Religious Freedom: Little Sisters of the Poor in court again

Myself & others have commented on a general attitude difference between the left & right. Whereas a majority of the time the right wants to let people live their lives how they choose, many on the left demand that you follow their belief system, else face their wrath.

This has changed from 50 years ago, when many on the right wanted to punish those who lived outside of what was considered normal while the left included quite a few people with unique lifestyles who just wanted to be able to live their lives.

Funny how it has changed over time.

I'm not sure this is really a left / right issue, as much as it is a mainstream / outlier one if we looked at it thru the lens of history.

I know slavery is widely considered a republican v democrat issue, and I'm not sure where women's rights or prohibition slot politically, but I do think that moderate & conservative Christian values is being portrayed as an outlier by those controlling the media / social media. The irony is they're doing it for purely capitalistic reasons.

But, but, but, wait.  I thought it was the left that was "pro-choice".  I'm so confused.

This is all subjective wishful thinking. Abraham Lincoln once posed the question: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" He continued "The answer is four, because just calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one."



Similarly, just calling something a "gay right" or an “abortion right" etc. doesn’t somehow create a new right, far less a Constitutional obligation. You might call the idea of a 16-year-old male transvestite being allowed to utilize a girls’ locker room a "right", but the vast majority would call it a violation of the girls’ right to privacy and a nonsensical interpretation of what a right is (to say nothing of common sense)


So when you say that "conservatives are still against” gay/abortion/contraceptive/transgendered “rights" it’s because you are assuming novel rights and projecting your interpretation where it has never existed before and is not accepted by others
.


You state that Catholics are opposed to contraception and "are trying to get their views codified into law", when the more correct observation would be that Americans have always had the right to exercise their conventional religious convictions, but now radical activists are trying to force them to violate those beliefs. Religious organizations were never in the past compelled to pay for other’s abortions or contraceptions. But suddenly you discover that there's a new "abortion/contraceptive right" created from thin air
.


These ideological yahoos who try to force their new age concepts are no better than the gun nuts who think everybody should be able to walk around with AK-47’s and RPG's because, y'know, it's a "right.". Ideology when taken too far obliterates rationality and common sense
.............................Luca

"Catholics have been against contraception for years and have been trying to get their views codified into law."  Those dastardly Catholics must be up to no good... 

1. Newsflash: that's literally what the law is--a particular view being invested with the enforcement power of the state. Some people are opposed to guns and have been trying to get their views codified into law; others are in favor of recreational marijuana and have been trying to get their views codified into law; still others are against the use of fossil fuels and are trying to get their views codified into law. Very sinister.

2. Whose view of abortion was codified into law by Roe v. Wade?

3. Whose view of the nature of marriage was codified into law by Obergefell v. Hodges?

4. FYI: anti-contraception laws in the United States were written by Protestants in the 1800s and the last such law in force was overturned by Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). That horse left the barn 55 years ago.

5. To get back to the thread topic--neither the Catholic Church nor the Little Sisters of the Poor are attempting to forbid anyone's access to birth control. They simply object to being forced to pay for it. Anyone is free to go to any drug store and pick up whatever they want. That's not even remotely in jeopardy in this case.

6. For some reason liberals are unable to understand the following basic idea: My objection to being forced to do provide you with X doesn't mean I'm trying to forbid you from obtaining X. If a vegan restaurant won't cook me a hamburger I just go to a different restaurant; I don't file a lawsuit to force them to do so. 

It seems to me that health insurance was intended to provide financial protection against illness and injury. A guy walking into a drugstore to by a rubber because he plans on getting laid is neither of those things, and I shouldn't have to help pay for his horniness.

Vilepagan: That's debatable and irrelevant...what's your point?

Currently the issue is about a religious institution following its religious beliefs by resisting being forced to pay for contraceptive medications for others. This is neither debatable nor irrelevant because the trendy concept du jour you espouse that others have a "right" to compel that institution to do so is contrary to established tradition, consensus, Constitutional precept and religious beliefs.


VP: As I understand it this case revolves around a group of nuns who don't want their health insurance plan to cover contraceptives because they love Jesus, and he doesn't like condoms.

Perhaps you don't understand the case, based on your decidedly juvenile characterization of Roman Catholic theology, which holds that human life begins at conception (hence the opposition to abortion) and that preventing conception by chemical means is contrary to human dignity and divine purpose. Your characterization would be no more justified than my saying that “The proponents of on-demand contraception and abortion are merely horny, undisciplined hedonists bereft of principles who want others to pay the cost their relentless escapades.” Both characterizations qualify as shallow.


VP: If their issue is that they don't want anyone who is covered by their health insurance to use condoms, I'd say their case is no better than the state that tried to outlaw them. ……


I don’t know if you're unable to grasp the issue or are deliberately misstating it for the purpose of discussion. Obviously, the right of individuals to use condoms is not at issue. Making a religious organization pay for them and responsible for them in violation of their religious convictions is the issue. It is not a conceptually difficult distinction.

You do not seem to draw a distinction between a "right" to a particular item and a third party’s presumed obligation to provide that item for you. The nuns would not be denying contraception or abortion to their employees. Those employees can get contraceptions or abortions wherever/whenever they choose. I cannot understand why it’s assumed that my having a right compels you to provide it for me. I have a right to ride my bike, but that doesn’t compel you to make the bike paths in your estate available to me. I have a right to be on the ocean, but that does not compel you to provide a boat for me.

It's counterintuitive that nowhere in the constitution does it specifically address a right to contraceptives or abortion, far less an obligation for fellow citizens to provide them for you. This right is merely implied from subsequent interpretation. However, it does very specifically address “free exercise” of religion. And yet some conclude that this implied right compels others to violate the very specifically enumerated right of the First Amendment. This is legal sophistry.

VP; Bottom line is that I don't believe an employer may tell his employee how to use his health insurance.

I agree. But an employer has a right to procure a health insurance policy that does not compel him to violate his religious convictions. Once an acceptable policy is in effect an employee can use it however the hell he or she wants, and I doubt the nuns even care.

VP:Lastly a question...if you don't think the nuns should pay for a secular employees contraception then how would you feel about an employer who was a devout Christian Scientist refusing to provide any health insurance to his employees at all because he doesn't believe in doctors?


That’s a very legitimate question. In the first place, Christian Scientists should not have any preceptual objection to providing health insurance to others since their belief is simply that "prayer is most effective when not combined with medicine", not that medical care per se is a wrong for others. I’m not aware that they disapprove medical care for non-Christian Scientist employees and hence it would not represent a violation of religious beliefs. (I'm not an authority on Christian Science, so please correct me if I'm wrong on this)  Second, I think intellectually honest individuals see a distinction between abortions/contraceptives and conventional healthcare per se. I do not see the analogy as apt...............................Luca