|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Just wondering what you all think about this. As a catholic, it really bother me that the government is trying to place their values on catholic institutions. I just don't know where they get off making the catholic church go against their beliefs and pay for birth control/contraceptives.
The government seems to have an overreaching hand here, and it is a slippery slope. It just seems to me that catholics are getting beat on again (as usual). My religions seems to be the easy target (and i don't want to make this argument about that).
My girlfriend lives over in Germany (going to graduate school), she pays about 40 dollars a month for birth control. Their health care doesn't pay for that. If she can't afford it, I will buy it/make up the difference, especially if i'm going to be there for any length of time. 40$ a month is affordable, and even if it isn't for you, there's places where you can get it for free. I understand that it isn't just for contraception, but it also is used for contraception (that goes against the church's values), and having doctors sign off on same waiver is not some answer. I don't trust the values of many doctors who sign off on things just to be convenient for you.
If the government wants to do this garbage, find some funding outside of the catholic church and make it available to these employees. Do not force the church into something they see as a sin.
I just don't see why the church should be subsidizing a value that they don't believe in. It isn't like they don't want to provide health care, they just don't want to provide contraceptions which goes against its values.
I understand that many Catholics are on the pill, there's no question about that. But that's something between us and god, don't bring our church down.
I'm really hoping that the President changes his mind about this issue today in this speech of his. I know it's a long shot, but it's just another thing that pisses me off about the guy
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Shouldn't it be the individual's responsibility to adhere to their beliefs? The Church won't have to pay for birth control if the employes don't try to get a prescription, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 5
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 5 |
Except that being catholic means you can not support anyone that goes against the church's rules. That means we can not provide contraception either. I am so tired of the government trying to box in religion. Why cant we have our freedom? To worship as we choose? This country is turning into Communist Russia. How much longer until they simply outlaw religious practice in public?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Shouldn't it be the individual's responsibility to adhere to their beliefs? The Church won't have to pay for birth control if the employes don't try to get a prescription, right?
That's an issue between its employees/followers and god. Not the church. If people aren't following the church's practices, does the church have to sin too?
The church can't discriminate and ensure that all employees are following their practices. People are free to do what they want, but the church shouldn't have to pay for it
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Shouldn't it be the individual's responsibility to adhere to their beliefs? The Church won't have to pay for birth control if the employes don't try to get a prescription, right?
the institution is apart of the religion as well. there should be a separation of church and state here and even if individuals within the religion find it acceptable, the rules of the religon are clear (and so why force the institution of the religion to go against it).
it would be akin to forcing the Mormon church to have coffee on hand in the morning and beers at lunch.
i don't think it will matter. there is absolutely no way that the courts will allow it to stand.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
i don't think it will matter. there is absolutely no way that the courts will allow it to stand.
I sure hope that's the case. It just drives me nuts that the government is doing this
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
I wasn't really aware of the issue, I had heard a bit of it being a problem at Catholic hospitals. It really doesn't factor into my life though so its not a big deal for me. As with all things government I would rather I get to pick and choose how they spend my money. I personally wouldn't give a dime for them to even chat with the Catholic Church. But I'm not going to spend my time worrying about things I can't control, or trying to find some way to influence the government. I am however going to sip on my decaf coffee and enjoy these lovely boards and the crickets chirping in the background. Catholic churches have beautiful masses. My grandmother was Catholic and I always liked their masses much more than the Lutheran services I grew up with. Do you guys attend mass often? My uncle is a catholic / salesian teacher down in Mason. Hope all is well my brownie brethren 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Catholic churches have beautiful masses. My grandmother was Catholic and I always liked their masses much more than the Lutheran services I grew up with. Do you guys attend mass often? My uncle is a catholic / salesian teacher down in Mason.
I don't go to mass. That's something between me and god. What I have is a lot of respect for the religion itself and what it stands for. My uncle's a priest, aunt was a nun, parents are devout catholics, and the priest comes over for dinner once a month. I know the nuns at my parent's perish, and say hello to them when i see them in the grocery store.
It's an institution that I have a ton of respect for, and it's part of me
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
if you enjoy Catholic masses, then you should try to check out an Orthodox mass sometime. there are some really gorgeous cathedrals and their ceremonies are beautiful.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Kingcob, not sure if you're in Clevleand, but if you are, you should check out St. Stanislaus in Slavic Village. Now there is a gorgeous church. Make sure you go during the day to appreciate the windows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
I think that the Gov't is overreaching in requiring it of ANY employer, much less a church. It isn't the responsibility of an employer to ensure that you don't get knocked up.
It is the responsibility of you and your partner. Period.
You don't want to get pregnant? Fine, go on the pill, or use condoms - or practice abstinence.
It's complete garbage that the gov't is REQUIRING employers to pay for an employee's responsibility.
Beyond that, they extend exemptions to religious organizations for everything under the sun - so for them to NOT extend the same for this item that goes against the religious beliefs is, to me, purely political crap.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Just wondering what you all think about this. As a catholic, it really bother me that the government is trying to place their values on catholic institutions. I just don't know where they get off making the catholic church go against their beliefs and pay for birth control/contraceptives.
The government seems to have an overreaching hand here, and it is a slippery slope. It just seems to me that catholics are getting beat on again (as usual). My religions seems to be the easy target (and i don't want to make this argument about that).
My girlfriend lives over in Germany (going to graduate school), she pays about 40 dollars a month for birth control. Their health care doesn't pay for that. If she can't afford it, I will buy it/make up the difference, especially if i'm going to be there for any length of time. 40$ a month is affordable, and even if it isn't for you, there's places where you can get it for free. I understand that it isn't just for contraception, but it also is used for contraception (that goes against the church's values), and having doctors sign off on same waiver is not some answer. I don't trust the values of many doctors who sign off on things just to be convenient for you.
If the government wants to do this garbage, find some funding outside of the catholic church and make it available to these employees. Do not force the church into something they see as a sin.
I just don't see why the church should be subsidizing a value that they don't believe in. It isn't like they don't want to provide health care, they just don't want to provide contraceptions which goes against its values.
I understand that many Catholics are on the pill, there's no question about that. But that's something between us and god, don't bring our church down.
I'm really hoping that the President changes his mind about this issue today in this speech of his. I know it's a long shot, but it's just another thing that pisses me off about the guy
Except they aren't making the church pay for anything, the church pays insurance premiums just like everyone else, and that insurance company in turn pays the claims by the employee, not by the church's request. No different than the church paying a salary to someone, they have no right to tell that person what they can and cannot do with the money once it becomes thiers.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
The problem is that the government is requiring Catholic institutions to offer contraception, which is in direct violation of church teachings. It doesn't matter if the organizations are paying for it or not. Regardless if Catholics use them or not isn't relevant.
In case someone is confused the church itself is exempted.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Except they aren't making the church pay for anything, the church pays insurance premiums just like everyone else, and that insurance company in turn pays the claims by the employee, not by the church's request. No different than the church paying a salary to someone, they have no right to tell that person what they can and cannot do with the money once it becomes thiers.
But birth control is an add-on to most insurance policies that you can pay for or not pay for.. if the Catholic Church (or any company that provides insurance to it's employees) doesn't want to pay for it as part of their premiums, they shouldn't have to.
With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Except they aren't making the church pay for anything, the church pays insurance premiums just like everyone else, and that insurance company in turn pays the claims by the employee, not by the church's request. No different than the church paying a salary to someone, they have no right to tell that person what they can and cannot do with the money once it becomes thiers.
But birth control is an add-on to most insurance policies that you can pay for or not pay for.. if the Catholic Church (or any company that provides insurance to it's employees) doesn't want to pay for it as part of their premiums, they shouldn't have to.
With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.
guess I misunderstood the mandate, I thought it was requiring insurance companies to include the covereage standard, not requiring companies to include the add-on. Although if you ask me, if 6 of one half dozen of another.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,447
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,447 |
Nothing more than Obama ideology and buy votes at the expense of all ( thats the 48% that do pay tax's ) 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864 |
Quote:
My girlfriend lives over in Germany (going to graduate school), she pays about 40 dollars a month for birth control.
If your here and she's over there,, why does she need birth control
Just funnin you man 
Anyway, I grew up catholic as well. But me and the church are on the outs for other reasons. (didn't like the way they handled the priests that messed with little boys)
But I'm gonna say this and I'm gonna get beat upon for it, but here goes, I don't think it's the governments business what a person chooses to do with thier body.
Regarding the church, They have no place in the discussion either if the person doesn't want them there.
JMHO..
I'm preparing for the onslaught of beatings I'll now receive
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I think you are confusing the issue. This has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing the individual from using contraception.
It has everything to do with forcing a religious institution to pay for the contraceptives when they consider that a sin and wrong.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.
Yeah, this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Anyway, I grew up catholic as well. But me and the church are on the outs for other reasons. (didn't like the way they handled the priests that messed with little boys)
This pushed me away from the church also, it drives me nuts. An issue like that should be handed over to the state authorities, and if found to be true, the priests should face the full brunt of the law, and should be excommunicated from the church.
But anyway, back to the topic, I do believe in the fundamental teaching of the church as they are a huge factor in why I am the person I am today. And I have a ton of respect for the true values of the catholic church. I'm definitely on the team.
I just see it as an attack on religious freedom, not to mention the question as to whether or not free birth control should be a government mandated thing. But it infuriates me that they're trying to force this on my religion (and basically religions in general).
If people want birth control, go out and buy it. But don't make a religious institution go against something they see as fundamentally wrong so that people can get their birth control. If religious institutions don't want to have birth control covered in their insurance plan, that's fine. Don't work for them or go ahead and work for them but pay for it yourself. Do not include them in your means of getting it.
You don't have to have sex, it's a choice. And if you want birth control, you should have access to it. Do not put that burden on my church though.
I'm hoping at 1215 the President gives me some good news. He does occasionally do things I like, like the way he criticizes Israel for the immoral apartheid and persecution going on over there (unlike every other freakin politician). But most of the time I'm left just shaking my head.........
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Edit: never mind...Im staying out of it
Last edited by Arps; 02/10/12 12:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
This is a sticky one. Catholic agencies employ a good number of non-Catholics. Should non-Catholic employees be shut out of contraception benefits? IMO, they should have access to those benefits if the insurance provider offers the option. I wouldn't require the church to PAY for it, mind you. That would be pushing the boundaries of constitutionality, I think. Allowing the insurance provider to offer those benefits a la carte and at the expense of the consumer seems like a reasonable compromise.
As has been mentioned, the decision to use contraceptives or not is between the woman and God. Shouldn't the church have enough faith in its members to make an appropriate choice based on their own faith?
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Allowing the insurance provider to offer those benefits a la carte and at the expense of the consumer seems like a reasonable compromise.
This is what's sorta going through my mind as a possible alternative. I need some time to think it through though and see the implications of it, so I reserve my right not to make a decision on that idea yet
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Quote:
With that said, it always baffled me that insurance companies don't automatically cover it. They will pay $15K for you to have a baby but not cover $40 a month for you to NOT have a baby? I suppose they have run the numbers and figured out that over a large group of people it works out in their favor but it still seems odd to me.
Yeah, this one.
Now that I think about it more, it's probably to avoid large protest groups who like to make a public noise about this sort of thing. They don't want to get blacklisted by some "parents for america" group who like to make a living by telling others their values are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
But birth control is an add-on to most insurance policies that you can pay for or not pay for.. if the Catholic Church (or any company that provides insurance to it's employees) doesn't want to pay for it as part of their premiums, they shouldn't have to.
from what I'm reading, I don't think they have to pay anything extra. At first, it was worded that they would, but was revised
Per the BBC:
Quote:
Under the new plan put forward by the White House insurance companies, rather than the employer, will be required to offer contraception directly to employees of religious-linked institutions if requested.
Religious institutions would not be required to subsidise the cost of offering birth control to their employees, nor would they be asked to refer them to organisations that provide it.
Quote:
Outraged Catholic leaders said that the provision would force them to violate religious beliefs.
Under the original terms of the ruling, Church-linked institutions would have had to cover birth control costs in their health insurance plans.
Word of the compromise came shortly after top Republicans joined the outcry against the contraception rule.
Now, if that's true ... I don't see the problem, really.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
I'm sort of confused on the President's decision.
I mean, won't the church just being paying for these services through increased premiums (so that their employees can get free contraceptives)
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,864 |
Oh,, OK,, Never mind 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Just to add in a sidenote - what about women who need birth control for non-contraception related issues (hormonal etc.)?
Should they be covered then to treat the other condition, even if as a side effect they make you temporarily unable to get pregnant?
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Just to add in a sidenote - what about women who need birth control for non-contraception related issues (hormonal etc.)?
Should they be covered then to treat the other condition, even if as a side effect they make you temporarily unable to get pregnant?
It's an unfortunate side effect of the issue. Because if you got a waiver signed off for those people, tons of people who don't need it will get the same waiver.
As I said earlier in the thread, I have very little trust for doctors and honesty with prescriptive drugs
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
j/c Okay, so Obama apparently just changed the rules. Religiously affiliated schools and hospitals will not be required/forced, to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees. BUT, insurance companies will be forced to offer contraceptive coverage at no cost to women that work for any of those organizations. How does that work? The president can just make the rules? I don't get it. The president can just tell insurance companies what they will cover, and mandate that the users don't have to pay any extra? http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Yeah, I don't get the "free" part (well, I do since it's the government, but that's a separate issue...). I'd be OK with insurance companies offering contraceptive coverage at the negotiated rates they can make available to their customers (often there's a co-pay of $5 or less). Telling insurance companies they have to provide it free of charge only pushes the expense back to the church-based organization in the form of higher premiums. Makes no sense.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
I don't get how/where the President gets to dictate any of this... and I certainly don't think it is something that needs to be done and I'm completely against it.
You want birth control? Try abstinence.
You want to have sex? Then accept - on your own - the responsibility and cost of doing so.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122 |
Everything should be free. 
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Most health insurance plans will cover one or more of viagra, cialis, or levitra, but many of those will not cover birth control. That's just wrong IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
If they want to do that, that is their prerogative. I do not believe that the government is mandating that those items be covered.
Mandating this coverage out of some whacked sense of "fairness" is just stupid.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
That still don't say who's paying for it.
If the initial proposal was that the church had to offer it as part of the plan, then the costs of the insurance plan go up. The church would either pay it, or pass the costs on to the "employees" so to speak.
now its changed to the insurance company has to offer it, and the church doesn't have to subsidize the cost of it.
That means that the insurance company has to offer something for free...which they aren't going to do, or recoup the money from somewhere else.
They are either going to create some kind of fee that brings in enough money to cover this additional cost so the church isn't paying for the "pill". This would mean that anyone with that insurance company is paying.
Or the insurance companies will demand that the government subsidizes the additional costs...which means we all are paying.
The church thinks its immoral, and doesn't want to pay for it, but its a go if they don't?
I hope that this wasn't a compromise with the church as much as the feds getting around the churches right to say they are not paying for something they don't believe in.
This is all so screwed up.
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
J/C
If the government changes policies, does this mean that Mormons could contest the outlaw of polygamy? It is part of their belief system after all. Catholics believe contraception is a sin and Mormons fundamentally believe(d), at one point at least, that salvation required many lives.
Not trying to introduce a carnival of ridiculousness in the thread but I think it's something to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
Frankly, I never saw why polygamy was illegal to start with. If a man wants to subject himself to the torture of more than one wife ...... who am I to stop him? Seriously though ...... I just don't care anymore. Let anyone marry anyone ...... and as many as they want involved. I just don't care anymore. If someone wants to marry a member of the opposite sex, or many members of the opposite sex .... a member or many members of the same sex ...... a mixture ....... their dog ...... a chair ....... I just don't care anymore. The only thing I would object to is forcing churches to perform such ceremonies, or to recognize such marriages that are opposed to their beliefs. (or forcing them to hire people living a lifestyle that goes contrary to their beliefs and teachings) Other than that ... I just don't care anymore.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Catholic agencies employ a good number of non-Catholics. Should non-Catholic employees be shut out of contraception benefits?
Yes. Without a doubt. The culture of the business should dictate what benefits they offer and the government should stay the heck out of it.
If I went to work for the Athiest Society of America and everybody got 8 days vacation a year and I needed an extra week off in the summer to do the work of the Lord and go on a mission trip to Nigeria, should they be forced to let me go?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
The only thing I would object to is forcing churches to perform such ceremonies, or to recognize such marriages that are opposed to their beliefs. (or forcing them to hire people living a lifestyle that goes contrary to their beliefs and teachings) Other than that ... I just don't care anymore.
Bold statement......... I'm good with the state recognizing gay marriages (and letting religious institutions do their own thing with that)
Can't agree with you on polygamy though. I say, if I can't have more than one lady, then you can't either. May be that's me being selfish (although I'm not married yet; i've heard that marriage changes everything...... kinda makes me not wanna get married)
But man, if I tried to pick up another girlfriend, my life would be chaos. My girlfriend told me today about how she had a nightmare last night where I cheated on her, and we discussed it during lunch, and how she threw balsamic vinaigrette all over me and then hit me over the head with a bottle!
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Catholic Contraception Debate
|
|
