Yes, that’s (almost) what I’m saying and that’s what the law says. There are only a handfull of things that an employer is not allowed to discriminate on, (regarding hirining, firing and amount of benefits) off the top of my head it’s limited to Sex, Age, Ethnicity and Disability (that doesn’t prevent you from being able to function in the job) I’m probably forgetting something(s) (maybe marital status?) but I’m prety sure that things like sexual orientation are not covered.
Now as for your Mormon boss simply being able to fire you for drinking, yes! He can. A while back Radio Shack instituted a policy that all employees had to be clean shaven. A group of bearded managers sued and lost, even though having a beard isn’t related to job performance at all.
I don’t see why any employer should be forced to hire anyone who they don’t want to except for cases regarding discrimination based on completely unchangable and inherent trates, (Race, Sex, Age…) and even then only if they don’t interfere with job performance.
Forcing an employer to employ someone who they morally disaprove of is also forcing your morals on that employer. And how did “seperationg of church and state” get into this? An employer is a private individual (or group of individuals) NOT the government. If the government isn’t involved by defenition their cannot be a conflict with the first amendment.
You don’t have a right to freedom from religion, the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It says that congress can’t make a religion, which is different than a right that would prevent individuals from “forcing” their religion on you.
I can’t comprehend how insurance would be different than any other contract (an issue you still haven’t adressed). What right does the government have to come in and tell individuals what contracts they are allowed to offer to other individuals in these circumstances? You also need food water and shelter to survive also, but nobody has to provide those for you…
If I understand correctly, the Catholic groups (Archdiocese of D.C., Georgetown U.) are solely the employers, not the insurance companies. The law passed deals with the insurance companies, not the employers.
Based on what little I already knew of the issue, plus some quick reasearch I don’t think public accommodation applies the first amendment to any non-government group. There are laws that pertain to religious issues that apply to all places of public accommodation, however if you break one of those laws, that’s all you’ve done; broken the law, not the first amendment.
I’ve also heard of legal principles stating that by defenition the constitution can ONLY apply to government, and cannot apply to individuals. Thus even though I have a constitutional right to life (fifth amendment) however if someone kills me they have not broken the constitution! The constitution only protects me from being “deprived of life…whithout due process of law.” It takes laws to protect me from murder at the hands of individuals.
If I’m wrong please direct me to some elucidating literature,
Kerinsky
Regardless of the other issues involved, I simply do not see how the Catholic Church has the right to influence the law based on something that is their opinion.
If a given employer chooses to buy into providing birth control coverage or not, it is their decision. My hubby’s company will not cover presciptions for smoking cessation - other companies do. It’s their decision.
But does the church have the right to make that decision for everyone? If the Catholic Church can decide that no insurance company should be required to pay for birth control, can the Jehovah’s Witnesses decide that no insurance company should be required to pay for transfusions? From what I’ve read, it’s not that the church is necessarily forcing employers to do anything, but forcing the insurance companies to.
I may be reading this wrong, I am used to the Canadian style of health coverage.
No literature necessary. Laws are either constitutional or unconstitutional. If they are unconstitutional, then they may be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. If you have a sign on the front of your, say, movie theater that says “No Jews,” you are most likely breaking a law based in First Amendment grounds. All laws eventually must refer back to constitutional issues, whether state or federal. In fact, that’s exactly what the diocese is arguing–that their First Amendment rights will be violated by requiring Catholic institutions that provide health insurance plans to adhere to adhere to these regulations.
I’d like to know who told you this, or if you came up with the idea on your own why you assume that it’s a valid legal principle.
There are many towns that have laws requiring you to mow your lawn, if I don’t mow my lawn what part of the constitution am I breaking? How about spitting on the sidewalk? Jaywalking? Beastiality? Incest? How do all of these break the constitution?
I get the fealing that in this thread nobody is reading (or responding) to what I’m really saying. I still haven’t gotten a response about my contract law assertions, and you seem to completely ignore my description of why it is by defenition impossible for an individual to break the constitution.
Seriously, read the first amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” how can an anti-semetic movie theater possibly break this amendment, it ONLY applies to what congress can do (later the supreme court did rule that the 14th amendment applies this to all branches of government at all level, but nothing about individuals)
There is a BIG difference between the catholic church invoking first amendment issues when congress itself is trying to pass a law that would impact what are viewed as religious actions, and an individual discriminating.
I am for freedom in contracting. If a company wants to offer an insurance plan or a job but imposes certain restrictions, I am free to take it or leave it but the fact is that by making that offer they have enlarged my number of options. They have no obligation to offer me anything and I have no obligation to buy. I like that freedom for them and me to freely contract without the government butting in. They are not imposing their beliefs on me any more than I am on them. It is a law like this that would impose the beliefs of one group on another.
When I arrived in DC there ws the AIDS issue: health insurance companies would ask you questions about your risk for AIDS and your premium was set accordingly. But some people didn’t like this and a law was passed making it illegal to ask any questions that may be related to the risk of getting AIDS. Fine, result? The insurance companies stop selling health insurance to individuals in DC. So I am trying to buy health insurance but because a few morons have passed this law, there is NO health insurance available to me. The insurance company can ask you about risk for cancer, for injuries for anything but AIDS. This is just so stupid. Result: you want insurance? move to Maryland or Virginia.
Most of the time I wish the government would just do nothing because most of the time they just make a worse mess of things.
There was another case in NYC some years back where some charitable organization wanted to build a shelter for the homeless in an old multistory building and the city told them they had to install an elevator for the handicaped. their budget did not allow for this and they pointed out that this is a shelter for the poor and they do not get handicapped “customers”. No dice, elevator or you can’t open. So they didn’t. Better that the homeless remain on the street than we should allow a building with no elevator.
It’s called the democratic process, ANY individual or group has the constitutional right to petition the government and try to affect laws that will be passed.
**
You are reading this wrong, here’s the issue. The district of Columbia wants to pass a law saying that all insurance companies that cover prescription medicine MUST also cover birth control. The Catholic church objects, they want to provide health coverage for their employees but they do not want to pay for birth control in any way shape or form. The Catholic Church is NOT trying to say that it should be illegal for insurance companies to cover birth control (well actually some of them might hold that position, but they’re not actively trying to get such a law passed, that I know of) In the end the Catholic Church wants modified legislation saying that everyone else has to provide birth control coverage if they cover other prescriptions, but that the Catholic Church shouldn’t have to.
Belive me, if the Catholic Church were trying to keep anyone from getting birth control pill coverage you would have heard about it
You’re not violating the Constitution and neither is the law. Please re-read what Pldennison wrote- he said that a law is either in violation of the Constitution or it isn’t- not that every law directly stems from the Constitution.
And I followed your argument about “contract law” and think that it doesn’t necessarily apply- individuals have the right not to enter into a health insurance contract with their employers just as the employers have the right to not enter a contract with an insurance company. Georgetown and the Archdiocese don’t have to offer prescription plans if they think it will violate their “conscience”.
Now, as long as people in this country (USA) get their insurance from a private organization that organization has the right to cover or not cover what they wish.
Most catholic hospital are privately insured. That means the hospital is the insurance company for its employees. They don’t sell insurance on the market it’s strictly an in house service organization. These in-house insurance organizations routimly don’t pay fo birth control or abortions. Also they don’t dispence birth control or abortions.
As a private organization these catholic hospital can offer or not offer whatever they wish to their employees.
Someelse said, “If I work for mormons I cant drink, smoke, etc…” Yes, you cant! If that is what they wish. Your employer can fire you for public drunkness. As a known representative of the company your public actions reflect upon your employer, and they might not want to be associated with you. Aslo your employer can drug test you at will, if they don’t want employees who do drugs. Etc…
Also, Noone is trying to “force” their religion upon you. You wouldn’t expect a mormon owned grocery store to sell you alcohol, or a mormon owned video store to rent you a XXX video. These are not instances of you being forced. What you want is the catholic instutions to be “forced” to do something that is against their core beliefs.
As for catholic hospital buying non-catholic hospitals and then stopping abortions at that hospital, it’s their business. They own it and can do what ever they want with it. You are perfectly free to open an abortion clinic down the street if you feel there is a need.
To sum up, This is a very basic public vs private issue. And you can’t (usually) force a private concern to follow your wishes. Basically, what you want dosn’t negate what they want.
I’m not trying to make a pro/anti abortion argument. It’s a public vs private agrument. I’m also not trying to trivialise the closing of abortion facilites by catholic hospitals. I’m sure this is an improtant issue to many persons. But the solution dosn’t lie with forcing catholic instutions to provide birth control or abortions.
What part of “laws are either constitutional or unconstitutional” are you having difficulty understanding? You aren’t breaking the Constitutional, but a law might not be valid on Constitutional grounds. If you have to mow your lawn because of some law based in health or aesthetic reasoning, that’s one thing; if you have to mow it because Jesus commands it, well . . .
For one thing, I think you’re confusing the Constitution with the Amendments. (Not that the Amendments aren’t part and parcel once they are passed.) The Constitution, my friend, is referred to as the supreme law of the land, and not for nothing. I reiterate, “ALL laws eventually grow from Constitutional grounds.” Perhaps you are stumbling over the 9th and 10th Amendments, I don’t know.
Because a public accommodation, which can mean a privately owned business which is nevertheless open for business to the general public, and which receives benefit from things like publicly-funded roads, utilities, etc., is also constrained from doing certain things, on Constitutional grounds. This is a fairly well-known and understood legal principle.
Except Congress ISN’T passing a law. Please try to keep up. The Washington, D.C. city council is not autonomous–ALL laws and regulations that they pass must be approved by Congress. The council is passing a requirement that all health plans offered by employers in the city must cover contraceptives. The diocese lobbied the city council to put in a conscience clause. Council said no, and they passed the regulation. Now the diocese is lobbying Congress not to approve it.
The Bill of rights expressly applies (and was originally understood) to only apply to the actions of the Federal Government. The 14th and 15th amendments expressly are limited to the action of a state’s government, and the courts have incorporated the limitations of the prior amendments to apply to state action via these two amendments. But both the 14th and 15th amendment give Congress the power to encorce the rights protected in each amendment by “appropriate legislation.” Thus, civil rights laws have been passed which make the kind of behavior Phil has mentioned illegal.
For example, the civil rights act of 1968 provides that if any person is denied access to particular public facilities (whether government sponsored or privately owned) face criminal civil rights sanctions. These include the use of common carriers (trains, buses, planes), accomodations (hotels, inns, resteraunts) or any institution that serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages on the premises, or any of the following specified types of business: gas station, movie theater, concert hall, sports arena, any public place of exhibition or entertainment.
So while the 14th and 15th amendment only apply to government action, congress is empowered by these same amendmetns to pass laws which specifically protect the rights protected by those amendments. They have done so. Thus, the sign on the movie house saying “No Jews allowed” is a violation of this law. The quintessential case which upholds this kind of law (where Congress can pass a law sanctioning private individuals for violating civil rights) is U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966).
Just how much does birth control coverage affect health insurance premiums? Contraceptives are pretty cheap compared with other prescription drugs and medical procedures. It’s becoming my pet peeve the way some people insist they have a right to throw a wrench in the works if they indirectly contribute an insignificant amount of money to something they find objectionable on symbolic grounds.
But wait! Doesn’t birth control save money? Pregnancy and chilbirth incurs massive health care costs. Coverage for birth control (or abortion for that matter) reduces the risk of childbirth and ought to result in lower premiums.
If that were the case I can imagine the Catholic employers complaining that the savings amount to “dirty money”.
I hope this goes to the Supreme Court. Why? I think that constitutionally they can be required to fund them. Look at the recent ruling on student fees. Students are required to give funding to objectionable groups. Catholic students must fund Pro-choice student groups.
Just how much does birth control coverage affect health insurance premiums? Contraceptives are pretty cheap compared with other prescription drugs and medical procedures. It’s becoming my pet peeve the way some people insist they have a right to throw a wrench in the works if they indirectly contribute an insignificant amount of money to something they find objectionable on symbolic grounds.
But wait! Doesn’t birth control save money? Pregnancy and chilbirth incurs massive health care costs. Coverage for birth control (or abortion for that matter) reduces the risk of childbirth and ought to result in lower premiums.
If that were the case I can imagine the Catholic employers complaining that the savings amount to “dirty money”.
I guess I don’t really have a problem with the whole conscience thing. I understand that the Catholic church is against birth control. I don’t feel they should have to pay for a medication prescribed to control birth.
However, what if that exact same medication which is usually prescribed to control birth is also the only medication useful in treating particular reproductive disorders? If I’m a nun, suffering from one of these particular reproductive disorders, shouldn’t the medication used to treat the problem be available to me under my health insurance plan? I don’t think it’s right to make someone suffer just because the medication that would help is usually used for something else that goes against an institution’s conscience. That’s my beef with this thing. I want to have every possible avenue available to me in the event of a health issue.
Our little back and forth began with Falcon saying something about the catholic church violating the first amendment. I replied saying that the Catholic Church cannot, by defenition, violate the constitution. You replied by telling me to look up public accomodation. I point out that public accomodation applies to breaking indivudal laws, not the constitution.
You posted in reply to this saying all laws must be based on the constitution. As the whole arguement started over the issue over whether the Catholic Church could in fact violate the first amendment as opposed to a mere law, I automatically assumed that you had to be disagreeing with me, due to the contrary tone of your post.
I still hold that it is impossible for an indivual to violate the constitution. Yes you can break a law that is not unconstitutional but this is NOT actually violating the constitution. Look at it this way, there are an infinite number of different laws that would all be constituional, most of which are not on the books. Now if you argue that breaking any law that is not unconstitutional is “conflicting” with the constitution then you must also agree that breaking any law that would be constitutional is also “conflicting” with the constitution. I doubt anyone is going to argue this.
Basicly I’m just trying to say that the Catholic Church CANNOT violate the constitution, even though it can violate laws that are based in the constitution.
**
Maybe you view it as a matter of semantics, but what I’m saying is that a place of public accomidation is prevented from discriminating in certain areas by legal not constitutional grounds. If we got rid of all laws, then the constitution would NOT prevent such discrimination, thus it’s not constitutional grounds to prevent this discrimination. It’s laws, which as you point out must not be unconstitutional.
Ok, congress has to vote on the legislation right? That’s what I refer to when I say “pass”, It’s a law and congress is voting on whether to approve it or not.
Nit - Congress passed the Civil Rights Act (and I believe you are referred to the Act of 1964), under Commerce Clause of the Constitution, not the 14th Amendment. The rationale was that discrimination by business owners against black customers had a marked effect on interstate commerce.
Starting with the New Deal, Congress has passed most all of its economic and social legislation under the Commerce Clause. The Supremes are starting to knock that back - not sure whether it’s a good idea or not.
As for the OP, I must, for what I believe is the first time, disagree with Falcon. While I agree that insurance should cover birth control, I do not agree that religious institutions (not individual employers) should be bound by such a law. Let’s look at this a different way.
The D.C. Council passes a law that requires employers to provide hot coffee to all their employees. (Ignore the constitutionality of such a law, please). The Mormon Temple in D.C. objects. “We believe consumption of coffee is a sin. While we do not attempt to control the lives of our employees, and will not fire them for drinking coffee, even on the job, we do not want to be made complicit in what we consider a sinful act.” I think they Mormons would be right.
There is a huge difference between the Catholic Church firing someone for using birth control and refusing to pay for that birth control. The first is the imposition of the Church’s morals on their employees (bad). The second is a refusal to become a party to whatever “sins” their employees commit.
Sua
Being a strict constructionist I can’t concieve of how anyone can think that the constitution as written allows congress such powers. It may even be that this was (some peoples) intent of the 14th or 15th amendments, but this is not what either of them say.
The applicable portion of the 14th “1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
US citizens do not have constitutionaly granted or implied privileges or immunites that would ensure access to resteraunts, nor is a state depriving a person of life, liberty or property, nor denying any person equal protection under the law by not mandating free access to resteraunts.
The 15th amendment is even less applicable, it only mentions voting.
I do see how the 14th amendments applies other amendments to the states.
It seems to me that under the 14th amendment if you have a law saying that you cannot discriminate based on certain factors, then that law must protect all citizens thus making any discrimination illegal. Including discriminating against naked people (although it would still be fine to call the police to cart them off)
Of course I’m an idealist who will fight that the constitution be interpereted as it is written and not how I think it should be written, including cases where I belive that the way it was written is an affront the the basic principles espoused by our founding fathers.
