, you can live in alternate reality on your own time-not mine.

"Yes or no-if the LSOP does not sign the form, can the government employ the alternate means of provision of coveage?
Yes. They could simply alter the existing process or enact new legislation which will provide all Americans with such coverage. "

Again, either your just lying, a fool, or you want me to join you in your alternate reality.

"I don't feel like they have any obligation to do so. Signing a piece of paper to opt out is not an infringement on religious freedom. "

More deliberate evasion of facts and reality.

This, coupled with your admnission that the actual dictionary definition of "participation" is something you cannot come to grips with, leads me to believe that we're done here.

Can't converse with someone who won't think or at least base an argument on what "is".

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#178 Jul 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. I believe that "participation" means what the dictionary says it does, and you don't.
If they do nothing at all, then they aren't particpating.
No, you believe in an absurdly loose definition of participation.

The Little Sisters don't have to use contraception. They don't have to pay for contraception. They don't even have to pay for insurance coverage for contraception.

We can extend "participation" even further if you'd like. A Catholic pays federal income taxes. They are required by law to do so. Some of this tax money goes towards federal funding of contraception for poor women. The Catholic is thus PARTICIPATING in providing contraception. The Catholic should either be allowed to not pay taxes, or the government must stop their funding of contraception.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#179 Jul 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The conversation hasbecome unproiductive because you've resorted to lying. Sorry to drop that, but it's evident.
I haven't lied about a thing. It's your position that relies on an intellectually dishonest definition of participation.
Dan wrote:
That's not what's in play here. You cannot simply ignore the fact that the signature enables provision of the coverage from the alternate means.
That's exactly what's in play here. I'm not ignoring the signature at all. The signature removes them from the "supply chain" (for lack of a better term) that takes contraception from the manufacturer to the consumer.
Dan wrote:
Again, either your just lying, a fool, or you want me to join you in your alternate reality.
The lie is that LSOP have any form of power over the government or insurers such that they must "authorize" coverage.
Dan wrote:
"I don't feel like they have any obligation to do so. Signing a piece of paper to opt out is not an infringement on religious freedom. "
More deliberate evasion of facts and reality.
My opinion on reasonable government scope and what constitutes religious liberty is an evasion of facts and reality? That doesn't even make sense.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#180 Jul 27, 2014
Let me give you an alternate method.

The government mails out the same form (by certified mail to ensure that the employer got it). If the employer does not fill out the form within 1 month, they are assumed to have opted out and the process moves on.

Now they don't have to check a box. Acceptable? Or does the employer signing for the piece of mail count as participation?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#181 Jul 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't lied about a thing. It's your position that relies on an intellectually dishonest definition of participation.
<quoted text>
That's exactly what's in play here. I'm not ignoring the signature at all. The signature removes them from the "supply chain" (for lack of a better term) that takes contraception from the manufacturer to the consumer.
<quoted text>
The lie is that LSOP have any form of power over the government or insurers such that they must "authorize" coverage.
<quoted text>
My opinion on reasonable government scope and what constitutes religious liberty is an evasion of facts and reality? That doesn't even make sense.
"It's your position that relies on an intellectually dishonest definition of participation"

You mean "intellectually dishonest definition" as in the dictionary definition? That kind of "intellectually dishonest definition"?

"The signature removes them from the "supply chain" (for lack of a better term) that takes contraception from the manufacturer to the consumer."

False. Still false. Youy're on the like 20th time on this and you're still misrepresenting what happens with the form. Why? It's almost pathological with you on this. The signature compels the provision of the contraceptive coverage by the alternate means accorded in the ACA. So, their signature results in provision of coverage for contraceptives.

"The lie is that LSOP have any form of power over the government or insurers such that they must "authorize" coverage. "

Again, if the LSOP doesn't sign, does the alternate provision of coverage take place?

Unlike last time, you have to respond under current law, not evade the the question by suggesting the feds could just change the law and provide the stuff themselves. NOW, if they don't sign, does the alternate provision of coverage take place?

I'll save you time here. NO, it doesn't. If the signature wasn't required, they wouldn't be in court. They ARE in court.

So, you're either ignorant, obfuscating or lying.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#182 Jul 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
Let me give you an alternate method.
The government mails out the same form (by certified mail to ensure that the employer got it). If the employer does not fill out the form within 1 month, they are assumed to have opted out and the process moves on.
Now they don't have to check a box. Acceptable? Or does the employer signing for the piece of mail count as participation?
All they have to do is simply have a form where someone could opt out.

Once they know who's oped out and acknowledged it somehow, then they handle the contraceptive thing as they see fit. If teh feds want people to have presciption contraceptive coverage that badly, make it their problem to solve without ANY INVOLVEMENT from those religiously opposed. Don't realy on the opt-out party to have to do ANYTHING (literally ANYTHING, or conversely, they should do NOTHING) that triggers any provision of contraceptives. Not a head nod, not a finger wave, not a signature. NOTHING.

Divorce the op-out form from the alternate provision and no one will have any problem.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#184 Jul 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
You mean "intellectually dishonest definition" as in the dictionary definition? That kind of "intellectually dishonest definition"?
Give me a break. One of the dictionary definitions of music is "an agreeable sound". Would you consider the EHHHHHHHHHHHHH sound a dryer makes to be music? Well, when I want my sheets to be done drying, that's a very agreeable sound. Maybe one day it can make it to the top of the Billboard Charts.
Dan wrote:
False. Still false. Youy're on the like 20th time on this and you're still misrepresenting what happens with the form. Why? It's almost pathological with you on this. The signature compels the provision of the contraceptive coverage by the alternate means accorded in the ACA.
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I haven't said the government doesn't turn elsewhere once they opt out.
Dan wrote:
So, their signature results in provision of coverage for contraceptives.
The provision is already mandated. The employees are going to have access to contraception one way or another. The employer can opt out so it's not THEIR way.
Dan wrote:
NOW, if they don't sign, does the alternate provision of coverage take place?
I'll save you time here. NO, it doesn't.
No, but it doesn't make them participants in providing birth control.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#185 Jul 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
All they have to do is simply have a form where someone could opt out.
Once they know who's oped out and acknowledged it somehow, then they handle the contraceptive thing as they see fit.
How is this any different?
Dan wrote:
If teh feds want people to have presciption contraceptive coverage that badly, make it their problem to solve without ANY INVOLVEMENT from those religiously opposed.
Then they can't have the opt-out form you just mentioned above. That's involvement.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#186 Jul 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a break. One of the dictionary definitions of music is "an agreeable sound". Would you consider the EHHHHHHHHHHHHH sound a dryer makes to be music? Well, when I want my sheets to be done drying, that's a very agreeable sound. Maybe one day it can make it to the top of the Billboard Charts.
<quoted text>
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I haven't said the government doesn't turn elsewhere once they opt out.
<quoted text>
The provision is already mandated. The employees are going to have access to contraception one way or another. The employer can opt out so it's not THEIR way.
<quoted text>
No, but it doesn't make them participants in providing birth control.
"The provision is already mandated. The employees are going to have access to contraception one way or another. The employer can opt out so it's not THEIR way."

"..it doesn't make them participants in providing birth control"

Yes, it does. Still.

The government left themselves in this position. Their form is the only thing that "activates" the alternate coverage, and it REQUIRES the signature of the opting-out party to effect the provision of it. That's not up to you nor my interpretation, either. That's what the form does.

The LSOP should not be in a position to do ANYTHING (I'll assume there's no quibble on what "anything" means) that results in provision of contraceptives. It's a First Amendment violation and/or a RFRA violation.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#187 Jul 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
Yes, it does. Still.
No, still doesn't.
Dan wrote:
The government left themselves in this position. Their form is the only thing that "activates" the alternate coverage, and it REQUIRES the signature of the opting-out party to effect the provision of it.
Correct. So how is the government supposed to know the employer doesn't want to provide coverage and be able to react appropriately?
Dan wrote:
It's a First Amendment violation and/or a RFRA violation.
Not even close.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#188 Jul 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, still doesn't.
<quoted text>
Correct. So how is the government supposed to know the employer doesn't want to provide coverage and be able to react appropriately?
<quoted text>
Not even close.
"No, still doesn't."

The LSOP thinks so.

"Correct. So how is the government supposed to know the employer doesn't want to provide coverage and be able to react appropriately?"

Didn't you present this hypothetical already?

Notification that doesn't act as authorization/trigger for another event would suffice. Now, it's an authorization form. Cannot be that and be compoliant with standing law.

"Not even close."

So, Hobby Lobby, a for-profit store chain that sells craft supplies, can effectivly claim religious exemption but somehow an order of nuns whose purpose is to care for the sick, aged and dying won't be able to?

I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#189 Jul 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
The LSOP thinks so.
Yes, I'm aware.
Dan wrote:
Didn't you present this hypothetical already?
Notification that doesn't act as authorization/trigger for another event would suffice. Now, it's an authorization form. Cannot be that and be compoliant with standing law.
It's not a hypothetical, I'm asking you a question. Your solution above sounds exactly like what you view as the problem.

Here's what you said: "All they have to do is simply have a form where someone could opt out. Once they know who's oped out and acknowledged it somehow, then they handle the contraceptive thing as they see fit. "

Does that not describe a trigger? The government gets the form response, then does something based on it.
Dan wrote:
So, Hobby Lobby, a for-profit store chain that sells craft supplies, can effectivly claim religious exemption but somehow an order of nuns whose purpose is to care for the sick, aged and dying won't be able to?
I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.
The nuns CAN claim religious exemption. That's what the form is.

1) You have to provide BC coverage
2) You don't have to provide BC coverage - just fill out this form saying you don't want to
3) No requirements whatsoever

The Hobby Lobby decision moved closely-held for-profits from level 1 down to level 2. The nuns are suing to move from level 2 to level 3.

Frankly, I think the Hobby Lobby ruling must, in principle, eliminate ALL coverage mandates because an employer can make a religious objection to every possible medical procedure or medication.
passing by

Salina, KS

#192 Jul 28, 2014
The easiest way to resolve the question of just what Busybody Lobby gets to do with their right to their closely held business's corporate religious belief, is for employees, whose personal religious beliefs don't have the same hang ups as their employer, to sue them for violating both THEIR right to religious freedom and their rights under the ACA.
Dan

United States

#193 Jul 28, 2014
passing by wrote:
The easiest way to resolve the question of just what Busybody Lobby gets to do with their right to their closely held business's corporate religious belief, is for employees, whose personal religious beliefs don't have the same hang ups as their employer, to sue them for violating both THEIR right to religious freedom and their rights under the ACA.
That'd be an interesting complaint to read.

RE: voilation of their religious freedom

I'm completely unfamiliar with any religion who's teachings and/or practice dictate that the adherent receive free contraceptives from their employer's health plan. What possible violation of religious freedom could be claimed here?

RE: "Rights under the ACA"

I think the SCOTUS just decided that issue, did they not? HL and entities like it are allowed to not provide certain contraceptives under the law.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay pastor fights censure by United Methodist C... 2 min Rose_NoHo 170
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 6 min Lou 25,306
News 'Yep, I'm Gay': Happy 20th out anniversary, Ell... 17 min Yep 14
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 59 min Pilots Nail Drivi... 48,093
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 5,604
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... 1 hr Dallas 88
News Gay pride parade to be replaced by anti-Trump p... 6 hr Defeat Nancy Pelosi 9
More from around the web