A home run in the Washington Post...

[il Padrino Ute]

Great opinion piece on Obamao's unconstitutional power grab. Any of you Obama fellators want to defend his intentional violation of 1st Amendment rights of Catholics?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...XdQ_story.html

Hopefully you'll be able to read it via the above link. If you have to register, it's worth it.

[YOhio]

Obama fellators? Stay classy, Il Pad.

[wuapinmon]

IPU, silly fella, Trix are not for rabbits.

[il Padrino Ute]

Obama fellators? Stay classy, Il Pad.

DDD ridiculed me for misusing sycophant. Besides, it's accurate.

[wuapinmon]

DDD ridiculed me for misusing sycophant. Besides, it's accurate.

Oh come on! You know that I can't make the jokes I want to make due to propriety and what not. Stop tempting me, jerkface.

[YOhio]

Besides, it's accurate.

I don't believe that anybody on CUF has performed oral sex on President Barack Obama.

[RobinFinderson]

If we are going to make special legal exemptions for the Catholic church, why would we not also have to offer similar exemptions for Muslims who want to practice Sharia Law?

[wuapinmon]

If we are going to make special legal exemptions for the Catholic church, why would we not also have to offer similar exemptions for Muslims who want to practice Sharia Law?

I'm torn on this issue. Should the law require a physician to perform abortions, even if it's against his conscience/religion? But, deference to one religion does require deference to all, and I do not want that happening, especially in family courts.

[RobinFinderson]

I'm torn on this issue. Should the law require a physician to perform abortions, even if it's against his conscience/religion? But, deference to one religion does require deference to all, and I do not want that happening, especially in family courts.

Of course the law should not require that a doctor perform abortions. No such law exists, and no such law will ever exist in the United States. That isn't the question. The law in question basically says that IF an organization offers health insurance as an employee perk, THEN it doesn't get the tax benefits of offering 'health insurance' if it provides a product that fails to meet the government's minimum definition of 'health insurance.'

Of course Catholic employers are free to offer no health insurance, and increase salaries so that individuals can buy whatever health insurance they like. Another option is to provide 'health enshurance,' which would basically be a benefit (like a ping-pong table in the office rec room) that doesn't qualify for the special tax exemption of health insurance. 'Health enshurance' could be whatever the employer wanted it to be.

The point is, people are misrepresenting what this is in exactly the same way that they misrepresent the issue of religious adoption agencies (Oh no! You mean we won't get special government treatment if we refuse to provide adoption services to gay people? (rewind 50 years: Oh no! You mean we won't get special government treatment if we refuse to provide adoption services to mixed-race couples?)).

Whaa Whaa Whaa. Come on religions, it isn't enough that you basically get to buy property and not have to pay property tax? Someone needs to start a law firm that specializes in helping individuals start 'religions' that are comprised of just the individual + anyone who wants to join that person's faith. I would declare my house to be my church, then I would start buying up a whole bunch of other 'churches' in nice neighborhoods.

[il Padrino Ute]

I don't believe that anybody on CUF has performed oral sex on President Barack Obama.

Figuratively speaking they have.

[TripletDaddy]

Great opinion piece on Obamao's unconstitutional power grab. Any of you Obama fellators want to defend his intentional violation of 1st Amendment rights of Catholics?

I don't. I'm glad President Obama violated the First Amendment rights of Catholics and I hope he does it again. Catholics have nothing important to say, anyway, so who cares what happens to them? Go President Obama!

[SloanHater]

Great opinion piece on Obamao's unconstitutional power grab. Any of you Obama fellators want to defend his intentional violation of 1st Amendment rights of Catholics?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...XdQ_story.html

Hopefully you'll be able to read it via the above link. If you have to register, it's worth it.

Are you opposed to free birth control or simply opposed to Obama or both?

[il Padrino Ute]

Are you opposed to free birth control or simply opposed to Obama or both?

So, you have no problem when anyone ignores the Constitution to force his or her agenda upon any or all of us?

[Indy Coug]

Obama fellators? Stay classy, Il Pad.

Stupid auto-correct.

[wuapinmon]

Of course the law should not require that a doctor perform abortions. No such law exists, and no such law will ever exist in the United States. That isn't the question. The law in question basically says that IF an organization offers health insurance as an employee perk, THEN it doesn't get the tax benefits of offering 'health insurance' if it provides a product that fails to meet the government's minimum definition of 'health insurance.'

Of course Catholic employers are free to offer no health insurance, and increase salaries so that individuals can buy whatever health insurance they like. Another option is to provide 'health enshurance,' which would basically be a benefit (like a ping-pong table in the office rec room) that doesn't qualify for the special tax exemption of health insurance. 'Health enshurance' could be whatever the employer wanted it to be.

The point is, people are misrepresenting what this is in exactly the same way that they misrepresent the issue of religious adoption agencies (Oh no! You mean we won't get special government treatment if we refuse to provide adoption services to gay people? (rewind 50 years: Oh no! You mean we won't get special government treatment if we refuse to provide adoption services to mixed-race couples?)).

I disagree a little bit. There are already issues with pharmacies and pharmacists being sued because the pharmacists refuse to dispense the morning-after pill. I'm not misrepresenting anything; I'm worrying about the ramifications for the future of decisions about things like insurance and adoptions today.