DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Forum
HTML https://thewiforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: National topics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 14456--------------------------------------------------
Little Sisters of the Poor make "The Dirty 100" list
DIR By: trollslayer
Date: July 8, 2014, 7:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You really can't make this stuff up. The National Organization
of Women have named the Little Sisters of the Poor to their
list. The charitable organization known for it's work,helping
those that are dying in their community. How can you not shake
your head at the stupidity of this move?
--- Quote ---
> As part of its full-throated defense of ObamaCare's
contraception mandate, NOW has a list of what it calls "The
Dirty 100" — entities that have sued the Department of Health
and Human Services and demanded exemptions on the basis of their
First Amendment right to religious expression and the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood
Specialties, the two firms that won the Hobby Lobby case last
week, occupy two spots on the list, as does Wheaton College,
which won a controversial injunction against HHS later in the
week.
>
> Almost square in the middle of the list, though, are the
Little Sisters of the Poor.
>
> Who are the Little Sisters of the Poor? They are Catholic
nuns, operating as a charitable organization on behalf of their
community. The application of the HHS contraception mandate to
practicing Catholic nuns who take vows of chastity is one of the
biggest absurdities of HHS' mandate enforcement anyway.
Obviously, nuns aren't clamoring for free IUDs and Plan B.
>
> It's true that churches and closely related organizations do
not have to comply with the mandate, but there's a big catch,
and one that provides another level of absurdity. HHS requires
that any such group primarily employ and serve only members of
their own faith. The Little Sisters, who provide hospice care to
impoverished people about to die, do not restrict their service
to just Catholics. In other words, HHS demands compliance in the
case of these "dirty" nuns because they refuse to discriminate
in serving the needs of the poor.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://theweek.com/article/index/264341/a-new-low-for-liberals-attacking-catholic-nuns-over-hobby-lobby
#Post#: 14457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Little Sisters of the Poor make "The Dirty 100"
list
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: July 8, 2014, 9:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Little Sisters should be a no-brainer exemption. They are nuns
for pete's sake, lol.
NOW doesn't do women any favors.
#Post#: 14460--------------------------------------------------
Re: Little Sisters of the Poor make "The Dirty 100"
list
DIR By: trollslayer
Date: July 8, 2014, 10:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rapids_60 link ---
>
> Little Sisters should be a no-brainer exemption. They are nuns
for pete's sake, lol.
> NOW doesn't do women any favors.
>
--- End Quote ---
You're right, NOW seems to shoot themselves in the foot in the
category. But let's pick up where you left off last week. Eden
Foods. They're a "closely held" company who didn't provide
contraception with their insurance coverage prior to the
Obamacare mandate. You seem to have a problem with Catholics
not wanting to provide contraception to their employees but seem
to accept The Little Sisters of the Poor not providing
contraception. What's the difference? You seem to miss, this
is an example of the right to practice your religion, not a
right to contraception. Check out RFRA.
#Post#: 14461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Little Sisters of the Poor make "The Dirty 100"
list
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: July 8, 2014, 11:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: trollslayer link ---
>
> You're right, NOW seems to shoot themselves in the foot in the
category. But let's pick up where you left off last week. Eden
Foods. They're a "closely held" company who didn't provide
contraception with their insurance coverage prior to the
Obamacare mandate. You seem to have a problem with Catholics
not wanting to provide contraception to their employees but seem
to accept The Little Sisters of the Poor not providing
contraception. What's the difference? You seem to miss, this
is an example of the right to practice your religion, not a
right to contraception. Check out RFRA.
>
--- End Quote ---
Little sisters of the poor is made up entirely of nuns who have
taken a vow of chastity. The general public cannot "work"
there. It's a closed shop.
Mandating contraceptive coverage for that group makes as much
sense as mandating maternity coverage for Catholic Priests.
It's silly.
This is a case of the government being plain old stupid.
Because Little Sisters is willing to help people of any
religion, the government doesn't consider them exempt. If they
only served Catholics, they would be.
The question I'd like an answer to is:
If the next court case is a Christian Scientist employer who
morally objects to paying for blood transfusions, on exactly
what grounds can the courts now say no?
Affirming Catholic's beliefs while denying Christian
Scientists would be government favoritism of one religion over
another, a clear constitutional problem.
Wait until it's the Muslims. All hell is gonna break loose.
SCOTUS said it was a "narrow" decision. Then immediately turned
it into a barn door with Eden Foods (all contraceptives can be
denied) and Wheaton College (merely applying for an exemption
violates their religious beliefs).
Not liking where this is leading. Not at all.
#Post#: 14462--------------------------------------------------
Re: Little Sisters of the Poor make "The Dirty 100"
list
DIR By: Notso
Date: July 9, 2014, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes you are a hard guy to figger. In the Obamacare loss
thread you agreed with the Supreme court and now you seem to be
against it. Change your mind in just a week?
#Post#: 14463--------------------------------------------------
Re: Little Sisters of the Poor make "The Dirty 100"
list
DIR By: trollslayer
Date: July 9, 2014, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Mandating contraceptive coverage for that group makes as much
sense as mandating maternity coverage for Catholic Priests.
It's silly.
--- End Quote ---
Mandating that I carry juvenile orthodontia coverage is just
plain silly.
Mandating that I and my 50+ year old wife carry maternity
coverage is just plain silly
It looks like we're starting to agree. Obamacare is just plain
silly.
--- Quote ---
> SCOTUS said it was a "narrow" decision. Then immediately
turned it into a barn door with Eden Foods (all contraceptives
can be denied) and Wheaton College (merely applying for an
exemption violates their religious beliefs).
> Not liking where this is leading. Not at all.
--- End Quote ---
Eden Foods didn't provide contraception coverage for it's
employees prior to Obamacare, I don't believe Wheaton College
did either. Yet their employees all got by. I fail to see what
the big deal is. If you really need a job that provides
contraception coverage there are plenty out there. It seems the
ones making the biggest fuss are the ones not affected by the
law.
This, like the immigration mess is just another one of the side
effects of Obama doctrine.
#Post#: 14470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Little Sisters of the Poor make "The Dirty 100"
list
DIR By: rapids_60
Date: July 9, 2014, 10:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Notso link ---
>
> Sometimes you are a hard guy to figger. In the Obamacare loss
thread you agreed with the Supreme court and now you seem to be
against it. Change your mind in just a week?
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't agree with the government mandating the purchase of
goods and services sold by private business, I don't think it's
constitutional. In that respect I agree with the decision. The
government has a place in this mess, but mandating purchases
isn't it.
I disagree with the decisions' religious component and worry
that it has opened the door to all sorts of unforseen things
being allowed or exempted in the workplace.
And HL set the bar very, very low for proving "beliefs". You
don't even have to historically practice whatever it is you want
to impose!
What separates contraception from transfusions, antidepressants
and Burka's? Only the specific religion involved and you know
what the constitution says about playing favorites.
I couldn't care less about contraceptives per se, buy your
own, big deal. It's the door that's been opened and what's
waiting to walk through it that is worrisome.
Does that make sense?
#Post#: 14472--------------------------------------------------
Re: Little Sisters of the Poor make "The Dirty 100"
list
DIR By: Snickers
Date: July 9, 2014, 10:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: trollslayer link ---
>
> You really can't make this stuff up. The National
Organization of Women have named the Little Sisters of the Poor
to their list. The charitable organization known for it's
work,helping those that are dying in their community. How can
you not shake your head at the stupidity of this move?
>
>
HTML http://theweek.com/article/index/264341/a-new-low-for-liberals-attacking-catholic-nuns-over-hobby-lobby
>
--- End Quote ---
I saw a segment on the NOW Convention.
Some real dandys.
Strange and loopey bunch of females that group.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1