Posted on 10/20/2006 6:40:09 AM PDT by presidio9
Does New York law require that employers include contraceptives in medical coverage? If not, this ruling is utter nonsense. But if NY law DOES require coverage of contraceptives, the problem is as much with the law as with these judges.
So you would also agree with a company firing people for using alcohol or smoking on their own time as well?
Yeah, sarcasm.
"Substantial interest"? Since when does a court have any authority or jurisdiction to overrule by fiat and with the threat of compulsion the conscience, doctrine and practice of a Church, based merely on some dubiously alleged, ambigious "substantial interest" of the state, over against the fundamental Constitutional right of free exercise of religion? And while it's besides the point, who says in the first place that contraception 'fosters equality between the sexes', or constitutes 'better health care'? Did they establish that mumbo jumbo by judicial fiat, too? They sit there with black robes and scales and "weigh against" the "interests" of the church. What hubris, what arrogance these smug p.'s o.s. display.
When they can't get what they covet by duping people with lies, leftists resort to establishing their state-based faith by compulsion and force via judges, who of course themselves feel unrestrained and unbound by any law at all when they can get away with it.
Hey, you think this is over the top, imagine what kind of invective you could get out of me if I were a Roman Catholic.
Cordially,
Maybe so, but not beliefs originating with or unique to the Church.
Even little pagan babies do better if they have two parents.
SD
There was a similar case in WA state a few years ago, where the state supreme court ruled that a pharmacy chain (with no affiliation to any church and with no religious motive)must include contraceptives in its employee medical plan. The ruling was made on a "civil rights" and "equal rights" argument. It was complete BS. The pharmacy did not pay for contraceptives simply on the basis that they were a routine and elective expense that employees were capable of paying for themselves. But the court basically held that women have a constitutional right to subsidized contraception, a completely arbitrary and absurd notion.
Ah, blue state madness continues.
SD
The Catholic Church has no laws against smoking or drinking, but there are already companies who do not allow their employees to drink alchohol, and companies that refuse to hire smokers.
Yep. But that is next months lawsuit.
Churches kicked people out of church all the time. Circa 1800, you were kicked out for dancing.
In the WA case, the court lectured the pharmacy chain that any notion that women shouldn't use contraceptives is benighted and representative of an outdated anti-female and anti-sexual moralism. Of course, the pharmacy chain never used the argument that women shouldn't use contraceptives, only that they were an elective choice, and therefore not covered, so the fact that the court introduced this line of "reasoning" shows where they were coming from. What they were doing - in their minds - was imposing and enforcing a certain liberal definition of sexual morality.
Please see post #100
There was no such oath at my confirmation, nor at at any of the dozens of others that I attended. The Catholic Church has nothing against alchohol in moderation. Christ Himself changed water into wine, after all. BTW, I personally do not drink.
The Catholic Church rarely excommunicates someone for violating church rules. This usually happens only when someone - usually in a position of leadership (teacher, priest, bishop) - openly and publicly flaunts church teaching. However, I have known of cases where Catholic priests refused to marry people who were living together prior to marriage. These days, however, most priests usually look the other way on this matter - don't ask, don't tell.
Interesting. It's almost as if there's an agenda to force contraception on women.
"To avoid discrimination claims. And to hire the most qualified people for positions that are not directly involved in propagating the faith."
Thats their mistake. I would make it a function of all employees jobs that they set an example by living by the principles of that religion, and then hire only Catholics, or whatever religion it is.
If a church is going to behave like any other business then of course they are going to be treated like any other business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.