In Kansas, a bill to protect religious freedom angers gays

posted at 4:55 pm on February 16, 2012 by Tina Korbe

The Department of Health and Human Services has states spooked. At least, legislators in Kansas cited the administration’s contraception mandate as a reason to expedite passage of a bill to protect religious freedoms:

Supporters of a proposal in Kansas that’s described as an attempt to protect religious freedoms told state legislators Tuesday that President Obama’s ill-fated mandate for insurance coverage of birth control is a compelling example of why the measure is needed. …

The state House Judiciary Committee had a hearing on the proposed Preservation of Religious Freedom Act and is expected to vote on it by Monday. State Rep. Lance Kinzer, a Republican who is committee chairman, contends the measure simply writes into state law language from past Kansas court decisions for determining when government policies place too much of a burden on practicing religion. …

The bill would declare that state- and local-government policies shall not “substantially burden” people’s right to exercise their religious beliefs without showing a compelling interest and imposing the burden in the least restrictive way possible. It also would declare that people have the right to sue state and local government agencies if they feel their religious freedoms have been abridged.

Liberal activists in the state are not happy about this statute — but not because they support the president’s mandate (although they probably do). No, they’re worried that the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act will be used to nullify local and state laws to prevent bias — not just discrimination, but bias — against gays. The bill specifically says that the prevention of discriminatory practices — as outlined by Kansas state law and the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions — is a compelling interest for which the state might burden the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about local anti-bias ordinances that seek to make up for the fact that Kansas state law does nothing to prevent discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

The response of these gay activists is instructive. It’s a further indication that some gay advocates think the free exercise of religion — when it reveals a bias against gay behavior — should itself be construed as discrimination. It underscores that an overlap exists between the purported rights of gays to marry and the long-acknowledged, constitutionally-enshrined right to religious freedom. Someday, for example, might the state not compel churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies or compel landlords to rent to gay couples even if they’re religiously opposed to gay behavior? I know a landlord who won’t rent to cohabiting couples because she’s religiously opposed. Should she not have the right to rent her property to whomever she wishes? The battle for state-recognized same-sex marriage is thorny precisely because of the way in which it eventually touches on religious freedom.

Incidentally, this Kansas statute sounds a little like the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed the House of Representatives unanimously, passed the Senate by a vote of 97-3 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. That statute says the federal government may “substantially burden” a person’s “exercise of religion” only if it “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering” that interest. The existence of the federal law doesn’t obviate the need for similar laws at a state level, but it is worth noting in this post that the federal law exists — and the HHS contraception mandate is in clear violation of it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

tom on February 17, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Let me help you.

Your sexual orientation is none of my business. It’s none of the Government’s business.

If you have issues with “homosexuality” for whatever reason….that’s fine…..this is America….and I’d suggest that you don’t engage in homosexuality. Problem solved.

You’re going to have to forgive me, however, if I don’t want to play your word games.

When it comes to politics….your sexual orientation, religion, or skin color, are about as important to me as your favorite sandwich.

WTF is hapening to this place?

Tim_CA on February 17, 2012 at 1:00 AM

There is no compelling reason to assume homosexuality is of equal value to normal sexuality.

tom on February 17, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Sexual preferences between consenting adults is a little like religious conscience. There really isn’t any compelling reason to assume that one sect or faith is of any greater value than another. If there was we would all humankind would be unified in one faith and that obviously isn’t the case. Christianity itself was itself once a perversion of an existing religion followed by a minority.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 1:01 AM

hotair is slowly being ruined by trolls…

ninjapirate on February 16, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Who do you believe is more responsible for troll-disruption: the trolls, or those who take the trolls’ bait?

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2012 at 1:20 AM

The LGBT advocacy groups in KS are centered in Lawrence (home of the Univ. of Kansas), in Douglas County, the only “blue” county in the state (out of over 100) and the nearest thing we have to Berkley CA. All things “liberal/progressive” emanate therefrom, and there are scattered adherents to their agendae elsewhere across the state, always agitating for power and control over others in the name of their latest victim-group-du-jour…

They had the upper hand here in Manhattan (home of K-State Univ. and the *2nd* largest LGBT-gang of victim-mongers) *until* the TEA party groups hereabout successfully flipped the City Commission in the last election from 3-2 lib (with 2 K-State professors and a “Mini-Me” who echoed their every move) to 3-1-1 CONSERVATIVE. The new Commission promptly repealed the freshly enacted “gender non-discrimination” regulations (better described as “anti-landlord/anti-business/anti-employer freedom law”) in their very first action. They also put a stop to the tax-&-spend habits of the previous Commissions and put the City on course to fiscal sanity…

Have no doubt that TEA Party/conservative activism can & does have enormous impact, especially on the local level…

“Our freedom is not for sale, and we reserve the right to defend it from theft.” ~ Doctor Zero

“Cogito, ergo TEA Party!” ~ DeepWheat

DeepWheat on February 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Salina is currently talking about a “non-discrimination” law for gays:
http://www.ksallink.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=20922&format=html

I have heard that Wichita is trying to pass one too, but is keeping it on the down low (ha!).

I am glad to hear that Manhattan repealed their law, Deep Wheat.

cptacek on February 17, 2012 at 1:44 AM

It looks like we have to remind people of what “homophobia” is.

If you are against gays and lesbians being left free to molest children, you are homophobic.

If you are against gays and lesbians dressing toddlers as slaves and taking them to a sex fair, you are homophobic.

If you believe gays and lesbians who sexually harass their coworkers should be subject to the same penalties, including firing, as their heterosexual coworkers would be, you are homophobic.

Are we clear on that now?

northdallasthirty on February 17, 2012 at 1:45 AM

fatlibertarianinokc on February 17, 2012 at 12:49 AM

If everyone who supported gay rights had your attitude, I believe the movement would be a lot further along than it is now.

Many gay activists don’t understand that the decision to push for acceptance, often obnoxiously, rather than work for understanding & tolerance alone turns off many straights who otherwise wouldn’t much care what homosexuals do – insulting people on the Right who don’t agree with you in order to change their perspective doesn’t tend to work out very well lol

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2012 at 1:48 AM

I’m all for gay rights but I think your gaydar just might be picking up phantom signals. Remember that guy on the show Are you Being Served which was repeated for several decades on PBS? He was like that in real life too and he wasn’t gay at all. Straight guys can be camp just as there are burly ‘men’s men’ who turn out to be gay.

Mr Humphries (1) was quite light in the loafers, indeed.

Jeddite on February 17, 2012 at 1:49 AM

It’s not about supporting the issue one way or the other.. it’s about standing up for a gay kid who is THIS CLOSE to committing suicide (and NINE already have in that state – NINE – )..

I mean, you think its your right to not stand up for homosexual teens when they’re being bullied? You think the whole homosexual aspect is wrong?

I think letting a gay kid die is wrong.

You all have blood on your hands.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Oh, the ever present amusement value of the ignorant, hypocritical bigot.

You see, “triple”, given your vapors about nine kids dying, the thought that approximately 9,814 kids and young adults — over one thousand times as many — were given HIV should drive you into an utter fit of apopolexy.

That is, of course, if you and your fellow liberals weren’t the ones infecting them.

And insisting that it is normal and “common” for adults to have sex with children.

Isn’t that interesting? “Triple” is screaming and insisting that Christians have blood on their hands for suicides with which they had nothing to do — while he and his fellow liberals are deliberately and directly infecting and sickening THOUSANDS of children.

And that’s what makes it obvious that you are a bigot, “triple”. You don’t care one bit about these children; if you did, you wouldn’t be disabling, maiming, and killing thousands of them so that you could get your thrills. You have no problem with a kid dying of a disease that you gave them.

northdallasthirty on February 17, 2012 at 2:08 AM

JetBoy on February 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM
Hey Jet-wanna adopt two cats? They’re anarchats.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 17, 2012 at 2:31 AM

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Is there any chance of inherent mental instability?

smoothsailing on February 17, 2012 at 3:05 AM

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Is the church supposed to change it’s stance to accommodate declining morality?

smoothsailing on February 17, 2012 at 3:09 AM

This looks a lot like a nation under judgement.

tom daschle concerned on February 17, 2012 at 3:18 AM

Sexual preferences between consenting adults is a little like religious conscience. There really isn’t any compelling reason to assume that one sect or faith is of any greater value than another.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Then why do you look down on certain sexual preferences? After all, none have any greater value than another.

blink on February 17, 2012 at 1:49 AM

I have my own sexual preferences but within the range specified in my comment, no I don’t look down on others who prefer something different.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 3:36 AM

Is the church supposed to change it’s stance to accommodate declining morality?

smoothsailing on February 17, 2012 at 3:09 AM

This is what I wrote about earlier. Being gay or bisexual itself is not the sin, even according to fundamentalists. It’s the actual ACT OF SEX that’s supposed to be a sin.

So why not welcome gay and bisexuals into the fold BUT teach/preach to them about the dangers of a promiscuous lifestyle? The point would be to separate sexual behavior from orientation. The orientation should not be demonized because it happens outside our control. Sexual acts on the other hand are completely in our own control.

The best course of action would actually to encourage gay people to seek long-term marriages just as it is for their straight counterparts. But let’s face it, there’s fear, personal disgust and other hangups that play into this.

This conversation we’ve had on this one thread is more than any church I’ve ever seen. Their ignorance of it makes a bad situation worse. This is why, among other issues, I no longer have much respect for churches. The one place that you should be able to go to get answers about morality, sin and sex and they hide their face in shame. The churches of America (whatever faith) have greatly failed us.

Don’t get me started on Churches and their glossing over the evil of war. Or the evil of the MONEY CHANGERS. LOL

fatlibertarianinokc on February 17, 2012 at 3:55 AM

fatlibertarianinokc on February 17, 2012 at 3:55 AM

Your Bible doesn’t have Leviticus?

smoothsailing on February 17, 2012 at 4:00 AM

I’m all for gay rights but I think your gaydar just might be picking up phantom signals. Remember that guy on the show Are you Being Served which was repeated for several decades on PBS? He was like that in real life too and he wasn’t gay at all. Straight guys can be camp just as there are burly ‘men’s men’ who turn out to be gay.

Mr Humphries (1) was quite light in the loafers, indeed.

Jeddite on February 17, 2012 at 1:49 AM

Well, I stand humbly, very humbly, corrected on that one… thank you! I have thought for ages that the guy was happily married with a family. lol

OK… Mr Bachmann must be GAY!!!! lol

Thanks again for relieving me of my delusion.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 4:28 AM

I’m ol’ school, homosexuality is a act/crime against nature.

hoi polloi on February 17, 2012 at 4:44 AM

I’m ol’ school, homosexuality is a act/crime against nature.

hoi polloi on February 17, 2012 at 4:44 AM

..and yet homosexual behavior is also present in nature.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM

..and yet homosexual behavior is also present in nature.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM

And so is increasing the fitness of your progeny via infanticide of competitors.

Yay naturalism!

tom daschle concerned on February 17, 2012 at 5:38 AM

I want to add to Deep Wheats comments.

The key part of the LGBT plan in Manhattan, Kansas was their own Star Chamber, where the members could fine those they deemed discriminatory. This was outside the court system, and seemed to have little due process, protection for the innocent, or a robust appeal system.

There appeared to be no need for the entire process. Manhattan is a pretty tolerant college town. Power for LGBT’s, but not for anyone who violated their feelings. Sanity prevailed in the end.

NaCly dog on February 17, 2012 at 6:25 AM

..and yet homosexual behavior is also present in nature.
lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM

As are all crimes against nature.

tommyboy on February 17, 2012 at 6:32 AM

Sexual preferences between consenting adults is a little like religious conscience. There really isn’t any compelling reason to assume that one sect or faith is of any greater value than another.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Well, you may believe that if you wish BUT the fact remains is that the government has NO business dictating either sexuality OR religious preference. So your statement should read,” There shouldn’t be any compelling reason to assume that one sect or faith is of any greater value than another.” For example,if someone doesn’t want to rent private property to someone who they disagree with morally, it is their right to do that. Conversely,the government essentially does the same thing by not allowing nativity scenes or religious paraphernalia in public areas.

The facts remain, you cannot and should not legislate morality. It is socialism pure and simple AND avoids a key tenet of freedom : personal responsibility.

DevilsPrinciple on February 17, 2012 at 7:08 AM

..and yet homosexual behavior is also present in nature.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 5:02 AM

This is the gay communities next outreach program. To place in motion legislation advancing the rights of bestiality and sex with minors. Homosexuality is a deviancy. Anything that doesn’t promote species propagation is an aberration in nature.

If it occurs elsewhere in nature other than humans , it CANNOT be homosexuality.”Homo” aka Genus humans, IMPLIES human,BUT not elsewhere in nature.

Get a grip. And an education.

DevilsPrinciple on February 17, 2012 at 7:18 AM

Sexual preferences between consenting adults is a little like religious conscience. There really isn’t any compelling reason to assume that one sect or faith is of any greater value than another.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Well, again, you want to sound “important”, aka “look down at others preferences”, and act as though you know what you are talking about. Again, you’re wrong, as usual.

Yes, the sexual preference of heterosexuality has FAR greater value. One that homosexuality cannot offer or hope to achieve.

Procreation. AND the protection of the survival of the species.( aka marriage)

DevilsPrinciple on February 17, 2012 at 7:25 AM

And that’s what makes it obvious that you are a bigot, “triple”. You don’t care one bit about these children; if you did, you wouldn’t be disabling, maiming, and killing thousands of them so that you could get your thrills. You have no problem with a kid dying of a disease that you gave them.

northdallasthirty on February 17, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Or, dare I say, outright murdering them by supporting abortions as a principle tenet of liberalism.

DevilsPrinciple on February 17, 2012 at 7:29 AM

Someday, for example, might the state not compel churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies or compel landlords to rent to gay couples even if they’re religiously opposed to gay behavior?

5… 4… 3…

petefrt on February 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Someday, for example, might the state not compel churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies or compel landlords to rent to gay couples even if they’re religiously opposed to gay behavior? – 5… 4… 3… – petefrt on February 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM

I am gay and will stand with the churches in this case.

SC.Charlie on February 17, 2012 at 7:42 AM

RE THE pill, I’m loving the argument that the pill is being marketed as a women’s health necessity. Has anyone actually listened to the health warnings after the pill commercials? And it increases the risk for breast cancer and cervical and liver cancers.

As regards THE pill as a treatment, you can get it in other pills.

BTW, has Kathleen Mao determined exactly WHO’s going to get sued by 1-800-BAD DRUG?

And why should birth control pills be without a co-pay? Facilitating one’s sex life isn’t exactly like buying cancer-treating drugs or inhalers for asthmatics or anti-biotics are they?
The cost of buying the pill at full price is less than the co-pay on these literally life-saving drugs, not the phony, “a woman is essentially a sexual being with nothing between her ears so we need to make sure she has a pill to prevent or absolve her personal behavior. Women are the weaker sex, right?”

Killing a baby is a choice and now killing it free is a “right”?

Portia46 on February 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM

The bill would declare that state- and local-government policies shall not “substantially burden” people’s right to exercise their religious beliefs without showing a compelling interest and imposing the burden in the least restrictive way possible. It also would declare that people have the right to sue state and local government agencies if they feel their religious freedoms have been abridged.

Fitting that the state that produced the filthy partisan whore behind the contraception mandate is in the lead of protecting religion.

Happy Nomad on February 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM

A few observations about the gay marriage issue.

Marriage between a man and a woman has been part of all cultures for as long as there are historical records. Even Greece which celebrated sex with young boys held marriage sacrosanct. Marriage is help by most churches as one of the most important of its sacraments and all of the above has to do with procreation, an condition that cannot exist in a gay marriage for obvious reasons.

Catholic adoptions services in Mass has already had to close because the state has determined that they discriminate against homosexual “married” couples.

Research indicates that there are some serious long-term adverse affects on children from same-sex adoptions, including an increased number of kids who are exposed to sexual practices long before they’re developmentally ready with a substantial increase in depression and suicide. There’s also indications that much of the research done which claims otherwise do not meet clinical standards for scientific research. See: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php

The comparison between practicing homosexual sex and race in terms of status under the Civil Rights Act is illogical. Treating someone differently based on race is totally artificial. That’s like the law treating someone with blue eyes differently. Some research indicates that homosexuality is a matter of birth and genes, although studies of identical twins question that conclusion. Regardless no law can adjust for inherited personal traits and it seems very strange that in a culture which allows great latitude for personal and sexual behavior, why this demand to change the historical and cultural tradition of marriage? Perhaps men and women who marry should be able to distinquish themselves by using something like “T” marriage since the traditional term will be made meaningless. I mean even in matters of civility, one ought to be able to address something to Mr. and Mrs. without insulting the recipient. (BTW, in homosexual marriages, how do they decide which name to take? How do you address them? Mr and Mr James Jones? Mrs. and Mrs. Alice Cooper?)

Portia46 on February 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I cannot wait for Rick Santorum’s (probably second term) Supreme Court nominees. Put an end to liberal assaults on our religious values and freedoms, all in the name of “political correctness”. Pretending Equality between unequals is hypocrisy without merit.

Captain Obvious on February 17, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Let me help you with a better example…

Should religious schools be able to keep homosexual behavior out of their schools? This is the biggy… forcing churches to marry gays is on no one’s agenda and when conservatives bring that up you just give liberals a straw man they can use.

ninjapirate on February 16, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Someday, for example, might the state not compel churches to perform atheist wedding ceremonies or compel landlords to rent to inter-racial couples even if they’re religiously opposed to such?

I mean…as long as were asking dumb hypothetical questions…right?

verbaluce on February 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM

It’s not a dumb hypothetical once you take into account that it is actually happening in other countries. For example, did you know that is actually illegal in Sweden for someone to publicly condemn homosexuality, even if it is in a church?

This is what liberals always do; they mock and deride any form of suspicion as completely paranoid lunacy, just to lower people’s guard and actually do what the alarmists said they would in the first place. Freedom isn’t lost out in broad daylight, but in the dark of the night, piece by piece while no one is paying attention.

Viewtifulgare on February 17, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 6:38 PM

An excellent post, Boomer. We may not agree on a candidate (especially since I really have none I can wholeheartedly support in the race), but your post was well reasoned, well written, realisitc in a modern world, and acknowledging of both reasonable arguments on each side. kudos.

gravityman on February 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Oh dear. For a group that has claimed time and again to want to be left alone to pursue their relationships in private they do spend an inordinate amount of time seeking publicity and political favoritism.

jangle12 on February 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM

tom on February 17, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Let me help you.

Your sexual orientation is none of my business. It’s none of the Government’s business.

If you have issues with “homosexuality” for whatever reason….that’s fine…..this is America….and I’d suggest that you don’t engage in homosexuality. Problem solved.

You’re going to have to forgive me, however, if I don’t want to play your word games.

When it comes to politics….your sexual orientation, religion, or skin color, are about as important to me as your favorite sandwich.

WTF is hapening to this place?

Tim_CA on February 17, 2012 at 1:00 AM

That’s an awful lot of assumptions. Yes, there is a culture war going on, and a big part of it is trying to control the language to make certain words and phrases unacceptable, or to push people to use approved words and phrases.

We should recognize the manipulation in order to avoid being manipulated. Good for anyone who refuses to play along!

But your post amounts to accusing me of playing games with semantics, when I’m simply refusing to play the game. Why not blame the people who are actually trying to control the language?

tom on February 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Sexual preferences between consenting adults is a little like religious conscience. There really isn’t any compelling reason to assume that one sect or faith is of any greater value than another.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 1:01 AM

This reasoning makes no sense at all. If I believe that people who aren’t born again through Christ end up in hell and you don’t believe that, then one of us is right and one of us is wrong. If a Muslim believes a non-Muslim will not enter Paradise, and you disagree, one person is right and the other is wrong. So, yeah, the one that’s true does have a greater value. People can disagree and think they are right in their beliefs even if they contradict another person’s beliefs, but this stuff about one sect or faith has no greater value than the other is silliness. If a belief contradicts someone elses belief then one person is right and the other is wrong. We may not know who is right this side of life, but of course some beliefs have greater value than other beliefs. Not even relating to the sexuality debate, to say that everyone is right and we need to accept every belief as valid even if they blatantly contradict each other makes no logical sense at all.

BakerAllie on February 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Is the church supposed to change it’s stance to accommodate declining morality?

smoothsailing on February 17, 2012 at 3:09 AM

The more salient question is “Why is it immoral in the first place?” There is certainly no rational basis for prohibitions on homosexuality or gay marriage based off the harm it would cause society in general. No, homosexuality is immoral simply because it’s been declared immoral. It’s like if the church said it was immoral to get out of bed on the left-hand side or be born with brown skin. The church should absolutely hold the line and not change its stance on issues that are truly moral ones like murder, theft and the like but if something is being done for no good reason then perhaps it is time for them to rethink their position.

alchemist19 on February 17, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Who is surprised by this?

Really, anti-bullying laws are not only a way to indoctrinate the youth but to elminate free thought from the workplace.

madmonkphotog on February 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM

That’s an awful lot of assumptions.

Honestly not assumptions…..wouldn’t presume to assume…just making a point.

Yes, there is a culture war going on, and a big part of it is trying to control the language to make certain words and phrases unacceptable, or to push people to use approved words and phrases.

We should recognize the manipulation in order to avoid being manipulated. Good for anyone who refuses to play along!

Why not just stop playing the game? “Culture wars” have been used as political wedges for millenea.

But your post amounts to accusing me of playing games with semantics, when I’m simply refusing to play the game. Why not blame the people who are actually trying to control the language

tom on February 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Again tom, no accusations intended….I’m just not gonna play.

Tim_CA on February 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM

The Chinese and other competitors must think we’re idiots.

bayam on February 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Would it be okay for me to think the Chinese are idiots? Or is that racist–you know to think that another race of people as “idiots”?

Control of Birth is something that the Chinese are surely “wise” about, right?

I’m about fed up with the progressive teenager-like indignation that they have to be seen with people who are not as cool and current as they are. Deal with it, I have to be seen in a country where people can argue no better than you and daily simply assert their paradigm to “prove” it.

Axeman on February 18, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Is “tyranny of the minority” any better?

squint on February 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM

To the elites, yes.

Axeman on February 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Contraception…. Come on guys, going to bat against allow women as free individuals …

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Only took you until the second paragraph for the Lets-be-reasonable hood to fall off and to start building straw men. If Cathy’s insurance company does not cover procedure Y, and you simply agree that they can decide what to cover, are you “against Cathy as a free individual” benefiting from such a procedure?

Your pretty useless as a conservative (if that’s what you are) to take Obama’s hook on this.

to insure themselves for birth control and the pap smears and things that come along with it doesn’t help anybody and it sure as hell doesn’t help the case against abortion, the real evil.

A lot of people cite peripheral founders like Thomas Jefferson on separation of Church and State and religious liberty. But the “right of conscience” is specifically mentioned in the Federalist Papers. One of the central tenets of right of conscience is that it is wrong to make someone pay for something that you cannot make a free individual pay for what is morally repugnant to them.

Besides, it appears that in your lemming apologetic for Obamacare that you really seem to be against the right of elderly people “as free individuals” to purchase such care as they need. So your “free individual” rhetoric is vapor.

Besides, I’m not against you taking your money and the money of people so interested and creating a Contraception for Catholics charity.

You know, just because you and the media can spin this to be all about contraception doesn’t mean that it’s the only issue involved. I really don’t think it would cost that much if you were to create a charity that was mainly for employees of Catholic organizations who wanted to use contraception. Or is the plight of these people only desperate when it uses other people’s money?

Axeman on February 18, 2012 at 5:08 PM

For the most part, one can’t pick and choose their customers/clients.

You enter the public arena, you are beholden to a bunch of laws. You can’t just wave that off because you believe in whatever.

Moesart on February 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

I see what you mean. Because the Church could have a negative affect on patriotism, it wasn’t really in their court to decide not to substitute the “Our Father” with the “Our Fuhrer”.

In the public square you don’t really have any solid rights. I get it. I love how you “sensible people” secure our rights so well.

Axeman on February 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3