Extremely important. Thank you Mishka. You are a must read author IMO.

"We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens because of their religious beliefs. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. All that has been built up over so many years in our Catholic institutions should not be taken away by the stroke of an administrator’s pen." Francis Cardinal George

Genealogy of Leviathan http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/07/community-and-liberty-or-individualism-and-statism/

LOL,

The court picked on a soft target.

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when they tell an Imam he has to perform a same sex marriage ceremony.

This should be most entertaining.

:-)

UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ISSUE:

The "gay marriage" issue appears to refer to a 2007 case.

See:

Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html

The question before the court was whether Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association could retain its exemption from property taxes if it declined to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. As a private organisation paying the same taxes as anyone else the UMC could maintain its ban on same sex marriages.

I question the wisdom of removing UMC's tax exemption over this issue but there is an old story about he who pays the piper...

CATHOLIC CHURCH ISSUE:

It pays healthcare providers cover contraception free of charge because that is cheaper than paying for pregnancies so there is no direct or indirect cost to the Catholic Church. Catholic employees may, if they so wish, decline to take advantage of this offer.

I think most Australians would agree that employers should not be interfering in employees' private medical matters in the first place. Since the Catholic Church does not have to contribute to anything that goes against its doctrine and since Catholic employees are not being coerced into using contraception I'm not sure where the problem lies.

I think the bigger issue is that healthcare provision should not be linked to employment in the first place.

CONCLUSION

This article fails to make the case that the US is becoming a totalitarian state. In fact it seems to be just a teeny bit misleading.

the State trying to play God again. Obviously blind to the destruction it has caused in millions of lives.

stevenlmeyer, I am referring to a case that was decided by Judge Solomon Metzger on January 12, 2012 (but which occurred in 2007). The actual court decision addresses the matter of Ocean Grove's tax status (which is a past matter). Its tax status is only relevant in that the venue was open to the public, which I did not dispute. The case in question was not about tax status, but about whether the Law Against Discrimination was violated. My argument stands.

As to where there the problem lies, allow me to direct to a letter by a large number of scholars on the issue (or else I'll run over the word limit): http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/02/10/statement-by-religious-scholars-on-contraceptive-coverage-policy-change/
I agree with you that the link of healthcare provision to employment is also an issue, one which if solved could also prevent the current issue re. conscience.

lillian, I agree it isn't a debate about contraception, etc. - it's Yabby who keeps going on about it. Contraception is widely available, often for free, and no one is trying to change that. No one is trying to prevent women from looking after their health. The issue is that the government has ordered that employers pay for contraception on their employees behalf and Catholic employers (amongst others) object to this for various reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that the Pill (which is most common) is an abortifacient - i.e. it doesn't prevent pregnancy, it actually aborts the embryo in its very early stages.

Yabby, Catholic employers don't give a hoot what an employee does with their money - it's theirs. It's about what happens with the employers' money, their responsibility, their consciences. And it is a woman's decision, which is why she should decide by actually requesting and paying for it, not expecting it on a platter at someone else's expense by default.

So Mishka, if Jehovahs Witnesses employers decide that they won't
fund any operations involving blood transfusions, should we accept
this as their religious right? What about employees who are not
JWs?

Healthcare and its provision has to be standardised. Modern family
planning is part of that. As Steven Meyer notes, it most likely
won't even cost the church any money, as it could well be to the
HMOs advantage.

Nobody is suggesting that anyone be coerced into using modern
family planning, simply that it should be part of provided health
care. If the church is so convinced of its dogma, it is free to
preach to its employees, if they will put up with that.

Employees have actually worked for the money that goes to paying
for their healthcare, so the church is providing nothing for free.

If the Obama Govt does not stand firm on this, they will have
to agree to the claims of every US religious cult, about what kind
of medical treatment their employees should or should not receive.

It is frankly none of the employers business. Healthcare is not
given to them out of kindness, but as part of their salary package.
They worked for it, its their decision