Conservablogger: Search results for marco rubio

My Nephew and I have been engaging in a serious back and forth over the merits of forcing the Catholic Church to supply contraception as part of their healthcare plans.

I'm against this idea... my Nephew doesn't have a problem with it.

I'm posting the Facebook comment thread in its entirety:

Be part of the discussion below.
------------

Good luck getting a radical bill like this through thecurrent Senate. Better yet, if it does make it through, good luck getting the Prez to sign it.

Marco Rubio Introduces Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 | The American Catholic
the-american-catholic.com

Rapidly rising Republican star Senator Marco Rubio (R.Fla.) introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 to counter the Obama mandated coverage of contraceptives.

·  ·  · Share · Monday at 11:38pm

Luke Taverne Doesn't obama's proposed bill allow insurance companies to provide the coverage for contraceptives directly to the employees, without dealing with the employer? Employees of a company don't necessarily share the same religious beliefs as the official company ones.

15 hours ago ·

Gary Stratton It is obvious that the BIG ZERO doesn't understand that most large companies are SELF INSURED when providing health insurance to their employees. The insurance company only manages the health plan for the company... the company actually pays the bills.

14 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne

Well, the law doesn't "allow" insurance companies, it forces them to provide it... so what will the insurance companies do? They'll off set the costs by raising the rates of others.... When did they make contraception a "right" that the government has to force on people. What if people don't agree with contraception, because of their faith, why should they foot the insurance bill that pays for it? This law isn't about contraception, its about the government's ability to override conscience. This violates the constitution. The federal government can't be mandating things to religious people like this. This isn't a "woman's health" issue either. What happened to separation of church and state the left keeps shoving down our throats. Does that only apply when religious symbols or prayer is desired in public schools? 'Fundamental secularism' is a religion... the government can't be allowed to force this religion on us. We have the right to the free exercise of our religion., and government can't be allowed to establish a religion. Obamacare is driving a wedge into religion, and we have to nip it in the bud.

14 hours ago ·

Gary Stratton Daniel... I was agreeing with you...

14 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne

I know, you posted yours while I was writing my response. I don't know how anyone, no matter how enlightened they think they are, can allow the government to violate the constitution like this. It is self evident (after all) that we are endowed by 'our creator' with our right's... the first amendment is an important one... We werent' endowed with the 'right' to contraception! We were endowed with the right to refrain from sexual relations if pregnancy is unwanted! They are attacking the Catholic faith this time, who is next? Maybe they'll go after Jewish faith, or baptists next.... this sets a bad precident.

14 hours ago ·

Luke Taverne They aren't attacking your faith. Just as the government isn't allowed to force its beliefs on you, your religious beliefs can't be forced onto others. This includes the beliefs of Catholics preventing people from obtaining affordable birth control.

14 hours ago ·

Luke Taverne And if you want to argue the "footing the bill" way, pregnancy is much more expensive than birth control. A private insurance company already pays for pre-natal care, and the babies health insurance after it is born. Costs to the employees would remain the same or even go down depending on the current rate of unwanted pregnancies that result in childbirth.

13 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne If I worked at a catholic hospital, I would never expect the religious institution to pay for my contraception. How expensive are condoms? How expensive are other forms of safe sex? But, this isn't only about the birth control. More importantly, it's about the limits of our government. I'm wondering, Do you believe our constitution is a "charter of negative liberties"?

13 hours ago ·

Luke Taverne What do you mean by a charter of negative liberties?

13 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs Do you think the constitution should have been written as to enumerate what the government must do on your behalf?

Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv
www.youtube.com

Obama talking about the negative liberties of the constitution and redistribution of wealth
12 hours ago ·  ·

Luke Taverne The constitution is protecting the rights of individual citizens. When insurance companies make outrageous profits by refusing to pay for care, the government needs to step in.

12 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne I'm not saying the government has no role, I'm saying the government can't trample on the rights of the faith-based institution... the right to the free exercise of its religion. Contraception is a choice, not a right. If a person doesn't like the mandate of the institution he or she works for, he or she can find another job... for someone else.

12 hours ago ·

Luke Taverne

That's not how employment works. Title VII prevents employers from discriminating hiring based on faith. Employers can't say "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" based on an employees refusal to comply with their religion. Freedom of religion applies equally to employees and employers. Employers can't just choose an arbitrary set of rules and say "if you don't like it, leave," whether those rules come from the bible or not.

8 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne

If the person does not like the arrangement, that person has every right to choose to work for someone else. Contraception is not a basic right. The religious institutions were... are supplying healthcare insurance. The issue at hand is the contraception... that the government does not have the constitutional authority to mandate people to go against their religious convictions. ... in this case, the Catholic church. Catholics believe... most... including the Pope, believe in the sanctity of life, and that life begins at conception. They view contraception as almost sacrilegious. You are right, the employer can't say, "go somewhere else, but it can set employee rules and behavior ethics. If potential employees don't like them, they can choose to seek employment elsewhere.

6 hours ago ·

Luke Taverne

Saying that a person has the right to choose to work for someone else is true, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that an employer cannot do that under Title VII. Just as an employer can't outright say "go somewhere else," they can't make it a subtle hint either. Discrimination based on religion does rely on employers blatantly stating that they are discriminating.

Contraception means to prevent conception. It's not abortion, and does not terminate a pregnancy after conception.

They can't set behavior ethics rules that infringe on the basic rights of employees. I can't say "My religion dictates that drinking soda is morally wrong, so all employees must not drink soda." It is an employee's right to choose what choices they make outside of work, not the employer's.

On those grounds, the companies have no right to dictate whether employee's should have access to covered birth control. The company beliefs and the beliefs of the employee are totally separate. What it comes down to is the Church trying to force its beliefs on others, and scraping to find some way to hide that intention.

6 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne

No one is trying to make it illegal for folks to obtain contraception. If a worker in a catholic institution seeks it and utilizes it, all well and good. It isn't discrimination for the church to say they won't pay for it - whether it's through insurance or not. Discrimination would be the institution officially treating some people different than others. The view of the church as applied equally to everyone it employs isn't discrimination, its principal. The Catholic church is entitled to its right to conscience. The government's invasion here sets a precedent that opens a door to a road history has shown us really sucks. We can't allow the federal government to dictate what is and isn't acceptable in the eyes of any law abiding religious institution.

4 hours ago ·

Luke Taverne No. It is still discrimination if they treat everyone like that. It doesn't just have to be a few, It's everyone that doesn't have the same views as the church. The employer can't decide what is covered based on arbitrary beliefs.

4 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne

The government is discriminating against the Catholic church because it cant freely express its religion. Individuals who work for them could always go out and buy their own contraception - if they wanted to. ... but its still a sin as is premarital sex. There is such a thing as right and wrong. Morality, though at a very weakened state in this nation is still important. It is not the government's job to legislate morality, nor is it the government's job to decide what does and doesn't constitute morality in the eyes of law abiding religious organizations.

4 hours ago ·

Luke Taverne

Freedom of religion works in the same way as freedom of speech. You can use it so long as it does not harm others, and you cannot hold an audience captive. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded room because you feel like it. The church cannot force its views on its employees. It can freely express its religion so long as it forced on others. Whether or not it is a sin is irrelevant to the law. Also, where in the bible does it say that contraception is a sin? For a married couple for example.

4 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne Here is a link to a bunch of them: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

Scripture Catholic - CONTRACEPTION
www.scripturecatholic.com

Scripture Catholic.com provides citations regarding CONTRACEPTION.
2 hours ago ·  ·

Daniel Taverne

Here are 3 of them: Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics r...See More

2 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne Maybe the president, pelosi and harry Reid condone contraception., maybe many people do, but that does not give government to legislate away the values of a religious institution. This is a violation of the first amendment.

2 hours ago ·

Luke Taverne The first set of quoted Leviticus have to do with homosexuality. The second Leviticus condemns all forms of injury for some reason, including a broken arm. I'm not going to bother to lookup the actual verses for the rest of them. Your website is twisting the words of the bible for its own agenda.

2 hours ago ·

Daniel Taverne

Someone had to be pretty good to engineer all those scriptures to fit an agenda. I can appreciate the logic of making religious institutions supply contraception, but that doesn't make it right. Leaders in the church institutions that oppose contraception should not be forced to compromise their moral authority nor their conscience. Whether or not we agree with each other about the contraception itself is beside the point. What we must be concerned with here is the government taking the bold step of mandating a religious institution to go against its beliefs. What would then stop the government form declaring people over 85 are an economic liability so they should be humanely disposed of. I know this is an extreme example, but the point is that regardless of whether or not it goes against fundamental christian authority to do such a thing (or other more benign things) would be irrelevantStare decisis . The precedent would be set. - Stare decisis - There is an old saying, "What is tolerated today is embraced tomorrow".i

about an hour ago ·

Luke Taverne That's a slippery slope fallacy there. We don't go from allowing people to be covered for contraceptives to euthanasia for old people. That's like one of those new satellite commercials.

Companies who sponsor insurance programs are creating them to take care of the needs of the employee, not just the needs that the employer wants to recognize or deem worthy.

57 minutes ago ·

Daniel Taverne I realize my example was quite a leap. But, if we can dispense with the moral - religious - convictions of one group, then all can be subject to dispensation. Where would the line be drawn? Who would decide?

47 minutes ago ·

Daniel Taverne I'm going to have to be going to bed soon. I have been quite stimulated by our conversation tonight. I am impressed by how well you debate. Myself? I suck at it. lol

42 minutes ago ·

Luke Taverne The issue isn't dispensing with the morals of a group, but that the morals of one group (the church) are infringing on others who do not share the same moral code.

38 minutes ago ·

Daniel Taverne

The institution is an extension of the church - in effect, it is the church. and is therefor it and its members are afforded the protections of the first amendment. We are back to the choice of the employee. If the job seeker knows contraception is not provided by the health coverage of the institution, he need not apply unless said person is willing to accept the terms of employment. TCatholic hospitals do provide healthcare... they just don't supply this one facet because they view it as a sin. Why aren't we concerned about trampling on the convictions of Catholics? If the issue is so important to current employees, they have the right to go elsewhere. No one is saying they can't. No one is saying they can't purchase their own contraception if they want. The pint is, as I have stated, is the government doesn't have the authority to tell the Catholic church (in this case) to abandon its principals. This is exactly what the government is doing. They are spinning this as a women's health issue... that's not what this is about. It's about the reach and scope of the federal government and the subjugation of religious institutions.

16 minutes ago ·