No Exceptions (Once We’ve Got Power)

Peggy Noonan discusses the totalism beneath the progressive mindset. She’s talking about Obamacare’s contraception-abortifacient mandate on employers, but she could as well be addressing the demand by certain gay activists for no religious exception that would allow small service providers not to accept assignments that require them to provide expressive services for same-sex weddings.

Writes Noonan:

Meanwhile, back in America, the Little Sisters of the Poor were preparing their legal briefs. The Roman Catholic order of nuns first came to America in 1868 and were welcomed in every city they entered. They now run about 30 homes for the needy across the country. They have, quite cruelly, been told they must comply with the ObamaCare mandate that all insurance coverage include contraceptives, sterilization procedures, morning-after pills. If they don’t—and of course they can’t, being Catholic, and nuns—they will face ruinous fines. The Supreme Court kindly granted them a temporary stay, but their case soon goes to court. … And so they fight, in a suit along with almost 500 Catholic nonprofit groups.

Everyone who says that would never have happened in the past is correct. It never, ever would have under normal American political leadership, Republican or Democratic. No one would’ve defied religious liberty like this. The president has taken to saying he isn’t ideological but this mandate—his mandate—is purely ideological.

It also is a violation of traditional civic courtesy, sympathy and spaciousness. The state doesn’t tell serious religious groups to do it their way or they’ll be ruined. You don’t make the Little Sisters bow down to you. This is the great political failure of progressivism: They always go too far. They always try to rub your face in it.

More. Now available in paperback is a new, expanded edition of Jonathan Rauch’s classic Kindly Inquisitors. From the blurb:

the answer to bias and prejudice, Rauch argues, is pluralism—not purism. Rather than attempting to legislate bias and prejudice out of existence or to drive them underground, we must pit them against one another to foster a more vigorous and fruitful discussion. It is this process that has been responsible for the growing acceptance of the moral acceptability of homosexuality over the last twenty years.

A follow-up by Rauch also addresses progressive speech codes (but by extension, I’d argue, the progressive mindset that would force a florist to decorate gay weddings, and a baker to design congratulatory cakes with two grooms or two brides atop). Writes Rauch:

Something else I often find called on to emphasize to young people, at a time when college speech codes are usually justified as protecting minority rights, is that turnabout is not fair play. The problem is not that the bad guys were in charge of the speech rules in 1954, whereas the good guys are in charge now. The problem is that majorities, politicians and bureaucrats are very unreliable judges of minorities’ interests.

46 Comments for “No Exceptions (Once We’ve Got Power)”

  1. posted by Houndentenor on

    There is no “abortifacient” mandate. That’s a flat out lie, Stephen, and you know that, or at least ought to.

    Here’s what’s so appalling about this “controversy”. Plenty of catholic organizations had already been covering birth control pills. And as governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee signed a health care bill requiring birth control to be covered under all insurance plans in the state. It’s the height of hypocrisy to cry foul now and it’s only happening for political purposes. No one is forcing anyone to take birth control pills. And in almost all cases, the businesses complaining pay little to none of the cost of the health insurance plans. They just provide them since in the US most adults with health insurance who are not on medicare or medicaid get it through their employers.

    You also ignore the flip side of this. Now I have to ask my potential employer in the job interview about their religious beliefs since it appears that they can deny insurance coverage (if they win the current lawsuits) based on their beliefs even if I do not share those beliefs. They are under no obligation to reveal this in advance so I suppose I’m just going to have to ask to make sure that the owner isn’t a Jehovah’s Witness which means I’ll have to pay for blood transfusions out of pocket? What a load of nonsense, but this is what we get when so many Americans operate under the delusion that “religious freedom” means they have a right to inflict their superstitious nonsense on the rest of us.

    • posted by Wilberforce on

      Another point of hypocrisy is the idea that either Peggy or Stephen care two straws about the poor. They feature the Sisters’ work prominently, but have probably never lifted a finger themselves. They just use the Nuns good work to attack Obamacare. It shows yet again that there is nothing that crowd cannot use for their cruel purposes.

  2. posted by Mark J on

    No exceptions? Really.

    In fact, the Poor Little Sisters of Perpetual Poverty do have an exception. They can fill out a little form declaring that they refuse to provide certain medical services for religious reasons which will allow for their employees to receive such services elsewhere if the need them.

    This great burden was too much for the Poor Sisters, who believe that they should be able to dictate the morals of their secular employees.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Perhaps if the Sisters had put any effort into stopping priests from raping children or seeking justice for those rape victims it might be possible to take them seriously when they want to take a moral stand. As it is, their claims of persecution are laughable.

  3. posted by bls on

    Hey, guys: what’s up with mocking a religious order that exists to provide free medical services to the elderly poor? With sniffing at religious beliefs as “superstitious nonsense”? (Says who?) And did we really have to listen to yet another example of the by-now exceedingly tiresome (and completely vacuous) “priests raping children” argument?

    Clearly you have no use for the Catholic Church – which is perfectly fine. Don’t belong to it, don’t attend it, fight against it in the political sphere when necessary. If you have to resort to tactics like this, though, it sure looks like you don’t have a real argument to offer.

    If the Little Sisters are wrong, let them be wrong; what’s it to you? They might even be right – and that might even be to your benefit someday.

    These are good examples of why I think Stephen is right in this case – and why I have little use for the “gay community” these days.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Says me. I have as much a right to say that I don’t believe as they have to say they do. That’s what freedom of religion means. I can even criticize other beliefs. Believers are certainly not shy about criticizing other beliefs. Stop asking for special privilege.

      As for the child rape scandal, that is far from over because the coverup and the criminal laundering of church funds to avoid paying court ordered legal claims continues. that argument is neither tired or vacuous. Thousands of victims are still seeking justice and being blocked at every turn by the church. It is only “tired” to those denying the ongoing criminal activities of the church.

      And, to be clear, there were no “guys” sniffing anything. Just me. I spoke only for myself, not on behalf of anyone else. Don’t tar anyone else with what I said. They can agree or not. that is their right. Don’t pretend like everyone made a statement that was only from me.

    • posted by Mike in Houston on

      Mocking?

      Read Voltaire.

  4. posted by Jorge on

    Now, watch this trick.

    The dissent will try to attack the author’s character without addressing the accusations. Small chance the dissent will attack the author’s credibility on the basis of having an opposite opinion on the same principle.

    Hmm. Missed it. Should have realized the dissent’s irrational hatred of the Catholic Church in all its forms outweighs its hatred of the political right.

    There is no “abortifacient” mandate. That’s a flat out lie, Stephen, and you know that, or at least ought to.

    Now, now, you ought to know your arguments before making them. You are familiar enough with the accusation that the morning after pill, and similar medications, 1) cause abortions ending pregnancies after fertilization, and 2) are covered under the employer mandate. You ought to be able to produce its rebuttal.

    And as I remember, the rebuttal only goes as far as to allege that the covered drugs prevent pregnancy between fertilization and implantation. That is well within the pro-life definition of abortion that posits that life begins at conception. You know that, or ought to. You owe Mr. Miller an apology.

    Plenty of catholic organizations had already been covering birth control pills.

    How is that relevant? Some gay pride marchers advocated man-boy relations. Some out lesbians married men. Some women fake taking birth control to keep their boyfriends. Some men kill their stepchildren. So if some people do it, that means screw them all, right? By your reasoning I’d better stop coming here and try to will myself into falling in love with women, right? Especially since I can name names.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      No. The morning after pill prevents ovulation. If the woman has already ovulated it does not prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. It cannot cause an abortion. Please stop listening to whatever liar is feeding you this argument. You are being misled.

      My point is that organizations that were already providing insurance that covered birth control pills are now claiming they are being persecuted for what they were doing anyway because Obama. It’s about right wing politics. Not religious beliefs or anything else.

      This isn’t about any irrational hatred of any organization. This is about my hatred of hypocrisy and raping children. I will not stop calling people out on such bullshit. Churches do not get a pass from me. If they don’t like it, they should clean up their act. Playing victim and acting persecuted is what’s tired. The RCC is one of the wealthiest and most powerful organizations in the world. If Cardinal Law had been Superintendent of the Boston Schools instead of an official in the Catholic Church he’d have gone to prison for a very long time for his crimes. What is irrational about that.

      • posted by Jorge on

        No. The morning after pill prevents ovulation. If the woman has already ovulated it does not prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. It cannot cause an abortion. Please stop listening to whatever liar is feeding you this argument. You are being misled.

        Actually, according to both webmd.com and mayoclinic.org, the morning after pill is indicated to prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg.

        From http://women.webmd.com/guide/plan-b

        Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:

        It may prevent or delay ovulation.
        It may interfere with fertilization of an egg.
        It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.

        This is from the page on Plan B from Mayoclinic.org:

        One-Step is a type of morning-after pill that can be used after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step contains the hormone levonorgestrel — a progestin — which can prevent ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

        Your statement that the morning after pill cannot cause an abortion is wrong.

        Even if you were to present evidence to the contrary, given the credibility of the above testimony, you cannot allege deception on the part of your dissenters.

        For the same reason, you cannot allege befalling deception on my part.

        You alleged deception on Mr. Miller’s part.

        You alleged befalling deception on my part.

        My point is that organizations that were already providing insurance that covered birth control pills are now claiming they are being persecuted for what they were doing anyway because Obama.

        The Sisters of Catholic Chastity just won an injunction from the Supreme Court. About 30 other Catholic groups are suing in I think the same case (maybe it’s others)–which is admittedly not a large number. If they had already been offering contraception in their employee health plans, they would have had their cases thrown out of court for failure to state a claim. They didn’t.

        I’m not sure from where you’re getting your phantom information that implies without quite stating that the very Catholic groups who are suing already provide employee contraceptive coverage, but I would sure like to see it.

  5. posted by Doug on

    What exactly is the spiritual connection between religion and the prohibition of contraceptives? Or is it just another made up rule to exercise control of peoples lives.

    • posted by Tom Jefferson III on

      As a Catholic, much of it comes down to — in terms of current Vatican doctrine — to the idea that sperm should only be released from the male body to make a baby. I would not subscribe to this belief, and a great many Catholics do not.

      However, I do appreciate the need for religious exemptions, I am just skeptical when conservatives invoke them without any thought to general legal principles or how it might actually come back to bite them in the ass.

      • posted by Doug on

        I fail to see the connection with contraception. So far as I know, condoms, for catching male sperm, are not covered under any medical plan and apparently the Vatican is only dealing with the male body, not the female body.

        • posted by Tom Jefferson III on

          Well contraception (birth control, the pill and condoms) is deemed to be a sin — by the Catholic Church hierarchy — because it involves ‘launching’ seamen/having sex without procreation. That is the connection — again, not all Catholics would agree.

          • posted by Tom Jefferson III on

            In terms of — theologically — why the catholic church believes this is probably something of a mind field (even among Catholics), so I probably am not allowed to dive into that here and now.

            Basically, the bulk of official Catholic Church teachings about human sexuality comes down to a man Thomas Aquinas. Again, not all Catholics think that adopting this man’s view points was entirely a good idea, but that is internal Church politics.

            It is through his writings that this idea of ‘good sex’ requiring procreation and everything else automatically falls within the realm of ‘immoral sex’.

            Any sort of family planning/birth control — under this theory — is ‘immoral’ because it does not lead to procreation (in fact it is designed to prevent it).

            Likewise for say, ‘onanism’. Basically, contraception is treated as the same thing as (cough, cough) what was referred to as ‘self-abuse’ I suspect, the only reason the Catholic Church leadership is not screaming about the evils of onanism is probably because it would not go anywhere politically.

            The Vatican II was an important document for the Church — having to deal with past mistakes and the faith in a modern context (i.e. no more Spanish Inquistion, no more banned books and priests need to be involved in dealing more with racism, poverty, war etc.)

            I suspect that a Vatican III is due, but I do not think that their is the internal support within the Vatican for such a move, mainly because the moderate/liberal factions have limited clout.

            But, the Vatican III — if done right — would probably sanction (in some form) contraception (but not abortion) and would probably move closer to the idea that gay Catholics should not have to be celibate.

        • posted by Jorge on

          The Catholic Church has this view of sex as both a physical and a spiritual union, and it believes this is so because sex is the means by which mankind fulfills God’s plan for creation as regards to humanity, i.e., procreation. I think it views sex while intervening in the ability to procreate as an absurdity. I do not understand where the idea comes from, except that it is ancient. At least from the Dark Ages (they used to ban the rhythm method), if not earlier

          I think the Catholic Church also considers having sex while using contraception to fall under one or more sexual sins (lust, fornication) that overall interferes with what (marital) sex should be about. But after looking in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I think this is secondary.

  6. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I think that there is some value in keeping an eye on the actual legal question in both situations.

    In the matter of the Sisters of Charity, the question is under what circumstances an employer is granted an exception, on the basis of religious belief, from providing medical insurance covering standard medical procedures to employees. In the matter of “every cake is sacred”, the question is under what circumstances a public business is granted an exception, on the basis of religious belief, from providing service to all and sundry under public accommodation laws.

    In both cases, the government has an interest. In the matter of the Sisters of Charity, the interest is in ensuring all employees equal access to standard medical care through medical insurance coverage. In the matter of “every cake is sacred”, the interest is in ensuring all citizens equal access to goods and services provided by public businesses.

    In both cases, those seeking a religious exemption have an interest. In both cases, the interest is permitting a business owner to conduct business without being required to act in a way that offends the religious conscience of the business owner.

    The situations may present a level of legal complexity (the Sisters of Charity more so than “every cake is sacred”), but do not present new legal questions. Courts have faced “religious exemption” cases countless times, and a relatively large body of precedent exists.

    Peggy Noonan is wrong when she asserts that “Everyone who says that would never have happened in the past is correct.” It has happened a lot in the past. If it had not, the body of precedent that has developed around “religious exemption” cases would not have developed. Courts do not sit around and dream up legal issues; the courts confront legal issues when presented in cases.

    Stephen is wrong when he asserts that “This is the great political failure of progressivism: They always go too far. They always try to rub your face in it.” and suggests that this is a failure peculiar to progressives. The “religious exemption” cases were prompted by laws enacted both by progressives and by conservatives, depending on the law in question.

    The courts will sort out the balancing of interests over time.

    I also think that there is some value in keeping the anti-marriage amendments in mind. If there every was an instance in which it was fair to say “This is the great political failure of conservatism: They always go too far. They always try to rub your face in it.“, the anti-marriage amendments are that instance.

    The courts will sort that out too, over time.

  7. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    1. IF all the ‘Sisters’ had to do to get exempted was fill out a form, then I am not entirely sure how that is terribly too unreasonable.

    2. IF some conservatives are complaining now, but didn’t when a certain State Republican Governor passed a similar bill, that would certainly be hypocrisy/I-Call-BS.

    3. IF someone really believes that the sort of absurd things that Mr. S. seems to think about progressives, then they ought to get their head examined and maybe take some halfway decent undergraduate classes.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      At least two Republican governors have passed similar mandates. Yes, they are hypocrites about this like with most things. This is a party that embraces David Vitter as a champion of “family values” even though he was caught red-handed booking prostitutes from the Senate floor.

      It’s laughable that anyone on the right thinks we can’t see through their hypocrisy.

    • posted by Jorge on

      I had to fill out a form once. It was pure bureaucratic heck.

      However, let me see what this bureaucratic Sister heck case is about….

      Yeah, no. I’m looking at a brief at becketfund.org, filed 9/24/13 by the plaintiffs in the US District Court in Colorado

      The Plaintiffs aren’t conceding that it’s just a form. They are alleging that the agency guidelines in question grant discretion to the federal government to provide religious exemptions to certain employers, but that even so, the exemptions the government is allowed to give are in a very narrow category that does not capture the Catholic Sisters or others in its class. Because these claims have not yet been tried (only an injuction or temporary relief issued), we must take the Catholic Sisters’ claims as given for the sake of the argument.

      If they are permitted to apply for a relgious exemption, and the courts order the federal government to consider it, then that is successfully obtaining the relief that is sought–for now.

      Although, of course, the Plaintiffs are asking for a home run. They want the law declared unenforceable against them. They don’t want whether or not penalties can be assessed against them to depend on applying for a religious exemption at the federal government’s discreption. This is where you begin to realize the need to put on glasses of skepticism and ask why a triple or a double wouldn’t be fair.

  8. posted by Don on

    My problem with this line of argument from Noonan et al is that it is the antithesis of what conservatives have been crowing for throughout my lifetime. Really? You don’t want us to make laws to make you live by our rules? Really? Talk about chutzpah.

    I think that is the thread that hits so many people so hard. And why the Catholic church’s child rape issues keep flying in their faces. Seeking out strangers to lecture publicly on moral values is hard to pull off when you cover up one of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

    The professional right is going to have to come up with a new line of thinking before it will manage to do anything other than preach to the converted. Because the middle is going to be gobsmacked by the spectacular hypocrisy on display surrounding their approach to these issues.

    Legislating morality was fine as long as it was their brand. Now that they might be losing the popular vote on some issues? That’s unfair!

    Puh-lease.

    • posted by Jorge on

      What cover up? That is over and resolved. Or if it is not, then accountability must continue. That is not germane to this discussion, nor shall it be until every church in the country is closed down for criminal cause.

      • posted by Don on

        This is my point:

        And critically, the Vatican has yet to sanction any bishop for having covered up for an abusive priest, even though more than a decade has passed since the scandal exploded in the U.S. and countless law enforcement investigations around the world made it clear the role bishops played.
        Vatican officials have suggested that under Francis, this might soon change.

        Claiming moral authority with this moral record is laughable.

        I have no desire to shut a single church down. But penance is a concept they are familiar with. Might want to try it in this instance. Even if it’s just a little bit of it.

        • posted by Jorge on

          Claiming moral authority with this moral record is laughable.

          First things first.

          When you say bishops covering up for priests, I must assume for the sake of giving your position credibility that you mean bishops who transferred known pedophile priests to different parishes, not bishops who refused to report suspected pedophile priests to law enforcement.

          Because the last time I checked, they don’t give bishops tests on how to identify real vs. false allegations of sex abuse as part of their qualifying exam. Nor have such tests been around in the US for much longer than 10-15 years or so–I am not just being flippant. Witness the proliferation of prosecutions at the end of the last century based on child interviewing techniques that have a horrible false positive rate (leading questions, repeated interviews, asking the same question again, using anatomically correct dolls). There’s a story about Woody Allen’s adoptive daughter who made a statement that he really did sexually abuse her as a child. Yet the balance of the reporting seems to give credence to the notion that, because her disclosure was not found to be credible, but likely coached by her mother, these may be fabricated memories.

          For such reasons… let us discuss bishops who transferred known pedophile priests from parish to parish.

          Hang ’em.

          But how many are there? If it is an outlier, then I do not think it is right to take it as some kind of mortal sin.

  9. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    More. Now available in paperback is a new, expanded edition of Jonathan Rauch’s classic Kindly Inquisitors. From the blurb: “ … the answer to bias and prejudice, Rauch argues, is pluralism—not purism. Rather than attempting to legislate bias and prejudice out of existence or to drive them underground, we must pit them against one another to foster a more vigorous and fruitful discussion. It is this process that has been responsible for the growing acceptance of the moral acceptability of homosexuality over the last twenty years.

    I think that it might be in order to expand the blurb quote in order to better understand the point that Rauch makes:

    Two decades after the book’s initial publication, while some progress has been made, the regulation of hate speech has grown domestically — especially in American universities — and has spread even more internationally, where there is no First Amendment to serve as a meaningful check. But the answer to bias and prejudice, Rauch argues, is pluralism — not purism. Rather than attempting to legislate bias and prejudice out of existence or to drive them underground, we must pit them against one another to foster a more vigorous and fruitful discussion. It is this process that has been responsible for the growing acceptance of the moral acceptability of homosexuality over the last twenty years. And it is this process, Rauch argues, that will enable us as a society to replace hate with knowledge, both ethical and empirical.

    It might even help to read the book, which I did some years ago. Rauch is making the argument for vigorous, public speech. In a nutshell, Rauch argues that we should let Fred Phelps be Fred Phelps, let the marketplace of ideas be vigorous and unregulated, let the best arguments win. I absolutely agree.

    Stephen’s reference to “Kindly Inquisitors”, however, demonstrates the nature (to my mind, weakness) of the a foundation of social conservative argument. Stephen and other social conservatives argue that the essence of the problem is a restriction on “expressive services” or “freedom of expression” (see Freedom of Expression Is Worth Defending by Stephen H. Miller on January 25, 2014), akin to allowing Fred Phelps to be Fred Phelps.

    I wonder. The argument seems stretched, to say the least. I am not saying the photographers, bakers and florists never use their products as speech (exceptions occur), but I am saying that taking a photograph, baking a cake or is not, in the normal course, speech.

    I think that what is at stake is not “freedom of expression”, but instead personal conscience, an objection to participating in an event that is, to the eyes of the business owner, evil. I support broad protection for personal conscience exemptions, if the exemptions are religion-neutral, issue-neutral and group-neutral.

    I understand why Stephen and other social conservatives make the “freedom of expression” argument in court, but I also understand why that argument is not getting traction in court. Personal conscience objections are personal conscience objections, not speech.

  10. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The problem is not that the bad guys were in charge of the speech rules in 1954, whereas the good guys are in charge now.

    I suppose the measure of “good guys”, like the measure of beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Republicans hold up Wisconsin, with Republicans holding the Executive and both branches of the Legislature, with redistricting locking the legislative majority in through 2021, as an example of both “the good guys are in charge” and, well, political “beauty”, if not nirvana. Others of us would disagree with that assessment.

    The problem is that majorities, politicians and bureaucrats are very unreliable judges of minorities’ interests.

    In the case of majorities, I’d suggest that experience proves that majorities are more often than not the enemy of minority interests, more interested in preserving majority rights than watching out for minority interests.

  11. posted by JohnInCA on

    I’ll be more impressed with “principled” calls for conscience exceptions when they don’t pick the low-hanging fruit of acceptable bigotry to get the exceptions.

    That is to say… if we’re going to allow exceptions to public accomodation laws/employment laws/etc to allow someone to refuse service/fire/etc *me* because of *their* religion, then by any sense of fairness *I* should be allowed to refuse service/fire/etc someone else because of *their* religion.

    But that’s never on the table, is it?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      But that’s never on the table, is it?

      Nope. The only “religious exemption” proposal I know about that is not about protecting social conservative Christians from the horrors of having to recognize same-sex marriage is Wisconsin’s proposed constitutional amendment, which isn’t a bad proposal, and the minute that social conservatives realized that the amendment would affect them as well as protect them, they ran away, ran away. A real personal conscience exemption law has less chance than a snowball in hell of ever getting passed.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        To be fair about this, I should note that although the bulk of the proposed “religious conscience” laws, typically limited to religious objection to same-sex marriage, fail all three “equal means equal” tests (religion-neutral, issue-neutral and group-neutral), some are better than others.

        Arizona’s Senate Bill 1062, for example, meets two of the three tests. It is issue-neutral, applicable to all laws of the state, and group-neutral, applying to refusal to offer goods and services to any class of citizens.

        But it is not religion-neutral, because it requires that the objection be “religious” in nature. If the law were amended to substitute “personal conscience” for “religious belief”, I would support it. After all, an atheist’s personal conscience is as worthy of protection under the law as a Muslim’s or a Christian’s or an adherent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

        • posted by Jorge on

          After all, an atheist’s personal conscience is as worthy of protection under the law as a Muslim’s or a Christian’s or an adherent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

          There’s a court case somewhere in this country that is (or was) examining the question of whether a particular vegan’s adherance to veganism with a conviction similar to that of a religious belief (or some such legal claim) is entitled to religious non-discrimination protection. An appeals court ordered a lower court to rule on the question after a trial on the merits of this woman’s stated case–for the judiciary will rule on whether that is claimed to be religious is in fact so for particular person. I strongly support that appeals decision.

          A personal belief is a personal belief, regardless of if the indivudal is religious or not, regardless of if the belief may otherwise be religious in nature or not. A religious belief is something more, and it is that “something more”, regardless of whether it belongs to an atheist, devout, or non-devout, that should be protected equally for each person.

          Hence my state (which totally rocks!) talks about something called “creed” in place of religion. Creed is usually taken to stand for religion and not for politics. Would you be satisfied with a law that makes an exception for creed, Tom?

          • posted by Jorge on

            (I hope that’s not something I first heard about from this website.)

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            Creed is usually taken to stand for religion and not for politics. Would you be satisfied with a law that makes an exception for creed, Tom?

            No. “Creed”, like “religious belief”, excludes moral conscience that is not formed by religious conviction.

            How about this as the operative principle: “Each person has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. No person must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must any person be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

            In case you wonder where I got those high-flying words, I got them from Section 1782 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

          • posted by tom jefferson iii on

            “Creed” can mean many different things within America…

            (a) the name of a musical group.
            (b) the name of the core values that all Christians agree to believe in.
            (c) a shorthand term for any religious or sectarian belief
            (d) shorthand for any for religious, sectarian, personal or political belief…..

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            “Creed” can mean many different things within America …

            Exactly. I don’t understand what is wrong with plain English. If we mean “conscience”, then say “conscience”. No need to turn ourselves inside out trying to find ways to make “creed” or “religious belief” include non-religious belief.

    • posted by Mike in Houston on

      Imagine this scenario — which by Stephen’s “logic”, should be perfectly acceptable:

      I’m a small business owner.

      I own a combination bakery & flower shop.

      A couple comes in an looks at my catalog — which showcases my work doing weddings and other celebrations.

      This couple — having already obtained their wedding license – asks me to bake them a cake for their wedding (and provide bouquets for the female participants).

      I have a firmly held, deeply religious belief that this marriage is wrong in the eyes of the Lord — and my participation, however tangential (baking a cake, delivering flowers) cannot be reconciled with my beliefs.

      I decline to provide them services.

      In this scenario, the couple is a man & a woman.

      Imagine the hue and cry about undue discrimination against this poor couple who were going about the LEGAL CIVIL business in trying to procure services that are publicly available, only to be turned aside, because in my deeply-held, religious beliefs, only same-sex couples are truly married in the eyes of G*d… and HOW DARE YOU try and force your heterosexual lifestyle down my throat!

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Or think about … a florist/baker turning down a straight couple planning to be remarried after the bride’s divorce … a florist/baker turning down an interracial couple … a florist/baker refusing to make a baptism or confirmation cake for a Catholic … and so on.

        The hew and cry would be deafening. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if a florist/baker is permitted a “religious exemption” in one case, then the florist/baker should be permitted a “religious exemption” in all cases.

        • posted by Mike in Houston on

          But according to Stephen, the gay florist or baker is supposed to just take it… while the straight florist or baker gets the exemption. Then again, consistency and cogent arguments are not his strong suit.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            A Republican apologist, he’s between a rock and a hard place. He knows full well that singling out gays and lesbians for special discrimination, yet again, is wrong. But “religious exemption” is the current social conservative initiative of the emerging massive resistance strategy, and he has to defend it, logic or not. So it turns into a “freedom of expression” issue. Nonsense. The party as a whole is stuck, and will be until the social conservatives are no longer in the driver’s seat.

  12. posted by sonicfrog on

    I have a question… Why should any employer have to pay for anyone’s healthcare? That makes no sense.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      It makes no sense at all. It is a historical artifact, a codification of the practice of employers over the last 50-60 years offering health care coverage as a part of the employee compensation package, typically 8-10% of the total compensation package.

      The ACA requirement that many/most employers provide health insurance coverage is, for the most part, a codification of existing compensation practice, as well as a way to maintain the role of private health insurers as the financial foundation of our health care system. All to avoid the horror of “socialized medicine”.

      We would be a hell of a lot better off as a nation if we scraped the current — supposedly “free market” in theory but anything but in practice — system, which is inefficient, and replaced it with an extension of Medicare to all citizens, financed by taxes.

      I think that we will eventually get to that point, as the cost of trying to prop up the health insurance industry becomes more apparent.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      It makes no sense at all. It is a historical artifact, a codification of the practice of employers over the last 50-60 years offering health care coverage as a part of the employee compensation package, typically 8-10% of the total compensation package.

      The ACA requirement that many/most employers provide health insurance coverage is, for the most part, a codification of existing compensation practice, as well as a way to maintain the role of private health insurers as the financial foundation of our health care system. All to avoid the horror of “socialized medicine”.

      We would be a hell of a lot better off as a nation if we scraped the current — supposedly “free market” in theory but anything but in practice — system, which is inefficient, and replaced it with an extension of Medicare to all citizens, financed by taxes.

      I think that we will eventually get to a single-payer system, as the societal cost of propping up the health insurance industry becomes more apparent, but until then we are stuck with a health care system that is confusing, expensive and non-sensical.

  13. posted by Francis on

    If my employer’s religion is against gay people should he or she be able to determine that certain health care I get as a gay man like anal paps should be excluded? If the Court favors the Sisters will I have to pay out of pocket for this procedure and any treatment I may need? How would a ruling in favor of greater religious freedom impact gay men with HIV and their care? Would some employers refuse coverage for care by saying they don’t want to interfere with their God’s judgment on gay men? This may sound over the top but so is an employer refusing coverage for contraception. The intrusion into an employee’s privacy and into their healch care decisions in the name of religion would be devastating.

    • posted by Doug on

      Extend the logic a little farther. What if a Souther Baptist employer decides to not cover your health care because he thinks your illness is caused by alcohol. What if your employer doesn’t believe in vaccinations can that be excluded too? What if your employer doesn’t believe in blood transfusions, can that be excluded? The list goes on and on.

      • posted by Francis on

        Doug, really good points. It is unsettling to me that by a wide majority most of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic. They can say they are being objective all they want but I don’t believe they will allow their sympathies for the poor little Sisters to not influence their decision.

Comments are closed.