Religious challenge to Obamacare picks up steam as SCOTUS clears way for challenge

Nov 2012
141
0
USA
I looked up "Liberals" in the dictionary: Small-brained, hateful hypocrites.

There is no public law that students at a school have to give up federal aid if the school stands up for its First Amendment rights. And, if there were, anyone who isn't a Liberal would oppose it as an attempted tyrannical end-run around the Constitution.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
I looked up "Liberals" in the dictionary: Small-brained, hateful hypocrites.

There is no public law that students at a school have to give up federal aid if the school stands up for its First Amendment rights. And, if there were, anyone who isn't a Liberal would oppose it as an attempted tyrannical end-run around the Constitution.

How does this in any way impact a "Student at a School", or infringe on the right to practice religion, speak freely, publish an article, peacefully assemble, or petition a grievance?

~or~

There is no public law that Churches are entitled to federal aid when they decide to challenge federal mandate based on personal dogma specifically denied in the First Amendment.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
Nov 2012
141
0
USA
How does this in any way impact a "Student at a School", or infringe on the right to practice religion, speak freely, publish an article, peacefully assemble, or petition a grievance?

~or~

There is no public law that Churches are entitled to federal aid when they decide to challenge federal mandate based on personal dogma specifically denied in the First Amendment.

You have enough trouble with ignorance without choosing to be deliberately ignorant. This is about a church. It's about an accredited school that provides secular degrees in liberal arts. You want the government to punish them by withholding services that all other schools receive, because it doesn't want its rights violated.

If the government is allowed to punish people for exercising their rights, then it's as if those rights don't exist in the first place.

Your first paragraph, "how does this impact a student at the school" is a bit of a red herring. The government probably pays for 95% of all college education (counting federally-backed student loans and tax credits, and counting state contributions to public universities) in America. Which means that most of those students wouldn't be able to go to Liberty without federal aid. And, even if they could afford it, the huge price premium would likely dissuade them. So, the school itself would likely be forced to close. So, the choice you offer is give up your rights our go out of business.

The answer to "how does this impact a student at the school" is that it would prevent them from going to the school in the first place.
 
Nov 2012
77
0
Novi, Michigan
The assumption here being that because an institution offers birth control or abortions that the religious patients must accept them. If you're religious and don't believe in using certain services, then don't. No one here is forcing anyone to accept any medical services they don't want to accept.
 
Nov 2012
141
0
USA
The assumption here being that because an institution offers birth control or abortions that the religious patients must accept them. If you're religious and don't believe in using certain services, then don't. No one here is forcing anyone to accept any medical services they don't want to accept.

A totally unrelated question having nothing to do with you, your post, or anyone here: Is there a such thing as a fascist who isn't morally bankrupt?

Back to the topic: Bill, how about you address the issue, rather than bullsh!tting? The issue is the service/product itself. Should people be forced to perform/provide things that violate their religious beliefs (at least without an overwhelming government interest)?

It seems to me that in this two-party transaction, you only believe that one party should have any rights. And, I doubt you think even that one party should have any rights. You're simply arguing from expediency, to take away one party's rights before you commit yourself to trampling on the next party's rights.
 
Nov 2012
77
0
Novi, Michigan
Back to the topic: Bill, how about you address the issue, rather than bullsh!tting? The issue is the service/product itself. Should people be forced to perform/provide things that violate their religious beliefs (at least without an overwhelming government interest)?

If they're taking public money, yes. A very simple answer for you.

It seems to me that in this two-party transaction, you only believe that one party should have any rights. And, I doubt you think even that one party should have any rights. You're simply arguing from expediency, to take away one party's rights before you commit yourself to trampling on the next party's rights.

I never said only one party should have rights. What I am saying is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't take federal money and then try to attach strings to it.
 
Nov 2012
141
0
USA
If they're taking public money, yes. A very simple answer for you.

You don't believe practicing Christians should receive government benefits, but you still want to tax them. You probably want to tax Christians at 100% (don't deny it, I wouldn't believe you).

Don't take federal money and then try to attach strings to it.

Reality check: You want to attach strings to federal money, specially giving up one's constitutional rights.
 
Nov 2012
77
0
Novi, Michigan
You don't believe practicing Christians should receive government benefits, but you still want to tax them. You probably want to tax Christians at 100% (don't deny it, I wouldn't believe you).

I don't think religious beliefs have anything to do with government benefits. I believe in seperation of Church and state.



Reality check: You want to attach strings to federal money, specially giving up one's constitutional rights.

Yes. I do want to attach strings to public money. I do not believe that that has anything to do with "giving up" Constitutional rights.
 
Top