"Seperation" goes both ways.. (or does it?)

What do you think?

  • Agree with the ruling

    Votes: 19 52.8%
  • Disagree with the ruling

    Votes: 13 36.1%
  • Radioactive monkeys/I like to vote in polls

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • Total voters
    36

Speedo

Esse Quam Videri
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
4,891
Location
NC USA
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/01/church.contraceptives.ap/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- In a precedent-setting decision, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Roman Catholic charity must offer birth-control coverage to its employees even though the church considers contraception a sin.

The 6-1 decision marked the first such ruling by a state's highest court. Experts said the ruling could affect thousands of workers at Catholic hospitals and other church-backed institutions in California and prompt other states to fashion similar laws.

California is one of 20 states to require that all company-provided health plans must include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits.

The high court said that Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, where "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement. Catholic Charities argued that it, too, should be exempt.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the charity is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly preaching Catholic values.

In fact, Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote that a "significant majority" of the people served by the charity are not Catholic. The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions.

The California Catholic Conference, which represents the church's policy position in the state, said it was disappointed with the ruling and feared that it could open the door to mandated insurance coverage of abortion.

"It shows no respect to our religious organizations," said spokeswoman Carol Hogan.

The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling and called it "a great victory for California women and reproductive freedom."

Justice Janice Rogers Brown was the lone dissenting judge. Brown wrote that the Legislature's definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if it excludes faith-based nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities.

"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."

President Bush in October nominated Brown to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. But Brown's appointment has been opposed by Senate Democrats who view her as a conservative activist who would limit abortion rights and oppose affirmative action.

Versions of the law considered in Monday's ruling have been adopted in the 20 states after lawmakers concluded private employee prescription plans without contraceptive benefits discriminated against women.

Civil-rights groups, health-care companies and Catholic organizations filed extensive position papers with the court. Most wrangled over the rights of a religion to practice what it preaches and the newly acquired rights of thousands of women employed by church-affiliated groups to be insured for contraceptives.

Catholic Charities has 183 full-time employees and had a $76 million budget in California in 2002. It does not demand that its workers be Catholic or share the church's philosophy.

The 20 states that require private-sector insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington.
 
Believe it or not, a charity - even a nonprofit one - is a "company" in legal terms.

Believe it or not, not everyone working "for" the Church's charity necessarily endorses every hairsplitting doctrine - or even the most major ones! Maybe they're just looking for a way to earn a living!

I don't see how this is an infringement of religious freedom.

Those who are objectors to these policies can easily waive the coverage, can't they?
 
It is a religious organisation though, and if laws say that religious organisations are exempt, then exempt these people should be.

Looks like yet another example of San Francisco making up its own rules.
 
Believe it or not, a charity - even a nonprofit one - is a "company" in legal terms.

Nice way to dodge that hallowed "wall of seperation."

Believe it or not, not everyone working "for" the Church's charity necessarily endorses every hairsplitting doctrine - or even the most major ones! Maybe they're just looking for a way to earn a living!

Since when are companys required to meet the whims of every employee? If they find the policy so horrid, they're welcome to seek a better job.
 
I agree with the ruling but dissagree with the fact that contreception is covered in the first place. If you cannot afford the pills, you gotta wear rubbers. Sorry man, them's the breaks.
 
Tell me this Pontiuth:

Would you (in a future scenario where there are gay marriages) agree with a ruling that said basically this:

"Churches are free to disagree with homosexuality and the marriage of homosexuals as part of their faith. However, as the marriages performed in a church are recognized by the state, all churches must perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals."

Well?
 
People are only free to practice their religion when it doesn't interefere with other's rights; for example, you can't legally kill people no matter how pro-killing your religion is. The employees apparently have a right to birth control coverage, and so they should be guaranteed such coverage whether or not their employer's beliefs contradict with it.

At least that's how I see it.
 
Speedo - I would not agree. There's a difference between setting laws telling how a company should treat its employees (from which the churches should NOT get special separation - separation of church and state goes that way too) and laws setting what ceremony a church should/should not perform (within the most basic laws, ie no human sacrifices obviously).

If the government says "employers should provide X to their employees", then all employers should be forced to provide X to their employees, regardless of what's the goal of the employer.

So, while I would not approve of a "Church must perform gay marriages" law, I would fully approve of a law stating "An employer, including a church, cannot fire someoen due to their sexual orientation".

There is no legitimate reason for the churches, and even moreso non-churches religous organizations, under the concept of separation of church and state, to get special benefits in how they are allowed to treat their employees (although I would NOT consider priests employees of the church).
 
The employees apparently have a right to birth control coverage

How is birth control a right? :confused:

Besides, AFAIK most insurance policies do NOT cover birth control, catholic or otherwise.
 
Originally posted by Speedo
How is birth control a right? :confused:
California is one of 20 states to require that all company-provided health plans must include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits.
 
"Churches are free to disagree with homosexuality and the marriage of homosexuals as part of their faith. However, as the marriages performed in a church are recognized by the state, all churches must perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals."


No, I wouldn't support that as it IS an infringement of religious freedom. And it's got nothing to do with the subject. They can discriminate all they like, but they still have to follow the law if they want to have a legally protected company.

Another example: if I start a Church, and one of my beliefs is that minimum wage is immoral, can I get a court to rule that my employees are "exempt" from federal law? What if I employ hobos and make pizzas? Pretty convenient church, eh?
 
I completely agree with the Court's ruling. Completely . . .
 
I agree with the ruling.
Does the company only offer health care to catholics who believe in this no contraception idea? If not, then they should be in no way exempt from state law that requires contraception coverage.
 
Yep a civil rights organization that is facist. Your paranoia, I mean reasoning hit the nail right on the head this time sharp:rolleyes:.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
This is just more proof that the ACLU is a fascist organization.
Yep, how dare they force the charity to comply with labor laws! Those big fascist meanies!
 
The ACLU is fascist and the Democrats are traitors, but God forbid that a liberal call a neoconservative an oil-guzzling-conquer-monkey! Strong language! Bad Doonesbury, bad! :eek:
 
Back
Top Bottom