Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CHURCHES MUST PAY BIRTH CONTROL: COURT
Associated Press ^ | 10/20/06

Posted on 10/20/2006 6:40:09 AM PDT by presidio9

Catholic and other religious social service groups must provide contraceptive coverage to their employees even if they consider contraception a sin, according to yesterday's ruling by the state's highest court.

The 6-0 decision by the state Court of Appeals hinged on defining Catholic Charities and the other nine religious groups suing the state to be social service agencies, rather than only operating as churches.

The organizations "believe contraception to be sinful," the decision states. "We must weigh against [their] interests in adhering to the tenets of their faith the state's substantial interest in fostering equality between the sexes, and in providing women with better health care."

The New York Catholic Conference is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We think this has never really been about contraception, we think it was to target the church and open the door for coverage of abortion," said Dennis Poust, spokesman for the Catholic conference.

The court said the fact that the organizations hire employees outside their faith is a critical factor and they deserve the rights sought under the law.

"That ought to be offensive to anyone of faith," Poust said.

"I think it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholicism, which teaches that to be saved, Catholics must perform works of mercy," Poust said. "Faith alone is not enough . . . and the way the church performs its works of mercy is through its Catholic Charities, its schools and its hospitals -

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; 1stammendment; birthcontrol; catholic; catholicchurch; clintonlegacy; freedomofreligion; healthcarenotaright; nysodomgomorrah; nyssc; prolife; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-212 next last
To: Red Badger

Wait 'til they have quit sucking on the government teat! Trust me, they'll pay for abortions before they'll do that.


141 posted on 10/20/2006 10:45:37 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
The only thing is that the state won't issue a license to them.

yeah, the state is getting involved with religion. they shouldn't.
142 posted on 10/20/2006 10:47:59 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0

The state has its own marriage. It is a license, you can get it at the justice of the peace or from an Elvis. It is independent of religion.

Unless, of course, you believe anything that has been "tainted" by religion has to be excised.

Marriage is in many non-western cultures and non-religious cultures. Your perspective is too narrow.


143 posted on 10/20/2006 10:51:46 AM PDT by AmishDude (Mwahahahahahahahaha -- official evil laugh of the North American Union)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

marriage is in all cultures yes, but what cultures are non-religious?


144 posted on 10/20/2006 10:54:52 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0

Ancient Rome. Modern China.

Let me give you some advice: quit digging.


145 posted on 10/20/2006 10:56:57 AM PDT by AmishDude (Mwahahahahahahahaha -- official evil laugh of the North American Union)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The headline SHOULD read: Court Bans Churches from offerring Health Insurance!!!


146 posted on 10/20/2006 11:00:07 AM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Trust me, they'll pay for abortions before they'll do that.

What a dumb thing to say. For all we know Catholic charities will drop health insurance before offering birth control. The ruling was just handed down, and no decisions have been made yet. BTW, if there were no Catholic charities, your taxes would probably be significanty higher.

147 posted on 10/20/2006 11:04:26 AM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0
biologically no, they can't be parents. but by that definition, you'd also have to tell every step parent on the planet that they are not a "parent."

Try to understand the point. Only a man and a woman can make a baby. From this is drawn the inference that God (or evolution) intended children to be raised by a man/woman union.

Thousands of years of human experience with this arranegment have proven the usefullness of this arrangement. Social science tells us of the advantage a child with mother and father has over those raised by a single parent.

Yet, you want to argue that it is somehow unfair to not chuck aside millennia of human experience, the logical inference from human biology, and Divine revelation because we suddenly know better than all of that.

SD

148 posted on 10/20/2006 11:05:44 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

dave, i never said the church should allow it, i'm saying the government should have absolutely no say in what the church decides to do.


149 posted on 10/20/2006 11:11:44 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0
If the homosexual lobby were content with that, I would agree. But they don't want to have the option to have some churches accept their "unions." They want all to accept them as the equivalent to marriage.

How many nanoseconds will pass between the legalizing of "gay marriage" and the filing suit against the Catholic Church for "illegal discrimination"?

This is what's behind things like this article. It's a power play.

SD

150 posted on 10/20/2006 11:16:40 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

the catholic church denies LOTS of people right to marriage in a catholic church. i had to fight a denial of my first marriage by the catholic church.


151 posted on 10/20/2006 11:31:03 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0
the catholic church denies LOTS of people right to marriage in a catholic church.

I'm not sure what your point is. There is no general right to get married in the Church.

i had to fight a denial of my first marriage by the catholic church.

Huh?

SD

152 posted on 10/20/2006 11:36:40 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Catholic and other religious social service groups must provide contraceptive coverage to their employees even if they consider contraception a sin, according to yesterday's ruling by the state's highest court.

Don't hold yer breath!

153 posted on 10/20/2006 11:39:09 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

ok, so if there's no general right to get married in a catholic church, on what grounds would they sue?

and the catholic church denied me the right to be married in one of their churches because
a: i was not catholic (my first wife was)
b: i refused to sign a vow to raise my children catholic
after pointing out some sciptures to him that he had, apparently, never seen, he got permission from his superior to perform the wedding.


154 posted on 10/20/2006 11:49:48 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0
ok, so if there's no general right to get married in a catholic church, on what grounds would they sue?

You're not really that naive are you? Since when do people need grounds and standing and facts and logic when they have victim's rights and grievances.

and the catholic church denied me the right to be married in one of their churches because
a: i was not catholic (my first wife was)
b: i refused to sign a vow to raise my children catholic

So then you should have walked away. You are betraying your own point here. You felt you were owed a Catholic wedding even though you didn't want to abide by their rules.

SD

155 posted on 10/20/2006 11:58:12 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

well.. yeah, you're absolootely right on the first point.

the second, that's what the wife wanted, that's what her family wanted, i didn't care one way or the other. so a compromise was made with the church that they were willing to accept.


156 posted on 10/20/2006 12:03:32 PM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Is the Court's decision tied to Catholic Charities accepting State funding? If it is the answer seems clear. Do not take any more funds from the government.
Yes it would mean fewer services could be offered to the persons that Catholic Charities serves. But it would also provide incentives for more Catholics to give to an agency that many see as being too influenced by secular and non Catholic agendas.


157 posted on 10/20/2006 12:06:01 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Exceptionally devout muslims do not leave Sandland for the Great Satan.

Ahhh, that must explain the exceedingly large number of apostate Muslims in New Jersey, Dearborn, Michigan and Seattle, Washington!

CA....

158 posted on 10/20/2006 12:07:57 PM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
That's not what this issue is about. Those who may have legitimate medical reasons are caught in the crossfire.

That sucks, but that's life.

Well, since they're only caught in the crossfire, let's just ignore them, and move right on in to Feel Good About Myself territory.

CA....

159 posted on 10/20/2006 12:13:03 PM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0
i refused to sign a vow to raise my children catholic

If that was the case, the priest had no right to grant you a church marriage, no matter how much you whined.
Also, the marrige contract is with God, not the Church. If you didn't agree to raise your children Catholic, you were never actually married, no matter what the priest said. You should let your first wife know this, so that she can have your marriage annulled if she ever wants to get married in a church again.

160 posted on 10/20/2006 12:19:43 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-212 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson