Kali Supreme Court Violates 1st Amendment; Establishes Religion

Status
Not open for further replies.

rock jock

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,008
Location
In the moment
Catholic Group Must Provide Birth Control
3/1/04

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A Roman Catholic charitable organization must include birth control coverage in its health care plan for workers even though it is morally opposed to contraception, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 6-1 ruling could reach far beyond the 183 full-time employees of Catholic Charities and affect thousands of workers at Catholic hospitals and other church-backed institutions throughout the state.

The high court said Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, which is one of 20 states that require company-provided health plans to include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits. In California, "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement.

The charity doesn't offer insurance to pay for birth control because it follows Roman Catholic Church dogma, which considers contraception a sin. The charity argued unsuccessfully that it should be exempted from state law along with the church.

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 the public without directly preaching about Catholic values.

The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions.

"Moreover, Catholic Charities serves people of all faith backgrounds, a significant majority of whom do not share its Roman Catholic faith," Justice Joyce Werdegar wrote for the majority opinion.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown dissented, writing that the Legislature's definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if excludes faith-based nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities.

"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of it religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is no 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 (news - web sites) in October nominated Brown to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but her appointment has been opposed by Democrats in the U.S. Senate who view the black jurist as a conservative judicial activist who would limit abortion rights and corporate liability and oppose affirmative action.

Versions of the law considered in Monday's ruling have been adopted in 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 had a $76 million budget in California in 2002 and provided social services to persons of any religion or background. It does not demand that its workers be Catholic or share the church's philosophy.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists viewed the dispute as a health issue, arguing that contraception gives families a chance to plan for a pregnancy, making for healthier mothers and babies.

The 20 states that require private-sector insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives include 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.

The case is S099822, Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc., v. Superior Court of Sacramento County.
Please let's not let this devolve into a discussion about religion or the morality of the Catholic Church (I am not a member) or its teachings. I really think what the Catholic Church teaches or doesn't teach is completely immaterial to this discussion. On the contrary, the issue here is the state establishing a religion by dictating how a particular church may run their affairs and what beliefs they must support with their own money. This is very alarming!
 
rock jock,

From your post,

The high court said Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, which is one of 20 states that require company-provided health plans to include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits. In California, "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement.

Now, maybe I missed something, but it sounds to me like the court is saying, "You may be a religion, but you still have to abide by the same rules that all other organizations abide by." What's wrong with the court not giving preferential treatment to religion(s)?

Of course, for the court to say, "you don't practice in the manner by which we think you should practice, so you're not a religion at all" isn't very nice, and I do get that from the article. I just don't get how the court "established religion".

Could you help me see what I missed?
 
once we get all religions and their associated charities addicted to Federal tax payer dollar hand outs they'll all be easier to control and we can stop their whining by threatening to cut their funding, kinda like the Feds do to states over zoning etc...
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

It doesn't say anything about only outlawing total bans.

Personally, if I were in charge of the charity I'd shut it down before I compromised my religious beliefs for these people.
 
It sounds like the court said that Catholic CHARITIES isn't a religion (it IS a separately funded org from the actual church), based on their hiring of non-Catholic employees and providing completely non-religious services to non-Catholics.

Hmmmmboy this one's a head-scratcher, ain't it?

I can see merit both ways here:

1) From the POV of the majority opinion, this ruling says that the owners of a company/org that hires employees regardless of faith cannot foster off their own religious views on their non-believing or otherwise-believing employees. That's...well, it could lead to interesting problems. Imagine if this was a charity run by Jehovah's Witnesses and they left blood transfusions off of the medical plan, enforcing that on non-JW employees? Whooops. Or a charity run by Voodun whose "medical plan" involved offerings of rum and dead chickens to the "cancer gods" or something?

2) In the other direction, can employers be forced to fund something they consider sinful?

My, what a mess.
 
I think it's much simpler than that.

The Charity doesn't have any problem with hiring people who aren't Roman Catholic. Why should they get to impose Roman Catholic beliefs on people of other faiths? Isn't the charity free to hire only Roman Catholics if it wishes?
 
They aren't imposing Roman Catholic practices, though, they simply aren't supporting them. The only ones imposing practises are the judges imposing secular beliefs on a Catholic charity.

While they might try hiring only Roman Catholics, I have a feeling that would open them up to other discrimination suits without solving the problem.
 
It is easy. Do not employ anyone. If a charity or church needs workers, then accept "compensated volunteers." Oh, but that would run afoul of labor laws, and discrimination laws since non-volunterrs would not have equal opportunity..........I am with Jim on this one, what a collossal mess.

I belive the end of organized religion is very near. And the end of any organization that is expected to exercise "judgement" and "morals." The construct of all the laws will not allow any leeway.
 
Geech, they're selectively imposing a small amount of Roman Catholic dogma on employees. Employees apparently don't have to follow any Roman Catholic dogma, but still the charity doesn't want their health insurance to cover birth control.

If the charity broadly restricted non-Roman-Catholic behavior, it would be effectively hiring only Roman Catholics, hence my original comment.

In this case the charity is having something imposed on them that may violate their beliefs, but the charity's beliefs are no doubt being substantially violated by all non-Roman Catholic employees. Why does the charity care so much about healthcare coverage when their are other sins being committed right and left by employees? The charity seems to be turning a blind eye toward every sin except that of providing state-mandated healthcare contraception coverage.
 
How is it "fair" for the government to tell any organization what they must include in thier benefits package? This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the intrusion of the state into private commerce.

Funny--people on this board usually side against the government intruding into ANYTHING. I'm inclined to think some of you folks are piling on because the church is involved.
 
Hire only RC employees

To hire only roman catholic employees would run afoul of other laws already established. It would be prosecuted as discrimination. I'll second the agreement with Jim March what a mess!:uhoh:
 
What's getting lost on the focus on religion is: What's the goverment doing dictating what kind of insurance an employer has to offer its employees?
 
Dischord

I think that is the core argument here. If I, as an employer, decide that I will provide XYZ coverage, with no ABC, then who is the plaintiff? The employee can find other work if they do not like the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. The state has no compelling interest here other than the obvious.....to become the arbiter of all employment and business contracts under the facade of a "private" business.
 
"2) In the other direction, can employers be forced to fund something they consider sinful?"

Social Security?



I don't see that the ruling violates the Establishment clause. Churches aren't allowed to do just any dern thing they please. Let's see, they have to abide by zoning, payroll, aw, a bunch of laws. Snake handling and drug use come to mind for some reason.

This ruling does not establish a state church. Virginia had a state church in the early days and the heavy fines and prison sentences resulted in Mr. Jefferson writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The state's taxes were collected by the church, there were fines for not attending, not being married in, and otherwise not supporting the Church of England.

For instance, look up persecution of the colonial era Quakers sometime.

John
 
The solution to this problem is simple. All they have to do is cancell all medical insurance coverage. They can take the money that was being contributed to the insurance plan, and give it to the employee with instructions to find their own insurance, or not, as they will.

Then they are not imposing their religious views on any employee, and the employee can pay for coverage that includes contraceptives, or not as they desire.

The fact that a single employee can not negotiate coverage as good as an employer is just too bad. Maybe they could form an employee group to get a group coverage plan, just as the employer did.
 
Stolen Thunder

I started reading the thread and couldn't believe you guys missed the obvious problem-the state dictating the terms of the employment agreement.

If you don't like the wage rates or insurance coverage find another job!!!

The problem is using the courts to force a change to the employment contract. Once this starts, and it has, then there is no end to the govt. meddeling.

No one likes to admit it but America has become a fascist country. (Private ownership of the means of production, including charities, but govt. CONTROL of what is produced and and how it is used.)
 
Geech, they're selectively imposing a small amount of Roman Catholic dogma on employees.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. The charity isn't forcing the employees to do anything. They're simply refusing to support something that is contrary to their beliefs. That is not the same as imposing their will.

imposing: To establish or apply as compulsory; levy: impose a tax.

That's clearly not what's happening with the charity.
 
longrifleman,

You're right - that issue was glossed over. The thing is, the thread was started with the subject of California establishing a religion, so I focused on that. I'd be willing to bet others did the same thing.

I figured that once the original topic was handled, the other problems (such as the government defining what a religion is - of course, I didn't realize that the Christian Charaties is not the church, as pointed out by Jim March) would then be fair game. I was just trying to stay on the original topic ;)

I still don't see how California managed to establish religion with this ruling, and am still curious as to rock jock's answer.

--
atk
 
You are all missing an important point. Every other employer in The People's Republik has to abide by this rule: If you're going to offer prescription coverage, then one of the prescriptions covered has to be birth control pills. No ifs, ands, or buts. If A, then B.

The Church, in this case, is no different than any other employer. They offer prescription coverage, therefore must offer birth control pills as one of the prescriptions covered. Religion has abso-effing-lutely nothing to do with it.

IMO, if theyCatholics are too upset by that, then they should quit offering that benefit, and see what caliber (see? it's gun related!) of employee they can retain...
 
It's ironic that they found "Catholic Charities" to be a non-religious organization because it provides services WITHOUT preaching Catholic dogma to its clients. Perhaps the state would be happier if CC restricted its services to Catholics, or required instruction in religious dogma as a condition for receiving services, instead of helping all comers?

And if you don't like their employment benefits, don't work there. I'm an atheist, but I certainly wouldn't expect an organization called CATHOLIC Charities to provide birth control. Duh. What's next, mandated abortion services at Catholic hospitals?

DJ
 
I still don't see how California managed to establish religion with this ruling, and am still curious as to rock jock's answer.
When a religious organization is forced to change their belief system to conform with the govt., the govt. is dictating theology and thus, establishing a change in the religion.
 
The high court said Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, which is one of 20 states that require company-provided health plans to include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits.
Say goodbye to your prescription drug benefit if you work for Catholic Charities ... again the left goes around putting its nose in business it doesn't belong in under the guise of helping 'the little people' and ends up harming them even more. :rolleyes:
 
Please let's not let this devolve into a discussion about religion or the morality of the Catholic Church (I am not a member) or its teachings. I really think what the Catholic Church teaches or doesn't teach is completely immaterial to this discussion. On the contrary, the issue here is the state establishing a religion by dictating how a particular church may run their affairs and what beliefs they must support with their own money. This is very alarming!

WOW! Talk about missing the point entirely. The ruling means that when a company employs people it may not force it's religous views onto the employees by selectively NOT paying for medical coverage of things they don't agree with. So, it does NOT try to impose religion, it says a company may not impose it's religion onto it's employees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top