Little Sisters of the Poor Aiding in the Religious Right Wing's Agenda for a Theocratic Government

a reply to: EternalSolace


probably a little of both....don't worry about it.

churches really don't much of a part in this discussion because for the most part they are allowed to operate without much hassle from the gov't. heck they could probably stockpile weapons in the basement and the gov't wouldn't do anything.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't think that investigators are so dense that they can't look at the organization name "Little Sisters of the Poor", go to their website Little Sisters of the Poor, and not tell that they're catholic.

A little investigation and common sense goes a long way. That's why I said it might cut down on frivolous investigations that make it look like they're doing something important.

Hobby Lobby??? I guess that company name came straight from the bible.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Look a law only gets to SCOTUS because it deeply controversial and difficult to adjudicate as the lower level courts. That means a bunch of different courts arrived at a lot of different and contradictory rulings.

Any legislation that causes this many problems and arrives before the SCOTUS at least three times since 2009 is poorly written.

a reply to: ketsuko

Any legislation that causes this many problems and arrives before the SCOTUS at least three times since 2009 is poorly written.

May we see your proposed edits, please?

How would you word it?

a reply to: ketsuko

I have a habit of looking through their cases every now and then, believe me, most aren't that interesting.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Or ... we could admit finally that Obamacare is bad law. If it's going to cause this many problems. Look at how many times it's been to the SCOTUS already since it was passed for various issues.

Yep, it is bad. We should have a national healthcare system not tied to any employer, paid for by our taxes, and free (or very low cost) at the point of treatment.

a reply to: kaylaluv

And in all of 5 minutes I pulled up their website and got enough information to lead me to believe it's a Christian organization.

Hobby Lobby - Holiday Messages

Christmas 1995, David Green was reading the Christmas advertisements, including those for his own store, and he felt commissioned by God to do something different.

Though that isn't evidence in and of itself, it gives enough pause to start a hundred thousand dollar investigation.

a reply to: EternalSolace
and, just because it's christian, we should assume that they have a problem with birth control???
don't think so!!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Look a law only gets to SCOTUS because it deeply controversial and difficult to adjudicate as the lower level courts. That means a bunch of different courts arrived at a lot of different and contradictory rulings.

Any legislation that causes this many problems and arrives before the SCOTUS at least three times since 2009 is poorly written.

Actually, some of the most fundamental laws in the United States and the States are brought before the Supreme Court.

They are brought there "through" the so-called "lower level courts."

ACA may indeed be 'a bad law' but its appearance before the Supreme Court doesn't indicate that.

You can thank all the right-wing opponents of healthcare reform for that fact. In my opinion.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: kaylaluv

And in all of 5 minutes I pulled up their website and got enough information to lead me to believe it's a Christian organization.

Hobby Lobby - Holiday Messages

Christmas 1995, David Green was reading the Christmas advertisements, including those for his own store, and he felt commissioned by God to do something different.

Though that isn't evidence in and of itself, it gives enough pause to start a hundred thousand dollar investigation.

No it wouldn't be evidence in and of itself. Anybody could put a few "God" words on a website. From an official and legal standpoint it means nothing. A certification IS official and legal.
L

a reply to: dawnstar

Once again, what are you talking about?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: EternalSolace
and, just because it's christian, we should assume that they have a problem with birth control???
don't think so!!

Why sure, dawnstar ... don't you remember all those "Thou shalt nots" about birth control?

Jesus never used birth control, now did he?

/thread

a reply to: EternalSolace
just because a website gives the appearance that it's christian is no indication as to weather or not it has problems with birth control since many religious followers don't,
and just because a website doesn't give the appearance that it's christian is not indication that it doesn't have a problem with birth control...
a person can have no religious affiliation whatsoever and have strong beliefs about something, so well claiming that a short look at their website will tell much of anything isn't actually true.

unless of course, the exemption is only geared to alleviating the one religion from under burden and not everyone....

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: kaylaluv

And in all of 5 minutes I pulled up their website and got enough information to lead me to believe it's a Christian organization.

Hobby Lobby - Holiday Messages

Christmas 1995, David Green was reading the Christmas advertisements, including those for his own store, and he felt commissioned by God to do something different.

Though that isn't evidence in and of itself, it gives enough pause to start a hundred thousand dollar investigation.

No it wouldn't be evidence in and of itself. Anybody could put a few "God" words on a website. From an official and legal standpoint it means nothing. A certification IS official and legal.
L

You're right, anyone can put up a few words on a website. That's why I didn't say it was conclusive. My point is a little bit of common sense applied to any investigation is key. A certification is official and legal. But doesn't mean a thing when it comes to matters of faith either.

a reply to: dawnstar

And where did I say that a website was the only avenue or source an investigator can look at? I didn't say that, now did I?

I'll quote for you what I said:

Though that isn't evidence in and of itself, it gives enough pause to start a hundred thousand dollar investigation.

The key to my statement is to "give pause". It doesn't take a full blown hundred thousand dollar investigation to pull up a website, make a few phone calls, and get financial records from the IRS.

I also want to mention: Who cares if a religious organization has no problems providing contraception. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about organizations that do have a problem with it and whether or not should be forced to prove their religious beliefs.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Hobby Lobby, et. al. decided nothing except for privately-held corporations. Supposedly.

The matter was decided.

I'm unsure of why you're arguing based on what Hobby Lobby is or believes ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not arguing what they believe... what led you to that conclusion?

I merely pointed out that in five minutes of "investigating" it was possible to get a clue that leads to a solid conclusion... and it cost nothing.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not arguing what they believe... what led you to that conclusion?

I merely pointed out that in five minutes of "investigating" it was possible to get a clue that leads to a solid conclusion... and it cost nothing.

You're arguing that you can tell that Hobby Lobby is "a Christian organization" based on your perusal of their website.

I didn't say you were arguing what, where or how about the beliefs of an artificial "person."

Everyone who knows anything about the HL case knows that they think of themselves as "Christian."

I was just remarking on your seeming emphasis on that ...

a reply to: EternalSolace
at the present time, they don't have to prove anything, they can just officially claim it. no investigation, no nothing, just fill out a form and you're set...
my first preference would be to just scrap the entire obamacare bill and well, start from scratch, and well remove the employers from the equation.
my second preference would be to just have an extra line on the insurance forms for both the employers AND the individuals, asking if they want the coverage...
then well, let the insurance companies sort it out. nothing would be based on religious beliefs, if any employer didn't want it covered he wouldn't have to cover it, if any individual didn't want the coverage, they wouldn't have to take it, and well, the insurance company, gov't whoever could take care of those who want the coverage but their employers chose not to cover it. this seems to be a sane way to go really. much saner that what is going on!!!

a reply to: Gryphon66

My mistake, I understand you now.

I never said that the website in and of itself is conclusive. I merely suggested it was a great place to start looking. Like it was previously suggested, anyone can throw up words on a website. I don't deny that. What I am denying is that it would cost an insane amount of tax payer money to:

originally posted by: kaylaluv
...billions of dollars spent investigating all these companies...

Hobby Lobby was an example brought up by another. I was merely responding about Hobby Lobby.