GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I have asked that you justify the need for a mandate that forces all health insurance plans to cover contraception and birth control products and services, you are yet to even make an attempt.If the law states that all workers should have access to X...
One reasonable argument would be that contraception and birth control are constitutional rights and that is why such a mandate on health insurance companies is necessary. You need only cite the specific section and clause of the constitution that states health insurance companies, and not the federal government, are responsible for meeting the obligations of the alleged constitutional right.
Another reasonable argument would be that constitutional rights are being violated by the health insurance companies because of their failure to offer contraception and birth control products and services in every single policy. This argument would require that you cite the specific right, or rights, being violated and further explain how this mandate on health insurance companies will put a stop to the alleged violation of rights.
Incorrect. I have stated that such a mandate is unconstitutional as it violates the religious beliefs of Catholics. Even if the mandate did not violate the religious views of anyone, I would still argue against it on the grounds of it being entirely uncessary.you say it should not apply to people of some Religion...
You begin with the false premise that I support the mandate for everyone else, when in fact I do not. Beyond that, you think I'm arguing that Catholics, and only Catholics, should be exempted from compliance, thus allowing their religious beliefs to trump state and federal law. A false premise serves as the foundation of what you believe my position to be, as a result you are arguing against a position that I do not hold, making your argument a strawman.
You should care if our constitutional rights are being violated at the hands of government, even if they are rights that you do not exercise and therefore do not care about.I could care less if some Religions own beliefs are overruled by Federal law. It happens a lot...
I can think of two examples where the law trumps religious beliefs/practices, bigomy among Mormons and Honor killings among Muslims. Go back to the beginning of my post where I outline how to make a reasonable case for when laws should trump religious practices/beliefs.
In the case of bigomy, nobody is having their constitutional rights violated by allowing multiple adults to marry each other, therefore, laws against bigomy are unconstitutional as they violate the religious freedom of Mormons without protecting the constitutional rights of anyone.
In the case of honor killings, someone is having multiple constitutional rights violated to satisfy the religious beliefs of Muslims, therefore, laws preventing Muslims from exercising the practice of honor killings are entirely necessary and, because no individual or group has the "right" to violate the rights of others, such laws do not violate the free exercise clause.
Next...