Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption

[EMNofSeattle]

What about side effects?

Should an employer be allowed to take a certain medication off of their coverage because they object to the side effects? For example some anti-acne medications can cause severe birth defects, and patients are strongly admonished to use effective birth control methods during their treatment. Should an employer be allowed to say, "we object to that anti-acne medication on religious grounds" because the side effect it could cause birth defects?

Or how about objecting to coverage of a particular medical procedure on religious grounds? You know of any sects that object to blood transfusions? Or, perhaps a patient who is undergoing heart valve replacement gets a pig valve? Should the employer be allowed to disallow that procedure on insurance coverage due to their religious beliefs regarding touching pigs?

Tell me why these things are different than disallowing birth control on medical insurance coverage.

We can just chalk all of this up as “who cares” because you’re lamely grasping at straws with a complicated “what if” scenario in order to justify what you want, which is the forced payment by institutions of birth control.

 

[cpwill]

What about side effects?

Should an employer be allowed to take a certain medication off of their coverage because they object to the side effects? For example some anti-acne medications can cause severe birth defects, and patients are strongly admonished to use effective birth control methods during their treatment. Should an employer be allowed to say, "we object to that anti-acne medication on religious grounds" because the side effect it could cause birth defects?

I would say that the employer shouldn't be forced to provide it as part of a compensation package.

Or how about objecting to coverage of a particular medical procedure on religious grounds? You know of any sects that object to blood transfusions? Or, perhaps a patient who is undergoing heart valve replacement gets a pig valve? Should the employer be allowed to disallow that procedure on insurance coverage due to their religious beliefs regarding touching pigs?

Tell me why these things are different than disallowing birth control on medical insurance coverage.

In terms of this question, they aren't. Though an employer can't post-facto demand the insurance company change it's policy, they can and should be allowed to purchase insurance plans that (for example) do not fund pig-part replacements if they are a Muslim business, or blood transfusions if they are Christian Scientists.

I also support Plain Language bills that require explanations of insurance benefits to make those restrictions clear. It was one of the few parts of Obamacare I thought actually likely to prove beneficial.

 

[j brown's body]

Obviously it's not a good idea. Churches exist to spread the gospel. It's not a complex issue. And we don't need the courts - we have the separation of church and state stipulated in our Constitution

Where do they find these orphans through which to spread the gospel to begin with?

 

[Arlette]

Meh I disagree. Christianity should be funded and promoted as a positive good in society and minority faiths and atheists should merely be tolerated. Like in Russia the Orthodox Church is privileged and Catholics, Jews, Denominational Protestants, and Muslims are tolerated, allowed to run their houses of worship, in some cases like Jews and Muslims even have geographical zones they can impose religious law within, etc as long as they don’t oppose the Russian state or try to poach members of the ROC. That’s the system we should impose, except maybe altered for general pan-Christianity instead of a specific denomination like in Russia

No

 

[Arlette]

I don’t know why you think that’s a knock. Leftists don’t love America. What burning love do you have for the Patria
?

You lefties consider nationalism a dirty word and believe countries are mere economic zones which can be flooded with foreigners whenever it benefits leftist election campaigns, part of the reason lefties hate Russia so much is because Putin is a Christian and a Russian and believes strongly in a nationalist Christian Russia and leftists don’t like people who link god to their Nation and love their nation. When Russians Sing their national anthem they have the verse
От южных морей до полярного края
Раскинулись наши леса и поля.
Одна ты на свете! Одна ты такая –
Хранимая Богом родная земля! The last line of which is “our native land kept by god!”

Something that gives lefties a heart attack

You should move there

 

[CaughtInThe]

So many kids need to be adopted and some adults are so evil they won't let them.

 

[CaughtInThe]

How about we start recruiting more couples to adopt more kids and get them the hell out of Foster care. They deserve better lives.

 

[CaughtInThe]

At least Jesus didn't grow up Jewish.

 

[Quag]

Well they are gonna win this eventually

 

[NWRatCon]

Broadly, SCOTUS appears to be slowly enforcing the Utah Compromise, but, the Hobby Lobby decision was not about whether Hobby Lobby could ban the use of birth control, but, whether it could be forced to fund it. Respectfully, those are very different things.

Realistically, no they are not.

 

[NWRatCon]

Realistically, no they are not.

I'm a strong proponent of separation of church and state, and in that, I am an "originalist". The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In short, state funds and policies may not be used for religious activities. When first passed, it did not apply to individual States. But, the 14th Amendment did away with that distinction.

Earlier it was noted that churches should be taxed. I completely agree, particularly in the modern context. (Today many "churches" are simply financial organizations selling a "product".) Tax preference is merely a state subsidy by another name. The conceit behind preferential status is twofold: one, taxation is a burden, and the 1st also prohibits "the free exercise thereof"; second, religious organizations perform "eleemosynary" (yes, that's a word) functions - charity work.

These justifications break down immediately upon examination, however (Heisenberg would be so proud). With regard to the first, as soon as church activities are exempted from taxation, it functions as a state subsidy. Churches, just like any other organization, function within the economy, buying and selling, using roads and other infrastructure, owning property and burdening the social fisc. Like any other entity, they should be taxed for those activities, or we are "establishing religion" in contravention of the Constitution's prohibition.

With regard to the second, most of what a church does has nothing to do with charity. When it does so, it can organize a 501(c)(3) to do so, e.g. "Catholic Charities", "Habitat for Humanities". It gets complicated when those activities are mixed with proselytizing - attaching strings to the charity (which is hardly charitable).

That's where we get to this subject, only they've gone one step further. Now they are conditioning availability of state services on religious bigotry.

 

[Jkca1]

Lol, what you mean is you want state persecution of Christians because you politically disagree with them. You would never apply your misreading of the establishment clause against LGBT groups (which make theological claims about the nature of sexuality and metaphysics) or against atheists.

Actually in a country that’s allegedly Democratic then the majority of the population who believe in god should be catered to and not secular leftists

You mean in a Republic don't you? So you want us all to do what the majority wants? That is scary. Hey everyone. The democrats had the majority vote in the last election so let's get with their program and do what they want to make EMNotSeattle happy. Talk about a poorly thought out argument. Or one that required no thought....?

 

[NWRatCon]

You mean in a Republic don't you? So you want us all to do what the majority wants? That is scary. Hey everyone. The democrats had the majority vote in the last election so let's get with their program and do what they want to make EMNotSeattle happy. Talk about a poorly thought out I'd go with the argument. Or one that required no thought....?

I'd go with the latter. No actual thought was evident.

 

[cpwill]

Realistically, no they are not.

Realistically, yes, the difference between a ban on something and being forced to partake in it yes, are very different.

For examples, Islam is not banned in this country, and you are not compelled to worship at a Mosque. Rifles are not banned, and you are not compelled to purchase and keep one. Political speech is not banned in this country, and yet, speech is also not compelled.

 

[NWRatCon]

Realistically, yes, the difference between a ban on something and being forced to partake in it yes, are very different.

For examples, Islam is not banned in this country, and you are not compelled to worship at a Mosque. Rifles are not banned, and you are not compelled to purchase and keep one. Political speech is not banned in this country, and yet, speech is also not compelled.

I think you are taking far too narrow a view on this, my friend. Does a taxpayer have the individual choice to refuse to pay taxes simply because he or she disagrees with one or another policy pursued by the federal government? Quakers help pay for national defense even though they abhor violence. Conservatives help pay for social services even though they abhor their lessers.

In the case of Hobby Lobby, and this circumstance, these organizations are denying a social determination - a societal benefit - because they believe that their social standing is superior to others'. That is both explicitly and spiritually contrary to our basic constitutional principles.

If you take your view to its logical conclusion, one may be compelled to worship in one way against one's wishes. What, otherwise, is the point of denying services to a Jewish couple? If all such government services (foster care) were provided by discriminatory agencies such as the one in question here, where would non-conforming couples go? Isn't that discriminating on behalf of the State - in other words, doing on behalf of the State what the State cannot do directly? If any agency is allowed to do so, there is no proscription preventing all agencies from doing so. (That is precisely how Jim Crow laws, black codes, and even slavery were justified in their times.) Look through the other end of the telescope my friend.

I think you can indulge in these views because you live in a majoritarian viewpoint. Do you actually support the denial of (state) services to this Jewish couple because they are Jewish? I suspect not, but that is the position you are advocating, directly or indirectly, just as you appear to support denial of services to atheists by non-religious corporations on religious grounds.

 

[cpwill]

I think you are taking far too narrow a view on this, my friend.

On the contrary, I think there is a broad range of action between "compelled to do" and "forbidden from doing". The state can discourage (as we do with sin taxes), it can encourage (as we do with tax breaks), or it can remain neutral (as we do with competition between pizza restaurants). People can choose to participate, they can choose to not participate, they can choose to speak in favor, they can choose to rail against, or they can choose to remain uninvolved.

Respectfully, doing away with that broad space in the middle smacks very much of a totalitarian "Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory". Ultimately that's bad for all of us.

Does a taxpayer have the individual choice to refuse to pay taxes

No they don't - we compel them to pay taxes when they partake in taxed activity.*** That, for example, is one of the reasons the Hyde Amendment has enjoyed widespread support for so long.

You are are about to ask if this means that state funding of part of the process of placing a child in a home means that they are funding a religious entity that exists to assist in placing that child in a home - the answer is "eh..... they are not funding explicitly religious activity". The state is funding the placing of a child in a home, and, SCOTUS has been clear that states cannot exclude religious organizations where they do not exclude other organizations.

Fulton, which seems pretty clearly likely to set the borders of this discussion in the courts, was 9-0.

The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday in favor of a Catholic child welfare organization, saying the charity has a right to decline to place foster children with same-sex couples...​

​

Catholic Social Services argued that it had the right to opt-out of the nondiscrimination requirement, citing the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Philadelphia cannot force the charity to certify same-sex couples as foster parents, saying the rule violated their First Amendment rights...​

Trinity Lutheran (which also points to where the Court's head is likely at) came down at 7-2.

If this gets up to SCOTUS, given the current facts, it looks like the Agency will win.



***Full Disclosure: I think we should - as a matter of good policy - do away with property taxes so that theoretically someone could choose to opt out of taxes by buying their own land and being completely self-supporting. That is not the same as people having the right to refuse to pay tax rates they did not personally assent to, I just think it's something we should do.

 

[cpwill]

I think you are taking far too narrow a view on this, my friend. Does a taxpayer have the individual choice to refuse to pay taxes simply because he or she disagrees with one or another policy pursued by the federal government? Quakers help pay for national defense even though they abhor violence. Conservatives help pay for social services even though they abhor their lessers.

In the case of Hobby Lobby, and this circumstance, these organizations are denying a social determination - a societal benefit - because they believe that their social standing is superior to others'. That is both explicitly and spiritually contrary to our basic constitutional principles.

If you take your view to its logical conclusion, one may be compelled to worship in one way against one's wishes. What, otherwise, is the point of denying services to a Jewish couple? If all such government services (foster care) were provided by discriminatory agencies such as the one in question here, where would non-conforming couples go? Isn't that discriminating on behalf of the State - in other words, doing on behalf of the State what the State cannot do directly? If any agency is allowed to do so, there is no proscription preventing all agencies from doing so. (That is precisely how Jim Crow laws, black codes, and even slavery were justified in their times.) Look through the other end of the telescope my friend.

I think you can indulge in these views because you live in a majoritarian viewpoint. Do you actually support the denial of (state) services to this Jewish couple because they are Jewish? I suspect not, but that is the position you are advocating, directly or indirectly, just as you appear to support denial of services to atheists by non-religious corporations on religious grounds.

You went back and added quite a bit after I quoted this so I could come back and reply to it - apologies for missing what you later added.

 

[NWRatCon]

This discourse is going in too many directions to provide a concise, coherent response. I'll take it in chunks.

Respectfully, doing away with that broad space in the middle smacks very much of a totalitarian "Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory". Ultimately that's bad for all of us..

Again, you're taking too narrow a view, and at the same time making too broad an assertion, but actually proving my point in a backhanded way. "doing away with that broad space in the middle smacks very much of a totalitarian". Respectfully, you have it backwards, again. Allowing the erosion of principles to permit otherwise prohibited activities brings in totalitarianism.

Let's start here with two iron clad constitutional principles: no establishment of religion, and equal protection under the laws. Could the State, on its own, bar this Jewish couple from foster services because of their faith? No. I think we can agree that both the equal protection and religion clauses prohibit that. We have, therefore, established the principle.

Can the State prohibit an agency from providing otherwise permitted services simply because it is a religious organization? In principle, no, and on the same basis.

Can the State determine, even dictate, the standards upon which such services are rendered? Yes, because those services are being provide at the behest of, and at the expense of, the State.

This is where the current court has wandered so far off the track and from the bedrock principles of the Constitution. Requiring compliance with State standards of services does not infringe on religious liberties, period. Is the provision of State services a "free exercise of religion"? Obviously not. When a religious organization does so on a parallel basis it enters a realm where the States interest predominates.

Here's another example: A State prohibits consumption of alcohol by minors. Can a State prohibit imbibing as part of a religious service? Probably not. Can the State deny a church a liquor license? Again, probably not. Can the State prevent all liquor licensees, including the church, from serving minors at that facility? Yes.

 

[NWRatCon]

You went back and added quite a bit after I quoted this so I could come back and reply to it - apologies for missing what you later added.

My device posted in the middle of drafting it. I had to finish editing within the 20 minutes. I think we can overcome these modern glitches with respectful dialog.

 

[NWRatCon]

I think there is a broad range of action between "compelled to do" and "forbidden from doing". The state can discourage (as we do with sin taxes), it can encourage (as we do with tax breaks), or it can remain neutral (as we do with competition between pizza restaurants). People can choose to participate, they can choose to not participate, they can choose to speak in favor, they can choose to rail against, or they can choose to remain uninvolved.

With all of this I agree, in principle. It's the application of those principles that creates nuances and distinctions.

Respectfully, doing away with that broad space in the middle smacks very much of a totalitarian "Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory".

Life occurs in the middle. When you say, "Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory" you misstate (I think rhetorically so) the paradigm "everything not prohibited is permitted". But that's the essence of our dispute, isn't it? What is prohibited.

I maintain that when a religious organization enters the non- religious realm they must comply with the general social standards - the laws. You've asserted,

No they don't - we compel them to pay taxes when they partake in taxed activity.

Would that that were so. It is not. Amid calls to #TaxTheChurches – what and how much do US religious organizations not pay the taxman? (The Conversation).They remain exempt from many taxed activities completely divorced from religious accommodation. "As a sociologist of religion, I’ve long been interested in why religious institutions are exempt from certain taxes and what that means in potential lost revenue for the U.S. In 2012, I examined this issue and estimated that in total, churches in the U.S. get out of paying around US$71 billion in taxes annually." What this issue is really about is expanding this accommodating standard to regulatory activities.

"Most religious organizations are exempt from a variety of taxes that individuals and businesses are required to pay, like income and property taxes. These exemptions began formally in 1913 at the federal level, though there is a much longer history of exempting charitable, educational, scientific and religious institutions from taxation.

It is important to note that faith organizations can be exempt from paying taxes solely based on their religious work, not for any other charitable endeavors."

Church exemption is a very, very big deal. Much bigger than most people realize.

 

[cpwill]

This discourse is going in too many directions to provide a concise, coherent response. I'll take it in chunks.

Respectfully, doing away with that broad space in the middle smacks very much of a totalitarian "Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory". Ultimately that's bad for all of us.

Again, you're taking too narrow a view, and at the same time making too broad an assertion, but actually proving my point in a backhanded way. "doing away with that broad space in the middle smacks very much of a totalitarian".

Sorry if that came off awkwardly - I was not meaning to say that you were being totalitarian, but that the approach of "everything that is not forbidden is mandatory" is totalitarian.

Respectfully, you have it backwards, again. Allowing the erosion of principles to permit otherwise prohibited activities brings in totalitarianism.

Quite the contrary - recognizing first amendment freedoms and not attempting to compel organizations and individuals to violates their beliefs does not bring in totalitarianism. This Jewish couple is not barred from fostering or adopting - there are plenty of organizations out there dedicated to doing so that they can use.

Let's start here with two iron clad constitutional principles: no establishment of religion, and equal protection under the laws. Could the State, on its own, bar this Jewish couple from foster services because of their faith? No. I think we can agree that both the equal protection and religion clauses prohibit that. We have, therefore, established the principle.

the Methodist agency in question has also not barred this Jewish couple from fostering or adopting. They simply themselves have a different mission focus, just as Jewish adoption agencies have their focus, and Muslim adoption agencies have their focus.

Can the State prohibit an agency from providing otherwise permitted services simply because it is a religious organization? In principle, no, and on the same basis.

That was indeed the 7-2 decision in Trinity Lutheran, yes, however, I thought I recall that you were opposed to this principle at the time? I may have misremembered that.

Can the State determine, even dictate, the standards upon which such services are rendered? Yes, because those services are being provide at the behest of, and at the expense of, the State.

Unless that dictation violates the first amendment freedoms of the organization in question, in which case No, because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and Amendment > Statute.

Again, Fulton, which seems pretty clearly likely to set the borders of this discussion in the courts, was 9-0:

The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday in favor of a Catholic child welfare organization, saying the charity has a right to decline to place foster children with same-sex couples...

Catholic Social Services argued that it had the right to opt-out of the nondiscrimination requirement, citing the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Philadelphia cannot force the charity to certify same-sex couples as foster parents, saying the rule violated their First Amendment rights...​

This is where the current court has wandered so far off the track and from the bedrock principles of the Constitution. Requiring compliance with State standards of services does not infringe on religious liberties, period.

Until it does.

 

[cpwill]

With all of this I agree, in principle. It's the application of those principles that creates nuances and distinctions.

Life occurs in the middle. When you say, "Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory" you misstate (I think rhetorically so) the paradigm "everything not prohibited is permitted". But that's the essence of our dispute, isn't it? What is prohibited.

"Everything that is not prohibited is permitted" is sort of tautological - but no, I was speaking specifically to your claim that there wasn't a middle ground between "X is forbidden" and "X is mandatory" when it came to things like the topic here, or purchasing birth control for Hobby Lobby employees.

I argued in post 19 that there was a broad area of middle (where, as you put it, "life occurs") between "banning" birth control and "forcing people to provide birth control. You argued in post 35 that no, there was not..

I maintain that when a religious organization enters the non- religious realm they must comply with the general social standards - the laws. You've asserted,

No they don't - we compel them to pay taxes when they partake in taxed activity.

Would that that were so. It is not.

I have bolded a section of my assertion to highlight it, because it is true. When churches take part in taxed activity (such as buying gasoline, and lumber) they are taxed, and when they take part in non-taxed activities (such as charitable giving) they are not taxed.

Respectfully, I think a more accurate depiction of your complaint is not that Churches do not pay taxes on taxed activities (this would be fraud), but rather that you wish more activities were taxed.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Where do they find these orphans through which to spread the gospel to begin with?

Some of these agencies unfortunately treat orphans like a farm team for their religious beliefs.

 

[bluesmoke]

And that is what the current attack on education is all about. Privatize what is left of public education

That is what everything is about on the RW. Privatize everything that would make profit easy. Socialized cost and privatized profit.

 

[j brown's body]

Sending orphans into evangelicals Christian homes is tantamount to child abuse.