Effort seeks to prohibit anti-gay dis...

Effort seeks to prohibit anti-gay discrimination

There are 99 comments on the News Tribune story from Nov 13, 2012, titled Effort seeks to prohibit anti-gay discrimination. In it, News Tribune reports that:

A Missouri group may soon start circulating petitions for a ballot measure aimed at making it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the state.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News Tribune.

guest

United States

#66 Nov 23, 2012
continued...
Your ignorance of the law and the Constitution is evident for all to see. Anyone who denies the applicability of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to all states doesn't have a clue about the law.
Look junior, Iíve studied constitutional law for over 30 years. I know what Iím talking about. The positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution cannot be overridden by an act of Congress, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As I told you before, Iím a free and natural citizen at common law. I donít voluntarily waive my rights and place myself under the jurisdiction of legislative statutes or bureaucratic regulations that abrogate my rights. I recognize that many people do, but that doesnít mean I have to as well.

I do not have to employ anyone whom I donít want to. If I decide not to hire someone because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other reason, or no reason at all, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. I donít give a damn what a handful of people sitting in Little Rock or in DC say about that. They simply have no lawful authority to abrogate my rights, period.
God isn't mentioned in the Constitution. And all rights, even the right to exercise your religion, are subject to limitations where compelling governmental interests are involved.
The Declaration of Independence very clearly and very specifically acknowledges that rights come from God, not government. Our founding fathers were smart enough to recognize that as a self-evident truth. Apparently you're so stupid you think it's false.

As far as government limiting the free exercise of religion, you are completely in error. The 1st Amendment expressly forbids government from doing so.

You are so ignorant of constitutional law itís not even funny. I feel like a rocket scientist trying to explain jet propulsion to a 3rd grader.
...businesses open to the general public cannot discriminate in employment or public accommodations.
Hooters does it every single day.
Federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution are part of the "supreme law of the land."
Federal laws abrogating the natural rights of citizens are not made pursuant to the Constitution, and are therefore not the supreme law of the land. In this case, government is specifically and expressly forbidden from enacting laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Such laws are void ab initio. End of story.
guest

United States

#67 Nov 23, 2012
snyper wrote:
There needs to be an aggressive and concerted campaign to disentangle what the RCC has so intentionally confused in peoples' minds ... that contraception and abortion are the same.
In many cases they are. Study up on abortifacients.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#68 Nov 23, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
...Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
That's a sure sign of a failed argument. Do you also stomp your feet, plug your ears, and go nanananananana?
guest wrote:
If an employee doesnít like the medical insurance plan offered by his employer, he is perfectly free to purchase contraceptive coverage from any one of dozens of insurance providers. An employer has no power to stop that. Again, the only issue is who should pay for it.
The insurance company should provide it in the employee's plan. Simple. Basic. And cost-effective.
guest wrote:
...Apparently you have no morals or you wouldnít make such an idiotic claim.
Contraceptives are "immoral"? Apparently, that's your opinion. But anyway, who cares?
guest wrote:
Even more bullshit, and ignorant bullshit at that. Look dummy, prescription oral contraceptives carry many health risks, including increased risk of breast and cervical cancer, and liver tumors.
Condoms, otoh, pose no health risks, except for those who are allergic to latex. There are lambskin condoms if thatís the case.
If a woman wants to use oral contraceptives, whatís wrong with her paying for them if her employer has a religious (moral) objection to providing them for her? Nothing at all. It's just you wacko liberals that think somebody else should foot the bill.
Your ignorance of the law is only exceeded by your ignorance of basic reproductive health care.

"Religious" objections are a smokescreen, and they won't derail the Affordable Care Act. Too bad. You lose.
guest wrote:
The law you quoted does not include sexual orientation. Any 1st year law student would get you laughed out of court.
continued...
Here you go, moving the goal posts. Convenient, but it proves you're a liar. It was YOUR CLAIM that any employer can refuse to hire someone for ANY REASON, INCLUDING RACE. I was responding to YOUR CLAIM about race-based discrimination with evidence of your error, both in federal and state (Arkansas, your example) law. YOUR CLAIM would have gotten you laughed out of a high school civics class.

My claim is that sexual orientation SHOULD BE covered under anti-discrimination law for the same reason race, ethnicity, or sex is included.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#69 Nov 23, 2012
guest wrote:
continued...
<quoted text>
Look junior, Iíve studied constitutional law for over 30 years.


If you paid for that study, you should demand a refund.
guest wrote:
I know what Iím talking about. The positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution cannot be overridden by an act of Congress, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That's sheer nonsense, proof positive you don't know anything your talking about.
guest wrote:
As I told you before, Iím a free and natural citizen at common law. I donít voluntarily waive my rights and place myself under the jurisdiction of legislative statutes or bureaucratic regulations that abrogate my rights. I recognize that many people do, but that doesnít mean I have to as well.
I do not have to employ anyone whom I donít want to. If I decide not to hire someone because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other reason, or no reason at all, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. I donít give a damn what a handful of people sitting in Little Rock or in DC say about that. They simply have no lawful authority to abrogate my rights, period.
You are simply wrong. Discrimination on the bases listed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is illegal. Federal and state governments do have that authority, whether you recognize it or not.

But do keep making your silly claims; they just prove what an idiot you are.

Better yet, post a sign on the front of your business that reads "Help wanted - white people only." See how long your "natural rights" protect you.
guest wrote:
The Declaration of Independence very clearly and very specifically acknowledges that rights come from God, not government.


The Declaration of Independence is not a governing document. The Constitution is. God is not mentioned.
guest wrote:
Our founding fathers were smart enough to recognize that as a self-evident truth. Apparently you're so stupid you think it's false.
As far as government limiting the free exercise of religion, you are completely in error. The 1st Amendment expressly forbids government from doing so.
Then make like Abraham and take a child and go out and sacrifice it to your god. See how far you get in claiming that your religion protects you. Or claim that consuming hallucinogenic mushrooms is protected by your religion. Or having multiple wives.

All rights have limits. Your arguments are nonsensical and irrational.
guest wrote:
You are so ignorant of constitutional law itís not even funny. I feel like a rocket scientist trying to explain jet propulsion to a 3rd grader.
<quoted text>
Hooters does it every single day.
<quoted text>
Federal laws abrogating the natural rights of citizens are not made pursuant to the Constitution, and are therefore not the supreme law of the land. In this case, government is specifically and expressly forbidden from enacting laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Such laws are void ab initio. End of story.
Who gets to decide which laws abrogate "natural rights" and are therefore not made pursuant to the Constitution?

You? No.

Some religious whack jobs? No.

The Supreme Court does. And it's upheld The Civil Rights Act of 1964 on dozens of occasions.

Back to 3rd grade for you.
guest

United States

#70 Nov 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
That's a sure sign of a failed argument.
Not at all. Itís a perfect description of the lying bullshit you wacko liberals spew. What you are claiming is patently false.
The insurance company should provide it in the employee's plan. Simple. Basic. And cost-effective.
Thatís a decision to be made by the insurance company, not you. As it is, market forces have driven almost every insurance company to offer contraceptive coverage. That makes your entire argument moot.

The only people who donít want to offer such coverage are those with religious (moral) objections. Government is prohibited by the 1st Amendment from forcing them.

Employees who want that coverage are free to purchase it from almost every insurance provider in the nation.
Contraceptives are "immoral"?
Employersí religious objections to providing contraceptives to employees is based on moral grounds, not financial. Thatís simply a fact.
Your ignorance of the law is only exceeded by your ignorance of basic reproductive health care.
Hardly. Youíre the dumbass who claims that oral contraceptives are the safest method when the fact is that they carry the most health risks. Pick up a package and read the warning label nimrod.
"Religious" objections are a smokescreen
Youíd like to marginalize religious objections, but they are the crux of the issue. Youíre just pissed because the 1st Amendment disallows government from forcing other people to do your bidding.
Here you go, moving the goal posts.
I didnít move the goal posts. I merely pointed out that youíre not even in the stadium. The law you cited doesnít give you any support for your claim. Like I said, a 1st year law student would have your stupid ass laughed right out of court.
My claim is that sexual orientation SHOULD BE covered under anti-discrimination law for the same reason race, ethnicity, or sex is included.
Apparently, that's your opinion. But anyway, who cares?
That's sheer nonsense, proof positive you don't know anything your talking about.
More ignorant bullshit from you. Apparently you think these guys donít know what theyíre talking about either:

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436

Iíve grown tired of playing sand box with you. Maybe in a few years when you grow up you can join me at the adults table for an edifying conversation. Until then, donít let cat cover you up.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#71 Nov 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Itís a perfect description of the lying bullshit you wacko liberals spew. What you are claiming is patently false.
<quoted text>
Thatís a decision to be made by the insurance company, not you. As it is, market forces have driven almost every insurance company to offer contraceptive coverage. That makes your entire argument moot.
Do you read what you write? You make my point for me. Insurance companies are offering contraceptive coverage ALREADY because it's cost-effective, safe, and medically indicated. The ACA will require insurance companies to do what they are already doing!
guest wrote:
The only people who donít want to offer such coverage are those with religious (moral) objections. Government is prohibited by the 1st Amendment from forcing them.
The employers won't be offering them, the insurance companies will. The employers won't be paying for them, the insurance companies will.
guest wrote:
Employees who want that coverage are free to purchase it from almost every insurance provider in the nation.
Why do that if insurance companies already offer it? Oh, that's right... to create more obstacles for women's reproductive health choices at greater cost.

That's the true goal of you religious wackos.
guest wrote:
Employersí religious objections to providing contraceptives to employees is based on moral grounds, not financial. Thatís simply a fact.
And employers won't have to pay for it, so why are they complaining except for their desire to control the reproductive lives of their female employees?
guest wrote:
Hardly. Youíre the dumbass who claims that oral contraceptives are the safest method when the fact is that they carry the most health risks. Pick up a package and read the warning label nimrod.
Those health risks are minimal compared to the benefits, and indeed offer lowered risk of several cancers. Pregnancy itself is more dangerous to a woman's health that using the pill. The safety and efficacy of oral contraception has been well established over 50 years. Just looking at a warning label inserted to mitigate damages isn't a complete and accurate method of weighing the risk of using medication.
guest wrote:
Youíd like to marginalize religious objections, but they are the crux of the issue. Youíre just pissed because the 1st Amendment disallows government from forcing other people to do your bidding.
It's not MY bidding. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution's guarantees of religious liberty don't protect citizens from illegally discriminating against other citizens.

...

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#72 Nov 24, 2012
guest wrote:
I didnít move the goal posts. I merely pointed out that youíre not even in the stadium. The law you cited doesnít give you any support for your claim. Like I said, a 1st year law student would have your stupid ass laughed right out of court.
IT WAS YOUR CLAIM that you had the right to deny employment based on RACE. I refuted your claim with evidence from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the state that you claimed didn't provide protection against such discrimination.
guest wrote:
Apparently, that's your opinion. But anyway, who cares?
The Supreme Court agrees with my opinion. They apparently care. It's your opinion that doesn't count.
guest wrote:
More ignorant bullshit from you. Apparently you think these guys donít know what theyíre talking about either:
"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436
You're using MIRANDA as evidence that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional? That's rich!

Can't you grasp the idiocy of that argument? You cite the very same Supreme Court that specifically upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that very year to claim that they didn't! That's amazing.

By the way, even using Miranda, the court would simply say that the Constitution doesn't give you the right to discriminate on the basis of race.
guest wrote:
Iíve grown tired...
Of course you're tired, and you are tiring. Being so wrong can be exhausting, I suppose.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#74 Nov 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
In many cases they are. Study up on abortifacients.
Contraception PREVENTS conception.

No conception, nothing to abort.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#75 Nov 24, 2012
guest wrote:
I'm neither irrational nor bigoted.
You keep telling yourself that sweetie, but you aren't on the receiving end of what can only be described as your irrational bigotry.
guest wrote:
I just don't share your zeal to deny the vast majority of Americans their 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
How exactly am I allegedly attempting to deny your right to freely exercise your religion? You can't discriminate against a whole lot of other folks if you say God says you can, you can't discriminate against their choice of religions, race, sex, etcetera even if you can quote book, chapter and verse where you can prove that God is cool with it, so why are you insisting on the God given special right to discriminate against those you have sexual fantasies about?

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#76 Nov 24, 2012
fr guest:

>A homosexual relationship is not marriage.<

Tell that to 18,000 couples who were able to be MARRIED before prop h8 (you know, the one that got thrown OUT for being unconstitutional!) went into effect.

My WIFE and I are a happily-MARRIED lesbian FAMILY. Stuff it, little one, and grow UP.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#77 Nov 24, 2012
fr guest:

>...Religious people arenít doing that, but thatís precisely what the proposed law would require!...<

100% WRONG. Sorry, you flunked your 6th grade civics class. See you in summer school.
guest

United States

#80 Nov 25, 2012
snyper wrote:
Contraception PREVENTS conception.
No conception, nothing to abort.
Some contraceptives work after conception. That's why they're called abortifacients. Look, I suggested you educate yourself on abortifacients. If you choose to remain ignorant, you'll continue to make a fool of yourself.

As I said before, the issue isn't whether a woman can use contraceptives, or even abortifacients. The issue is whether government can force an employer to pay for them, thus violating his 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

As I pointed out in earlier posts, the 1st Amendment expressely and specifically bars government from abrogating that right. Furthermore, as I also pointed out, the Supreme Court has stated specifically that where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them.

If a woman wants contraceptives, she can pay for them herself. Government cannot lawfully force her employer, over his religious objections, to foot the bill for her.

Case closed.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#81 Nov 25, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
...As I said before, the issue isn't whether a woman can use contraceptives, or even abortifacients. The issue is whether government can force an employer to pay for them, thus violating his 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
Employers won't have to pay for them. Insurance companies will; and as you acknowledged before, they already are. Problem solved.
guest wrote:
As I pointed out in earlier posts, the 1st Amendment expressely and specifically bars government from abrogating that right.


Feel free to show anywhere in the Constitution where it "expressly and specifically" says that an employer has the right to prevent a third-party from paying for and providing a product or service to an employee because the employer has a religious objection.
guest wrote:
Furthermore, as I also pointed out, the Supreme Court has stated specifically that where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them.
You lie. That case (Miranda v Arizona) wasn't "specifically" about the First Amendment's free exercise clause (it was a Fifth Amendment case), and there is no Constitutional right to prevent an employee from obtaining a product or service that the employer doesn't provide or pay for.

Furthermore, the very same Warren court that handed down the Miranda decision DID specifically rule that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws.

So you lie about that, too.
guest wrote:
If a woman wants contraceptives, she can pay for them herself. Government cannot lawfully force her employer, over his religious objections, to foot the bill for her.
Case closed.
Government can lawfully require insurance companies to include contraception in their health plans. The objecting employer won't be required to pay for it. Problem solved.

But clearly, you don't want the problem solved. You want employers with "religious objections" to be able to control the health decisions of their employees, even when the employer doesn't have to pay for them.

That's the imposition of religious superstition over a secular society, and rational people -- even a conservative Supreme Court -- rejects that.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#82 Nov 25, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Some contraceptives work after conception. That's why they're called abortifacients. Look, I suggested you educate yourself on abortifacients. If you choose to remain ignorant, you'll continue to make a fool of yourself.
As I said before, the issue isn't whether a woman can use contraceptives, or even abortifacients. The issue is whether government can force an employer to pay for them, thus violating his 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
As I pointed out in earlier posts, the 1st Amendment expressely and specifically bars government from abrogating that right. Furthermore, as I also pointed out, the Supreme Court has stated specifically that where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them.
If a woman wants contraceptives, she can pay for them herself. Government cannot lawfully force her employer, over his religious objections, to foot the bill for her.
Case closed.
SO you support the RCC's continued attempts to fog the issue by continuing to fog the language?

YOU just did.
guest

United States

#83 Nov 26, 2012
Jerald wrote:
Employers won't have to pay for them. Insurance companies will
Thatís bullshit Jerald. Employers pay almost all of the cost of the premiums. And if the company is self-insured, the employer pays all costs because there is no insurance company involved.
Feel free to show anywhere in the Constitution where it "expressly and specifically" says that an employer has the right to prevent a third-party from paying for and providing a product or service to an employee because the employer has a religious objection.
What I said was that the federal government is expressly and specifically prohibited from passing legislation that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Like a typical lying liberal, you distort what I wrote. Hereís what the supreme law of the land states:
ďCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;Ē- 1st Amendment

Simple, plain and unambiguous. Congress SHALL NOT make any such laws. End of story.
You lie.
Bullshit. The Supreme Court did actually state in the Miranda case that there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate rights secured by the Constitution. Itís a landmark case. Get yourself a copy and read it.

You want to sweep aside the positive guarantees of the 1st Amendment because like most liberals you donít give a damn about the very foundation of our government. You only care about forcing people to do what you want them to, the principles of our nation be damned.
Government can lawfully require insurance companies to include contraception in their health plans. The objecting employer won't be required to pay for it.
Bullshit. The employer does pay for it because the employer pays the lionsí share of the premiums, and in the case of companies that are self-insured, the employer pays all of the costs.

Besides, as I have pointed out to you ad nauseum, the federal government is specifically prohibited from enacting legislation that would require an employer to provide contraceptive coverage to his employees over is religious objections. Again, read the 1st AmendmentÖďCongress shall make no lawÖĒ Shall is not optional, itís obligatory. And in this case, thatís a shall not.
But clearly, you don't want the problem solved.
You ďsolutionĒ is in search of a problem that doesnít exist. There are few employers who have religious objections to providing contraceptives to their employees, and the number of those employees is infinitesimally small compared to the entire working force in this country.

Those employees in that tiny group arenít obligated to accept the health insurance plan offered by their employer. They can purchase a plan that contains contraceptive coverage from any one of dozens of insurance companies. Or they can simply walk into any Walmart anytime of day or night and buy a box of condoms.

Problem solved.
guest

United States

#84 Nov 26, 2012
snyper wrote:
SO you support the RCC's continued attempts to fog the issue by continuing to fog the language?
YOU just did.
I don't care what the RCC does. All I've done is given you the facts. Abortifacients cause abortion after conception. That's a scientific fact.

The only fog is between your ears.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#85 Nov 26, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Thatís bullshit Jerald. Employers pay almost all of the cost of the premiums. And if the company is self-insured, the employer pays all costs because there is no insurance company involved.
<quoted text>
What I said was that the federal government is expressly and specifically prohibited from passing legislation that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Like a typical lying liberal, you distort what I wrote. Hereís what the supreme law of the land states:
ďCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;Ē- 1st Amendment
Simple, plain and unambiguous. Congress SHALL NOT make any such laws. End of story.
<quoted text>
Bullshit. The Supreme Court did actually state in the Miranda case that there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate rights secured by the Constitution. Itís a landmark case. Get yourself a copy and read it.
You want to sweep aside the positive guarantees of the 1st Amendment because like most liberals you donít give a damn about the very foundation of our government. You only care about forcing people to do what you want them to, the principles of our nation be damned.
<quoted text>
Bullshit. The employer does pay for it because the employer pays the lionsí share of the premiums, and in the case of companies that are self-insured, the employer pays all of the costs.
Besides, as I have pointed out to you ad nauseum, the federal government is specifically prohibited from enacting legislation that would require an employer to provide contraceptive coverage to his employees over is religious objections. Again, read the 1st AmendmentÖďCongress shall make no lawÖĒ Shall is not optional, itís obligatory. And in this case, thatís a shall not.
<quoted text>
You ďsolutionĒ is in search of a problem that doesnít exist. There are few employers who have religious objections to providing contraceptives to their employees, and the number of those employees is infinitesimally small compared to the entire working force in this country.
Those employees in that tiny group arenít obligated to accept the health insurance plan offered by their employer. They can purchase a plan that contains contraceptive coverage from any one of dozens of insurance companies. Or they can simply walk into any Walmart anytime of day or night and buy a box of condoms.
Problem solved.
For someone who claims to have studied the Constitution for over 30 years, you clearly haven't learned anything about our Constitutional system.

ALL RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS, even religious rights.

Can an individual claim, in the manner of Abraham, to legally sacrifice his child to God on religious grounds? Or can Congress make such religious sacrifices illegal?

Must government recognize a man's multiple marriages because his religious beliefs allow for them?

Is government denied the ability to enforce drug laws because individuals claim that using drugs is part of a religious ceremony?

All of these are laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Your claim is a loser. This is long-established Constitutional interpretation. Religious freedom isn't unlimited.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#86 Nov 26, 2012
guest wrote:
Thatís bullshit Jerald. Employers pay almost all of the cost of the premiums. And if the company is self-insured, the employer pays all costs because there is no insurance company involved.
Actually, the national average is about 60% of an employee's premium and considerably less for family plans when offered. Employees of small businesses, when they do get access to health insurance through their employer, tend to fare worse than employees of most larger companies in having to pay a higher percentage of more expensive plans. While self-insurance is possible, in this day and age, few companies are that foolish.
guest wrote:
What I said was that the federal government is expressly and specifically prohibited from passing legislation that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Like a typical lying liberal, you distort what I wrote. Hereís what the supreme law of the land states:
ďCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;Ē- 1st Amendment
Simple, plain and unambiguous. Congress SHALL NOT make any such laws. End of story.
Dear, while the individual's right to the free expression of their religious beliefs and the collective right of groups of believers to exercise theirs, is considered to be fundamental to our society, it is not an absolute right. If it serves a clear and compelling interest of the state to do so, that right can be restricted or even completely denied by legislative/executive/judicial act. Acts which prohibit the handling of poisonous snakes in religious services, prohibit the denial of urgent medical care to minors and those unable to decide for themselves according to religious beliefs, prohibit the use of psychotropic substances as part of religious ceremony, prohibit certain religious practices regarding the disposal of human corpses, prohibit animal sacrifice and on and on, are all constitutionally agreeable limitations on both the individual or collective rights. Something else you need to understand is that the individual and collective rights to the free exercise of belief are not one and the same. Collectively we are a lot freer than we are individually, as our places/people of worship have a far greater right to freely exercise their beliefs than we do so individually, because we, as individuals, are more likely to run into a compelling interest of the state. Simply put, your "church" is seen as entitled to rights that you as an individual do not share in.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#87 Nov 26, 2012
guest wrote:
Bullshit. The Supreme Court did actually state in the Miranda case that there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate rights secured by the Constitution. Itís a landmark case. Get yourself a copy and read it.
http://supreme.justia.com/case s/federal/us/384/436/case.html

While the majority opinion describes our individual rights against self-incrimination and to counsel as pretty much sacrosanct, even they can be and have been limited at times in constitutionally acceptable manners. Miranda didn't question the constitutionality of any law, merely the constitutionality of the actions of the state and whether there would have been a different outcome if he had known what his rights were when all this began.
guest wrote:
You want to sweep aside the positive guarantees of the 1st Amendment because like most liberals you donít give a damn about the very foundation of our government. You only care about forcing people to do what you want them to, the principles of our nation be damned.
You speak of this right as if it were absolute and applicable to just about anything you want it to apply to, when under the common law, neither is the case. Assuming you have an absolute God given right to hang out a no f*** allowed sign in the public square, or surprise us with it when we try to interact with you in that public square, is a pretty bad assumption, the individual right to do that is nowhere near as protected as the right of the collective. Laws and ordinances which prohibit discrimination on a suspect basis (race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, disability, etc) have long been held a reasonable restriction on individual rights of an employer in the public square, adding sexual orientation and/or gender identity and expression has been seen as no more a restriction on the individual's right than any of the other classifications.
guest wrote:
Bullshit. The employer does pay for it because the employer pays the lionsí share of the premiums, and in the case of companies that are self-insured, the employer pays all of the costs.
Besides, as I have pointed out to you ad nauseum, the federal government is specifically prohibited from enacting legislation that would require an employer to provide contraceptive coverage to his employees over is religious objections. Again, read the 1st AmendmentÖďCongress shall make no lawÖĒ Shall is not optional, itís obligatory. And in this case, thatís a shall not.
The question of what if any religious exemption is constitutionally required to exist under the free exercise clause either for the individual or collective, in laws mandating insurance coverage has yet to be decided. Based on previous decisions in this area, I wouldn't hold out much hope. Even the collective right of religion is likely to be limited in having to provide for all that the law requires.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#88 Nov 26, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what the RCC does. All I've done is given you the facts. Abortifacients cause abortion after conception. That's a scientific fact.
The only fog is between your ears.
And about abortifacients, we are in agreement. Abortifacients are NOT contraceptives.

MY point is that a lot of the conflict on this is through the concerted efforts of the RCC to confuse contraception with abortion in peoples' minds, and use this confusion for their purposes. The RCC led the way, and many Protestant loudmouths have continued the work.

It's effectiveness can be seen in the reportage of many in the media who use the terms interchangeable, never considering nor discussing the distinction.

It is the same meme function used to try to fuse into people minds gay people gay=pedophile and gay=AIDS, etc.

A well-constructed meme slogan that makes it to meme status can provide a cheap substitute for any real examination and thought on a matter, effectively pre-pigeonholing an entire issue in the mentally lazy. The mentally lazy vote, too.

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.

Missouri Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News House endorses tax break for stillborn children (Apr '08) Jul '15 nousernameavalible 36
Men that are Not The Biological Father Still FO... (May '09) Jun '15 Please help 55
News Missouri Senate votes to override veto of welfa... May '15 see the light 1
News Missouri Gov. Nixon Refuses to Save Failing Wel... May '15 James 2
News Former resident honored for service in Vietnam (Mar '08) Apr '15 Wildlife 2
News Black Caucus Pushes Hard for Ferguson-Inspired ... Mar '15 TTU 3
News Missouri Lt. Gov, Ferguson mayor: Where was the... (Nov '14) Mar '15 sam 2
More from around the web