Well you can't take us out of it. Nobody said free contraception is a human right. The laws of this land say that the access to contraception will be covered as a medical expense (which does lower the cost). If you don't like the law call your Congressman and tell him to tell the millions of Americans who use contraception to piss off! To quote you "Welcome to Democracy!"

The constitution says there will be a separation of church and state. You have argued that means a church can say "this law is against my faith so I am exempt". I say it means the exact opposite. It means, nobody really cares about what you believe or about your faith, go worship mushrooms or cacti if you want, but that does not make you exempt or give you any special status when it comes to the laws of this land.

Nobody is making anybody take contraception!

(Oh wait a minute, there are laws against worshiping mushrooms and cacti unless you are Native American...Now that is Tyranny!)

It is people like you that make Libertarians a scary joke!

Really? Because it was you who said: "Does a blanket doctrine of separation of church and state supersede individual rights? Say, the right to medication?"

Care to clarify then?



The law of the land that is being reviewed by the Supreme Court as we speak? That law? And if costs are lowered, what the hell difference does that make? You mean, if it raised costs then it would be somehow unconstitutional? Oh and trust me, plenty of Congressmen have already been kicked out because of this tyrannical overreach by the Obama regime. There is another message coming in November when we sweep the rest of your ilk out.




Really? Where does it say that?



Ahh I see, so you take this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" to mean: "Congress shall pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion".. That's just great.. Let's hope your kind never interprets the next part: "or abridging the freedom of speech" or we are in even more trouble..



Really, is that so oh constitutional scholar? So churches are exempt from taxes why exactly? Cmon, let's hear your deranged reasoning on this one..

I oppose churches being exempt from taxes! Always have. You can ask people around here who know me and they will back me up on that!

You are a faux liberal!!

and you are a copy cat, nah nah nah nah nah an (with a raspberry!!!)

And you did not respond to half of what I wrote, because you can't.

Nobody said Catholics can not practice their religion! Nobody said Catholics have to take contraception!

What I am saying, is they can not use religion to justify breaking the law!

If the law is overturned, then they won't be breaking it!

Who says they are breaking the law? They haven't broken any law yet. What they will most likely do in the end is stop offering insurance. How will you feel about your stance then?

OK, if that is their solution. Punish everybody because they got their feelings hurt! Nobody cares about their direct connection to a superior being! So sad! That will also take them down a peg or two when it comes to the "Employer of the Year Awards" or the "Employer of Choice".

It is, however, a solution!

Another answer could be...WHY DO WE HAVE EMPLOYER BASED HEALTH INSURANCE ANYWAY? Then this wouldn't be an issue!

(you watch, he is going to call me a socialist with shit in my hair buying underwear at Kmart, Jafo is so predictable)

It is you who are doing it. Would you purchase a product if you knew it was going to support something you were opposed to? No you wouldn't. This administrations opinion is that it will force insurance companies to provide a service that some religious groups oppose (not just Catholics mind you, many Muslims are against contraception too). Then you turn your nose up at them when they express their outrage. The church WANTS to give health care to their employees and you want to take it away. Oh how caring the left is these days!

Mind you, Catholic charities are the largest private supplier of social services in this country. These are the people who you say do not exist when we talk about people taking care of each other. You are forcing them to make a moral decision because you are injecting your morality (free contraception for all) into their business. Tell me, who is punishing whom?



See, watch this, I ALWAYS answer your questions, even though you haven't answered mine...

Employers offer health care purely as an incentive to attain workers, that is why they are called BENEFITS. They do not do it for any type of altruism. If you run a store and I run a store and we are going after the same workers to run our store, and I offer health insurance, and you don't, who do you think will get the better candidates?

You do understand (as of now) there is no mandate for business to offer any kind of insurance right? There is no employer based health care SYSTEM.

I am not forcing anybody to do anything but obey the law.

I am not opposed to Catholic charities. I never said I was? It does not mean there are strings attached!

Yes, employers offer health care to attain workers (well some do). I understand how it works! That is why there are so many people without health insurance in this country.

I do believe I am the one who said that if they did not offer Health Insurance they would not be the EMPLOYER OF CHOICE!

You are using the "law" to force people to accept your morality. Tell me again where Obama gets the power to tell insurance companies what they must cover? Boy I bet the Republicans can't wait to use that power when they get into office. I myself am looking forward to your outrage when they pass a law saying all employers must offer free firearms to their employees



Really? Then you won't mind if they don't want to buy your insurance then?



There are so many people without health insurance because they choose not to attain it. According to the FCC latest statement, about 87% of the country has a cell phone ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34436946/ns ... zkCkLSwvDM ). Only about 84% of people have health insurance ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... 7_ST_N.htm ).

Seems to me people have their priorities mixed up.. I see many low income people out there with nice clothes, tattoos, phones, cable tv, multiple television sets, internet, 1 or more cars, etc., yet they are the first to cry about health care. If they did not have these LUXURIES, they could afford basic catastrophic care and probably even some form of preventative and/or prescription care too.

I suppose Ipods, phones, and cable are soon to be rights too..

Sorry, but you are the one that throws respect out the window. Maybe I am a fools mirror.

I am not using the law to force anybody to do anything. The law says that contraception fails under the category of health. Insurance companies don't care what they cover, it is just a business. You really think insurance companies knock the price off because they don't cover contraception? Medical providers don't care what they provide, it is just a business. The people who are being hurt are those who work for an employer that has line item excluded contraception and want to purchase contraception but have to do it outside of their Medical Insurance. Why are they being treated differently? Why do they have to give a shit about Catholics and God or Muslims and God or whoever and God. What if the employer decided God doesn't like antibiotics or God doesn't believe in treating cancer so we are not going to cover that? When you line item what is available in the area of medical care, whose liberties are really at issue? If you don't like Employer based Medical Insurance or you feel it impinges on employer rights, then work to change the law so that contraception does not fall in this category.

Firearms fall under Medical Care how?