Does freedom of religion include forcing your religious beliefs on others?

[salusanimarum17]

Ooops. Cardinal Burke takes it even a step further than I said.

Thanks!

Frankly, I don’t know if I would take that step. If a person willingly assents to sinful action and takes part in it, that is formal and material cooperation. If an employer is coerced into providing immoral “benefits,” and does not willingly offer such things, formal cooperation seems excluded. There is still material cooperation, of some sort, even if there is no culpability.

That is how I understand it, anyway.

 

[sedonaman]

If you don’t provide birth control to your employees because of your religious beliefs, and 100% of your employees don’t have the same religious beliefs as yourself, you are forcing your religious beliefs on them. So does freedom of religion extend to forcing your religious morals on others? If a bunch of people work for me is it right for me to make them conform to my religious beliefs?

This is straight out of the Victim Industrial Complex. Make victims out of those who want to sin and ogres out of those who refuse to finance it. It is an example of the Nietzschean inversion of goodness with badness that has taken over our society.

 

[Rence]

Cardinal Burke says employers who comply with the HHS mandate engage in material and formal cooperation with sin

The problem with this, is that it simply is not true. Here’s what the Cardinal said:

Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong

However, it is obviously not true, since the choice was taken out of the hands of the employer. This mandate was mandated by the government. So the employer most certainly is not “knowingly and deliberately doing this”.

What does the Vatican have to say about it? Did the Cardinal speak on behalf of the collective Bishops? Or was this just his opinion?

They better hope the mandate gets struck down…

 

[Rence]

Frankly, I don’t know if I would take that step. If a person willingly assents to sinful action and takes part in it, that is formal and material cooperation. If an employer is coerced into providing immoral “benefits,” and does not willingly offer such things, formal cooperation seems excluded. There is still material cooperation, of some sort, even if there is no culpability.

That is how I understand it, anyway.

That is how I understand it as well.

 

[fix]

Says who? Certainly not the health care providers, the insurance companies and the government. Preventative care is still part of healthcare. No one thinks pregnancy is a disease, however that doesn’t mean patients don’t want to prevent it. Even OBGYNs write prescriptions for contraception and perform tubal ligations as part of preventative care…that makes it part of healthcare.

It should not be unless the definition of medical care is anything someone wants that happens to involve the body. Soon getting a hair cut will be “health care”.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The problem with this, is that it simply is not true. Here’s what the Cardinal said:

However, it is obviously not true, since the choice was taken out of the hands of the employer. This mandate was mandated by the government. So the employer most certainly is not “knowingly and deliberately doing this”.

What does the Vatican have to say about it? Did the Cardinal speak on behalf of the collective Bishops? Or was this just his opinion?

They better hope the mandate gets struck down…

There is not no way out of abiding by the mandate, an employer can choose to cancel their insurance and pay the fines or disobey the mandate. Priests For Life have said have said they are going to disobey the mandate.

 

[Rence]

You would correct if there is no way out of abiding by the mandate, but there is, an employer can choose to cancel their insurance and pay the fines or disobey the mandate. Priests For Life have said have said they are going to disobey the mandate.

Well, then let them pay the fines or disobey the mandate

The same can be said for paying taxes (which also pay for birth control). You can either pay them or go to jail. Your choice. The mandate is no different.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Well, then let them pay the fines or disobey the mandate

The same can be said for paying taxes (which also pay for birth control). You can either pay them or go to jail. Your choice. The mandate is no different.

Employers should not be put in a position where they have to cooperate with sin or pay $100 per day per employee, $2000 a day if there are more than 50 employees which employers can not afford. It is not constitutional and more lawsuits will be victorious like Hercules industries

Hercules industries would have to pay $795000 a day, over $9.5 million a year in fines if they did not abide by the mandate. They would likely go out of business and so would many other businesses

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I think the idea here is pretty easy to understand. In the minds of the far left, consequence free recreational sex, along with health insurance, are now fundamental human rights.

The recreational sex part must be labeled as “health care” so it can be included in the health insurance.

Unfortunately of course, as we all know, use of artificial birth control is never consequence free.

 

[Rence]

Employers should not be put in a position where they have to cooperate with sin or pay $100 per day per employee which employers can not afford. It is not constitutional and more lawsuits will be victorious like Hercules industries

So if the Cardinal is burdening the employers in such a way as to hold them accountable for a government mandate, why aren’t they burdening the employees as well. We are not required to drop our health insurance despite if including access to birth control.

If it weren’t consititutional, the mandate wouldn’t stick. If it sticks, then it’s constitutional and the employers will do just that: either follow the law, or pay the penalty for not doing so.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

So if the Cardinal is burdening the employers in such a way as to hold them accountable for a government mandate, why aren’t they burdening the employees as well. We are not required to drop our health insurance despite if including access to birth control.

If it weren’t consititutional, the mandate wouldn’t stick. If it sticks, then it’s constitutional and the employers will do just that: either follow the law, or pay the penalty for not doing so.

This of course assumes that our government would neeeeeeeeeeever do aaaaaanything unconstitutional.

 

[fix]

I think the idea here is pretty easy to understand. In the minds of the far left, consequence free recreational sex, along with health insurance, are now fundamental human rights.

The recreational sex part must be labeled as “health care” so it can be included in the health insurance.

Unfortunately of course, as we all know, use of artificial birth control is never consequence free.

Yes, you have it right.

 

[_Abyssinia]

So if the Cardinal is burdening the employers in such a way as to hold them accountable for a government mandate, why aren’t they burdening the employees as well. We are not required to drop our health insurance despite if including access to birth control.

If it weren’t consititutional, the mandate wouldn’t stick. If it sticks, then it’s constitutional and the employers will do just that: either follow the law, or pay the penalty for not doing so.

Obama went to the supreme court claiming the government should have the right to determine who a Church’s ministers are because of labor laws. They voted 9 - 0 against Obama and all the liberal judges went against him. Just because something it claimed to be constitutional does not mean it is. When the Supreme court ObamaTax decision was made, Justice Ginsburg said

A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause

 

[Hunter24]

This of course assumes that our government would neeeeeeeeeeever do aaaaaanything unconstitutional.

of course they wouldnt!!! GASP!!! the government takes care of us and alwase knows whats best!!! they allwase have our best intrest at heart!!!

HAHAHA

 

[Rence]

This of course assumes that our government would neeeeeeeeeeever do aaaaaanything unconstitutional.

If it did, and I’m sure it does since it is run by people who are just people, then it would be struck down.

 

[Rence]

Justice Ginsburg said:

Quote:
A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause

And again, the mandate does not interfere with the free exercise of religion because it took birth control out of the hands of the employers and put it on the shoulders of the insurance companies.

 

[salusanimarum17]

Well, then let them pay the fines or disobey the mandate

The same can be said for paying taxes (which also pay for birth control). You can either pay them or go to jail. Your choice. The mandate is no different.

Obeying this mandate (or not) is not the same as paying taxes (or not), for many reasons. For example, you would see the difference, would you not, between me giving money to a seemingly drunk and hungry homeless person to do what he pleased with it (i.e., paying taxes) as opposed to taking him to the liquor store and saying “use this money here” (i.e., following this mandate). Also, the mandate demands certain, defined commerce among citizens, not that the citizens contribute to the government’s general fund.

 

[rfournier103]

If you don’t provide birth control to your employees because of your religious beliefs, and 100% of your employees don’t have the same religious beliefs as yourself, you are forcing your religious beliefs on them. So does freedom of religion extend to forcing your religious morals on others? If a bunch of people work for me is it right for me to make them conform to my religious beliefs?

If it is a workplace affiliated with a church or religion, they should be free to require their employees to conform to their ‘rules’.

The employee also has the right not to work there if they don’t agree with the policies. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Rence]

Obeying this mandate (or not) is not the same as paying taxes (or not), for many reasons. For example, you would see the difference, would you not, between me giving money to a seemingly drunk and hungry homeless person to do what he pleased with it (i.e., paying taxes) as opposed to taking him to the liquor store and saying “use this money here” (i.e., following this mandate). Also, the mandate demands certain, defined commerce among citizens, not that the citizens contribute to the government’s general fund.

No, I’m sorry, I do not see the difference between obeying the mandate and paying taxes. The two are the same to me, and result in citizens paying for the cost of ABCs, and both are government mandated. In the one case, taxes get put into a pool, out of which ABCs are funded. And in the other case, premiums get put into a pool, out of which ABCs are funded.

In addition, the Cardinal (and as far as I can tell, and until I’m corrected with proof, only the cardinal) is holding the employers responsible for the mandate, yet Catholic employees who subscribe to insurance policies that include ABCs services are not. Sorry, I don’t get it…there is no difference.

 

[meltzerboy]

If you don’t provide birth control to your employees because of your religious beliefs, and 100% of your employees don’t have the same religious beliefs as yourself, you are forcing your religious beliefs on them. So does freedom of religion extend to forcing your religious morals on others? If a bunch of people work for me is it right for me to make them conform to my religious beliefs?

I do not side with the liberal position on this issue although I can understand it. I believe all employees should be informed of the employer’s beliefs about this matter before they are hired, and if an employee objects, they should seek employment elsewhere. No employer or institution should be forced to provide such services to their employees if even offering these benefits is a direct violation of their moral and religious principles. I realize this is a slippery slope, but that’s my view. It may result in an employee’s not being hired or having to leave, or in the employer’s paying fines or going out of business, but so long as the latter is willing to support their beliefs, so be it.