Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 218

Thread: "It's nothing short of a license to discriminate"?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Posts
    4,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    "It's nothing short of a license to discriminate"?

    ThinkProgress takes exception to the Trump administration memorandum protecting religious liberty.
    Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued extensive guidance Friday morning regarding “Protections for Religious Liberty” throughout the federal government. The document scrupulously avoids mentioning the LGBTQ community by name but it is undeniably the latest in a string of actions targeting LGBTQ rights.
    California, the Sanctuary State, promptly sued, as is its wont.
    California sued the Trump administration Friday, claiming it unlawfully discriminated against women in its decision to limit an Obama-era rule that requires employers to provide for contraceptives in their health insurance plans.

    The lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco says the new rules jeopardize the Affordable Care Act requirement that employers provide coverage of birth control for employees with no out-of-pocket costs, according to state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, who filed the lawsuit seeking to block the change.

    “Therefore, millions of women in California may be left without access to contraceptives and counseling and the state will be shouldering the additional fiscal and administrative burden as women seek access for this coverage through state-funded programs,” the lawsuit says.

    The lawsuit also alleges the rule changes violate the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause because they allow employers to use religious beliefs as a right to discriminate against employees to deny them a federally entitled health benefit.

    Becerra has filed more than two dozen legal actions challenging policy changes by President Trump since the Republican entered the White House in January.
    For a different opinion, see Breitbart, for example.
    According to a Breitbart News analysis of the ruling, Trump is fulfilling a promise to restore religious liberty to employers and organizations who’d been forced to provide contraceptions over their moral and religious objections
    Or this as the Daily Inter Lake:

    A move to protect religious freedom: Can I get an amen?
    t’s been mind-blowing to discover in the past decade how fragile the concept of religious liberty is — especially in an increasingly secular society where God is considered an illegal alien, and not one worthy of receiving “sanctuary”! People who follow their religious beliefs used to be held in high esteem; but today they are a threatened or even endangered species.

    But through the unlikely ministrations of President Trump, that may finally change. Sessions issued a list of 20 key principles of religious liberty that are to guide the executive branch of the federal government going forward. The second of those principles restates what should have been obvious all along, but was instead ignored by the previous administration:

    “The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one’s religious beliefs.”

    Wait a minute? Does that mean I can’t be forced to violate my personal moral and religious convictions by the government? I don’t have to perform actions that I find offensive?

    Apparently so.
    In these forums we've been reminded that one person's rights always butt up against those of someone else. It's a "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins" kind of thing.

    That includes the right to do nothing. We've had animated discussions over the right of teenagers to be entertained by, but not make a move to help, someone they watched drown.

    And I doubt many here would move from allowing some protected inaction, say on performing abortions, to allowing certain others such as female genital mutilation.

    My cursory look at Sessions' memo didn't seem to provide guidance on divining the dividing line. So my question remains, how to separate religious freedom from our collective imperative not to discriminate?

    When is it OK to decline making a "gay wedding cake," but not OK to decline a cab ride to someone carrying alcohol?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    8,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Companies are abstract legal fictions created to limit liability. They can no more have a religion than they can fall in love.
    "That Fox News panel––the breathtaking dishonesty of it is beyond my ability to articulate. That is no longer a news organization. That is what American state media looks like. That is what White House-controlled in-the-service-of-the-president misinformation looks like. That is indistinct from propaganda in authoritarian countries. It is aimed directly at weakening essential institutions and misinforming the American people. It is appalling.”

    ~ Steve Schmidt

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Posts
    2,625
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    Companies are abstract legal fictions created to limit liability. They can no more have a religion than they can fall in love.
    A company can have a philosophy. I looked into getting a Ben And Jerry's franchise years ago and it was wrapped in some serious horse shit.
    Reporters used to break stories. Now they're just fucking tattletales. - Adam Carolla

  4. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  5. #4
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 16th, 2017 @ 4:09 PM
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    3,867
    Post Thanks / Like
    “Although government generally may subject religious persons and organizations to neutral, generally applicable laws—e.g., across-the-board criminal prohibitions or certain time, place, and manner restrictions on speech—government may not apply such laws in a discriminatory way.”

    Interesting. Isn't this what the birth control mandate is? It applies to everyone with health insurance.

    Anyway, if religious freedom is already enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, why does it need reinforcing? Sounds like they are trying to expand religious freedoms, not protect the existing ones.

    I can't wait until these guidelines are applied by hard line Muslim clerics in the US and Sessions has to homminah-homminah-homminah his way into an explanation of how he has enabled Islamic idiocy in this country.
    When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, and not screaming like the passengers in his car.

  6. Likes Celeste Chalfonte liked this post
  7. #5
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    10,503
    Post Thanks / Like
    Two words: SPECIAL RIGHTS.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 6:43 PM
    Posts
    7,825
    Post Thanks / Like
    Question is; who is being discriminated against if a company doesn't want to equally not provide contraception to all employees.................

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 16th, 2017 @ 4:09 PM
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    3,867
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Marva View Post
    Question is; who is being discriminated against if a company doesn't want to equally not provide contraception to all employees.................
    They're forcing their religious qualms on everyone they employ, that is the issue. Frankly, I don't understand why this is the issue it is. It seems like some sort of manufactured outrage tool used to drive a wedge into the healthcare debate. I mean, if you think about it, insurance is a distributed risk pool that everyone chips in to, to spread the risk. So even if your company isn't offering birth control pills to employees, your insurance fees are still going to a company that uses that money in a pooled sense to provide those services (or abortion, if covered) to someone else.

    So, regardless of whether a company's own employees get the benefit or not, the distributed nature of insurance means your money is indirectly funding contraception and abortions for others in your same risk pool.

    If Christians who are against paying for contraceptives for employees would put their money where their heathen mouths are, they'd form their own religious-zoned risk pool and not trade with BCBS, Aetna, Kaiser and the like. But instead, they find it easier to bitch and moan about religious persecution that doesn't really exist.
    When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, and not screaming like the passengers in his car.

  10. Likes Celeste Chalfonte liked this post
  11. #8
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Flyover Country
    Posts
    2,824
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post

    If Christians who are against paying for contraceptives for employees would put their money where their heathen mouths are, they'd form their own religious-zoned risk pool and not trade with BCBS, Aetna, Kaiser and the like. But instead, they find it easier to bitch and moan about religious persecution that doesn't really exist.
    You mean like this place???/
    Expose the D.C. monster for what it is
    Al Franken / Jill Stein 2020.


  12. Thanks Gingersnap thanked for this post
  13. #9
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 16th, 2017 @ 4:09 PM
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    3,867
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gary m View Post
    That's not health insurance, it's a health cost sharing platform. And from what I've read, it's not really any better than insurance when it comes to finding participating doctors, getting disputes resolved and the like. You're billed the full non-insurance cost of procedures and have to work it out between the doctor's office and Medi-Share in most cases. No thanks.

    I am talking about a full on health insurance company that works just like Blue Cross or equivalent but doesn't pay for abortions or contraceptives or anything else Christians deem unworthy. Seems like a product like that, in a less regulated market, could make a killing.
    When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, and not screaming like the passengers in his car.

  14. #10
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 3:17 AM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    10,851
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    “Although government generally may subject religious persons and organizations to neutral, generally applicable laws—e.g., across-the-board criminal prohibitions or certain time, place, and manner restrictions on speech—government may not apply such laws in a discriminatory way.”

    Interesting. Isn't this what the birth control mandate is? It applies to everyone with health insurance.
    A prohibition is the exact opposite of a mandate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    Anyway, if religious freedom is already enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, why does it need reinforcing?
    You answered your own question, in a back-handed way:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    They're forcing their religious qualms on everyone they employ, that is the issue.
    This assumes that someone is just entitled to have their employer pay for their recreational fucking. That simply is not reality. Then the Magic Negro came along and just declared that all employers have to pay for everyone's recreational fucking, even if that meant paying for what that employer considers an abortion.

    This had never been a problem before the Magic Negro came along. No one was worried about it. But the Democrats needed a problem so they created a solution. Suddenly women were going to shrivel up and die if they didn't have frequent intercourse, and the only way to do that was to force employers to pay for their (mostly promiscuous) lifestyles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    I am talking about a full on health insurance company that works just like Blue Cross or equivalent but doesn't pay for abortions or contraceptives or anything else Christians deem unworthy. Seems like a product like that, in a less regulated market, could make a killing.
    You made that illegal in 2010.
    Now more than two weeks, and the Left still remain incapable of saying that Leftist violence is bad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •