Separation of Church and State?

[Ilfirin]

This is not a seperation of church and state issue, it's simply a matter of every citizen of this country is bound by the laws of this country. Whether or not you have any moral problems with said laws is completely irrelevant.

Apparently there's a law out there stating that every business health-care plan must cover contraceptives. This non-profit organization is a business, therefore its health-care plan must cover contraceptives. End of discussion.


I may be a member of a religion that believes paying someone to work for you equates to eternal damnation upon death (and there have certainly been similar religious beliefs throughout history), but if I own a business, I must pay those who work for me. Even if I believed it meant an eternity of pain and suffering.

 

[Humus]

Though it sounds like strange law to me.

 

[Sabastian]

I am not going to make a long winded argument.. Plain and simple the state should not be forcing religious charities to support the cause of birth control. Same goes for same sex marriages. With all that in mind it almost sounds like an integration of church and state. Joe makes a good point .. why not let people get their own contraceptives? AFAIK contraceptives are not central to the health of anyone necessarily and condoms are cheap as snot.

Seems the law ought to be reversed allowing for charities to refuse support for contraception. The law itself comes off as a tad to authoritarian. Enforcement of it against religious organizations that are not supportive of the cause is draconian IMO. Contraception is not central to any ones health and so it should be up to the charity in question whatever their cause may be. That is my take on it like it or lump it.

 

[VtC]

This is not a seperation of church and state issue, it's simply a matter of every citizen of this country is bound by the laws of this country. Whether or not you have any moral problems with said laws is completely irrelevant.

Apparently there's a law out there stating that every business health-care plan must cover contraceptives. This non-profit organization is a business, therefore its health-care plan must cover contraceptives. End of discussion.

Well, it would be the end of the discussion except for that other California law which states that religious organizations are exempted from this particular law.

I don't see this as a separation of church and state issue, I see it as a "judiciary rewriting the law" issue. After all, if an organization run by the Catholic Church isn't a religious organization, then what is? The judiciary seems to be saying that an organization run by a church is not a religious organization if it hires non-religious people. I sincerely doubt that's what the California legislature had in mind when they exempted religious organizations from the requirement. It'll be interesting to see the reaction of the legislature to this.

 

[Ilfirin]

Well, it would be the end of the discussion except for that other California law which states that religious organizations are exempted from this particular law.

If there is indeed a law making religious organizations exempt from that law, then there most certainly is a conflict with seperation of church and state - no person should be exempt from any law, doesn't matter if it's for religious reasons or otherwise. The law that makes religious organizations exempt from this law should be revoked.

But I see no conflict with the "every business medical plan must cover contraceptives". People chosing not to use contraceptives when they aren't prepared to support a child hurts everyone, not just the person making that decision. But that's a completely seperate topic.

 

[Legion]

i am a little confused sorry, why is it that business in California requires to provide contraceptives to its employs? They can't be considered responsible for their own contraception?

People chosing not to use contraceptives when they aren't prepared to support a child hurts everyone, not just the person making that decision. But that's a completely seperate topic.

Of course, because a persons worth is defined by what they contribute to society.

Why can't these people be trusted to make intelligent and responsible choices on their own?

 

[Ilfirin]

I don't know.

But that's pretty irrelevent.

Whether or not the original law was unjust was not what this court case was about.

 

[Sabastian]

Speaking of law..

First amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now... how do you interpret this constitutional amendment as allowing for the state to force religious charities to supply contraceptives?

 

[Legion]

I don't know.

But that's pretty irrelevent.

Whether or not the original law was unjust was not what this court case was about.

No, i think its perfectly relevant. I see it as a common sense reasoning that would lead one to agree the law is unfounded and unjust.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i am a little confused sorry, why is it that business in California requires to provide contraceptives to its employs? They can't be considered responsible for their own contraception?

To be perfectly clear, it sounds like CA law requires businesses to offer health care plans that cover perscription contraceptives.

Likely, it's the result of some "affirmative action" lobbying that claimed women were being discriminated against because "their perscription drugs" weren't being covered.

 

[Legion]

Speaking of law..

First amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now... how do you interpret this constitutional amendment as allowing for the state to force religious charities to supply contraceptives?

You do exactly what they did. Try to reduce the charity to and industry, removing all sense of religion from it, to force unjust laws apon it.

 

[Legion]

Likely, it's the result of some "affirmative action" lobbying that claimed women were being discriminated against because "their perscription drugs" weren't being covered.

Ever vigilant in their support of racial indolence those affirmative action lobies...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The law that makes religious organizations exempt from this law should be revoked.

Why shouldn't the law that requires coverage of perscription contraceptives be revoked instead?

 

[Ilfirin]

I don't know.

But that's pretty irrelevent.

Whether or not the original law was unjust was not what this court case was about.

No, i think its perfectly relevant. I see it as a common sense reasoning that would lead one to agree the law is unfounded and unjust.

That's not how the justice system works. The intent of this case was to determine whether or not this organization classified as a business, and hence was subject to the laws of business of the state. The court decided they were a business, and hence had to provide coverage for contraceptives in their medical plan.

Now, said organization could now plead another case in front of the court calling the law unjust and then it could be considered for removal. If they won that court case and had the law revoked, they could then remove contraceptives from their medical plan.

But you can't re-question every relevent law everytime you make a decision, or else nothing would ever get done. That's why there are two parts to the justice system - one to make decisions and judge based upon the established laws, and one to review the established laws to decide whether or not they are unjust.

 

[Legion]

The law that makes religious organizations exempt from this law should be revoked.

Why shouldn't the law that requires coverage of perscription contraceptives be revoked instead?

<prepares for the inevitable emotional argument concerning sexual contraceptive preperation>

 

[Legion]

That's not how the justice system works. The intent of this case was to determine whether or not this organization classified as a business, and hence was subject to the laws of business of the state. The court decided they were a business, and hence had to provide coverage for contraceptives in their medical plan.

Oh? I have seen perfect examples of unjust laws being revoked. Honestly, i don't care what the judges said (judges have agendas too you know), i would definately oppose this interpretation of the law. This is hardly any different from the state attempting to force gay marriages in the church. The state is clearly over stepping its bounds.

Now, said organization could now plead another case in front of the court calling the law unjust and then it could be considered for removal. If they won that court case and had the law revoked, they could then remove contraceptives from their medical plan.

Indeed they could, or they could take the easier route and simply move out of california.

But you can't re-question every law relevent to the case everytime you make a decision, or else nothing would ever get done. That's why there are two parts to the justice system - one to make decisions and judge based upon the established laws, and one to review the established laws to decide whether or not they are unjust.

Oh? Isn't that what the judicial branch does? Review the law?

 

[Ilfirin]

The law that makes religious organizations exempt from this law should be revoked.

Why shouldn't the law that requires coverage of perscription contraceptives be revoked instead?

Honestly, both should. But the only one that is a direct violation of the seperation of church and state is the one making religious organizations exempt. (ANY law that makes ANYONE exempt from any other law is a direct front against everything the justice system is about. If laws don't bind everyone equally, the entire system is broken)

That one should be revoked so that everyone (religious or otherwise) has to follow the same law. And then that law should be reviewed for removal.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The court decided they were a business, and hence had to provide coverage for contraceptives in their medical plan.

Yes, that's exactly what happened. As I said earlier then, from this it logically follows that if:

As a condition for providing their services, the Catholic organization handed out bibles or required attendance at a bible study class?

I mean, I would say that would definitely push it into the "religious organization" and not just a business.

Now, is this what the people of CA Want? Seems to be a step backwards to me...everyone loses.

 

[Ilfirin]

Oh? I have seen perfect examples of unjust laws being revoked. Honestly, i don't care what the judges said (judges have agendas too you know), i would definately oppose this interpretation of the law. This is hardly any different from the state attempting to force gay marriages in the church. The state is clearly over stepping its bounds.

Yes, I just said that unjust laws can be revoked, that's one of the jobs of the justice system. They just never revoke laws and make decisions based around those laws at the same time.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Honestly, both should.

Actually, I agree.

However, both are in force, so somewhere the line has to be drawn between a "religious" organization and a non religious one, and in this case, I think they drew the wrong line.