Shhh! Don’t Tell Republicans That Women Vote!

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are a fucking moron, and you obviously cannot define 'deflecting' because that is precisely what the fuck you fucking-bunch of morons are doing on this issue - and you will not admit it. Obamacare INFRINGES on religious freedoms protected under the provisions of the 1st Amendment.

nothing like a high road rightwinger resorting to profane name calling is there? .... lol

deflect if you will, apparently you insist.

the fact remains the Republicans will lose all pro choice votes from men and women

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

OK, I'll bite.

Basic principles. "Free" means free to do something *AND* it means free NOT to do it. Free exercise of religion means that people are free to hold whatever religious beliefs they hold. It means that they are free to act in the ways that are required by their religion, subject of course to the basic limits imposed everywhere. It also means that they are free NOT to do things that are forbidden by their religion, and it particularly means that they may not be compelled by the law to do those forbidden things.

Catholics believe that abortion is absolutely forbidden. (Reference: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapter Two, Article V, Part I, sections 2270-2275.) Catholics are not under any circumstances allowed to participate (whether as patient, provider, assistant, or financier) in an abortion and remain in communion with the Church. The mandatory penalty is excommunication: there is no provision for extenuating circumstances.

A law requiring Catholics or Catholic organizations to pay for abortions immediately runs afoul of the First Amendment.

Most contraceptives work after conception has occurred, by preventing implantation of the fetus into the lining of the uterine wall. Because life begins at conception, to Catholics, this is considered equivalent to abortion, and is therefore equally forbidden. (It is worth mentioning that RU-486, the "abortion pill", works AFTER implantation, by inducing miscarriage.)

At that point, a law requiring Catholics and Catholic organizations to pay for contraceptives runs directly afoul of the First Amendment as well.

+1 Thank you, Sidewinder, for providing the particulars. CJ7, BigLiar, et al. wish to be willfully stupid and publish lie after lie and then deny they are lying.

@ CJ7, you were the first to employ 'fucking' in this thread, so shut the fuck up you lying, fucking hypocrite. Obamacare INFRINGES on religious freedoms protected under the provisions of the 1st Amendment, and that is not 'deflecting'. That is a fact!

[CuteOldGuy]

You are wrong, IB, Obamacare does not infringe on religious freedom. Obamacare eliminates religious freedom.

[CJ7]

quit fucking deflecting

yeah thats exactly like calling you a fucking moron isnt it MORON ...


and dont plow the hypocrite row ..

example:

Republicans .... keep government out of my life and leave me alone

Hypocrite Republi-tard ... pass laws that tell people what they can do with their own body.

pick one IB? who are you, really?

[CuteOldGuy]

Demotards do the same thing. Let's not forget them.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1 Thank you, Sidewinder, for providing the particulars. CJ7, BigLiar, et al. wish to be willfully stupid and publish lie after lie and then deny they are lying.

@ CJ7, you were the first to employ 'fucking' in this thread, so shut the fuck up you lying, fucking hypocrite. Obamacare INFRINGES on religious freedoms protected under the provisions of the 1st Amendment, and that is not 'deflecting'. That is a fact!

fact remains a federal court diasgrees with your OPINION IB.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...294545870.html


now lets see, who do I really believe? a federal court or some pisswhistler on an internet message board?

gee, thats a toughie.

eos

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL! What makes you think a federal judge is smarter than us? A federal judge is someone who contributed to the ruling party's campaign. Get real. Other federal judges have ruled just the opposite. So which one is right?

If you only believe federal judges, then you must be very confused. LOL!

[CJ7]

BUT BUT BUT

More significant, however, was the majority opinion's author: Judge Laurence Silberman, an icon of the conservative legal movement.

[Tom Terrific]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Obamacare violates the freedom of religion clause in the 1st Amendment. You are a moron if you cannot see that.

EDIT TO ADD: Read any non-, über-leftist newspaper or journal in the country and you will see the news for yourself.

Again, can you provide anything other than your own opinion to back up your opinion?
There is no way that the ACA violates the 1st amendment. The government requires many things of religous organizations, so do a little research before you drink the right wing Kool-Aid.

I have not called you names and been insulting, so why do you respond in the manner that you have?

Is this the typical response of people from Oklahoma?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Tom Terrific

Again, can you provide anything other than your own opinion to back up your opinion?
There is no way that the ACA violates the 1st amendment. The government requires many things of religous organizations, so do a little research before you drink the right wing Kool-Aid.

I have not called you names and been insulting, so why do you respond in the manner that you have?

Is this the typical response of people from Oklahoma?

All you are offering is your opinion, which is certainly of no import; whereas, you probably missed this since your comprehension skills are so minimal:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," ratified December 15, 1791 - over 200 years of precedence.

Plus, the Catholic Church established its belief system almost 2,000 years ago; so there is nearly 2,000 years of precedence for its doctrine.

And as Sidewinder posted:

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

OK, I'll bite.

Basic principles. "Free" means free to do something *AND* it means free NOT to do it. Free exercise of religion means that people are free to hold whatever religious beliefs they hold. It means that they are free to act in the ways that are required by their religion, subject of course to the basic limits imposed everywhere. It also means that they are free NOT to do things that are forbidden by their religion, and it particularly means that they may not be compelled by the law to do those forbidden things.

Catholics believe that abortion is absolutely forbidden. (Reference: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapter Two, Article V, Part I, sections 2270-2275.) Catholics are not under any circumstances allowed to participate (whether as patient, provider, assistant, or financier) in an abortion and remain in communion with the Church. The mandatory penalty is excommunication: there is no provision for extenuating circumstances.

A law requiring Catholics or Catholic organizations to pay for abortions immediately runs afoul of the First Amendment.

Most contraceptives work after conception has occurred, by preventing implantation of the fetus into the lining of the uterine wall. Because life begins at conception, to Catholics, this is considered equivalent to abortion, and is therefore equally forbidden. (It is worth mentioning that RU-486, the "abortion pill", works AFTER implantation, by inducing miscarriage.)

At that point, a law requiring Catholics and Catholic organizations to pay for contraceptives runs directly afoul of the First Amendment as well.

Originally Posted by CJ7

fact remains a federal court diasgrees with your OPINION IB.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...294545870.html


now lets see, who do I really believe? a federal court or some pisswhistler on an internet message board?

gee, thats a toughie.

eos

You are a joke CJ7. That decision has nothing to do with the topic - infringement of the 1st Amendment - in this thread.

[JD Barleycorn]

This entire thread started out with stupidity. The GOP president Harding signed the amendment giving women the right to vote after a GOP Congress passed the amendment. So the republicans gave women and the black people the right to vote after the republicans liberated the slaves. I could also point out that American Indians became US citizens do to votes from the GOP. Always remember that the GOP controlled both houses up until 1934.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

All you are offering is your opinion, which is certainly of no import; whereas, you probably missed this since your comprehension skills are so minimal:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," ratified December 15, 1791 - over 200 years of precedence.

Plus, the Catholic Church established its belief system almost 2,000 years ago; so there is nearly 2,000 years of precedence for its doctrine.

And as Sidewinder posted:



You are a joke CJ7. That decision has nothing to do with the topic - infringement of the 1st Amendment - in this thread.

your opening comment IB ...


The real issue is Obamacare is infringing on the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, but you'll never admit it.


your opinion ... were that the case NO court would have ruled the healthcare law was constitutional, not just a few ,ALL.


see how that works ?

but youll never admit it

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

your opening comment IB ...


The real issue is Obamacare is infringing on the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, but you'll never admit it.


your opinion ... were that the case NO court would have ruled the healthcare law was constitutional, not just a few ,ALL.


see how that works ?

but youll never admit it

BigLiar lied, and you tried to defend his position. Now that you cannot dismiss the facts, you remain quibbling in denial.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

BigLiar lied, and you tried to defend his position. Now that you cannot dismiss the facts, you remain quibbling in denial.

quit fucking deflecting ... but I repeat myself.

nonetheless, for all the simpletons

the healthcare law mandates insurance that covers birth control (if you want it)



should the catholics et al not use birth control, the healthcare law does not force them to BUY RUBBERS OR BC PILLS and use them. Nobody is forcing them to do squat against their religion.

1St Amendment talking point, DISMSSED!


quibble that.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

quit fucking deflecting .
should the catholics et al not use birth control, the healthcare law does not force them to BUY RUBBERS OR BC PILLS and use them. Nobody is forcing them to do squat against their religion.

1St Amendment talking point, DISMSSED!

You are a liar or you really are a genuine dumbass. No deflection! Obamacare IS requiring the Catholic Church to go against tenets that are fundamental to its doctrine which IS a violation of the First Amendment.