add Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) LINK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent Freedom of [not from] religion is our 1st amendment. It is the reason pilgrims and Christians from all over the world came to the new world over the last 200 years, to form a nation where they could worship God without government interference! besides, no one is being denied birth-control, it's readily available to anyone who wants it. what do you think about this decision? Edited July 1, 2014 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 Today EWTN was granted last minute relief from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, one day before the world’s largest religious media network would be forced to violate its deeply help religious convictions or pay crippling fines to the IRS on July 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I believe there is a topic on this in Open Mic if you wanna head over there and read the responses. Im not sure what debate youre looking for on this topic since youre posting about it on a catholic forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 I believe there is a topic on this in Open Mic if you wanna head over there and read the responses. Im not sure what debate youre looking for on this topic since youre posting about it on a catholic forum. LINK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent what do you think about this decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Yeah...and...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 it at least laid a decent middle ground. i do tend to agree with the catholic position. and they overall won. but, the court said that it only applied in 'closely held' corporations. this leaves open what happens to large corporations. the EWTN examle is a very interesting case, as they are probably not closely held corporation. the court could be said to have left open to discussion those types of issues to the lower courts, spread around the country, reflecting their own local values and such. in general, it is not as debateable about large corporations. they are open to the public, usually, and have to answer to the share holders anyway. the share holders are members of the public at large. they are very close to being public entities. EWTN is a special case, as it is obviously a religous organization. i'm not sure if there are spcial rules for nonprofit organizations? the decision about how to treat religious organizations, or how to treat nonprofits could perhaps one day be decided by the court again. it's not like EWTN couldn't choose to be a nonprofit if that was available to them. and that goes for a lot of religious organizations. but, they choose to seek the dollar instead. there's something to be said about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I think people (political liberals) are blowing the decision way out of proportion. This applies to smaller companies and the issue of abortifacient drugs. The way it is being portrayed is as a "step backward" and oppressive to women. The thing is, it's not denying access to anything, its only putting the responsibility for payment on the shoulders of those who want to use said drugs. I don't see how that's unfair. I have to pay for all my medicines, both for my mental health and my physical health. What a shock, having to pay for something you want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I mean, it does have farther reaching implications though right? If you're saying a company can delegate medical stuff on religious grounds then whats to stop people form say, covering blood transfusions? Or other things? This has the potential to snow ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 I mean, it does have farther reaching implications though right? If you're saying a company can delegate medical stuff on religious grounds then whats to stop people form say, covering blood transfusions? Or other things? This has the potential to snow ball. Your argument is invalid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Your mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom, which is the bedrock of the First Amendment. Any time someone is forced to act against that imperative, it should be deemed unconstitutional. If the government is going to force Catholic employers to provide certain medical services that violate the basic tenets of Catholicism, does that not “open the floodgates†to people who want to force people who strongly object to any practice, on religious grounds, not only to accept it, but finance it as well? How is it possible to see this as anything other than unconstitutional? It flies in the face of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) the best way to approach the issue, is to treat it like they do kids drinking church wine despite drinking laws. it's just a well respected tradition, so they continue to respect it. same with funding birth control and abortifacients. the catholics shoudnt have to generaly fund it. this 'categorical exception' would prevent so many slippery slopes, but for and against religious principles. that is, someone cant object to getting their kids vaccinated under religious reasons. from the other end, the government can to some extent ask employers to violate their religious principles if they are way out of line, secular expectations and such. there's no other way to approach it, really. Edited July 1, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 Your mom Nice rebuttal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Nice rebuttal Im a ninja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 Im a ninja I know you are but what am I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now