Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
btw...this is absurd...companies, institutions and organizations set standards with regard to "standards".. behaviour ,dress codes, fraternization policies, even speech.....etc...all the time....the test is that it apply equally and that noone is treated unequally.....Ms. Fluke is not being treated unequally within the institution....she's not being singled out and denied access to contraception( if she purchases contraception I doubt anyone is going to confiscate it), she just not receiving something free through the institution(or via it's insurer) that conflicts with the institutions policies and morals and what you have pointed out is that now a questionable government mandate is something that she is pointing to and applauding....it should be part of the upcoming argument in the Supreme Court on the subject....it's the government, specifically Congress that that is restricted from implementing these restrictions...not private institutions, organizations and companies...instead of the Rasmussen book, you should grab something on our founding documents and then tell me which "Right" Ms. Fluke is being denied and which "Liberty" had been taken away
|
The constitutionality of the mandate is a separate topic, although the polls I've seen show about 65% support for it in regards to contraception.
The issue still is if it's OK for a religious institution to be exempt from Federal law. There are numerous state laws which offer similar mandates so the First Amendment argument Jim is grasping for doesn't seem reasonable.
Considering Justice Scalia's comments on Indians smoking peyote for religious reasons...I'm not so sure there's a good argument at the Federal level either.
-spence
Threaded Mode