Judge rules against Catholic employer's birth control conscience claim

[Anonymous]

Yay! A GW Bush appointee strikes down the employer's religious objection:

https://www.facebook.com/TooInformed/posts/530034570346388

[Anonymous]

This is FABULOUS. Made me teary.

"Federal religious freedom law is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. It does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own......"

[Anonymous]

Love that quote and this boiled down version too: "religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.”

to the point that employers already provide money which can be used to buy various thing the employer may not approve of - Rs??? counter point???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yay! A GW Bush appointee strikes down the employer's religious objection:

https://www.facebook.com/TooInformed/posts/530034570346388

That's absolutely beautiful.

I believe she's a GHW Bush appointee, FWIW.

[Anonymous]

Crap!! SCOTUS is back one day and they already issued a ruling!!!!

[Anonymous]

I was hoping it would go the other way. I was going to request a 25% tax refund because war is against my religion.

[Anonymous]

Yup, she's a GHW Bush appointee.

http://www.jtbf.org/index.php?src=directory&view=biographies&srctype=detail&refno=85

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is FABULOUS. Made me teary.

"Federal religious freedom law is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. It does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own......"

I am. Catholic and I am so glad for this ruling. If the tables were turned I wouldn't want my options limited by someone else's religion. Score one for America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was hoping it would go the other way. I was going to request a 25% tax refund because war is against my religion.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Let's see how it goes when a Muslim employer refuses to hire homosexuals.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Let's see how it goes when a Muslim employer refuses to hire homosexuals.

Such discrimination by members of any religion is perfectly legal in Virginia and most other states. But, I don't really see the connection with your post and this thread.

[Anonymous]

Does this mean that Jehovah's witnesses will pay for blood transfusions?

[Anonymous]

Hm, what I don't understand is why my private employer has any business knowing if I am on birth control. Prescription drug coverage should pay for prescription drugs. I'm glad this judge saw through the weak arguments.

[Anonymous]

I have a friend whose husband works for an organization that is currently challenging the ruling. She is on her husband's plan, which currently covers birth control. However, the company is now ELIMINATING the coverage, which is forcing her to go on her own company's crappy plan.

They are Catholic. They have 4 children. She is on the pills because her mother died of cervical cancer. It is awful all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend whose husband works for an organization that is currently challenging the ruling. She is on her husband's plan, which currently covers birth control. However, the company is now ELIMINATING the coverage, which is forcing her to go on her own company's crappy plan.

They are Catholic. They have 4 children. She is on the pills because her mother died of cervical cancer. It is awful all around.

Why would she change plans? Birth control is not that expensive. Even the more expensive pills wouldn't justify a switch to a crappy health plan that will cause you to spend more in other ways.