US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2547

On August 08 2020 02:36 JimmiC wrote:
A lot of people are sending out their "thoughts and prayers" to the NRA on their impending legal troubles. I suspect it will work as well as it did in ending fun violence.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/thoughts-and-prayers-nra-mocked-with-familiar-words-of-sympathy/ar-BB17HhAv?li=AAggNb9

On August 08 2020 02:29 Simberto wrote:
I also like how Danglars also always tries to frame the nun issue as "These poor nuns just want to help the elderly, and the state is trying to stop them".

That is not what is happening. The problem is not that they want to help the elderly. It is that they want to keep healthcare from their employees. Healthcare should be a human right. That it is not within the US is a problem in and of itself.

But that employers can decide to not give some part of healthcare to their employees claiming "religious freedom" is a sham. Religious freedom is something for yourself. Not a sword to hit other people with. You are free to be of any religion you choose, but you may not use that freedom to hurt other people with. (As is the case with any freedom.)

I don't care if they are nuns, if they call themselves "little sisters" or whatever. They are an employer who wants to abuse their employees, and they are trying to use "religious freedom" as a loophole to do so.

Also, i find it highly suspicious that you rightwing people always only argue for religious freedom for christians. This outrage seems to be suspiciously absent whenever another religious group is involved, and even moreso if a secular or atheist group is involved.

At least i personally cannot remember a single case where rightwing people were fighting for "religious freedom" in any other context but to use christianity to suppress the rights of some minority they don't like.

On August 08 2020 02:36 JimmiC wrote:
A lot of people are sending out their "thoughts and prayers" to the NRA on their impending legal troubles. I suspect it will work as well as it did in ending fun violence.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/thoughts-and-prayers-nra-mocked-with-familiar-words-of-sympathy/ar-BB17HhAv?li=AAggNb9

On August 08 2020 02:36 Fleetfeet wrote:
Laws of the country > laws of religion, imo.

Spirituality is great. Belief in something above yourself is great. The communities that religions and churches can provide can be wonderful and uplifting to be a part of. I don't disparage religion as a whole, but certainly don't think they should get a free pass to bypass the law based on their religion.

If I understand correctly, the case that The Little Sisters of the Poor are going to court for is to challenge the fact that the ACA mandates contraceptives in US insurance plans, which upsets this group of catholic nuns because some of the contraceptives count as anti-life. Furthermore, there are exceptions to this mandated contraceptive coverage that religious organizations can apply for, which means that The Little Sisters of the Poor can opt out of paying for and receiving said coverage. The part, after all that, that they're going to court for is because they believe having to have any coverage for contraceptives at all makes them complicit in providing people with birth control, which violates their religious beliefs.

So the nuns are going to court because they are upset they're complicit in providing people with contraceptives. This is definitely not something I'm sympathetic towards, and don't feel it's a huge shame if they're 'sent back to court' (meaning, of course, they choose to go back to court to protect their purported religious freedom).

On August 08 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:

I like the rejecting law part. You think protections carved into the first amendment for religious expression were made for purposes other than stopping laws like the PPACA as administered by Obama's HHS? Yes, it's for rejecting laws, in fact the entire bill of right foresaw unjust laws. It gave the people a little protection from zealous politicians or inept politicians, because forcing them towards revolting against the government doing the unjust law stuff is a little bloodier.

They should have broad ability to hire and fire based on religious grounds, so it would depend on whether or not it violated whatever Catholic doctrine they adhere to. Think about certain Christian denominations teaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and being forced to hire gay pastors. Or Muslim, Mormon. This does not apply to public businesses like the Colorado baker, just to overtly religious organizations. That's the should they. The can they is maybe, go ask a lawyer in light of whether Our Lady of Guadalupe School or Bostock applies, since the breadth of the decisions isn't well known to me.

On August 08 2020 02:44 Danglars wrote:
They were facing fines for noncompliance/violation. You're not dead wrong here, just mostly wrong.

I think the government should have very little say in the operation of religious organizations, and prefer a strong first amendment to protect their rights.

On August 08 2020 02:48 Broetchenholer wrote:


So you believe a religion is allowed to bypass the Civil rights act? Which other laws should a religion be allowed to bypass? Which part of the constitution is the line you would draw. By that logic every pagan religion is allowed blood sacrifices.

On August 08 2020 02:59 Fleetfeet wrote:


They were facing fines for noncompliance and violation because being able to provide contraceptives from an alternate source for health care wasn't -good enough- for them. They were facing fines if they chose to ignore the law.

They are not being forced to use the contraceptives personally, have been provided the means to choose their own health care provider for said contraceptives, and are facing fines as the alternative to ignoring these options.

We'll agree to disagree on the last bit. I trust the governance of a large overruling body a lot more than I do the smaller religious organizations contained within it, even in the case of the US.

On August 08 2020 02:59 Fleetfeet wrote:


They were facing fines for noncompliance and violation because being able to provide contraceptives from an alternate source for health care wasn't -good enough- for them. They were facing fines if they chose to ignore the law.

They are not being forced to use the contraceptives personally, have been provided the means to choose their own health care provider for said contraceptives, and are facing fines as the alternative to ignoring these options.

On August 08 2020 03:10 Danglars wrote:

They were still being forced to offer plans to employees including abortifacients. That's why their case returned to the Supreme Court, and justices ruled in favor of them 7-2.

And their detractors had kinda a bad piece of information against them.

They failed to find a single woman who lacks this type of coverage with the current religious exemption. And with changing times, the govt's treatment of Title X means they can receive contraceptive coverage covered by the Fed.

And that's kinda a big deal if the purported reason is healthcare for women, when the lawyers arguing that it amounts to denying healthcare to women can't find a single one unable to receive subsidized coverage. I would think this would be an obstacle to people claiming this case is about healthcare, but I'm always surprised in this regard. The Supreme Court ruled that Little Sisters of the Poor don't have to offer contraceptive coverage, and nobody lost their coverage as a result. Hmm. See WSJ. (For the record, I do think that states who consider abortifacients as mandatory health care, may subsidize the drugs for members of religious organizations who have a well-founded exemption. Both sides can win here, the nuns aren't forced to violate their religious conscience, and the state can make sure employees can find them free elsewhere)

On August 08 2020 03:00 Danglars wrote:

You're on a roll here. Maybe I can get a recognition that 1) Christian denominations should not be forced to hire gay pastors and Muslim mosques forced to hire gay imams and 2) religious institutions should operate under special protections compared to private institutions, for example firing a preacher for preaching contrary to the faith, versus firing an employee at a for-profit business for stating his faith and convictions.

You've been going on a run with three more questions for every one of my answers, and I appreciate the curiosity, but I'm reticent that you're actually being helped in understanding my views with the pace of which you move from one angle to another. Hey, let's see some compare/contrast with Germany's treatment of headscarves and burqas as compared to the United States, because that's a topic I think you can have more than a one-sentence opinion on.

On August 08 2020 03:52 IgnE wrote:
The best thing to do would be to sever health insurance from employment. Don't take the Catholic employers to court. Just stop making healthcare dependent on the employer.

On August 08 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:

I like the rejecting law part. You think protections carved into the first amendment for religious expression were made for purposes other than stopping laws like the PPACA as administered by Obama's HHS? Yes, it's for rejecting laws, in fact the entire bill of right foresaw unjust laws. It gave the people a little protection from zealous politicians or inept politicians, because forcing them towards revolting against the government doing the unjust law stuff is a little bloodier.

They should have broad ability to hire and fire based on religious grounds, so it would depend on whether or not it violated whatever Catholic doctrine they adhere to. Think about certain Christian denominations teaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, and being forced to hire gay pastors. Or Muslim, Mormon. This does not apply to public businesses like the Colorado baker, just to overtly religious organizations. That's the should they. The can they is maybe, go ask a lawyer in light of whether Our Lady of Guadalupe School or Bostock applies, since the breadth of the decisions isn't well known to me.