The Catholic Church will be forced to go against its values.

1. 60

   uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years ago

   This is just the first of many blows to follow to the autonomy of churches in the United States.  Once the Federal government decides that church institutions cannot cleave to their values in employment policy that is the end of religious freedom.  once religious freedom goes which one is next?  Conscience, speech, association, etc...?
   
   Abortion is covered in Obamacare - will that be forced upon Catholic Hospitals?  If homosexual "marriage" becomes federally protected will Catholic Priest be compelled by the state to preside over them?
   
   Once the State determines that it, not nature, is the wellspring of liberty and rights that dooms any liberty or any rights.
   
   
   http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1

   replyreport
   1. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have Obamacare surviving the SCOTUS. It was a bad idea then and still a bad idea now. The federal government needs to stay out of church business and philosophy.
      
      The Frog

      replyreport
   2. 59

      pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well, is pedophilia illegal in USA? Is the catholic church obligated to obey to this law? Or should they be able to extradite all the pedophile priests to the Vatican?
      
      What a crappy world, religions have to adapt to society and not the other way...
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The sex scandal in the Catholic Church makes me furious beyond reason, however, in the United States there is a thing called the Constitution.  It used to be regarded as a limiter of government authority, those days are long gone.  It is now the weapon used to bludgeon what vestiges of liberty still exist.

         replyreport
   3. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      By "cleave to their values" you mean discriminate.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I mean be forced by the State to engage in action contrary to conscience.

         replyreport
   4. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What's the big news story about the Catholic Church going against its values?
      
      The American Government gave up on its values some 150 years ago.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I would have said 80 years ago, FDR's assaults on the Constitution are so numerous and far reaching that they have insinuated themselves into the whole economy and therefore, life.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            John Adams made it illegal to speak ill of his political party.
            
            This is where State Nullification began.

            replyreport
   5. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Then, shouldn't corporations be allowed to not hire people based on their religious beliefs if they "cleave to their values in employment policy"?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         As a matter of fact, yes they should.  If a fundamentalist Muslim wants only men in his company so be it.  I would prefer to have whom ever meets my one value in operating a business. Turn a profit without doing wrong.  I would prosper and he would flounder.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            This is not news! we have anti discrimination laws, to prevent people from being discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, religion and sexuality the church is an employer and is not excempt, just because they are a church doesent mean they are allowed to break the law or discriminate against certain people, no one is above the law and we as a country have decided that discrimination is bad, end of story.

            replyreport
         2. 90

            Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Fortunately we have smarter people running things.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               That is the flaw in the liberal.  He believes that the State is run by geniuses - both moral and intellectual.  How is it wrong to let a business do something so foolish as to turn away good customers or good workers because of skin color, sex, religion when no one is compelled by the State to do exactly that?  If one is free to discriminate or NOT, than where is there a problem. 
               
               I want the best people working for me.  I want the most freely spending customers in my shop.  If an idiot bigot turns down good employees - I get them.  If he turns aside good customers - I get them.  This is a reward for me not being a bigot and a punishment for him being one.  Now, because the STATE DICTATES this behavior the bigotry is subtle and remains unpunished.  The lack there of goes unrecognized and unrewarded.
               
               Smarter indeed.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  This is completely untrue, say I was a Muslim living in a small town in Texas, and I was not allowed to buy from the local shops and no one would employ me, then I would have to move and this is a massive inconvenience and problem for me and I am economically damaged by it. Government is not run by geniuses but it can and should prevent this from ocurring (I currently have a friend who sued a shop in Texas for refusing to serve him the next closest shop was 45 minutes drive away).
                  
                  Anyway you might not like it but evidently the vast majority of people do agree that discrimination should be illegal (all this happened in the 60s 70s and 80s so it been a while) so since you live in a democratc country suck it up and move on or move out, certainly there is no reason why the church should be excempt from these same laws.

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     +++ Very true. I lived in a large corporation before and after the civil rights revolution. It went from near zero minority hiring in office, manager and engineering jobs to considerable minority participation. It went from zero participation by women in anything but secretarial and clerical jobs to several vice presidents currently and plenty of women engineers, managers and engineers.
                     Uncorrected vision is myopic and lacking knowledge about the real world.

                     replyreport
                  2. 60

                     uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     So by miracle you were dropped, family, home, property and all in a town so full of hate and bigotry that you couldn't find anyone willing to take your money in commerce.  Not only were you miraculously transported to this place but arrived completely unaware of where you were going before you arrived.  Not only are you burdened by all these connections and things but that little Texas town(no bigotry in selection of location) is an isolated from all other towns to the point that moving is nearly impossible.
                     
                     Wow, how did my grandfather brave crossing the Atlantic in steerage to escape economic privation - he must have been a superman.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I used Texas as an example because it actually ocurred there to afriend of mine, the reality is that it can be really tough on someone being discriminated against, if for example I want to be a computer programmer well there is only one programming employer in my city if they wont employ me on the basis of whatever backwards discrimination they may have then I would be severely inconvenienced why let it happen when there is no good reason to allow that? Who is helped by allowing discrimination to continue? No one, and who is hurt by allowing it to continue? many many people so the obvious choice is get rid of it through legislation. It really doesent matter how small the effect of discrimination on me might be I shouldnt have to suffer it, the constitution grants me equality and the anti-discrimination laws guarantee it and that is how it should be.

                        replyreport
               2. 60

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Incidentally the reason why we believe in anti discrimination laws is based on one of the central principles of this country that all men are born equal and we all have an equal right to the pursuit of happyness.

                  replyreport
               3. 90

                  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Good thing it isn't run by you.
                  
                  We - WE- the vast majority of people who wouldn't agree with any of your ideas, decided that discrimination is wrong.
                  
                  You never will comprehend how much of a minority you are.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I completely understand your position.  I also understand that to give the power to the federal government to decide who one must employ compels the bigot to become secretive in his behavior and, as long as the paperwork satisfies the bureaucrats, hide within the mechanisms of the State.  As per usual, you missed the point.

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        The "Federal government" didn't decide this.
                        
                        WE did.  We the people - those of us with intelligence, that is.  Of course those without resisted the idea and voted against it.  Fortunately there were and are far too many of us.

                        replyreport
         3. 79

            kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Unless of course he comes from a family with money behind him. Then he could pay off one of your female employees to accuse you of prevision, of trying to force her to have sex with the boss. Now he can point out how his beliefs are right since he doesn't allow the 'temptation' of women in the workplace and avoids any sort of sexual harassment, and manages to damage your name and reputation. You may keep some of your customers and employees but many will always see you as tainted with a false accusation. Your business suffers while his bigotry takes deeper hold as being acceptable. People are often happy to sink even lower in what they will do instead of admitting they are wrong including corporate espionage and other business crimes.

            replyreport
2. 77

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   UCV,
   Title drew me in.
   But sorry.
   Andrew Breitbart.
   Really?

   replyreport
   1. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Really?  He seems to speak the truth and that irritates some people.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Truth?
         Really?
         Is that what you call it?

         replyreport
      2. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Breitbart is a lying rat.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The story is sourced from multiple outlets because of the tolerant, enlightened and objective idea that because someone else said so that Breitbart is a rat.

            replyreport
      3. 90

         Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Truth?
         
         Not him. Not ever.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is good that you think for yourself about Breitbart and not just parrot the line.  He must have his hands all over every little news organization in the country.  If he controlled ABCNBCCBSMSNBCCNN you would have seen or heard the story.  They are on the team to re-elect Obama and secure socialist medicine in America.  It is increasingly evident when small town news outlets and international papers are the only ones really covering the news.
      
      
      
      http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/health/healthy_ … cover-pill
      
      http://www.abcnews4.com/story/16565885/ … r-the-pill
      
      http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/feds … -1.3466957
      
      http://www.pekintimes.com/news/x1069934 … objections
      
      http://www.waff.com/story/16564256/feds … =printable
      
      http://www.durangoherald.com/apps/pbcs. … rintpicart
      
      http://www.rocketnews.com/2012/01/feds- … pill-ap-3/
      
      http://www.rocketnews.com/2012/01/feds- … pill-ap-3/
      
      http://www.kktv.com/11forhealth/headlin … n=comments
      
      http://www.ksla.com/story/16564256/feds … =printable
      
      http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ … -pill.html
      
      http://health.newsvine.com/_news/2012/0 … r-the-pill

      replyreport
3. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

   Like the nun who was fired because she agreed to abort a fetus to save a mother's life? She was reinstated only after a big stink about it.
   
   And you know, what you call socialism used to be looking out for one another and being a good citizen. I've seen enough US movies and TV shows fron the 50s to know that.
   
   Believe me Canada is not a socialist state.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You conflate decency and neighborly-ness in individuals with State compel actions against conscience.  Sounds a little totalitarian.  As for Canadian socialism - it isn't for want of trying.  The current Canadian government has made changes that have resulted in Canada's growth.  It will be a while before Canada regains its lost glory.  Time was Canada was one of the top economies in the world - it slid hard.  Thanks to the exploitation of Gaia in Alberta, Canada is ready to take its rightful place as a dynamic economy, thanks to Barrack Obama and the Keystone Pipeline Project(oops, sorry.)

      replyreport
4. 60

   John Holdenposted 12 years ago

   If any institutions values are against societies norm then they should be forced to accept the values of society as a whole.

   replyreport