Separation of Church and State?

[Joe DeFuria]

That last arguement can be made for any employee at any organization.

Agreed...which is why (going to an earlier post of yours), I don't think gov't should be be involved to any significant extent in private enterprise.

 

[John Reynolds]

I just don't see this as a separation of church and state issue, Joe. What if the organization belonged to a faith healing only denomination that refuses to use medicine. Should they then be allowed to wave all health care coverage benefits and instead tell their employees, when sick, to pray? Yes, it infringes on their religious belief but if they're going to create an organization that engages in employer-employee relationships, then they must follow the state's guidelines regardless of their beliefs.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I just don't see this as a separation of church and state issue, Joe.

Well, call it whatever kind of issue you want. CA makes it a point (law) to allow "Religious organizations" to be exempt from certain regulations, (be it a perceived separation of church and state or whatever), though the judiciary decides that a non-profit, religiously based enterprise is not a "religious organization?"

What if the organization belonged to a faith healing only denomination that refuses to use medicine. Should they then be allowed to wave all health care coverage benefits and instead tell their employees, when sick, to pray?

Actually, I think they should. But then, I think that if IBM wants to take a "faith healing" approach, they should be allowed to as well.

Yes, it infringes on their religious belief but if they're going to create an organization that engages in employer-employee relationships, then they must follow the state's guidelines regardless of their beliefs.

I understand your point, but I just don't agree with it.

What we have here is a "religious based organization with employer-employee relationships", and I prefer to lean in favor of "religious based."

 

[John Reynolds]

What we have here is a "religious based organization with employer-employee relationships", and I prefer to lean in favor of "religious based."

But in any final analysis, the state isn't making a person act against their religious convictions by actively using birth control options made available via their health care coverage. Yes, they have to pay for it but that's a pretty minor cost compared to most prescriptions and treatments these days. A quibble, really.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yes, they have to pay for it but that's a pretty minor cost compared to most prescriptions and treatments these days. A quibble, really.

They what's wrong with individuals "quibbling up" for their own birth control?

 

[Florin]

The marriage services of the Catholic Church (primarily) cater to followers of that religion, I'd say.

What difference does that really make though? I mean, anyone who "wants" to be Catholic, can.

Sure, but clients of the charitable organisation don't necessarily want to be Catholic, they just want housing. Any kind. So there is a difference.

And these ceremonies are not performed by employees who are themselves not Catholic. So no.

The the employees of the charitable organizations forced to be there, or are they there under their free will?

I'm guessing some of them just want to work. Forced is a strong word, but considering that people may lose the right to financial aid or welfare if they don't undertake constructive activities to find employment, and will thus take any job whether or not they agree with the employer's religious insights, there may be many people there who would appreciate birth control coverage.

 

[L233]

Well, I am not familiar with US/Californian law. I guess it depends on whether the churches can actually marry people juridically (and not just religiously).

I'm sure they can.

If a church is empowered to declare a legal marriage then the church can be forced to marry gays.

I don't see why they couldn't be forced to, based on this ruling.

Hm, then maybe the US has some sort of mongrel system in which marriage is a civil institution but the state recognizes church marriages as civil marriages. Anyway, the they are still different things.

If that is the case then there are probably two possibilities:
1. the churches have to marry gay couples because when it comes to marriage they are not only a religious institution but also act as a state institution (but I guess no one can force them to conduct a religious ceremony for gays)
2. the churches could get away with it on grounds that there are secular alternatives (registry office?) where gays can marry

If 1. is the case then the churches could always opt to have their religious marriages NOT recognized by the state if they want to keep gays out. Wouldn't be a big deal.

 

[L233]

Well, call it whatever kind of issue you want. CA makes it a point (law) to allow "Religious organizations" to be exempt from certain regulations, (be it a perceived separation of church and state or whatever), though the judiciary decides that a non-profit, religiously based enterprise is not a "religious organization?"

Yes, because the court found that what that "relogiously based enterprise" is doing is secular and not religious in nature.

If, hypothetically, some church ran a construction company would you want that company to be exempt from, say, some workplace security laws because the church decrees that those laws don't comply with their religion? If no, in what way would that hypothetical case be different from that charity thing?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Sure, but clients of the charitable organisation don't necessarily want to be Catholic, they just want housing. Any kind. So there is a difference.

I don't see it. If the Catholic church is offering services, they have the right to have "Strings attached" if they so choose. (Again, as long as they're not using public funds to provide the services.)

there may be many people there who would appreciate birth control coverage.

I'm sure there would be. I'd appreciate if my employer paid for all of my health coverage too.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Hm, then maybe the US has some sort of mongrel system in which marriage is a civil institution but the state recognizes church marriages as civil marriages.

That is true. You still need to have a "civil marriage certificate", but religious leaders are legally able to "execute" the marriage.

1. the churches have to marry gay couples because when it comes to marriage they are not only a religious institution but also act as a state institution (but I guess no one can force them to conduct a religious ceremony for gays)

Why not? If the "law" doesn't allow one to discriminate based on sexual orientation, how can the church not allow for gay ceremonies if it's demanded?

2. the churches could get away with it on grounds that there are secular alternatives (registry office?) where gays can marry

Well,that wouldn't work...because there are other "non religious" offices and organizations that provide jobs where people can get birth control coverage.

[/quote]If 1. is the case then the churches could always opt to have their religious marriages NOT recognized by the state if they want to keep gays out. Wouldn't be a big deal.

That's true, though I think it would in fact be a big deal.

 

[John Reynolds]

I'm sure there would be. I'd appreciate if my employer paid for all of my health coverage too.

Think of the HMO's perspective: birth control is a helluva lot cheaper than baby deliveries. I forget exactly how much the doctor charged for that C-section, but it was around $6k or so. And then there's the anesthesiologist (sp?), the hospital stay, meds, etc. I firmly believe in religious freedom, but Catholicism's stance on birth control is medieval as hell. . .spawn as many little brats as possible and raise 'em Catholic, because we all know while it's not 100% the power of tradition and childhood environment is a damn powerful combination. Blech!

My sense of religious freedom also means the minute any organized religion tries to tell me how to live my life, they get a real quick "f*ck off" attitude from me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yes, because the court found that what that "relogiously based enterprise" is doing is secular and not religious in nature.

And round and round we go.

I suppose maybe the Church could hand out bibles when they provide their services, or require a couple bible study classes as a condition of their help.

Would this make everyone happy?

This is just making it harder and harder for charitable works to be done. The more restrictions you place on this stuff, the more likely the organizations are going to say "screw you...". (Imagines the Pope flipping the bird... )

If, hypothetically, some church ran a construction company would you want that company to be exempt from, say, some workplace security laws because the church decrees that those laws don't comply with their religion?

That's a good point. I'd say no.

If no, in what way would that hypothetical case be different from that charity thing?

I admit, it's not really. And this is the problem. There's so much governmental regulation of "private enterprise", and at the same time, there is active legislation to "protect" religion. So I see this as a case-by-case situation. And I put worker saftey in a different category than perscription drug benefits.

This brings us back to:

If, hypothetically, some church ran a wedding ceremony, would you want such ceremonies to be exempt from, say, homosexual unions laws, because the church decrees that those laws don't comply with their religion?

I think most of us here don't think a church should be forced to accept it.

In other words, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I happen to draw it somewhere after worker safety, but before birth control.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I firmly believe in religious freedom, but Catholicism's stance on birth control is medieval as hell. . .

I agree....but that's really irrelevant.

 

[L233]

Why not? If the "law" doesn't allow one to discriminate based on sexual orientation, how can the church not allow for gay ceremonies if it's demanded?

Because I doubt there is a law that mandates how churches have to conduct religious ceremonies.

Let's say churches were required to marry gays because they are empowered to act on the behalf of the state in that matter. Well, that doesn't neccessarily mean that they have to give them Baby Jeusus's blessing, right? They could just have do the neccessary paperwork for a civil marriage and then usher them out ASAP.

Well,that wouldn't work...because there are other "non religious" offices and organizations that provide jobs where people can get birth control coverage.

Different thing. There seems to be a law that explicitly regulates health plans for non-church organisations and a court ruled that a religious charity is to be treated as such. I don't think that implies that the churches themselves are non-church organisations

Besides, I doubt that this court ruling could even be considered a valid precedent for an eventual law suit on gay church marriage because it's a employer-employee relation thingy and that has nothing to do with marriage.

If 1. is the case then the churches could always opt to have their religious marriages NOT recognized by the state if they want to keep gays out. Wouldn't be a big deal.

That's true, though I think it would in fact be a big deal.

No, it would just be a mere inconvencience for the wedding couple. Works for Germany.

 

[Geeforcer]

I just don't see this as a separation of church and state issue, Joe. What if the organization belonged to a faith healing only denomination that refuses to use medicine. Should they then be allowed to wave all health care coverage benefits and instead tell their employees, when sick, to pray? Yes, it infringes on their religious belief but if they're going to create an organization that engages in employer-employee relationships, then they must follow the state's guidelines regardless of their beliefs.

Yes, but what is the said faith-healing organization makes its position on the matter abundantly clear to all potential employees? If a person takes a job after and despite being fully informed that health benefits are not forthcoming, do they really have ground for complaint?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Because I doubt there is a law that mandates how churches have to conduct religious ceremonies.

Who cares about the law? It's all about what the judges say.

 

[John Reynolds]

Who cares about the law? It's all about what the judges say.

Fallacious logic, Joe. A potential case of church and state isn't the same as a minority fighting for civil liberties. And a organization that, according to the NPR, receives 50% of its money from the government seems in my mind obligated to follow federal/state mandates in how it treats its employees.

 

[John Reynolds]

Yes, but what is the said faith-healing organization makes its position on the matter abundantly clear to all potential employees? If a person takes a job after and despite being fully informed that health benefits are not forthcoming, do they really have ground for complaint?

Honestly, I don't know the law well enough to know whether or not full disclosure at the moment of employment could be upheld in a court. I remember when I got a job Speedway's (midwest gas station chain owned by Marathon) corporate office and I was negotiating my salary, since it was a computer-related job I was told my MA in English degree wasn't relevent in an effort to keep the money lowered. Since I was out of work at the time I accepted the job, and lo and behold a few months later my boss, the very person who'd set my salary during that previous conversation, asked me into his office and wanted me to start documenting everything the help desk did and supported since I had a English degree. I flat-out told him that would require a salary renegotiation; he dropped the request. And I wouldn't have budged on that issue. . .he would've fired me first.

My point with the above story is that perhaps it cuts both ways and it would be unfair of the employee to start crying discrimination and demanding health care benefits if they accepted the job knowing such benefits wouldn't be made available.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Fallacious logic, Joe. A potential case of church and state isn't the same as a minority fighting for civil liberties.

Um, how exactly? Both have to do with laws on the books, and with potential conflicts with the state or federal constitution. Ask the Church if they feel that they're being discriminated against.

And a organization that, according to the NPR, receives 50% of its money from the government seems in my mind obligated to follow federal/state mandates in how it treats its employees.

Like I said fropm the very first post...if it can be shown that these specific charities are getting funds from taxpayer dollars, I would agree with the decision whole-heartedly. I do not see where that's documented, but if true, then I have no complaints.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My point with the above story is that perhaps it cuts both ways and it would be unfair of the employee to start crying discrimination and demanding health care benefits if they accepted the job knowing such benefits wouldn't be made available.

So if this holds true in the perscription contraceptive case? I don't recall many organizations being secretive of such things.