Obamacare and religious freedom.

[Twilight Hue]

The power of some Catholic nuns and Obamacare provisions.

They are granted an exemption for now and will have their day in court without penalty.
This op isn't about Obamacare, but rather begs the question as to weither a groups religious freedoms are infringed if a law happens to interferes with a particular religious view or practice. Should the nuns have thier exemption in light of thier religious views or should they comply as the majority of people must comply as long as there is an existing law?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...reme-Court-hands-nuns-temporary-victory-video

 

[fantome profane]

Can someone here help me with a little background information, that I have been unable to gleen from the article? Who exactly are the "Little Sisters"? I know they are Catholic nuns, but what are they doing that they have employees? Who are the employees of the Little Sisters? Are they all nuns?

 

[Alceste]

Can someone here help me with a little background information, that I have been unable to gleen from the article? Who exactly are the "Little Sisters"? I know they are Catholic nuns, but what are they doing that they have employees? Who are the employees of the Little Sisters? Are they all nuns?

They're operating 31 old folks homes, so my informed guess is no, they're not all nuns. It takes a veritable army of qualified health care, custodial and admin personnel to operate a facility like that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This link goes to their main website which includes mission statement, life and vocation as well as information regarding the mandate that is affecting them. They are also engaging in a lawsuit via the Becket fund to fight the provisions revolving around contraceptive measures that goes against long standing Catholic beliefs.

They focus on serving the elderly poor and their needs.

http://www.littlesistersofthepoor.org/

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The power of some Catholic nuns and Obamacare provisions.

They are granted an exemption for now and will have their day in court without penalty.
This op isn't about Obamacare, but rather begs the question as to weither a groups religious freedoms are infringed if a law happens to interferes with a particular religious view or practice. Should the nuns have thier exemption in light of thier religious views or should they comply as the majority of people must comply as long as there is an existing law?

Obamacare and contraceptives: Supreme Court hands nuns temporary victory (+video) - CSMonitor.com

I see nothing in that article that would allow me to make an informed judgement. Since the Constitution says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." it needs to be established that providing health care prohibits the free practice of their religion. I say they could simply stop running businesses that cause them to violate their religion, whatever that violation might be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They're operating 31 old folks homes, so my informed guess is no, they're not all nuns. It takes a veritable army of qualified health care, custodial and admin personnel to operate a facility like that.

That does bring up a very good point as to the status of being employed or even contracted by a religious institution on weither if an exemption would apply throughout the organization or would such a thing be limited to clergy only.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's not easy to give an answer. My idea is that, with churches having tax exempt status, they need to stay out of government affairs. As long as they do this, then they should be exempt from the law.

 

[Ingledsva]

I see nothing in that article that would allow me to make an informed judgement. Since the Constitution says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." it needs to be established that providing health care prohibits the free practice of their religion. I say they could simply stop running businesses that cause them to violate their religion, whatever that violation might be.

I agree with you.


They should just stop, as they would probably be impinging another person's human rights, and perhaps even their religion, as all religions are not the same.


*

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's not easy to give an answer. My idea is that, with churches having tax exempt status, they need to stay out of government affairs. As long as they do this, then they should be exempt from the law.

Is obeying a law a government affair?

 

[fantome profane]

Ok, so I am going to have to side with the employees rights here, over the rights of the employers. If you are a cleaner who works for this organization you should have exactly the same rights and exactly the same access to healthcare as a cleaner who works for any other organization.

My answer may be too specific for what the op intended, if this was just an example. But that is my answer. I am in favour or reasonable religious accommodation, but what is or is not reasonable depends on the specific case.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see nothing in that article that would allow me to make an informed judgement. Since the Constitution says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." it needs to be established that providing health care prohibits the free practice of their religion. I say they could simply stop running businesses that cause them to violate their religion, whatever that violation might be.

I kind of wonder if the arguments might actually come down to something like that.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I agree with you.

That's unique...someone agreeing with me.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I kind of wonder if the arguments might actually come down to something like that.

Nah, that is too simple. Constitutional Law needs to be convoluted and esoteric so that justices and lawyers can feel superior and power brokers can get around the Constitution by baffling us with...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ok, so I am going to have to side with the employees rights here, over the rights of the employers. If you are a cleaner who works for this organization you should have exactly the same rights and exactly the same access to healthcare as a cleaner who works for any other organization.

My answer may be too specific for what the op intended, if this was just an example. But that is my answer. I am in favour or reasonable religious accommodation, but what is or is not reasonable depends on the specific case.

Makes sense. If a non-believers views should not infringe on the rights of a believer then a believers views should not infringe on the rights of a non-believer.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Is obeying a law a government affair?

Not always.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not always.

When is it not?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

When is it not?

When it's more right not to follow it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

When it's more right not to follow it.

Not following a law still involves the government; it's called law enforcement. Religious organizations cannot absolve themselves of government influence.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Not following a law still involves the government; it's called law enforcement. Religious organizations cannot absolve themselves of government influence.

So if it becomes federal law that homosexuals do have the right to be married, do you think churches should have to perform ceremonies for them, even if they disagree theologically with the practice?

 

[Revoltingest]

So if it becomes federal law that homosexuals do have the right to be married, do you think churches should have to perform ceremonies for them, even if they disagree theologically with the practice?

Could be. If one gets into the landlord business, one cannot legally
discriminate on the basis of religion, race, & many other traits.
Thus, if you need to do something illegal, don't become a landlord.