3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 If a church is so much against birth control that it cannot support a health care plan that provides birth control for it's employees, why is that church hiring employees that would use birth control in the first place? I can picture the interview now. "Do you use Contaceptives? What kind? Oh, ribbed, eh?" Somehow I think those are questions that might violate the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I can picture the interview now. "Do you use Contaceptives? What kind? Oh, ribbed, eh?" Somehow I think those are questions that might violate the law. They should be able to ask that. Why does the law apply to them? I also don't understand why they are against it (I am not Catholic, so I guess I don't understand a lot of practices)- wouldn't using contraceptives help limit abortions? Wouldn't that be a VERY good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 If a church is so much against birth control that it cannot support a health care plan that provides birth control for it's employees, why is that church hiring employees that would use birth control in the first place? Yeah, there is that...but it's highly illegal to use "are you sexually active?" for employment screening. I don't think many people are arguing that the Catholic Church isn't one of the most bass-ackwards organizations on the planet (they only forgave Galileo about 15 years ago, for example) that ignores the reality that: people have sex, no matter what your official doctrine is. That's not the point. The point is, you have the government effectively forcing them to act counter to their doctrine, which is a potential First Amendment violation. I also don't understand why they are against it (I am not Catholic, so I guess I don't understand a lot of practices)- wouldn't using contraceptives help limit abortions? Wouldn't that be a VERY good thing? It makes no sense. That it makes no sense is also irrelevant. Neither does zombie worship or symbolic ritual cannibalism - both of which are core beliefs in Catholic doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) 1329518292[/url]' post='2385049']Yeah, there is that...but it's highly illegal to use "are you sexually active?" for employment screening. I don't think many people are arguing that the Catholic Church isn't one of the most bass-ackwards organizations on the planet (they only forgave Galileo about 15 years ago, for example) that ignores the reality that: people have sex, no matter what your official doctrine is. That's not the point. The point is, you have the government effectively forcing them to act counter to their doctrine, which is a potential First Amendment violation. It's not a question of sexual activity. Its a question of using birth control while being sexually active. So, why can't they ask someone's opinion on birth control, or any other issues dear to their heart? Or only hire devote catholics in their community? But, as I see it, they want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, hire anyone they want and deny them coverage because its against their beliefs. Is that not forcing their beliefs on someone? Can the church determine that each employee must donate a large portion of their pay back to the church, effectively dropping your rate of pay below minimum wage? My point being that there are certain standards that employers - employers being the operative word - must adhere to (whether we like them or not). At what point do we allow religious oganizations to pick and choose the laws they wish to follow all in the name of religious freedom. And, yes, individuals don't have to work for a chuch and be subjected to any of this. But, imo, churches that feel so strongly on certain issue have the same ability to not hire those indivuals. Effectively, making this all nonsense. Edited February 17, 2012 by Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 And, yes, individuals don't have to work for a chuch and be subjected to any of this. But, imo, churches that feel so strongly on certain issue have the same ability to not hire those indivuals. Effectively, making this all nonsense. Actually, they don't. It's discriminatory to hire based on such criteria. If you want to argue that they should, then fine. But they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 It is not uncommon for females who are not sexually active to take birth-control, to control irregular menstrual cycles and alleviate extreme menstrual cramping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 It's not a question of sexual activity. Its a question of using birth control while being sexually active. So, why can't they ask someone's opinion on birth control, or any other issues dear to their heart? Or only hire devote catholics in their community? But, as I see it, they want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, hire anyone they want and deny them coverage because its against their beliefs. Is that not forcing their beliefs on someone? Can the church determine that each employee must donate a large portion of their pay back to the church, effectively dropping your rate of pay below minimum wage? My point being that there are certain standards that employers - employers being the operative word - must adhere to (whether we like them or not). At what point do we allow religious oganizations to pick and choose the laws they wish to follow all in the name of religious freedom. And, yes, individuals don't have to work for a chuch and be subjected to any of this. But, imo, churches that feel so strongly on certain issue have the same ability to not hire those indivuals. Effectively, making this all nonsense. Now that I think about it, why would somebody want to have cake, if they weren't going to eat it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 If a church is so much against birth control that it cannot support a health care plan that provides birth control for it's employees, why is that church hiring employees that would use birth control in the first place? OMG, no you didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 It is not uncommon for females who are not sexually active to take birth-control, to control irregular menstrual cycles and alleviate extreme menstrual cramping. For example: I'm sure DIN does. They (drug companies) could just as easily dodge that objection by saying "It's not birth control, it's anti-cramping medication" or some such. But the Catholic Church is probably against that, too. "You made Adam eat the apple; you can suffer, bitches." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 That it makes no sense is also irrelevant. Neither does zombie worship or symbolic ritual cannibalism - both of which are core beliefs in Catholic doctrine. They finally abandoned transubstantiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 They finally abandoned transubstantiation? Forgot about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 Santorum doubling down on his uber-Christian nonsense. Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology," Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel. http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-says-obama-agenda-not-based-bible-011457960.html He also points out Romney's great accomplishment, the Olympics, was all bought and paid for by pork from our great Federal government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Santorum doubling down on his uber-Christian nonsense. http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-says-obama-agenda-not-based-bible-011457960.html He also points out Romney's great accomplishment, the Olympics, was all bought and paid for by pork from our great Federal government Paid for by legislation that Santorum approved. All of these ass clowns on both sides of the aisle have no shame. Also, this is nice; Http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57380887-503544/santorum-im-a-proud-culture-warrior/ Santorum is against the inclusion of prenatal testing "because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society." I'd like to know what Jim Kelly thinks about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts