Posted on 03/11/2004 6:54:46 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Bowing to the State shouldn't be one of the choices. At this point, their only legitimate choices are to drop the drug coverage, or just defy the State and say, "come get me." Hopefully the SCOTUS will land on California like a ton of bricks over this, but who knows with them?
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
No, the choices are not limited to these 2. They can tell the court to go f themselves. Which is what they should do in addition to firing the bozo employee(s) that filed the suit in the first place.
Actually, only one of your proposed choices is legitimate (dropping drug coverage). There IS a real second legitimate choice---get the legislature to pass a law overruling the court. Chance of that happening = snowball in hell.
I with no legal schooling would read this as the state establishing its view of religion, a direct violation of the first amendment. The court acting on behalf of the state is taking a side on a social political issue and forcing its view upon the people.
The courts are out of control and they are pushing the moment closer in which warlords will seize the opportunity with a mandate from a broad base of the people who will react against meddling leftists. Warlords will wipe out the scourge of leftists -- lawyers, sociologists, psychologists, peace priests, union teachers -- who have crept into key positions of governmental power. Watch for a last minute gun grab by the statists as that moment comes closer.
In the last election, one half of eligible voters did not vote. Do these idiots realize what they are about to lose? They want to be left alone yet they won't vote against meddlers who want to control them. The
Exactly. As Rush says, capitalism is th unequal distribution of wealth. Liberalism is the equal distribution of misery.
By your definition Rosa Parks wasn't performing a legitimate act.
There IS a real second legitimate choice---get the legislature to pass a law overruling the court.
The law that the Catholic Charities is supposedly violating was very clear in its exemptions--and the court simply redefined what a religious organization is so they could save some woman from the horrific slavery of paying for her own birth control pills. If they pass another law, what should it say, "We hereby declare that religious organizations don't have to provide birth control, and we really, really mean it this time"?
When a bunch of black-robed idiots tell us that free exercise means the government tells you how you will serve your God, civil disobedience is more than justified. Don't get me wrong, they should let the appeals play out, but if the SCOTUS comes down with a ruling supporting the State's double violation of the 1st Amendment, the Catholic Charities should say, "Go ahead, make me."
Got it in one!
Nothing wrong with "civil disobedience" as long as one is will to PAY THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES, until the law is changed.
Oh, so the following words don't hold weight in California?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The Church (and I say this as a Catholic) bought this trouble for itself when it began acting like a secular business. There wouldn't be any demand for coverage for contraceptives (or for "domestic partner" benefits) if the employees of Catholic Charities were believing Catholics.
Yes, and her skirt was short, and she was in a bad part of town unescorted...oh wait, different subject. From the article:
Justice Janice Brown, the sole dissenter, replied that the ruling defined "religious employers" too narrowly. As she put it, "[the ruling reflects] such a crabbed and restrictive view of religion that it would define the ministry of Jesus Christ as a secular activity."
The Court found that a group which...
...is an arm of the Catholic Church
...carrying out the mission of Christ
...and reporting to a Bishop while doing it
...was a secular organization. Would an all-Catholic employee roster have changed that? Not bloody likely. And if some "believing Catholic" worked there for a couple of years and then decided she didn't believe in the birth control ban anymore, wouldn't we still be at this same spot? I say yes, even if the case was a "discrimination in firing" case rather than the one we have here.
And since when does the government get to violate the Constitution when someone does something inadvisable? Since when does the employee roster of an organization determine whether a court gets to violate clear provisions of the law?
Well, duh! But you called it illegitimate. I would say there is nothing, nothing more legitimate for a Christian to do than to choose God over man, and there is nothing, nothing more legitimate for an American to do than to choose the Constitution over a bunch of black-robed nitwits.
I would say only poor legal schooling would convince one otherwise. This violates both establishment (A church is what we say it is) and free exercise (and we're going to tell Catholics to fund what they believe is evil). In addition, they have ignored the intent and language of the exemptions for religious organizations, and have violated California law as well as the Constitution.
All the way to hell!
The line for those choosing to enter into HELL will stretch further than the Milky way and back and then some.
Yep, and she had a short skirt on in a bad part of town...oh wait, different subject.
Last time I checked, liberal churches were still churches, and the Constituion still said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.