S
Seeker1961
Guest
This makes more sense than anything I’ve read on this topic.Of course it’s tricky. Look what’s going on here is that religious organizations are being asked to provide health coverage that includes some coverage for abortion and contraception when the employee is working for a non-church (e.g. hospital or university) entity. I don’t expect the Catholic Church to like this, but the reality health insurance is part of a defined benefits package, it’s compensation. What is not religious persecution when that same employee takes part of their paycheck and buys contraception or pays for an abortion? The church is still funding these activates no matter how you look at it.
Let me put this another way; the Catholic Church is allowed to only hire men as Priests because it is a legitimately held belief of the Church, no sex discrimination case will ever be won against this. But to only hire men as doctors, professors, or administrators in hospitals and universities, is not legal. I say this because if the government was forcing a church to have such coverage for employees of an actual congregation, I would be on board for that part. I think that would be over stepping the established legal and customary bounds of religious freedom.
In response to your question, no one here is being prohibited from worshiping, getting a job, moving freely, or getting a house. That’s persecution in my book. What we have here is a disagreement in the 'public square" as JFK would have put it.