Obamacare Violates The Separation Of Church & State?

I still can't find anywhere in the constitution or in our nation's laws that says laws enacted to regulate or tax or apply to businesses must take into account the religion of the business owner.

I couldn't either... Seems to conflict with the rights of employees who happen to work for that BUSINESS but are not of that particular denomination, or of no denomination at all....

archer wrote: I still can't find anywhere in the constitution or in our nation's laws that says laws enacted to regulate or tax or apply to businesses must take into account the religion of the business owner.

Check out the Supreme Court cases this year. A small Protestant church chose to fire one of their ministers for reasons that would draw fines for a normal business.
Seperation of church and state.

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote: I still can't find anywhere in the constitution or in our nation's laws that says laws enacted to regulate or tax or apply to businesses must take into account the religion of the business owner.

Check out the Supreme Court cases this year. A small Protestant church chose to fire one of their ministers for reasons that would draw fines for a normal business.
Seperation of church and state.

That ruling relates to the actual church, which is not a business.....and it's ability to determine who will/ or will not be it's minister. The church is very different from a business that the church owns, like a hospital. This law under attack here does not apply to churches....but then you already knew that I'll bet.

LadyJazzer wrote: But, but, but, Colorado is one of the 28 states that requires it...with no exemptions or refusals allowed. Since you're a "citizen of Colorado" (and not, allegedly, the U.S.), it sux to be you...

I guess you'd better move to somewhere where you can enjoy "the free exercise of your religion" (when 98% of the others of your same religion don't give a flip...)

Another lie repeated serially. What Colorado law requires is that contraceptive drugs be treated in the same manner as every other FDA approved prescriptive drug. That is not requiring that it be paid for with no out of pocket expense from the one to whom the prescription is written. Try again LJ - and try the truth this time.

When I want truth, I'll research it on the Internet...You wouldn't know it if it bit you in the arse... The ones who try to make lies into "truth" by repeating it serially are the neo-cons....

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/s ... ib_ICC.pdf

archer wrote: I still can't find anywhere in the constitution or in our nation's laws that says laws enacted to regulate or tax or apply to businesses must take into account the religion of the business owner.

Just because you don't like this application of the 1st Amendment doesn't mean it isn't an application of the 1st Amendment which says in crystal clear terms that "Congress shall pass no laws . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - which the Supreme Court has been so kind as to apply against the States as well in their rush to ensure that States didn't exercise their sovereignty and establish a state-sponsored religion for themselves as more than a few of them had in place when the Constitution was first adopted.

You don't have to agree with my religion archer, you are just prohibited from compelling me, as an individual and as a business owner, to violate the laws of my religion using the force of the secular laws. Congress was granted the authority to raise an army - but it may not conscript someone who has a religious objection to taking up arms to serve in that army. The plenary authority to levy taxes which Congress claims that it has, the plenary authority to regulate commerce which it claims to possess must comply with every other aspect of the Constitution. They may not deny to anyone the free exercise of their religion in the process of regulating, or taxing individuals or businesses - any law which it passes must satisfy the entire Constitution, inconvenient portions of it may not be ignored at the whim of Congress.

LadyJazzer wrote: When I want truth, I'll research it on the Internet...You wouldn't know it if it bit you in the arse... The ones who try to make lies into "truth" by repeating it serially are the neo-cons....

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/s ... ib_ICC.pdf

And when you look at that nice report generated by the Guttmacher institute what you will find is that Colorado law, and every other state law on the subject. requires that contraception drugs and devices be covered as every other FDA approved drug and device are covered. Not a single one of them carves out special coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices and requires that they be provided at no cost to the person who makes the voluntary decision to use them. Not a single state government law currently on the books requires any business to purchase health insurance which treats contraceptive drugs and devices in a wholly unique manner and at no cost to the person insured.

You are lying LJ. You've gotten so used to doing it on a regular basis in pursuit of your ideology that you are not even aware of it any longer.

Is the church against providing any coverage for contraception or just free coverage? I thought they were against having it covered by insurance. If that is true then state laws that require it to be covered like any other Rx should be just as onerous as this federal law since contraception coverage as a prescription would still require the business run by the church to partially pay for contraception.

So which is it...the church objects on theological grounds or on monetary grounds?

archer wrote: Is the church against providing any coverage for contraception or just free coverage? I thought they were against having it covered by insurance. If that is true then state laws that require it to be covered like any other Rx should be just as onerous as this federal law since contraception coverage as a prescription would still require the business run by the church to partially pay for contraception.

So which is it...the church objects on theological grounds or on monetary grounds?

Catholics object to being required to provide contraception for others and recognize at the same time that not everyone is Catholic and may make a voluntary choice to provide it for themselves. When I, as a Catholic, purchase insurance which is required by State law to cover contraceptive drugs exactly the same as every other FDA approved drug is covered it is with the recognition that there are medical indications for the use of that drug which do not involve contraception being the primary reason for choosing that drug. Compelling me to purchase insurance which treats contraceptive drugs in an entirely unique manner from every other FDA approved drug with the primary purpose of providing others with "free" contraception is not in any way different from requiring that I purchase cases of condoms with my own money and hand them out myself on the street corner. Requiring that I purchase insurance which provides "free" sterilization procedures specifically for contraceptive reasons is abhorrent to me on religious grounds. Requiring that I purchase insurance which provides "free" post-conception contraceptive services is the same as asking me to pay for the abortion myself and I'll, literally and figuratively, be damned if I'm going to agree to do that.

If someone chooses to use a prescriptive drug for non-medical reasons that is not something over which I have, or want, control. At the same time it would be unreasonable of me to deny that drug to someone, or require that they bear the entire cost of it, when it is used for medical purposes solely because someone might choose to use it for non-medical reasons. That is why the State laws which treat contraceptive drugs the same as every other drug is treated is not nearly as onerous as the federal proposal which seeks to treat them in an entirely unique fashion. That is as simply as I can explain it to you archer. Yes, I realize that the majority of people will be choosing to use the drug for non-medical reasons if it is treated the same as other FDA approved drugs are - there are a lot of people running around using prescription drugs for non-medical uses that are not in any way related to contraception as well. I am not responsible for the choices others make, only for the choices I make. Collective guilt is just as filled with fallacy as collective salvation is. Guilt and salvation are individually acquired in every instance.