What the Little Sisters of the Poor Case Could Mean for Religious Liberty

[Angelina]

What the Little Sisters of the Poor Case Could Mean for Religious Liberty
Lorie Johnson 03-21-2016 - CBN News

The pending case brought by The Little Sisters of the Poor and other plantiffs objects to the Obamacare mandate that employers provide contraception to its employees. Those plaintiffs consider birth control a violation of their religious beliefs.

Furthermore, certain types of birth control, like Ella and Plan B, often referred to as "morning after pills," are considered by Catholics and others as synonymous with abortion, which they consider a sin.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Obamacare, has offered The Little Sisters of the Poor and religious organizations like it, an exemption to the contraceptive mandate. However, The Little Sisters of the Poor and similar organizations object to that because they feel it still violates their right to freedom of religion.
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/March/What-the-Little-Sisters-of-the-Poor-Case-Could-Mean-for-Religious-Liberty

 

[River Jordan]

IMO, the Sisters should probably loose this case. I understand and appreciate their religious objection, but I also acknowledge that the government allowed them to be exempt from the law's requirement. Apparently that wasn't good enough for the Sisters, who are arguing that even if they don't have to pay for contraceptive coverage directly, they still have to pay the insurance companies in general (for their employees' coverage) and some of that money will indirectly go to contraception.

I think that's ridiculous and would set a dangerous precedent.

 

[River Jordan]

How the Little Sisters of the Poor case puts religious liberty at risk

So [the Little Sisters of the Poor] real objection is to what their secular insurers are required to do. The religious objectors demand a right to control how the government regulates insurance companies.

To support this claim, they make two arguments that actually endanger religious liberty. First, they say that only they can say what is a substantial burden on their exercise of religion; the courts must take their word for it. But that would give rise to even more extreme claims and discredit the cause of religious liberty.

IOW, because we're Christians, we tend think if a group of Nuns say "this is a burden on our exercise of religion", then it is so and the government must act accordingly. But such a deference would apply not just to Christians, but all religious groups. So if Muslims said that taking their tax dollars to fund wars against Muslims was a burden on their exercise of religion, under the logic the Sisters are making, the government would have no choice but to agree and exempt Muslims from paying taxes.

The second, and even more dangerous argument: These organizations say that because the government exempted the insurers of churches and their integrated auxiliaries, it is required to exempt the insurers of all other conscientious objectors as well. Otherwise, it discriminates between two groups of religious organizations.

This argument is a mortal threat to an essential and widespread source of protection for religious liberty. There are thousands of specific religious exemptions in U.S. law. If legislators and administrative agencies cannot enact a narrow religious exemption without it being expanded to become all-inclusive, many of them will not enact any religious exemptions at all. And they will start repealing the exemptions they have already enacted.

IOW, they want to expand religious objection exemptions to non-religious institutions. As this lawyer points out, such an expansion would apply to everyone (not just Christians), which would likely spin out of control, thereby making religious protection laws less likely to be written and possibly repealed (for existing ones).

 

[ScaliaFan]

What the Little Sisters of the Poor Case Could Mean for Religious Liberty
Lorie Johnson 03-21-2016 - CBN News

The pending case brought by The Little Sisters of the Poor and other plantiffs objects to the Obamacare mandate that employers provide contraception to its employees. Those plaintiffs consider birth control a violation of their religious beliefs.

Furthermore, certain types of birth control, like Ella and Plan B, often referred to as "morning after pills," are considered by Catholics and others as synonymous with abortion, which they consider a sin.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Obamacare, has offered The Little Sisters of the Poor and religious organizations like it, an exemption to the contraceptive mandate. However, The Little Sisters of the Poor and similar organizations object to that because they feel it still violates their right to freedom of religion.
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/March/What-the-Little-Sisters-of-the-Poor-Case-Could-Mean-for-Religious-Liberty

they FEEL??

no, they KNOW

 

[ScaliaFan]

IMO, the Sisters should probably loose this case. I understand and appreciate their religious objection, but I also acknowledge that the government allowed them to be exempt from the law's requirement. Apparently that wasn't good enough for the Sisters, who are arguing that even if they don't have to pay for contraceptive coverage directly, they still have to pay the insurance companies in general (for their employees' coverage) and some of that money will indirectly go to contraception.

I think that's ridiculous and would set a dangerous precedent.

then you are against religious freedom and would FORCE people to do things against their conscience

that's pathetic

 

[Barrd]

IMO, the Sisters should probably loose this case. I understand and appreciate their religious objection, but I also acknowledge that the government allowed them to be exempt from the law's requirement. Apparently that wasn't good enough for the Sisters, who are arguing that even if they don't have to pay for contraceptive coverage directly, they still have to pay the insurance companies in general (for their employees' coverage) and some of that money will indirectly go to contraception.

I think that's ridiculous and would set a dangerous precedent.

I am always shocked whenever a Christian comes out in support of the murder of unborn children.
I can't see how it is a "dangerous precedent", it seems to me that it is more dangerous to force anyone to have to pay taxes to support abortion murder. After all, those babies ought to have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other citizen of this country...

 

[River Jordan]

then you are against religious freedom

Nice try, but not everyone thinks in such black/white terms. Of course I'm for religious freedom, but not in an absolute universal sense where a person can do whatever they want, illegal or legal, and just play the "religious freedom" card to get out of any consequences.

and would FORCE people to do things against their conscience

The government does that all the time. They take taxes from pacifists and use it to fund the military. They take taxes from vegans and use it to subsidize meat industries. They take taxes from the Amish and use it to fund electricity and road infrastructure....and so on. Merely declaring that you find something the government does to be against your religion does not exempt you from paying taxes or following the law. And that was my main point...once that door is opened for the Little Sisters, it won't be just Christians who come through. Satanists, Muslims, Pagans, and maybe even atheists will make the exact same argument and expect the exact same treatment.

 

[River Jordan]

I am always shocked whenever a Christian comes out in support of the murder of unborn children.
I can't see how it is a "dangerous precedent", it seems to me that it is more dangerous to force anyone to have to pay taxes to support abortion murder. After all, those babies ought to have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other citizen of this country...

Not sure what that has to do with this case, since it's about the Little Sisters being against contraception.

 

[Barrd]

Nice try, but not everyone thinks in such black/white terms. Of course I'm for religious freedom, but not in an absolute universal sense where a person can do whatever they want, illegal or legal, and just play the "religious freedom" card to get out of any consequences.


The government does that all the time. They take taxes from pacifists and use it to fund the military. They take taxes from vegans and use it to subsidize meat industries. They take taxes from the Amish and use it to fund electricity and road infrastructure....and so on. Merely declaring that you find something the government does to be against your religion does not exempt you from paying taxes or following the law. And that was my main point...once that door is opened for the Little Sisters, it won't be just Christians who come through. Satanists, Muslims, Pagans, and maybe even atheists will make the exact same argument and expect the exact same treatment.

Now who is talking about taxes?

If I recall correctly, we are guaranteed the right to practice our religion without government interference. I think everyone knows that the Catholic religion believes contraceptives to be a sin. Whether we agree with them or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the government has the right to force them to do something that, in their faith, is a sin.

And, by the way...all those other groups you spoke of...they do expect, and receive, the same treatment. Which is as it should be in a nation that prides itself on religious freedom.

 

[River Jordan]

I don't know what taxes have to do with it. As a religious organization, Little Sisters of the Poor are tax exempt.

It's the same legal concept, where merely saying "religious freedom" is not a card one can play to get out of obeying the law.

If I recall correctly, we are guaranteed the right to practice our religion without government interference.

Yes, and as with all other rights, it is neither absolute nor universal.

I think everyone knows that the Catholic religion believes contraceptives to be a sin. Whether we agree with them or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the government has the right to force them to do something that, in their faith, is a sin.

Right, but in this case no one is forcing the Little Sisters to use contraception, provide it, or even pay for it. The government fully exempted them from all of that, and all the Little Sisters had to do was fill out an exemption form so their employees could get health coverage directly from the insurance companies. But the Little Sisters are actually arguing that filing out the form violates their religious conscience.

IOW, the Little Sisters aren't just content with abiding by their own religious beliefs; they want to force others to abide by them as well.

And, by the way...all those other groups you spoke of...they do expect, and receive, the same treatment. Which is as it should be in a nation that prides itself on religious freedom.

??????????? The Amish, pacifists, and vegans don't have to pay taxes? Since when? :unsure:

 

[Barrd]

It's the same legal concept, where merely saying "religious freedom" is not a card one can play to get out of obeying the law.

That, my friend, is a very slippery slope. We have given our government too much freedom. I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they insisted on "government by the people"...

Yes, and as with all other rights, it is neither absolute nor universal.

Remember that, when the Supreme Court begins messing with the First Amendment...
Oh, wait

Right, but in this case no one is forcing the Little Sisters to use contraception, provide it, or even pay for it. The government fully exempted them from all of that, and all the Little Sisters had to do was fill out an exemption form so their employees could get health coverage directly from the insurance companies. But the Little Sisters are actually arguing that filing out the form violates their religious conscience.
IOW, the Little Sisters aren't just content with abiding by their own religious beliefs; they want to force others to abide by them as well.

Those are both very good points, River. I'm actually wondering how these gals even need employees in the first place. Every charity I've ever been involved with was staffed by volunteers...and I've been involved with quite a few.

??????????? The Amish, pacifists, and vegans don't have to pay taxes? Since when? :unsure:

Do you think you could talk an Amish farmer into filling out a form so that his farmhand could have electricity installed?
Or get a pacifist to buy guns for his employees?
Or convince a vegan to hold a bar-b-que at his next office party?

I doubt it...

 

[River Jordan]

That, my friend, is a very slippery slope. We have given our government too much freedom. I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they insisted on "government by the people"...

It's always been that way. You can't kill someone. then claim it was a human sacrifice and doing so is your "freedom of religion".

Remember that, when the Supreme Court begins messing with the First Amendment...
Oh, wait

Again, our rights and freedoms have always come with limitations. You can't go up to your boss at work and call her all sorts of dirty names, and then when she fires you claim that she violated your freedom of speech.

Those are both very good points, River. I'm actually wondering how these gals even need employees in the first place. Every charity I've ever been involved with was staffed by volunteers...and I've been involved with quite a few.

Glad you understand.

Do you think you could talk an Amish farmer into filling out a form so that his farmhand could have electricity installed?
Or get a pacifist to buy guns for his employees?
Or convince a vegan to hold a bar-b-que at his next office party?

I doubt it...

First, you deflected from the original point. Do you still maintain that vegans, pacifists, and the Amish are exempt from paying taxes?

Also, there are no laws mandating that employers have to provide electricity, guns, or meat to their employees. There is a law however that says they have to provide health insurance, so your attempted analogies are inapt.

 

[Barrd]

It's always been that way. You can't kill someone. then claim it was a human sacrifice and doing so is your "freedom of religion".

Isn't killing a baby a human sacrifice?
Tell me...if my religion calls for me to sacrifice a goat, may I do that? I'm just wondering what the limits to religious freedom actually are.
It wasn't that long ago that we were having this same argument about whether or not my business must cater to gay marriage, even though the God I worship says that it is an abomination.
I'm still not comfy with that.

Again, our rights and freedoms have always come with limitations. You can't go up to your boss at work and call her all sorts of dirty names, and then when she fires you claim that she violated your freedom of speech.

I can't call her dirty names, that is true...does she have the right to call me dirty names, then? No, she doesn't.
We both have the right to be treated decently in the workplace, and that is as it should be.

Glad you understand.

Even I get one right occasionally

First, you deflected from the original point. Do you still maintain that vegans, pacifists, and the Amish are exempt from paying taxes?

Actually, the Amish are exempt from paying Social Security tax, and, interestingly, in some areas they are also not required to pay workman's comp.
However, this was not about paying taxes, as the Sisters, being a religious organization, are tax-exempt. (BTW, you don't need a 501c-3 for your church or other religious organization to be tax exempt.)

Also, there are no laws mandating that employers have to provide electricity, guns, or meat to their employees. There is a law however that says they have to provide health insurance, so your attempted analogies are inapt.

I think you mean "inept", actually.
But I wonder...does providing insurance necessarily include contraceptives? Is this actually a health care necessity?
Why?

 

[River Jordan]

Isn't killing a baby a human sacrifice?

Of course.

Tell me...if my religion calls for me to sacrifice a goat, may I do that?

As long as it's your goat, sacrifice away!

I'm just wondering what the limits to religious freedom actually are.
It wasn't that long ago that we were having this same argument about whether or not my business must cater to gay marriage, even though the God I worship says that it is an abomination.
I'm still not comfy with that.

A good rule of thumb is that your religious freedom does not give you the right to violate the rights of others.

I can't call her dirty names, that is true...does she have the right to call me dirty names, then? No, she doesn't.
We both have the right to be treated decently in the workplace, and that is as it should be.

Again, the point is that all our freedoms and rights come with limitations.

Actually, the Amish are exempt from paying Social Security tax, and, interestingly, in some areas they are also not required to pay workman's comp.
However, this was not about paying taxes, as the Sisters, being a religious organization, are tax-exempt. (BTW, you don't need a 501c-3 for your church or other religious organization to be tax exempt.)

It relates to the broader legal principle, where claiming "religious freedom" does not automatically grant one immunity from laws and regulations, be they taxes or health care laws.

I think you mean "inept", actually.

Nope. Definition of "inapt". ("not suitable <an inapt analogy>")

But I wonder...does providing insurance necessarily include contraceptives? Is this actually a health care necessity?
Why?

Because providing contraception reduces overall health care costs, reduces the number of abortions, and is widely used by American women (an estimated 98% of US Catholic women use contraception!!!).

 

[Barrd]

Of course.

So, we both enjoy the same rights and protections. This is as it should be.

As long as it's your goat, sacrifice away!

Does it matter where I do it?

A good rule of thumb is that your religious freedom does not give you the right to violate the rights of others.

So, it becomes a matter of priorities. Do the rights of others include the right to infringe on my religious freedom? For instance, may the manager at McDonald's tell me that I may not pray in his restaurant?

Again, the point is that all our freedoms and rights come with limitations.

And that's fine, within reason.

It relates to the broader legal principle, where claiming "religious freedom" does not automatically grant one immunity from laws and regulations, be they taxes or health care laws.

So, the Amish farmer does have to pay taxes, and some of those taxes may go to public utilities...but he is not required to provide those utilities to his farmhands. That seems fair.

Nope. Definition of "inapt". ("not suitable <an inapt analogy>")

I stand corrected. It still doesn't sound right to me...

Because providing contraception reduces overall health care costs, reduces the number of abortions, and is widely used by American women (an estimated 98% of US Catholic women use contraception!!!).

Being pregnant is not an illness. I can't see forcing someone who sees birth control as a sin against God being forced to provide contraceptives to anyone...it is the same as asking them to commit murder, at least, in their eyes.
This isn't about what 98% of Catholic women do or don't do...you are not their judge, and neither am I.
It is only about what the Sisters believe, and can they be forced to violate their beliefs.

You know, they will probably lose...but have you considered the precedents that are being set?

 

[River Jordan]

Does it matter where I do it?

Of course.

So, it becomes a matter of priorities. Do the rights of others include the right to infringe on my religious freedom? For instance, may the manager at McDonald's tell me that I may not pray in his restaurant?

In circumstances where one person's right to practice their religion infringes on someone else's rights, it usually goes to court. That's how our system was set up to work.

So, the Amish farmer does have to pay taxes, and some of those taxes may go to public utilities...but he is not required to provide those utilities to his farmhands. That seems fair.

Yup.

Being pregnant is not an illness. I can't see forcing someone who sees birth control as a sin against God being forced to provide contraceptives to anyone...it is the same as asking them to commit murder, at least, in their eyes.
This isn't about what 98% of Catholic women do or don't do...you are not their judge, and neither am I.
It is only about what the Sisters believe, and can they be forced to violate their beliefs.

Ah, but in this case the Little Sisters aren't being forced to provide contraceptives or pay for them. They are already exempt from that requirement under existing law, and all they have to do is fill out a government form claiming that exemption. But they're arguing that merely filling out that form violates their religious beliefs, because it's the mechanism that will allow their employees to acquire contraceptives by other means. IMO, that's not a very compelling argument.

You know, they will probably lose...but have you considered the precedents that are being set?

Such as?

 

[Barrd]

Of course.

So, where is it legal for me to sacrifice my goat? Can I do it in my satanic church? In my basement at home? What about the park?

In circumstances where one person's right to practice their religion infringes on someone else's rights, it usually goes to court. That's how our system was set up to work.

I have never understood how bowing one's head to pray could possibly violate someone else's rights.

Yup.

Even I get one right every once in awhile...

Ah, but in this case the Little Sisters aren't being forced to provide contraceptives or pay for them. They are already exempt from that requirement under existing law, and all they have to do is fill out a government form claiming that exemption. But they're arguing that merely filling out that form violates their religious beliefs, because it's the mechanism that will allow their employees to acquire contraceptives by other means. IMO, that's not a very compelling argument.

Well, of course it isn't, in your opinion, because you do not see it as a venial sin, as the Catholics do. They honestly believe that using contraceptives is a sin that will send them to hell. Whether you or I agree with them is not the point at all...the point is, can they be forced to violate that belief and actively send people to hell?

Such as?

If the sisters can be forced to violate their beliefs, why not you?
Suppose the days should come when our government decides that science is evil? I know, you can't even imagine such a thing...but try, just for a second. The religious crazies have won, and it is now illegal to so much as mention the "evil doctrine of evilution"...

Believe it or not, I am also thinking "God forbid"...

 

[River Jordan]

So, where is it legal for me to sacrifice my goat? Can I do it in my satanic church? In my basement at home? What about the park?

You could do it in a church, your house, or pretty much any other private property where the owner allows it.

I have never understood how bowing one's head to pray could possibly violate someone else's rights.

I guess I'd have to see a case where that happened before I could comment.

Well, of course it isn't, in your opinion, because you do not see it as a venial sin, as the Catholics do. They honestly believe that using contraceptives is a sin that will send them to hell.

If they believe using contraception is a sin, then they shouldn't use contraceptives. The problem is, they want to force non-Catholics to abide by Catholic rules. You'd think with all the ginned-up fears over Sharia Law lately, people would be more sympathetic towards people who don't want to be forced to live under another religion's rules. Or is this a case where if Christians want to force non-Christians to live by their rules it's ok, but if Muslims want to do the same, it's terrible and must be stopped?

Whether you or I agree with them is not the point at all...the point is, can they be forced to violate that belief and actively send people to hell?

I guess I just don't get where the "active" part is. They're not providing contraceptives, they're not paying for them, they're not requiring them.....all they're doing is filling out a form that says "we don't believe in contraception", and that's it.

If the sisters can be forced to violate their beliefs, why not you?

Like we went over before, people are forced to violate their beliefs all the time.

Suppose the days should come when our government decides that science is evil? I know, you can't even imagine such a thing...but try, just for a second. The religious crazies have won, and it is now illegal to so much as mention the "evil doctrine of evilution"...

Believe it or not, I am also thinking "God forbid"...

That would be under a Ted Cruz administration, right? :lol:

 

[Barrd]

You could do it in a church, your house, or pretty much any other private property where the owner allows it.

I would have thought there would be a cruelty to animals law that would kick in. Maybe I should have said "dog" instead of "goat"..or, hey...."alpaca"...

I guess I'd have to see a case where that happened before I could comment.

I read something several years ago about a family being told in McDonalds that they were to keep their religion to themselves.

If they believe using contraception is a sin, then they shouldn't use contraceptives. The problem is, they want to force non-Catholics to abide by Catholic rules. You'd think with all the ginned-up fears over Sharia Law lately, people would be more sympathetic towards people who don't want to be forced to live under another religion's rules. Or is this a case where if Christians want to force non-Christians to live by their rules it's ok, but if Muslims want to do the same, it's terrible and must be stopped?

Do they absolutely have to hire non-Catholics? I can't understand why a non-Catholic would want to work in a Catholic facility. There are bound to be some clashes.

I guess I just don't get where the "active" part is. They're not providing contraceptives, they're not paying for them, they're not requiring them.....all they're doing is filling out a form that says "we don't believe in contraception", and that's it.

They obviously feel very strongly about this.
It just seems wrong to me that businesses can be forced to provide these services to their employees.


I don't believe in prostitution. Even if we lived in Nevada, I would not wish to hire a prostitute to work for me.

Tell me, River...is there anything that you have strong beliefs about?

Like we went over before, people are forced to violate their beliefs all the time.

And it is wrong. All the time.

That would be under a Ted Cruz administration, right? :lol:

 

[StanJ]

What the Little Sisters of the Poor Case Could Mean for Religious Liberty
Lorie Johnson 03-21-2016 - CBN News
The pending case brought by The Little Sisters of the Poor and other plantiffs objects to the Obamacare mandate that employers provide contraception to its employees. Those plaintiffs consider birth control a violation of their religious beliefs.
Furthermore, certain types of birth control, like Ella and Plan B, often referred to as "morning after pills," are considered by Catholics and others as synonymous with abortion, which they consider a sin.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Obamacare, has offered The Little Sisters of the Poor and religious organizations like it, an exemption to the contraceptive mandate. However, The Little Sisters of the Poor and similar organizations object to that because they feel it still violates their right to freedom of religion.
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/March/What-the-Little-Sisters-of-the-Poor-Case-Could-Mean-for-Religious-Liberty

What I would like to know, is why there is anybody working for these organizations that believes in birth control?
Wouldn't that be rather contradictory? Are there really people that work for pro-life that believe in contraception?
I read the whole article in all this seems to be as a matter of agendas on the part of outside organizations and not the organizations themselves. Is America really as litigious as this article makes them out to be?