Posted on 10/01/2007 1:21:03 PM PDT by processing please hold
(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday refusing to get involved in two church-state disputes - one over religious organizations paying for workers' birth-control health insurance benefits, the other over an evangelical group's plea to hold religious services at a public library.
The birth-control benefits dispute was triggered by a New York state law that forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer employees.
New York is one of 23 states that require employers offering prescription benefits to employees to cover birth control pills as well, the groups say. The state enacted the Women's Health and Wellness Act in 2002 to require health plans to cover contraception and other services aimed at women, including mammography, cervical cancer screenings and bone density exams.
Catholic Charities and other religious groups argued that New York's law violates their First Amendment right to practice their religion because it forces them to violate religious teachings that regard contraception as sinful.
"If the state can compel church entities to subsidize contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, it can compel them to subsidize abortions as well," the groups said in urging the court to take their case. "And if it can compel church entities to subsidize abortions, it can require hospitals owned by churches to provide them."
Other Catholic and Baptist organizations are part of the lawsuit. Seventh-Day Adventist and Orthodox Jewish groups signed onto a brief filed in support of Catholic Charities.
In the library case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had ruled that public libraries can block religious groups like the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries from worshipping in public meeting rooms.
The Contra Costa library system in the San Francisco Bay area allows groups to use its facilities for educational, cultural and community-related programs.
"Although religious worship is an important institution in any community, we disagree that anything remotely community-related must therefore be granted access to the Antioch Library meeting room," the appeals court concluded in a 2-1 decision.
Allowing worship services would amount to having taxpayers subsidize religious exercises, argued the Contra Costa County, Calif., Library Board, which operated the facility in Antioch, Calif.
In the dispute over making religious organizations subsidize contraceptives, the court rejected a challenge to a similar law in California.
"A church ought to be able to run its affairs and organize relationships with its employees in a way that's consistent with moral values and teachings," said Kevin Baine, a partner at the Williams and Connolly law firm who represents the religious organizations.
The New York law contains an exemption for churches, seminaries and other institutions with a mainly religious mission that primarily serve followers of that religion. Catholic Charities and the other groups sought the exemption, but they hire and serve people of different faiths.
New York's highest court ruled last year that the groups had to comply with the law. The 6-0 decision by the state Court of Appeals hinged on the determination that the groups are essentially social service agencies, not churches.
According to Planned Parenthood, the other states with similar laws are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.
The birth-control benefits case is Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Dinallo, 06-1550. The library case is Faith Center Church v. Glover, 06-1633.
How ludicrous--this is clearly the state telling a religious organization to violate that religion.
I wonder when the SCOTUS will issue a ruling that Muslim institutions will have to start treating women as human beings.
the other over an evangelical group's plea to hold religious services at a public library.
I see no reason for this. Religious services shouldn't be held in public libraries. Keep the state away from religion--I don't understand why people want this kind of thing, since it will only lead to situations such as in the first case, i.e. the state being able to impose its rule on the religious practice.
If it’s ok to put foot baths in airports for Muslims to use why is not permissable for any religious group to hold a meeting in a public library?
If it’s ok to put foot baths in airports for Muslims to use why is not permissable for any religious group to hold a meeting in a public library?
If it’s ok to put foot baths in airports for Muslims to use why is not permissable for any religious group to hold a meeting in a public library?
Let’s take your argument forward a bit. Suppose there is some kind of disaster that wipes out an entire community. The only building left standing is the town hall. Are you saying it is unconstitutional for the town’s religious folks to pray in that building?
So of the four (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito), I wonder which one went thumbs down????????
and what will the reaction be when the same law is forced upon Islam.....?Libraries will not only allow Muslim worship, they will provide foot-baths. And if you voice objection, they'll take away your library card. And soon, they'll start burning Salmon Rushdie's books. But that's ok. That's diversity.
I clarified this in a previous post. Members pay taxes and can use the library as individuals. But, the church doesn't pay taxes AND because of the establishment clause, the government buildings and dollars can't be used to support church business. Other organizations that aren't religious aren't part of that clause and are allowed to use government dollars and buildings.
The purpose is actually to protect churches from the heavy hand of government as well as to not give one church the upperhand while another has to struggle. To paraphrase a Ben Franklin quote, if a church needs government support to keep it afloat, its not that good of a church.
Additionally, I see a lot of people on this thread demanding help from the government and that surprises me. That's a socialist mantra. I think we should be making goverenment smaller. The government should giving money to all organizations and let them run on their own. We're very giving people and we can decide what charities and programs deserve our donations. But, if they get money from the government, they have to follow so many rules and they can't preach religion (not with government money or support anyway). That's the the purpose of the establishment clause (see the religious libery act in Virginia which prompted the establishment clause).
“Libraries will not only allow Muslim worship, they will provide foot-baths. And if you voice objection, they’ll take away your library card. And soon, they’ll start burning Salmon Rushdie’s books. But that’s ok. That’s diversity.”
And you’ve seen this happen where?
Suppose there is some kind of disaster that wipes out an entire community. The only building left standing is the town hall. Are you saying it is unconstitutional for the town’s religious folks to pray in that building?WHAT? It's already constitutional for individuals to pray to themselves wherever and whenever they want.
But, if you mean hold a worhship service, then, it depends. When the goverenment is sent out to protect a town from disaster, they protect the whole town, including the church building. So, this could be seen as a one-off scenario and I could see it being used as a place of worship. But, it would be problimatic. They'd have to provide equal access to every denomination. And, who gets to decide which demoniation gets the prime Sunday spots? Do you want the government to decide these things? Are you willing to allow them to make the place Kosher for the Jewish worship and then alter anything needed for the muslim worship? I'm sure it would mostly work out but you're putting your religion in the hands of the government when you do this.
This is the problem with using goverenment buildings to promote religion. The government gets to decide which things are good and which are not acceptable. Which version of the 10 commandments should the government post (there are at least three versions, Jewish, protestant, and catholic). See the quagmire? Best to avoid it and be neutral (which doesn't mean being anti-relgion!)
It is possible that all did. Picking cases to make law is more of the liberal trick.
4, but generally they don’t do it unless they think they have a 5th vote.
I didn't say 'all'. I would also like to revise' most' to 'many.'
Psalms 146:3
That's been suggested hear and I agree. What would the church do if say a wician (spel?) or an atheist applied for a job and was turned down? Would said wician and atheist now have a lawsuit against the church for discrimination?
hear-—pft, meant ‘here’
I'm going to wait and see how this all turns out, the pill and abortion. I'll see if my faith in my fellow man is restored if they refuse to go against God's word over secular law.
I don't think "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasar's, render unto God that which is God's." Is going to work on the issue of abortion.
Bingo! Let's see if the religious organization succumbs to that, or fights against it on religious grounds.
I wonder when the SCOTUS will issue a ruling that Muslim institutions will have to start treating women as human beings.
Dictate to muslims-please. They're an untouchable religion...for now.
Personally, I see no harm in meeting at your local library to choose books then sitting at a table and discussing God.
I wonder that myself.
Lunch is over. Back to classes. bbl
“Isn’t there a Catholic majority in the SCOTUS? This is just stunning”
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.