८ जुलै, २०२०

"The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday teachers at religious schools are foreclosed from bringing workplace discrimination cases against their employers."

"The 7-2 ruling said the lawsuits could not move forward due to the “ministerial exception” and court precedent, which has held the First Amendment protects religious institutions from some workplace discrimination complaints."

The Washington Times reports.

AND: A second case announced this morning — "In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the justices upheld a federal rule exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act." I'm seeing that announcement at SCOTUSblog. Thomas writes the majority opinion and there's also a concurring opinion by Kagan, who is joined by Breyer. Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissent. Full opinion here.

Excerpt from the majority opinion:

For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious call- ing to surrender all for the sake of their brother. “[T]hey commit to constantly living out a witness that proclaims the unique, inviolable dignity of every person, particularly those whom others regard as weak or worthless.” Complaint ¶14. But for the past seven years, they—like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision— have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs. After two decisions from this Court and multiple failed regulatory attempts, the Federal Government has arrived at a solution that exempts the Little Sisters from the source of their complicity-based concerns—the administratively imposed contraceptive mandate.

We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption.
From the Ginsburg dissent:
Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.... Destructive of the Women’s Health Amendment, this Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.... The Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, all agree, does not call for that imbalanced result.1 Nor does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., condone harm to third parties occasioned by entire disregard of their needs. I therefore dissent from the Court’s judgment, under which, as the Government estimates, between 70,500 and 126,400 women would immediately lose access to no-cost contraceptive services.

४२ टिप्पण्या:

Lucien म्हणाले...

OT: If Harvard is going online, why limit the number of admissions as much as it does? It’s not like they’ll run out of room. Also, why keep discriminating against Asians — you can’t get much benefit from “diversity” online.

Achilles म्हणाले...

You mean 3 of the leftists on the court agreed with the quaint notion of freedom of association?

Roberts must be upset he couldn't provide the 5th vote and piss on the constitution again.

Lucien म्हणाले...

If I don’t expect my auto insurer to pay for car washes, oil changes, or gasoline, why should I expect my health insurer to pay for birth control?

rhhardin म्हणाले...

Divine and conquer.

n.n म्हणाले...

Three out of four choices is not bad. At least the child will not be subject to age discrimination and scalping under diversity dogma for social and medical progress and profit. Also, the trans/homosexual activists will need to self-moderate in order to mitigate progress of past civil and criminal violations. The Boy Scouts should similarly reject Progressive Culture. Think of the boys.

rcocean म्हणाले...

Sotomayer has shown herself to be the most radical SCOTUS judge in US history. She's way out there with Ginsburg (former ACLU).

wendybar म्हणाले...

Hallelujah!!! Common sense prevails. Get a job coding.(if you don't like it)..as Joe Biden told the coal miners....

Birches म्हणाले...

What will women do if they're working for a religious employer and have to pay for their own birth control?

The horrors of life before Obamacare. Truly dark times...

rehajm म्हणाले...

Ginsburg argument is one part referenced bureaucratic nonsense, one part money isn't fungible, one part punish christianity, and one part women are so fucking stupid and won't be able to figure out a solution for themselves.

Readering म्हणाले...

Kagan's concurrence in the contraceptives case predicts the regs will be subject to being overturned anyway on remand.

Birches म्हणाले...

It does seem like Roberts was vote trading now. He agreed to let precedent stay for the Louisiana abortion case so that these two cases would not be five to four. I still don't like it, but at least I can see the rationale.

अनामित म्हणाले...

I'm sorry. If you are a woman, and you chose to work for the sisters you pretty much know you are going to need to play by their rules. Any other idea is pure fantasy.

And how many women can we be talking about here? Women who go to work for less than market salaries for Nuns, tend to be observant Catholics.

I bet this was a targeted lawsuit.

Leave the Sisters alone

tim maguire म्हणाले...

Would a religious employer be allowed to discriminate based religious belief? Could the Little Sisters of the Poor be allowed to not hire someone because they refuse to support the mission of the Little Sisters of the Poor? Could a Jewish Temple refuse to hire a receptionist because she is a fundamentalist Muslim?

Ginsburg's dissent strikes me as much ado about nothing. The small number of people affected should have no issue with supporting the values of their own employer. But, you know, some of us don't believe in religious freedom so much as we are willing to tolerate it so long as it does not become inconvenient to our goals.

Carol म्हणाले...

It's funny to see the teachers at reddit complain about the religious element at the private schools they teach in. And others smugly giving advice on how to get around it.

It's a wonder religious schools can find any teachers at all who share the faith.

ALP म्हणाले...

Cue the Handmaid Tale costumes because women will have to take $$$ from their salon/spa budget to cover birth control FFS. I do not make this up. A particular workplace conversation is forever seared into my brain: female co-worker details how much it costs to turn her bland natural hair color into platinum blonde. I believe each salon visit was $160 at the time, around 4x per year. But as soon as she got done with that she then began to bitch about our health insurance co-pay going from $15 to $20.

And WHY, WHY are the wallets of the men sticking their dicks into these women always absent when this subject is discussed? I simply will never understand why the concept of a couple sharing responsibility for something is never mentioned here. Never. Jesus I was wondering what might wipe covid and BLM off the media map.

sparrow म्हणाले...

I always thought that the case "Obama vs Little Sisters of the Poor" summed up his presidency is a single phrase. Didn't know Penn. was in a similar battle. The persecution of these nuns reminds me of the CCP persecution the Falun Gong: senseless bullying.

YoungHegelian म्हणाले...

I'm sorry, but for someone who hasn't guzzled a whole bottle of progressive Kool-Aid, aren't these cases kind of, well, obvious under the standing traditions of American jurisprudence? Yuuuuuge exemptions have always been carved out for questions of religious conscience. For example, to give an example of religious conscience that Lefties get all gooey about, exemption from the burden of military service has always been given to those religious sects such as Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, & Mennonites who embrace pacifism as part of their religious beliefs.

Kevin म्हणाले...

Ginsburg: Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights (that this court can't help itself from inventing) and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights (which were fundamental to forming the nation we serve)....

It would seem the greater horror that this is only happening "for the first time".

iowan2 म्हणाले...

President Trump has already provided the protection women are wailing for. The ultimate protection for women, is full employment. With 3.4% unemployment, this is all moot. Go find a wage with like minded employers. Catholic Schools seek to model the behavior of their catechism, to their students. With 3.4% unemployment, no person is forced to take a job that contradicts their own ideology.

Fr. Gregory Jensen म्हणाले...

How many people are compelled by circumstances to work for an employer whose moral vision is antithetical to their own? More to the point, why should an employee be allowed to impose his or her own personal moral vision on an employer?

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves म्हणाले...

Bader is a useless radical leftwing rubber stamp vote. She needs to check out.

Yancey Ward म्हणाले...

Birches has the same opinion I do- Roberts traded his vote in some previous occasions this term to get broader support for some of this past week's decisions. I think he did the same thing 8 years ago on the Obamacare decisions- he changed his vote on the mandate (and, yes, it is a vote in my opinion) in order to secure a 7-2 decision on the Medicaid expansion.

I think Roberts is a fool, though- all his carefully created 6-3 and 7-2 decisions will be thrown out the first chance the leftists on the court get to do it. He is building a bipartisan castle in Swamp Forest.

Wa St Blogger म्हणाले...

this Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets....

Exactly why is it that we are in this predicament were our own health insurance is determined by our employment status in the first place? This is one of the biggest market distortions. If I am unemployed, I can't get good insurance, If I am with a small employer my insurance might not be as good. Somehow employer provided insurance to meet my particular needs has become an enshrined right based on this Judge's interpretation.

cubanbob म्हणाले...

Exactly what medical conditions are birth control pills and ED pills treat when used as they are principally intended?

Francisco D म्हणाले...

Birches said...It does seem like Roberts was vote trading now. He agreed to let precedent stay for the Louisiana abortion case so that these two cases would not be five to four.

It is becoming quite clear that our Chief Justice is more of a politician than a jurist.

Ann Althouse म्हणाले...

“ Yuuuuuge exemptions have always been carved out for questions of religious conscience. ”

Nope. Employment Division v. Smith. Read it. Scalia wrote it. No exemptions are required. It took RFRA to get to required exemptions.

Mike (MJB Wolf) म्हणाले...

What I see is a solid two votes against stare decisis. But it’s NEVER reported this way when 7-2 is on our side.

Clyde म्हणाले...

7-2 decisions. When the tide goes out, you can see who is swimming naked.

Caroline म्हणाले...

Sandra Fluke hardest hit.

Mark म्हणाले...

Employment Division v. Smith. Read it. Scalia wrote it. No exemptions are required.

Is that the same Scalia that joined the majority in the Free Exercise case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012)? Or a different one?

bagoh20 म्हणाले...

If an employer has to provide your birth control, they should be allowed a video feed from your bedroom to verify it's being used correctly. Otherwise the employer could be liable for failing to properly train and supervise the use of tools they provide. Sounds wild, huh, but are you sure some lawyer wouldn't file such a case some day if the birth control fails?

Marcus Bressler म्हणाले...

Mark, just "read it" and shut up. Because.

THEOLDMAN

Joe Smith म्हणाले...

"If I don’t expect my auto insurer to pay for car washes, oil changes, or gasoline, why should I expect my health insurer to pay for birth control?"

Because birth control for all under ObamaCare was a ruse and pushed as being necessary for women's health. It was a way to try to get the government (eventually) to pay for abortions.

Joe Smith म्हणाले...

Btw, the average age of nuns in the U.S. is almost 80. I don't think there is a lot of need for birth control in this case.

Typical example of one-size-fits-all, top-down government control.

Churchy LaFemme: म्हणाले...

If I have to pay for birth control, it should be the yugo, not the cadiallac. You (whatever your perceived gender) get condoms, and that's it. After all the pill is medically dangerous & does nothing to prevent disease during intercourse. And not Trojans either -- generic, lowest bidder rubbers.

Susan म्हणाले...

Next thing you know they will be expecting women to pay for their food. WITH THEIR OWN MONEY!!

THE HORROR!

Mark म्हणाले...

A lot of you folks are just like Ginsburg and Sotomayor, making the same arguments and relitigating these issues that were already considered and conclusively decided years ago in the Hobby Lobby and Zubik cases.

Jeff म्हणाले...

So now that the liberals aren't going to be able to force the Catholic Church to pay for birth control that violates their religious convictions, maybe the Democrats will finally allow the Republicans to make birth control available over the counter?

Fernandinande म्हणाले...

If I don’t expect my auto insurer to pay for car washes, oil changes, or gasoline, why should I expect my health insurer to pay for birth control?

"They" consider birth control to be a quasi-right; that means someone else pays for it....just as the recipients of the BC largess pay for someone else's.

Either that or "They" just wanted the insurance companies to make more money, which is more sensible.

“Yuuuuuge exemptions have always been carved out for questions of religious conscience.”

Nope. Employment Division v. Smith. Read it. Scalia wrote it. No exemptions are required.


Nobody said they were required, just that exist.

It took RFRA to get to required exemptions.

QED: the exemptions exist.

Drago म्हणाले...

Caroline: "Sandra Fluke hardest hit."

That's Not Funny!!!

Ray - SoCal म्हणाले...

Since it would upset the Democrats, and most Republican's don't dare do this. I think plan parenthood makes some money off of proscribing birth control pills. Buy for $3, get reimbursed for $35.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/11/12/planned-parenthood-paid-3-for-birth-control-but-billed-medicaid-35-former-manager/

Strange politics...

>Democrats will finally allow the Republicans to make birth control available over the counter?

Greg the class traitor म्हणाले...

Ann Althouse said...
“ Yuuuuuge exemptions have always been carved out for questions of religious conscience. ”

Nope. Employment Division v. Smith. Read it. Scalia wrote it. No exemptions are required. It took RFRA to get to required exemptions.


1: The exemptions existed up until Smith
2: RFRA was passed under Clinton, with huge majorities of Democrats voting for it
3: All the Democrats had to do to avoid the RFRA "interference" was to clearly state in the ACA that it was exempt from RFRA. They didn't, so of course it is subject to it, and those huge exemptions MUST be carved out
4: Nothing in the ACA says taht "free birth control" is required under the ACA. It simply said that someone in HHS would decide which "preventative care" all insurance would be required to cover for "free".

So, two Democrat passed laws are interacting, the "right" to "free birth control" does not exist in any law, and RFRA does.

The sheer and utter dishonesty of the Left can be summed up from that fact that this wasn't 9-0 for the Little Sisters