Has anybody considered what Catholic women think about this? While 100% of Catholic priests in America would probably deny ever having used contraceptives, a recent Guttmacher Institute survey reported that "98 percent of "sexually experienced" Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives and 87 percent of 'sexually active' Catholic women who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant are currently using some form of birth control." (http://www.christianpost.com/news/white-house-press-corps-cite-faulty-catholic-birth-control-statistic-69564/)

Mishka Gora,

See:

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2012/01/nj-administrative-law-judge-find-ocean-grove-violated-state-law-against-discrimination-in-civil-unio.html

>>Judge Metzger had first to consider whether the Boardwalk Pavilion was a "place of public accommodation" under the New Jersey LAD. This task was simplified by Ocean Grove's decision back in 1989 to apply for a "Green Acres" real-estate tax exemption for the area that includes the Pavilion. Under New Jersey law, a "Green Acres" exemption may be granted for private property that is opened to the public for recreational use without restriction.>>

In other words UMC is trying to have it both ways.

It wants the favourable tax status associated with being "private property that is opened to the public for recreational use without restriction" without actually being private property open to the public without restriction.

Now I think the law as it stands is unwise. But at the same time it seems a bit over the top to say the USA is drifting into totalitarianism and that freedom of conscience is at risk on this basis.

All UMC needs to do is get its tax status changed. Once it pays the same taxes as private property owners it is free to treat its property as private which would include the right to bar its use for gay marriages.

Credulous GlenC. People like you vote in tyrants. http://tofspot.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/post-script.html

Yabby, birth control/sterilisation is a product/service, not an employee right. If an employee wants to purchase it, they can. The employer should not be forced to do so for them. Same goes for JWs, Jews, whatever. No one forces you to work for a Catholic/religious employer, and if you look at the employment process, e.g. at http://www.diocese-sacramento.org/diocese/lay_personnel/lay_personnel_forms.html and the PRE-application statement, you will see that it is clearly stated that non-Catholic employees must "share the Church's vision" and that this includes a rejection of artificial contraception. Standardising health care does not necessitate employer funding. Employers decide what's in a salary package, not the government. If Americans believe contraception is a free entitlement perhaps they should elect a socialist government. Even Australia doesn't provide free contraception.

stevenlmeyer, a wedding is not recreation, it's a formal civil or religious ceremony. Ocean Grove was open to the public without restriction for recreation, thus the tax status. OG was not trying to have it both ways. Why shouldn't it be open to the public for weddings with the restriction that they are weddings that the UMC recognises? Being open to the public doesn't make it public property, and the tax status related to recreation, not to weddings. Ocean Grove is no longer able to offer its facilities as a wedding venue, and that is a result of the LAD. Bad luck to all those other couples who wanted to hire it - it seems if a homosexual couple can't get married in a venue for hire, no one should be allowed to! That has been dictated by the state.

Mishka Gora,

What's this?...."...a compromise that will allow religious organisations to opt out of providing coverage that would include birth control for women..."
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=19834

It's nothing that a universal health care system wouldn't address. Tethering health care to employment is at odds with the tenets of modern social democracy - and the religious right in the U.S. are amongst the most vocal in opposing any move toward universality in this area.

Hi Mishka Gora

UMC

Did you read the article I linked?

A further quote:

>>Neptune Township had actually opposed the application, arguing that Ocean Grove was governed by religious restrictions that made it doubtful that it could meet the requirement under the Green Acres tax program that required that property under the program be open to public use on an equal basis without discrimination. But Ocean Grove countered that they would make the Pavilion available for public use "WITHOUT RESERVATION." Judge Metzger pointed out that the website on which they advertised the Pavilion's availability MADE NO REFERENCE TO ANY RELIGIOUS DOCTRINAL REQUIREMENTS. Indeed, the Pavilion was rented for a wide variety of wedding ceremonies, MANY OF WHICH WOULD NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH METHODIST DOCTRINE.>>

(Capitalisations added)

--So Neptune Township pointed out to UMC that there could be no religious restrictions placed on the use of the Pavilion and UMC had accepted this proviso.

--UMC had already allowed the pavilion to be used for wedding ceremonies that did not comply with UMC doctrine.

I'm afraid I do not have much sympathy for UMC in this case. Their problems are of their own making. I cannot see how this can reasonably be considered the beginning of the end for freedom of conscience in the USA.

Nor BTW do I have much sympathy for the plaintiffs, Berstein and Paster. Sometimes a little give and take is the wisest course. If UMC had told me that they could not accept a Jewish wedding ceremony I would have sought another venue. Google maps and the Yellow Pages show there are many alternatives.

Clearly Bernstein & Paster wanted a fight.

CATHOLIC CHURCH

So long as the silly practice of linking health cover to employment continues some give and take is required. The employees must also be allowed their freedom of conscience.

Note that the Catholic Church campaigned against a "public option" in the "Obamacare" legislation. Had the public option been in effect the Catholic Church could presumably have gone out of the business of providing employee-linked healthcare and these problems would not have arisen.