I don't understand what you're talking about. Are you saying that our representative have the power, if they choose, to vote to negate the protected right of Freedom of Religion as guaranteed by our Constituion?

Somehow Freedom of Religion has been bastardized to somehow equate to a "theocracy"? How did that happen.

Aren't you just saying the Church's rights have to be forfeited to the edicts of the State?

What about "equal protection under the law" for the people who work for a Catholic hospital or school?

Mind you, I don't agree with the mandate of Obamacare, but, given that it's the law (for now), why should it matter to a nurse if she works for a Catholic hospital versus any other kind.

What it's boiling down to is - how far does the Church's religious protections go and where does it collide with an individual's rights?

You have no constitutional right to infringe on another's constitutional rights.

What is the Constitutional Right than calls to having your wants and needs paid for by another citizen?

Especially, how do you have a right to demand something, and for free, from a religious institution which prohibits it as a tenet of their faith?

I don't think the colonists were fighting for government mandated drugs to be provided for free from an institution that prohibits these drugs as a tenet and teaching of their faith.

This really is a simple issue. I don't understand why you are clouding it.

Richie - because it's not just about "religious freedom". We're finding a situation where "religious expression" is colliding with other parts of the Constitution - as I mentioned.

Ok, so I'm guilty of using the "Socratic Method" of argument at times, but what if it were a religion's tenet that blacks couldn't work for them, or some other law that other businesses have to follow?

On one side, you have people defending the Church saying "well, if you don't want to follow those rules, don't work there". Fair enough. But what about the other side where someone says to the Church "if you can't follow the laws of society, then don't operate there"?

Using your first line - the Church has no right telling a nurse that he or she can't have the same protection under the law that a fellow nurse at, say Boston's Beth Israel-Deaconess Hospital has.

...and just to be clear, I'm *still* opposed to the purchasing mandate aspect of Obamacare.

I don't know why you think your "what if's" are useful. I disagree.

There is no part of this argument to show that someone is being denied their Constitutional Rights by being denied free contraceptive drugs from the Catholic Church in violation of the Church's Constitutional Rights.

What's so hard to understand here?

It's not about the drugs.

It's about equal protection under the law.

It's about whether or not a Catholic (or other religiously affiliated) hospital can have different rules for their employees versus the rest of the 'secular' workplace.

A law that would take away someone's (The Church's) Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion, is unconstitutional, and thus, invalid.

No subsequent law can override your Constitutional protections.

Are you trying to tell me that all companies issue identical medical coverages? You know that's not true.....so where's your "equal protection", there?

No one is provided contraceptive drugs at a Catholic run institution. That sounds "equal" to me.

There's no way to get around the Church's Constitutional Rights, DJ, without violating the Constitution. It's as clear as anything can be.

If that is a fact, that is a very good point.

Thank you.......finally. I've been trying awfully hard to get at least one point across.

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, there are certain minimums that a company HAS to follow.

So the government has said, in order to meet the (IMO, unconstitutional) mandate, your insurance has to cover birth control. This is like how Massachusetts said that health insurance had to include chiropractic care. In New Hampshire, if you don't have certain levels of auto insurance and you get into an accident, your license is pulled.

No, all insurance companies don't offer the same - but NONE of them can break the law and claim they're providing the service. What if it were "pre-existing conditions" that the Church wanted to exclude? The law says you can't do that anymore - but if the Church said "we're not responsible for the employees actions before they came under our employment", would that be legal?

Running a hospital is not the free exercise of religion. You can argue that it's an extension of it - but it's not central to it.

Don't get me wrong, Richie, I *do* see the point you're trying to make. I simply believe that the individual's right to equal protection trumps the Church's "right" to extend it's morality (for good or bad) outside the walls of the Church.

What if the First Church of Christ Scientist ran a soup kitchen and only provided "health insurance" for a prayer specialist? There was a famous case in MA some years back about a couple that let their child die from a bowel obstruction. They only took the kid to a prayer specialist, refusing "conventional" care. The court case had their defense based on religious freedom but they were found guilty of (I believe) negligent homicide.

Yes, that's an extreme (there goes my Socratic Method style again), but do you at least understand where I'm coming from?

It's kind of like how the Church *can* serve wine to a minor as part of the sacrament of the Eucharist but, outside the Church, they certainly cannot.

I think you've got this so turned around in your head that you're not thinking logically about this any more.

I'm getting a little weary of repeating this but let me try again.

You've got to start and end this conversation with the United State's Constitutional First Amendment protection of Freedom of Religion.

You cannot force the Catholic Church to accept and do something that is against it's tenets and teachings, for any reason, whatsoever.

There is no more debate needed once you accept that the Church has rights, and it's the State that is trying to take away those rights.

The examples you give are not violations of anyone's Constitutional Rights and therefore are irrelevant to the conversation. Who cares about chiropractic care coverage in Massachusetts? It has nothing do with our Constitutional debate.

The Church cannot prevent anyone from purchasing and using contraceptives against it's belief and teaching that to do so is unnatural and morally wrong to utilize.

The State cannot issue a law that the Church must provide something from it's own hand and it's own expense that violates this Constitutionally protected belief.

It's the State trying to violate the Church's rights. The Church is not violating anyone's rights.

There's no way to twist this debate with any intellectual honesty about the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

Show me where any church is *required* to operate a hospital as part of it's religion.

You trot out the First Ammendment - and, yes, I get where you're coming from.

I trot out the 14th:
The last 14 words in particular.

So the Church would object to what an insurance company does with the money given to them by the church when it comes to birth control. Ok, I'll ignore (for the time being) all the OTHER things that an insurance company would do with that money that would go against the Church's teachings.

The difference between the check to the insurance company and the check to the employee is....?

The insurance premiums are part of the employee's compensation package. But that's a different part of the argument.

The Church has no right to say "this law doesn't apply to us outside the walls of the Church". *Inside* the walls - different story.

Again, if it were the First Church of Christ Scientist and not the Catholic Church, could THEY offer "health insurance" that didn't even include doctors - just prayer advisors?

Too many "what ifs" in these posts for me. You can make a mountain out of a mole hill with "what ifs"

OMG!!; are this is getting infuriating.

The Church being "required" to open a hospital, or university I'll add as that's what we were discussing ??

The Church has the right to open a hospital or university. You have the right to go elsewhere for your employment once you understand what the unhidden and open limits of your provided health care insurance coverage will be once you accept employment.

You have no Constitutionally expected right to receive a job at a Catholic Institution, and no Constitutionally expected right to receive anything, once hired, to anything outside of the Church's doctrine.

You can play with numbers, but if it's part of an employees coverage, the Church is providing it no matter how you skew the numbers on where the funds are designated as originating.

There is a way around this. The government can just provide free contraceptives for everyone to be dispensed at any of the numerous government agencies, or through the mail. This would be much easier than trying to twist the clear meaning of the First Amendment.