Hobby Lobby, Religious Freedom Laws--Just the Beginning? II

From previous thread:

Here in Michigan, where RC church vigorously supports First Amendment religious liberty rights, it apparently does not extend the same support for others' free speech and conscience, at least in Lansing diocese, where a school suspended a sixth-grader for a day because he knelt during the Pledge of Allegiance. Faced with picketing parents encouraging parishioners to "divest" by ceasing to volunteer, donate or raise money for the diocese, Lansing Bishop Boyea, after meeting with the parents, said he was

“moved” to hear how racism affects the lives of some people in the diocese and its schools. Boyea asked school administrators to “be lenient with the consequences” for students who kneel during the national anthem and pledge of allegiance, but said students should still stand to pay respect to veterans*.

...(He established a) Racial Diversity Task Force”...to make recommendations to the bishop about how Diocese of Lansing Catholic schools can better listen to and meet the needs of racial and ethnic minorities. Bishop Boyea further states, “My ultimate goal is this – that our schools and diocese will accompany people of all races and ethnicities toward God, who desires each one of us to be one with him in heaven."..."

http://michiganradio.org/post/parents-neighbors-divesting-lansing-diocese-over-c....
https://www.dioceseoflansing.org/news/diocese-lansing-form-task-force-racial-div...

__________________________________________________​

*Trump Picks (Another) Fight Over Kneeling During Anthem: ‘Proudly Stand’
Matt Shuham | February 4, 2018

...“Though many of our Nation’s service members are unable to be home with family and friends to enjoy this evening’s American tradition, they are always in our thoughts and prayers,” Trump said in a statement marking the NFL championship game. “We owe these heroes the greatest respect for defending our liberty and our American way of life. Their sacrifice is stitched into each star and every stripe of our Star-Spangled Banner.”

“We hold them in our hearts and thank them for our freedom as we proudly stand for the National Anthem.” ...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/04/trump-tackles-nfl-and-national-anthem....

Quick notes:

1. I support kids who choose to kneel. I think it's a brave stance.
2. There are, I think, conscience issues at stake.
3. There are no First-Amendment issues, however. The First Amendment protects government interference with speech. It does not protect a private-school student from discipline for speech.

The United States' New ‘Religious Freedom’ Appointee Is a Religious Bigot
Brian Tashman | May 17, 2018

...(Tony) Perkins, who was appointed to (the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom) by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), will now serve on a commission that supposedly serves as a watchdog “dedicated to defending the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad,” even though he has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not believe in the equal protection of Muslims and others.

...He has said that “those who practice Islam in its entirety” should not be afforded the same constitutional freedoms as other Americans since Islam, in his words, is “incompatible with the Constitution” ... “only 16 percent of Islam is a religion.”

...also questioned whether Christians who support marriage equality and members of “fringe religions” should have the same rights under the Constitution as those who follow his personal brand of Christianity. He has also criticized supporters of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state as “cultural terrorists.”

...called transgender identity a “perversion” and had a role in shaping the Trump administration’s ban on transgender military service members, insisting that it would be “better” to disband the military altogether rather than allow transgender people to serve.

...once praised legislation in Uganda that would have included heinous punishments for homosexuality, including the death penalty, as an effort to “uphold moral conduct” and warned that marriage equality would lead to a revolution and second holocaust...

https://www.aclu.org/blog/religious-liberty/government-promotion-religion/united...

only 16 percent of Islam is a religion

I don't even want to know where he gets that. But that's some seriously specific math.

I would be mildly interested to know what qualifies "religion" for that 16%. I suspect theology. *icky face*

I'm guessing it's some bad analysis of the Koran.

Supreme Court rules in favor of baker who would not make wedding cake for gay couple
Robert Barnes | June 4, 2018

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.

In an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that leaves many questions unanswered, the court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not adequately taken into account the religious beliefs of baker Jack Phillips.

In fact, Kennedy said, the commission had been hostile to the baker’s faith, denying him the neutral consideration he deserved. While the justices split in their reasoning, only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Kennedy wrote that the question of when religious beliefs must give way to anti-discrimination laws might be different in future cases. But in this case, he said, Phillips did not get the proper consideration...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-...

De jure bigotry in the tradition of Plessy v Ferguson.

The Baker's "faith" is simply pure, unmitigated bigotry, and just because he yells First Amendment religious freedom ... he's given license to discriminate. Mark my words ... this opens the flood gates for more and more discrimination by groups of people whose beliefs run counter to common sense, and whose doctrines are based only on misunderstanding and myth. Would that those beliefs affected only its practitioners.

In trying to give religious sects freedom to believe whatever they want to believe ... this First Amendment decision has given them license to force their beliefs on everyone else.

Trinity Western loses fight for Christian law school as court rules limits on religious freedom 'reasonable'
Kathleen Harris | Jun 15, 2018 9:48 AM ET | Last Updated: 8 hours ago

Trinity Western University faced legal challenges to open a law school because of a 'community covenant' that required students to abstain from sex unless they were in a heterosexual marriage. (CBC)

A B.C.-based evangelical Christian university has lost its legal battle over accreditation for a planned new law school, with a Supreme Court of Canada ruling today saying it's "proportionate and reasonable" to limit religious rights in order to ensure open access for LGBT students.

In a pair of 7-2 rulings, the majority of justices found the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario have the power to refuse accreditation based on Trinity Western University's so-called community covenant...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trinity-western-supreme-court-decision-1.4707240

Got me all hopeful until I saw that it was our moderately saner neighbors to the north.

Being pragmatic I tend to look at the practical aspect before I consider any ideological questions in any real-world consideration.

So, in this instance, a gay couple put in an order for a cake at a bakery. The proprietor let them know right off the bat, as I understand it, that he has religious objections to homosexual behavior and refused to make the cake for them.

Hmmmm.

I am not gay, or married, or planning to get married, but we are all human so l can look at this hypothetically as if it were my request for a cake which was summarily rejected allegedly on religious grounds.

Well, I would take my business elsewhere and thus end of problem. The reason I would do so is that I do not want anyone who expressed great dislike for me to make me a cake. I would suspect that if such a cake were made it might have bad things in it (I won't give the obvious gross examples as no doubt everyone can imagine some).

So, the broad point is that asking or requiring someone to prepare you a comestible of any kind is a poor way of making an ideological or legal point.

To make this even clearer, I don't even send food back in a restaurant when my order is wrong - I don't even complain - I just eat it or not - because god knows what they would do to the "corrected" order - they may "correct" it by spitting it for all I know. Or for what anyone would know.

The continued battle for gay rights might better be fought in another venue.

Do you think those kids who sat at a lunch counter, in Selma?, thought about whether the cooks would spit in their food? Civil rights aren't won by those who think of practical considerations.

"It came down on the side of finding that the First Amendment protects hate, so long as it’s religiously based."

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/4/1769277/-The-Supreme-Court-just-set-ga...

>14 Rood:

Meh. The author doesn't understand how cases work. They didn't rule on the merits, but on the commission's actions and approach. They came down on the side of saying that bodies with judicial functions need to be fair and non-discriminatory. Even if a case is good—and it's quite clear far more than 2 justices thought it so—a judicial body can't show evident and Constitutionally impermissible bias against the other side. And they can't rule based on principles they claim are general, but explicitly and repeatedly reject in other recent cases--that goes to a basic requirement that judicial bodies provide Due Process.

As often, the author can only make Civil Rights comparisons. If you'd like a more accurate one, it is this. Even if there's evidence a black person committed a crime, if the judge makes racist statements in the process of ruling against him, it won't survive review. And if a judicial body sets and follows clear rules, and then goes against them when the defendant is black, it's not following due process, whether or not the defendant is probably guilty anyway.

> 13

Just for historical accuracy the cooks would probably have been black also and thus actually sympathetic to the civil rights activists.

In any case, the civil rights movement was about a whole lot more than one individual bigot refusing to bake a god damn cake for someone he disliked. It was essentially a war fought by two groups of millions of people, one group of white bigots, including the state and local governments and the other group (blacks) being denied a hell of a lot more than a fucking wedding cake.

I think you are comparing a fart to a nuclear bomb explosion.

>16 JGL53: And you're ignoring the wider context. The LGBTQ experience isn't that much different than that of black America. Not too long ago a majority of the country would have denied basic human rights to them and even now large swaths of the country still would.

> 17

I'm not black but if I were I would no doubt take great exception to the "not much different" comment and sort of throw it back in your face.

But since I am white I will be more mild-mannered since I don't take it as a PERSONAL insult.

I think sexual orientation vs. race makes for a piss poor comparison. For one reason alone - blacks have great difficulty staying "in the closet" and just being black behind closed doors. Gays can pass under the radar, as it were. Blacks have a little more difficulty.

Also, gays have not had to overcome hundreds of years of slavery. That is somewhat of a radical difference. Also, the lynch ratio is much to the advantage of gays, I would guess.

No doubt any and all minority groups have a case to make to illicit quite deserved sympathy and compassion from all the human race but blacks really take, and deserve, the gold metal. Sorry, but as Hammer says, you can't touch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEE0qpfeig

Woman slams Walgreens when a pharmacist refuses to fill her prescription to induce a miscarriage
CNN Wire Service | June 25, 2018

In a 1-star Yelp review of the Walgreens branch in Peoria, Arizona, where she initially tried to collect her medication Thursday, (Nicole Mone) Arteaga said she had dropped off her prescription Wednesday and went to collect the medication the next day. She said her doctor had been monitoring her pregnancy closely due to previous miscarriages.

..."Unfortunately, development isn’t happening and my body is slowly getting ready to miscarry. My (doctor) gave me two choices D & C or a prescription that will help induce bleeding and discharge in the comfort of my home,” she wrote.

“D&C,” also known as dilation and curettage, is a surgical procedure to remove tissue from the uterus. In the case of a fetus failing to develop, it is performed to prevent infection or heavy bleeding.

“Last night I went to pick up my medication at my local Walgreens only to be denied the prescription I need. I stood at the mercy of this pharmacist explaining my situation in front of my 7 year old, and five customers standing behind only to be denied because of his ethical beliefs” ...

...Under state law, Arizona pharmacies must require employees to notify them of drugs they would decline to fill because of “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

“On receiving this notification, the pharmacy must attempt to accommodate the employee if the accommodation can be made without causing undue hardship to the pharmacy or its customers.”...

http://fox6now.com/2018/06/25/woman-slams-walgreens-when-a-pharmacist-refuses-to...

WHAT were Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and White House senior adviser Stephen Miller thinking to dine at Mexican restaurants?? Heckled might have been the least of their mistreatment!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/25/maxine-waters-shows-wh...

>18 JGL53: All I can say is that I strongly disagree. There's not a lot of point in trying to discuss levels of bigotry.

>21 jjwilson61:

Isn't there a difference between bigotry and a political boycott? Doesn't bigotry imply being against someone for who they are rather than being against the actions they choose to carry out?

>22 John5918: JGL and I were having a conversation about Gay vs. Black bigotry, not the more recent Huckabee Sanders thing.

>23 jjwilson61:

Ah, sorry, I lost track. I recall that conversation now.

> 21

In the final analysis our "disagreement" has little to do with the standing law. Either sexual orientation is a protected class, like race or age or religion, or it is not. I think most people assumed it was but it is up in the air at the moment.

I have nothing against congress passing a law that makes sexual orientation a protected class with no exceptions and/or a future SCOTUS making such a ruling so I don't think we actually have a "disagreement". I see the chances of congress or SCOTUS doing such is slim these days with, of course, our right to vote being the only way to have input on our laws.

This is directed at Catholic hospitals in the US, but similar dilemmas occur elsewhere.
Not so bad when procedures are elective (not emergency), alternative healthcare options are available, and the Catholic hospital is transparent on what it will and won't do.

Transparency is particularly important in era of "religious freedom". Link to bishops' NATIONAL Directives for Catholic Health Care Services is at the end of this post. However, not spelled out which procedures that are disallowed.

Local interpretation and execution of national directives can vary widely by diocese, i.e. interpretation of local bishop. For example, directive #67: "Each diocesan bishop has the ultimate responsibility to assess whether collaborative arrangements involving Catholic health care providers operating in his local church involve wrongful cooperation, give scandal, or undermine the Church’s witness. In fulfilling this responsibility, the bishop should consider not only the circumstances in his local diocese but also the regional and national implications of his decision."

_____________________________________________________________

As Catholic Hospitals Expand, So Do Limits on Some Procedures
Katie Hafner | Aug 10, 2018

...One in six hospital patients in the United States is now treated in a Catholic facility, according to the Catholic Health Association, a membership organization that includes 90 percent of the Catholic hospitals in the United States. In a 2016 report, MergerWatch, a nonprofit group in New York that tracks hospital consolidation, found that in 10 states, 30 percent or more of the acute-care hospital beds were under Catholic ownership, or in a hospital affiliated with a Catholic health care system. In a growing number of rural areas, a Catholic hospital is the sole provider of acute care.

Most facilities provide little or no information up front about procedures they won’t perform. The New York Times analyzed 652 websites of Catholic hospitals in the United States, using a list maintained by the Catholic Health Association. On nearly two-thirds of them, it took more than three clicks from the home page to determine that the hospital was Catholic.

Only 17 individual Catholic hospital websites, fewer than 3 percent, contained an easily found list of services not offered for religious reasons, and all of them were in Washington State, which requires that such information be published on a hospital’s site. In the rest of the country, such lists, if available, were posted only on the corporate parent’s site, and they were often difficult to find...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/health/catholic-hospitals-procedures.html
________________________________________________________________

Opinion that prompted NYT article above(?):

New York Times Omitted Key Fact About Rural Hospital: Its Catholic Rules Could Endanger Women
Amy Littlefield | Jul 20, 2018

...directives restrict access to abortion, contraception, sterilization, and end-of-life care. For many patients, these hospitals—which account for one in six acute-care beds nationwide—are the only option in their community.

Catholic hospitals have cancelled surgeries for transgender patients, denied access to tubal ligations, and refused to help patients like Tamesha Means, who was turned away twice while suffering a miscarriage. Women of color...are more likely to give birth in Catholic hospitals, so they bear the brunt of these restrictions.

...More than 80 percent of women in a recent survey* said it was important to know about a hospital’s religious restrictions on some critical forms of care when deciding where to go for medical needs. Yet many do not know. While about one in six women nationwide name a Catholic hospital as their go-to place for reproductive health services, more than a third of these women did not realize the hospital was Catholic.

Catholic hospitals “don’t want patients to know the doctrinal restrictions on care, because people wouldn’t go there,” Dr. Debra Stulberg, co-author*

...The Trump administration is acting to expand the ability of health-care providers to deny a range of services by citing religion. It’s more important than ever that news outlets like the Times do their part to address this information gap by noting when a hospital restricts health care on religious grounds...

https://rewire.news/article/2018/07/20/new-york-times-omitted-key-fact-rural-hos...
_______________________________________________________________

* Lori R. Freedman et al. . 2018. Religious hospital policies on reproductive care: what do patients want to know? February 2018. American Journal of Obstretrics and Gynecology. Volume 218, Issue 2, Pages 251.e1–251.e9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.595 . https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(17)32444-4/abstract

...Results. One third of women aged 18–45 years (34.5%) believe it is somewhat or very important to know a hospital’s religion when deciding where to get care, but 80.7% feel it is somewhat or very important to know about a hospital’s religious restrictions on care. Being Catholic or attending religious services more frequently does not make one more or less likely to want this information. Compared with Protestant women who do not identify as born-again, women of other religious backgrounds are more likely to consider it important to know a hospital’s religious affiliation. These include religious minority women (adjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.11–4.27), those who reported no religion/atheist/agnostic (adjusted odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.19–4.34), and born-again Protestants (adjusted odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.32–4.28). Religious minority women (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–5.51) and those who reported no religion/atheist/agnostic (adjusted odds ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.42–7.04) were more likely to want to know a hospital’s restrictions on care. More than two thirds of women find it unacceptable for the hospital to restrict information and treatment options during miscarriage based on religion. Women who attended weekly religious services were significantly more likely to accept such restrictions (adjusted odds ratio, 3.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.70–5.76) and to consider transfer to another site an acceptable solution (adjusted odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.69–6.12). The question, “When should a religious hospital be allowed to restrict care based on religion?” was asked, and 52.3% responded never; 16.6%, always; and 31.1%,“under some conditions.

Conclusion. The vast majority of adult American women of reproductive age want information about a hospital’s religious restrictions on care when deciding where to go for obstetrics/gynecology care. Growth in the US Catholic health care sector suggests an increasing need for transparency about these restrictions so that women can make informed decisions and, when needed, seek alternative providers.
________________________________________________________________

An anecdote: reportedly for religious reasons and (edit: with implications) unbeknownst to the (non-Catholic) patient, a Catholic hospital in Texas left in ovaries during a medically necessary hysterectomy. The woman, wife of DH's college friend, now appears to be losing a battle with ovarian cancer. (Even back then, not all Catholic hospitals would routinely leave ovaries when performing a hysterectomy, but this one did, based on local interpretation of directives...)

Below are most recent NATIONAL healthcare directives from bishops. On p 25, "While the following Directives are offered to assist Catholic health care institutions...the ultimate responsibility for interpreting and applying of the Directives rests with the diocesan bishop":

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (30 p)
Sixth Edition, issued June 2018
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Contents

Preamble

General
Introduction

PART ONE
The Social Responsibility of Catholic Health Care Services

PART TWO
The Pastoral and Spiritual Responsibility of Catholic Health Care

PART THREE
The Professional-Patient Relationship

PART FOUR
Issues in Care for the Beginning of Life

PART FIVE
Issues in Care for the Seriously Ill and Dying

PART SIX
Collaborative Arrangements with Other Health Care Organizations and Providers

Conclusion

http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/upload/ethi...

Yep, the catholic church's anti-abortion and anti-contraception stance does cause many problems for catholic hospitals in their treatment of women patients and that is a shame. But that is life. Women have to deal with the reality. Sometimes that is just to eschew catholic hospitals and find another hospital to do business.

When it comes to one's personal situation one must do what one must do.

In my case I was lucky there were no religious restriction issues for me last year when I had open heart surgery. My cardiologist got me the best surgeon in town - who happened to be at our local catholic hospital. I doubt I could have received better care any where else in the world. I don't know the personal religion of my surgeon and I don't care. His competency is beyond reproach.

When filling out my paper work I put down "none" as my religious preference. That held down the proselytizing to a minimum at the hospital. So all in all it was the best situation I could hope for and I do enjoy the irony of a catholic hospital helping a poor atheist to have a few more years of mundane life. So there is all that.

>27 JGL53:

Thank you for that. The official stance of the Catholic Church on abortion and contraception does indeed cause us problems, but the reality is that in many parts of the world Catholic health care facilities are offering high quality care, often free of charge or very cheaply, to the poorest of the poor of all faiths and none.

With my reproductive years behind me, my personal concern is that I may never hear about the procedures and measures that may not be available to me based on local bishop's interpretation of directives. For example, treatments whose development may have run through human fetal cell lines derived from abortion, sometimes decades ago in another country, e.g., vaccines, a kidney treatment, new cure for macular degeneration. One may never know what was denied on one's behalf.

I think I agree with bishops' end-of-life directives, but again I don't know all the implications. (IMO, secular hospitals can handle this badly, too, not fully advising patients on options, pros and cons. Withhold water too early for terminal patient... Extreme measures to prolong life...)

And I can't forget about the young women, who find themselves in emergency miscarriage, risking death-by-hemorrhage until, as bishop prescribes, fetal heartbeat ceases.

I think
1. each Catholic hospital should be more transparent and detailed on exactly what what may be proscribed.
2. Catholic hospitals should not be only hospital available in an area.
3. Catholic hospitals must not be prevented from transferring patients elsewhere.
4. MDs trained in Catholic hospitals should also spend some time training in secular hospital.
e.g., one can't be an ObGyn without knowing how to abort, even if one never uses the info except in emergencies

_________________________________________________________________________

Sessions outlines broad exemptions for religious freedom
JOSH GERSTEIN | 10/06/2017

New legal guidance could affect health care, gay rights, political action by churches

...Sessions billed the 25-page memo directed to all federal agencies as a response to an executive order President Donald Trump signed in May, promoting efforts to promote "religious liberty."

..."Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs or even to worship in a sacred place," Sessions wrote. "Except in the narrowest of circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law. Therefore, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity, including employment, contracting and programming."

...Sessions also issued a separate directive Friday that seeks to impose closer scrutiny of the religious freedom impact of rules issued by agencies across the federal government. The memo requires that anytime a proposed federal agency action is sent to the Justice Department by the Office of Management and Budget for review, Justice's Office of Legal Policy and Civil Rights Division will vet the move for any potential adverse impact on religious freedom protections.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/sessions-calls-for-broad-religious-fre...

>29 margd: Catholic hospitals should not be only hospital available in an area

Of course. I wish I wasn't on the Board of a Catholic organisation running the only hospital in a virtually inaccessible war zone where people like the UN and Red Cross can't/won't work. Would you care to tell me who else is willing to do it?

Catholic hospitals must not be prevented from transferring patients elsewhere

I'm not aware that we have ever been prevented from transferring patients to other hospitals, where such hospitals exist. Two years ago one of our Catholic nuns, a doctor, was shot dead in her ambulance by soldiers at an army check point while returning home after transferring two pregnant women to another hospital (in a different area to the above, where there are at least a few other health facilities).

>30 John5918: As I said in #26, "This is directed at Catholic hospitals in the US, but similar dilemmas occur elsewhere." By elsewhere, I was thinking of s Ontario, where a relative is drafting policy for a Catholic hospital.

1. Catholic hospitals should not be only hospital available in an area.
In the US, mergers of Catholic and other hospitals are common.

2. Catholic hospitals must not be prevented from transferring patients elsewhere
In the US, bishops direct:

67. Each diocesan bishop has the ultimate responsibility to assess whether collaborative arrangements involving Catholic health care providers operating in his local church involve wrongful cooperation, give scandal, or undermine the Church’s witness. In fulfilling this responsibility, the bishop should consider not only the circumstances in his local diocese but also the regional and national implications of his decision.

68. When there is a possibility that a prospective collaborative arrangement may lead to serious adverse consequences for the identity or reputation of Catholic health care services or entail a risk of scandal, the diocesan bishop is to be consulted in a timely manner. In addition, the diocesan bishop’s approval is required for collaborative arrangements involving institutions subject to his governing authority; when they involve institutions not subject to his
governing authority but operating in his diocese, such as those involving a juridic person erected by the Holy See, the diocesan bishop’s nihil obstat*
is to be obtained.

________________________________________________________________________

*Wikipedia: Nihil obstat (Latin for "nothing hinders" or "nothing stands in the way") is a declaration of no objection to an initiative or an appointment.

Apart from this general sense, the phrase is used more particularly to mean an "attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals". The Censor Librorum delegated by a bishop of the Catholic Church reviews the text in question, but the nihil obstat is not a certification that those granting it agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed in the work; instead, it merely confirms "that it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals."

The nihil obstat is the first step in having a book published under Church auspices. If the author is a member of a religious institute and if the book is on questions of religion or morals, the book must also obtain the imprimi potest ("it can be printed") of the major superior. The final approval is given through the imprimatur ("let it be printed") of the author's bishop or of the bishop of the place of publication...
_________________________________________________________________________

I welcome ethical advice from bishops, but I want evidence-based medical advice from health practitioners.
Separate, so I can weigh the two when deciding on my own care.

Anecdote: Can't recall the details, but I remember reading about a 1970s kidney treatment that was in part developed on fetal cell culture e from an abortion was disallowed by the church. They lifted the ban decades later.

There is a tide of hospitals that refuse to assist parents in circumcisions—I gather hospitals in Norway are refusing, at least. The tide will surely only grow. Some Jews no doubt have or will have no access to a hospital that isn't anti-circumcision.

For my part, I have no problem with this, at least if they are private hospitals. If the people who own a hospital are against circumcision, that's their business and their prerogative. I might hold a sign urging them to change, I might call them bigots, but I won't insist they be legally forced to do it. By the logic of many here, however, these hospitals and doctors should be required to perform an operation they believe is morally wrong. Right?

Wrong, if you're looking at me--unless they are only hospital /MD in the area and procedure is needed on emergency basis...

However, hospitals/MDs should be transparent about disallowed procedures
and
hospitals/MDs should facilitate transfer to other hospitals and MDs.

Otherwise, I'm not sure that such hospitals/MDs should be accepting public money.

<32 In 2014 the death of an infant Muslim boy in Norway, following a back-alley circumcision, prompted the Norwegian government to pass a law requiring Norwegian hospitals to perform the "procedure"... all in an effort to prevent more deaths. It would appear the Storting made a pact with the devil, substituting one wrong for another, thereby compounding the problem.

However, many Norwegian doctors refuse to be involved with any form of Male Genital Mutilation, just as they refuse to be involved with FGM.
Today a majority of Muslims apparently continue to frequent barbers, or whoever traditionally does the job in their society.

To date only two Norwegian hospitals have refused to follow the law.

Next some bloke will ask him to bake a cake to celebrate his divorce, and--surely Supreme Court will have had enough by then??

Colorado baker who refused to serve gay couple now wants to refuse to serve transgender person
German Lopez | Aug 16, 2018

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, is suing Colorado officials.

The Colorado baker who earlier this year won a Supreme Court case over whether he can refuse service for same-sex weddings is suing the state again. But this time, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is arguing that Colorado officials violated his religious rights by pushing him to bake a cake for a transgender woman.

In June 2017, Autumn Scardina, a transgender lawyer, requested cake with a pink-and-blue design to celebrate her birthday and her anniversary of coming out as trans. According to NPR, she was told that Masterpiece does not make cakes that celebrate gender transitions. She sued, and Colorado officials in June of this year said there was “sufficient evidence” for her discrimination claim and directed her and Masterpiece Cakeshop to “compulsory mediation.”...

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/16/17701712/masterpiece-cakeshop-jack-phil...

>35 margd:

If I'm not mistaken, refusing to bake a divorce cake would be absolutely fine and completely protected.

The question is one of protected statuses--divorced is not a protected status. Rather, the argument was that they were discriminating against gay people. The counter argument was that Masterpiece Cake Shop would be happy to make cakes for gay people--just not for same-sex weddings, whoever ordered it. Obviously the counter-counter argument is that same-sex marriages aren't some random thing that happens, but something intimately connected with being gay.

>36 timspalding: "refusing to bake a divorce cake would be absolutely fine and completely protected"

Unless the divorcee was escaping a same-sex marriage? ;-)
Divorce and same-sex marriage are both legal, but objectionable to some on religious grounds. Legally no diff, IMO.

My clumsy attempt at argumentum ad absurdum--a transgender person asking baker to mark her coming-out surely must be there to push the baker's buttons and force a case and will no doubt be followed by others testing the baker. While he's probably happy to accommodate such challenges in court--especially the US Supreme Court--I suspect he won't like arbitration after arbitration that keeps him from his business without generating publicity or the praise of religious lib champions. Colorado's strategy?

Divorce and same-sex marriage are both legal, but objectionable to some on religious grounds. Legally no diff, IMO.

Right. But the legal problem* with not baking the same-sex wedding cake is that it's discrimination against a protected class, not that it's discrimination against a legal ceremony. Bakers and others are free to discriminate in all sorts of ways. One could, for example, proclaim that they will not make triple-decker cakes, but if they only refused to make them for black clients, that would be a clear violation. Here the cake shop insists that they are discriminating against content, not against a person--that they would be willing to make any other sort of cake for a gay person or couple. The counter-argument is that the cake and the class are too interwoven to claim that.

surely must be there to push the baker's buttons and force a case

Yeah. Part of me hates these sorts of put-up cases. But the fact is that they're a standard feature of the progress of law.

surely must be there to push the baker's buttons and force a case

I think the sides are well-matched here. The baker is as committed to making a big deal out of this as anyone. I won't question his motives, but it's clear he views this as larger than himself, and will join with others in making as much noise as possible.

* We don't know how these cases will eventually shake out. The main question has not been decided.

Hajj is one of five pillars of Islam: Saudi Arabia's pugilism at odds with role as host?

Saudi disputes with ...Qatar bubble over into the Hajj
Samer al-Atrush | 19 August 2018 • 3:35pm

Qatar has accused the kingdom of barring its citizens (from Hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca)...

More than two million Muslims are in Mecca for the six-day ritual starting on Sunday. The Hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam which every able-bodied Muslim with the means must fulfil once.

Qatar, which Saudi Arabia blockaded in 2017, has said more than 1,200 eligible citizens have been barred from performing the pilgrimage, something the kingdom has denied.

"There is no chance this year for Qatari citizens and residents to travel for Hajj," Abdullah al-Kaabi, who runs the state's human rights committee, told Reuters. "Registration of pilgrims from the State of Qatar remains closed."

Saudi authorities have denied the claims and blamed Qatar.

A pro-government newspaper, Okaz, went as far as to call on Qataris to "rise up" against their ruling family whom it accused of "annulling the fifth pillar of Islam."

...Saudi Arabia prides itself on managing Islam's holiest sites, and is sensitive to accusations that its increasingly muscular foreign policy has affected its obligations to all Muslims...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/19/saudi-disputes-canada-qatar-bubble-h...

______________________________________________________________________

Discussion on Shia/Iranians' experiences on Hajj:
https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-Sunni-and-Shia-split-managed-during-the-Hajj-Do...

Michigan Child's Death Puts Spotlight On Clash Between Medicine and Religion
Samantha Raphelson | August 31, 2018

The case of a Michigan couple charged in the death of their 10-month-old daughter is bringing to light a debate about withholding medical care because of religious beliefs.

Seth Welch and his wife, Tatiana Fusari, both 27, were charged with felony murder and first-degree child abuse after their daughter, Mary (10 months old), died earlier this month from malnutrition and dehydration, an autopsy revealed. The parents said they didn't seek medical help for their daughter because of their religious beliefs, though they declined to define their religion.

...Since Idaho enacted a faith-based healing exemption in the 1970s, child advocates estimate more than 180 children have died or were stillborn in families that practiced a religion that shuns modern medicine.
How Religion Shapes The Way People Approach Medicine

Religious exemptions in civil and criminal child abuse laws are linked to the 1974 federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which was construed to mean that states were required to implement faith-based healing exceptions, according to Pew. That interpretation was later overturned, but by then states had already passed a handful of laws that included them.

Christian Scientists and Followers of Christ aren't the only religious groups that reject traditional medical care. Jehovah's Witnesses will not receive blood transfusions, the Amish will not undergo heart transplants and sometimes heart surgery, and some groups of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims do not allow the use of animal-based products when they receive medical treatment...

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/31/643407967/michigan-childs-death-puts-spotlight-on...

Before we go after the very rare case of parents making good-conscience religious decisions that lead to their own children's death, can we do something about the far more common, secular non-vaccinators whose primary victims are other people's children?

child advocates estimate more than 180 children have died or were stillborn

Wait, are we caring about dead fetuses when religious people have them? I didn't get the memo.

Not in the USA, but a religious freedom issue nonetheless.

Cartoon row sought to rile Dutch Muslims, but found only dignity (Guardian)

“It’s easy to spread hate but the best response is dignity”

>41 timspalding: the far more common, secular non-vaccinators

Actually, non-vaccinators, when cornered, frequently seek religious exemptions--just like the Michigan parents.

Then there are the freelancers such as Debi Vinnedge (Children of God for Life), who opposes vaccines developed at any point on fetal cells from legal abortions--even though in 2005, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith / Pontifical Academy for Life had ruled it "lawful" for Catholic parents to have their children immunised with vaccines made in fetal cells, "in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children, but also...for the health conditions of the population as a whole--especially for pregnant women."

(At the same time, the Vatican also urged Catholics to fight for alternatives, a request that Big Pharma doesn't seem to be accommodating: The Vaccine Race: Science, Politics, and the Human Costs of Defeating Disease. I also think it's a real shame that the debate has shut down open discussion with one's MDs and even the conduct of the science: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/opinion/sunday/anti-vaccine-activists-have-ta... .)

>41 timspalding: caring about dead fetuses when religious people have them

Secular or religious, our children's bodies should not be subject to parents' every half-baked whim. Did you know that some people think God wants them to slice pieces off their babies?! At least babies usually survive that particular religious ritual, sometimes performed without benefit of anesthetic. Unlike the poor three-year old boy denied "proper medicine and health care before he died in December 2017 during a religious ritual aimed at casting out demonic spirits" https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2018-08-29/new-mexico-judges-weigh-dange... .

China Is Treating Islam Like a Mental Illness
Sigal Samuel | Aug 28, 2018

The country is putting Muslims in internment camps—and causing real psychological damage in the process.

One million Muslims are being held right now in Chinese internment camps, according to estimates cited by the UN and U.S. officials. Former inmates—most of whom are Uighurs, a largely Muslim ethnic minority—have told reporters that over the course of an indoctrination process lasting several months, they were forced to renounce Islam, criticize their own Islamic beliefs and those of fellow inmates, and recite Communist Party propaganda songs for hours each day. There are media reports of inmates being forced to eat pork and drink alcohol, which are forbidden to Muslims, as well as reports of torture and death.

The sheer scale of the internment camp system, which according to The Wall Street Journal has doubled in China’s northwestern Xinjiang region just within the last year, is mindboggling. The U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China describes it as “the largest mass incarceration of a minority population in the world today.” Beijing began by targeting Uighur extremists, but now even benign manifestations of Muslim identity—like growing a long beard—can get a Uighur sent to a camp, the Journal noted. Earlier this month, when a UN panel confronted a senior Chinese official about the camps, he said there are “no such things as reeducation centers,” even though government documents refer to the facilities that way. Instead, he claimed they’re just vocational schools for criminals...

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/china-pathologizing-ui...

Mike Pence's plan to outlast Trump
Michael D'Antonio and Peter Eisner | Thu August 30, 2018

...many conservative Christians believe that God is merely using Trump to prepare the way for a so-called true man of faith. Pence's rise to power would affirm the "Cyrus prophecy," which became a popular notion among Christian right circles when Pence joined the 2016 ticket.

Cyrus was a Persian king whom the Old Testament credits with returning the Jews to Jerusalem. He was a pagan who nevertheless served God. Right-wing evangelists such as Lance Wallnau cited that tale in 2016 when they declared that Trump -- a profane and sinful man -- could nevertheless do God's work and was thus worthy of conservative Christian votes. An estimated 80% of white evangelicals gave Trump their votes.

The story of Cyrus resonates with many right-wing Christians because they imagine themselves to be persecuted like the Jews of old. Despite their vast wealth, power and numbers, these believers cite developments such as same-sex marriage and the use of ecumenical phrases such as "happy holidays," instead of Merry Christmas, as evidence they are a minority under siege. They imagine themselves to be victims of a culture war and feel that something must be done to defend an old order that they once dominated.

...During 12 years in Congress (Pence) never authored a single bill, but he did become a prominent advocate for banning abortion, defunding Planned Parenthood and restricting marriage only to heterosexual couples. In his one term as governor he overstepped when he signed a bill -- the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- permitting discrimination against gay people, and was forced to seek a change in the law.
His rhetoric attacking abortion rights, adultery and even evolution (he says he doesn't believe in it) assured the Christian right that he was one of them...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/opinions/mike-pence-plan-to-outlast-trump-dantoni...

Health And Human Services Says It's Reviewing Use Of Fetal Tissue For Research
Laurel Wamsley | September 26, 2018

...45 groups opposed to abortion sent a letter* to Azar calling the FDA contract for fetal tissue "shocking" and "unacceptable." A few days later, 85 members of Congress sent a letter** to the FDA's commissioner, urging the agency to cancel the contract.

...Ross McKinney, chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges, says fetal tissue was key in the development of major medical advances such as vaccines for polio, rubella, measles, chickenpox, adenovirus and rabies, as well as treatments for diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, cystic fibrosis and hemophilia.

"The unique characteristics of this tissue are essential to the study of fetal diseases, like those caused by Zika virus, and hold promise for advancing biomedical research in other areas as well, bringing hope to patients struggling with diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and multiple sclerosis," he writes in an email to NPR.

"Fetal tissue continues to be an important resource for biomedical research, and the Association of American Medical Colleges fully supports its availability as one of the scientific methods that could save and improve lives."...

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/651838889/health-and-human-services-says-its-revi...

*https://www.sba-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Group-Letter-to-Azar-FDA-and-fetal-tissue-FINAL-with-Signatures.pdf

**https://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2018-09-17_-chs-hartzler-walker_letter_on_fda_fetal_tissue_contract.pdf

>46 margd: Re: Fetal tissue for research ... Why don't these people just wait until after a woman gives birth ... then chop off the end of a boy's penis and use that fresh, new tissue for research? It's already a billion dollar industry ... women's face creams, such as Skin Medica, transplanting skin tissues, etc.

Other than boys screaming in pain, who is around to care? Not parents, who sign away the child's rights. Not doctors or hospitals, who profit twice. Not abortion advocates. And not abortion foes, who seem to care only for fetuses.

No need to slice into baby boys--stem cells can be harvested from placenta and cord blood, but I don't know if there are limits to their usefulness (?)

I give blood regularly and have offered up my carcass for all but cosmetic, for-profit use. Guess I don't see why fetuses are different unless abortion was performed explicitly to harvest tissues. My oldest son donated stem cells to a leukemia patient--we find out next April how the poor fellow fared. Fingers crossed.

The perverse secular popularity of circumcision in the US was originally as a deterrent to masturbation. Even if the goal were laudatory (it's not), the method isn't effective.

Crucifix represents Christian values but isn't a religious symbol, Quebec's incoming premier says
CBC News · Posted: Oct 11, 2018

Quebec premier-designate François Legault...defended his decision to keep the crucifix in the legislature while moving forward with plans to ban certain civil servants from wearing religious symbols.

...The crucifix (installed above the speaker's chair in 1936) invokes the role of French Catholics and British Protestants in Quebec's history... He made no mention of Indigenous people.

...Since his Coalition Avenir Québec won a majority in last week's provincial election, Legault has said one of his priorities will be preventing civil servants in "positions of authority" from wearing religious symbols, such as hijabs and kippas.

...police officers, provincial judges, prison guards and teachers. The move is necessary, according to Legault, in order to protect Quebec's secular society...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-francois-legault-crucifix-religio...

A Methodist and a Baptist went to a religious freedom event--booed, escorted out for heckling by quoting Matthew to AG Sessions...

2 pastors just heckled Jeff Sessions at an event on religious liberty
Tara Isabella Burton | Oct 29, 2018

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was heckled by religious leaders for his approach to the migrant crisis at a religious freedom event Monday morning.

While Sessions spoke about religious freedom at the Boston Lawyers chapter of the conservative Federalist Society, two religious leaders interrupted his speech, according to video footage from ABC News. The first man, since identified as United Methodist Pastor Will Green of the Ballard Vale United Church in Andover, quoted lines attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: “I was hungry and you did not feed me. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me. I was naked and you did not clothe me.” The verses are frequently read as Jesus’s exhortation to care for the poor, sick, and marginalized.

He then told Sessions, “Brother Jeff, as a fellow United Methodist, I call upon you to repent, to care for those in need, to remember that when you do not care for others you are wounding the body of Christ.”

...His companion, Pastor Darrell Hamilton of the First Baptist Church in Boston, rose to give a second speech, but was drowned out by boos and cries of “go home” from the audience. As he was escorted out, Hamilton accused his audience of being “hypocrites” for advocating for religious liberty politically, only to deny him the opportunity to express his religious faith by quoting the gospel at the event.

Sessions appeared to laugh off the interruption, telling his audience, “I don’t believe there’s anything in the Scripture ... or my theology that says a secular nation state cannot have lawful laws to control immigration ... not immoral, not indecent, and not unkind to state what your laws are and then set about to enforce them.” His listeners responded with raucous applause...

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/29/18039194/jeff-sessions-religious-freedom-heckled-...

That demented elf is no biblical scholar, and "his theology" can kiss my ass.

Journalist Burton fails to note that "stranger" in the verse from Matthew refers specifically to an alien or refugee.

Ex 12.49. "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."
Ex 22.21. "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Ex 23.9. "You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Lev 19.33. "When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong."
Lev 19.34. "The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God."
Lev 24.22. "`There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'"
Jer 22.3. "Thus says the LORD, 'Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.'"
Zec 7.10. "and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another."

White supremacist attempts to hide behind religious liberty.

2 Virginia police officers fired for alleged ties to white supremacist groups
Julia Jones and Paul P. Murphy | April 20, 2019

...Virginia Division of Capitol Police (handles law enforcement on the capitol grounds and provides protection to state officials) announced on Wednesday that officer Robert Stamm was fired after a review of possible violations of state and division policies. Stamm had been on administrative leave since February 6.

...On his Facebook profile photo, Stamm has a stamp of the Asatru Folk Assembly, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as "perhaps this country's largest neo-Völkisch hate group."

...When asked whether his group was a white nationalist group, Stamm told CNN, "I was discriminated against for my religion. My religion is not politics, it is faith. My constitutional rights were violated. Period."

The Asatru Folk Assembly's website says "Asatru is an expression of the native, pre-Christian spirituality of Europe. More specifically, it is the religion by which the Ethnic European Folk have traditionally related to the Divine and to the world around them."...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/20/us/virginia-officers-white-supremacy/index.html

New Trump Rule Protects Health Care Workers Who Refuse Care For Religious Reasons
Alison Kodjak | May 2, 2019

The Trump administration issued a new rule Thursday that gives health care workers leeway to refuse to provide services like abortion, sterilization or assisted suicide, if they cite a religious or conscientious objection.

The rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, is designed to protect the religious rights of health care providers and religious institutions.

According to a statement issued by HHS's Office for Civil Rights, the new rule affirms existing conscience protections established by Congress.

...Louise Melling, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, says the rule offers health care providers broad leeway to refuse women reproductive care, such as an emergency abortion to protect the life or health of the mother, if they claim the procedure offends their conscience. The rule protects health care workers who have indirect involvement in such procedures, as long as their roles have an "articulable connection" to a procedure such as abortion, sterilization or even administration of birth control.

"If I am the person who checks you into the hospital, that's an articulable connection. If I'm the person who would take your blood pressure, that would be an articulable connection," she says.

The rule applies to individuals and also to entire institutions, such as religious hospitals.

"This rule is consistent with decades of federal conscience law," said Jonathan Imbody, vice president of government relations at the Christian Medical Association. "Education about and enforcement of these laws has long been neglected."

The group has dozens of stories on its website of health care providers who say they were punished because of their religious or conscience objections, including an OB-GYN whose malpractice insurance company said it wouldn't cover her if she refused to inseminate a lesbian and an anesthesiologist who refused to participate in an abortion and objected to referring a patient seeking one to another doctor when he refused to participate.

In its rule, HHS cited a case, Means v. the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in which a woman sued the church because she was denied an emergency abortion, was sent home multiple times by a Catholic hospital and ended up with an acute infection after she miscarried.

The agency said the lawsuit filed by the patient is an example of hospitals being coerced to perform abortions against their will. The ACLU, however, says that same case shows that health care providers should not be allowed to put their religious beliefs ahead of the health of their patients.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/02/688260025/new-trump-rule-pr...

At least the ACLU (which has fought for genuine religious liberties in many cases) isn't fooled by the "conscience" folderol here. It's part of the current deformation of US healthcare that Catholic hospitals have ended up dominating many areas, where they have bought out or just weathered the demise of "competing" secular institutions.

No ‘Mixed’ or ‘Gay’ Couples, Mississippi Wedding Venue Owner Says on Video
Ashton Pittman | September 1, 2019

LaKambria Welch claims her brother and his fiancée had been in contact with the owner of Boone’s Camp Event Hall making wedding arrangements for about a week when, suddenly, the owner of the Booneville, Miss., business sent them a message: They would not be allowed to get married at the venue after all “because of (the venue’s) beliefs.”

When Welch learned that her brother, who is black, would not be allowed to rent Boone’s Camp to marry his fiancée, who is a white woman, she said she drove to the venue herself and asked why. There, she filmed what she says is an encounter with a woman who works for Boone’s Camp (video...)...

http://www.deepsouthvoice.com/index.php/2019/09/01/no-mixed-or-gay-couples-missi...

_____________________________________________________________

Ashton Pittman @ashtonpittman | 9/2/2019

IMPORTANT: This comes after the MS Legislature passed & Gov. @PhilBryantMS
signed 2 "religious freedom" laws—#SB2681 in 2014 & #HB1523 in 2016—making it easier for businesses to discriminate against LGBT people. #MSleg

Supporters said they wouldn't affect interracial couples.

It may be the case that, under Mississippi law, this wedding venue does have the right to discriminate against LGBT couples, but not interracial couples (which is banned by federal law).

Catholic ownership of hospitals should be outlawed unless they can meet the standards of medical care applied by secular hospitals. The "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" are nothing short of a justification for medical malpractice. Every Catholic Hospital should be sued into oblivion, and then the Church itself should be as well.

Maybe not outlawed, but religious organizations that won't deliver shouldn't be given public money.
I think there's a court case in Michigan over giving state dollars to an entity that won't work with same-sex couples?

I had surgery a few months ago in a Catholic Hospital and while it was fully satisfactory, I didn't feel like I had much choice being referred there and I didn't know what options, if any, might have been closed to me.

As I once anticipated, the cake- and photographer-cases would turn out differently when the degree of expressive content was increased. Refusing to sell a gay person a thing? Discrimination. Refusing to write a song in support of same-sex marriage? Compelled speech. Now courts try to work out where the line is.

Arizona's Supreme Court Rules Christian Calligraphers Can't Be Forced to Make Gay Wedding Invitations
https://reason.com/2019/09/17/arizonas-supreme-court-rules-christian-calligraphe...

>59 timspalding:

Refusing to sell a gay person a thing? Discrimination. Refusing to write a song in support of same-sex marriage? Compelled speech.

Your example doesn't fit the case. The calligraphers were not asked to do anything like "writ(ing) a song in support of same-sex marriage" but to write out invitations someone else composed. What they were asked to sell to the gay couple is exactly the same thing they sell to heterosexual couples: the grace, aesthetics, form etc. of calligraphy, not their own expression of ideas.

This is bigotry and discrimination pure and simple.

>60 LolaWalser:

Right. My point. They argued for it being a good deal more expressive and individual than you put it and detailed why. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but I don't really see how either of us would know, absent spending hours with the evidence. In any case, 4 justices saw it as expressive enough. 3 as not expressive enough. So whatever the evidence was, it wasn't a slam-dunk to all concerned.

What it was was a case that turned on the question of the type and amount of expressive content. How much creativity went in? Are words you write for many people "your" words? It's somewhere between brick and song. There are a lot of things in that gray area, and now the courts will figure out where the line is.

>61 timspalding:

Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but I don't really see how either of us would know, absent spending hours with the evidence.

It's a commercial business providing cards etc. with pretty scripts. Unless they are inventing never-before-seen scripts for each and every couple, moulding paper with never-before-tried ingredients in never-before-seen combinations etc. etc. I'm putting the "creativity" to nil. And what a preposterous argument in the first place...

Besides the argument is exactly the same as has been made about cakes and photos. Creativity, expression, blahblahblah. It's bigoted bollocks from start to finish and they won because of bigoted judges, not because there's an iota of sense to the argument.

It appears that the Arizona wedding invitation legal suit was brought to the Supreme Court as a preemptive case by an anti-Gay law firm. Apparently no same-sex couple has ever requested wedding invitations from the two women. See below.

The Arizona Supreme Court granted businesses a right to discriminate against same-sex couples on Monday. By a 4–3 vote, the court carved an exemption into Phoenix’s human rights ordinance to let businesses refuse to sell custom wedding invitations to gay customers. The decision is rooted in the Arizona Constitution and is thus effectively insulated from review by the U.S. Supreme Court. It also contains no clear principle limiting its reach to same-sex couples or to custom invitations—potentially giving Arizona wedding vendors a broad right to discriminate in the name of free speech.

Monday’s ruling Brush & Nib v. Phoenix revolves around a Phoenix ordinance that bars public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. (There is no analogous state law.) In 2016, the anti-LGBTQ law firm Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against the ordinance on behalf of Brush & Nib Studio, a for-profit business that makes custom wedding invitations. No same-sex couple had requested Brush & Nib’s services. But the company’s owners, who are anti-gay Christians, were alarmed by the possibility that they might be compelled to serve a same-sex couple. So ADF asked a court to bar Phoenix from enforcing the law against any business that supported “one-man/one-woman marriage” through “custom artwork.” Its suit rested on the Arizona Constitution’s free speech clause as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA).

>63 Rood: The decision is rooted in the Arizona Constitution and is thus effectively insulated from review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That can't be the full story. If the provision on the Arizona Constitution is contrary to anything in the US Constitution then it could be overruled by the US Supreme Court.

...potentially giving Arizona wedding vendors a broad right to discriminate in the name of free speech.

I imagine if they decided to discriminate against bi-racial couples then the US Supreme Court would have no problem taking the case.

It should be known that Arizona Governor Ducey recently had the Arizona Supreme Court expanded from five to seven members. His most recent appointment was the former Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomery, who was viewed by observers as the least qualified of seven candidates. Montgomery is known for his opposition to expanded rights for Gay people.

With Montgomery's appointment Republican Governor Ducey has named five of the current Supreme Court Justices. The other two: Chief Justice Brutinel and Vice Chief Ann Timmer, were both appointed by the last Republican Governor, making the Supreme Court a wholly Republican branch of the State Government.

PS: By the way, the interim Maricopa County Attorney is Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford during the Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings. Mitchell is also a candidate for the permanent position of Maricopa County Attorney.

Proposed HHS rule would roll back LGBTQ protections in adoption, foster care
CAITLIN OPRYSKO | 11/01/2019

The Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule Friday that would allow recipients of federal grants from the health agency, including faith-based adoption agencies and foster care providers, to turn away same-sex couples.

The rule would roll back an Obama-era regulation that went into effect days before he left office in 2017 that inserted nondiscrimination language on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity when determining the recipients of grants from the agency.

The Trump administration’s move was cheered by religious groups who argued the Obama rule violated those groups’ religious liberties.
But civil rights groups quickly rebuked the move, which came on the first day of National Adoption Month, calling it an attack on the LGBTQ community.

The proposed rule, which is still subject to a public comment period and will likely be challenged in court, strips out language specifically barring against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in favor of prohibiting discrimination to potential grant recipients “to the extent doing so is prohibited by federal statute” or Supreme Court rulings.

Sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected under federal anti-discrimination laws, but would be under a bill passed by the House earlier this year called the Equality Act...

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/01/trump-hhs-lgbtq-children-064135

>66 margd: contd.

Trump’s ‘conscience rule’ for health providers blocked by federal judge
Yasmeen Abutaleb | November 6, 2019

A federal judge on Wednesday voided the Trump administration’s “conscience rule” that would have allowed health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions, sterilizations or other types of care they disagree with on religious or moral grounds.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan declared the so-called “conscience rule” unconstitutional in a 147-page decision stemming from a lawsuit brought by New York and nearly two dozen other mostly Democratic states and municipalities. The rule had been set to go into effect later this month.

While the rule sought to “recognize and protect undeniably important rights,” the judge found the rulemaking process was “shot through with glaring legal defects.”

Officials from the Health and Human Services Department released a statement saying they were reviewing the decision and would not comment on pending litigation. The Justice Department declined to comment...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/trumps-conscience-rule-for-health-provider...

What if 4 of the top 10 largest health systems in the US were guided by Shariah law--and they were not upfront about services they did not provide.

Withheld services are not just limited to women's reproductive care either; end-of-life care and new treatments for cancer, macular degeneration, etc. may be withheld at discretion of local bishop. Now I may want his advice on ethical issues, but medical advice I want from my doctor. (Actually, our local bishop wouldn't be my choice for ethical advice, either...)

Worried about abortion laws? Catholic hospital mergers also seen as threat to women's health care
Rikha Sharma Rani | Dec 27, 2019

...While the number of secular hospitals fell between 2001 and 2016, the number of Catholic hospitals rose by 22%. Four of the top 10 largest health systems in the country are now Catholic. One in seven Americans receive healthcare from a Catholic hospital, according to the Catholic Health Association, an advocacy organization that represents the nation's more than 600 Catholic hospitals.

...In most places, being denied a service because of religious restrictions means the inconvenience of having to find a different provider. But in some situations, the result can be dangerous or even fatal.

..To increase transparency, the state of Washington created a law mandating hospitals publicly post their reproductive health policies. Many Catholic providers say the law is unfair.

“Who does advertise what they don't do?,” said Sister Haddad. “You let the public know what you provide, not what you don't provide.”
More mergers could mean more limited access

But the costs of being refused service can be high. In Michigan, a woman diagnosed with a brain tumor was denied a tubal ligation following a cesarean delivery at a Catholic hospital. After childbirth is the optimal time for women to have the procedure; otherwise, they have to schedule a second surgery elsewhere at significant additional cost. A spokesperson for the hospital pointed to Catholic rules as the reason for the denial.

...For advocates of reproductive access,...who believes the Catholic Church is imposing its values on too many people who don’t share them, “transparency is not the end solution if people still can't get the care that they need.”...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/12/27/worried-abortion-laws-more-cathol...

Supreme Court takes up religious liberty dispute on foster care and same-sex marriage
Ariane de Vogue | February 24, 2020

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal by a Catholic foster agency that argues it's in danger of losing its government contract because it refuses to recruit or certify same sex couples as potential foster parents.

Catholic Social Services, the agency at the center of the case, argues that Philadelphia violated its free exercise rights when it froze its contract because the group cannot "make foster certifications inconsistent with its religious beliefs about sex and marriage."

The city says that it is governed by the City's Fair Practices Ordinance that precludes discrimination based on sexual orientation.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-foster-care-agenc...

Powerful testimony. The few gay couples I've known with adopted children were wonderful.
Like the rest of us they went through criminal, psychological, medical, parenting--even housekeeping--reviews that no biological parent suffers.
I would 1000X rather my children were with such gay couples than the institutions that were home before they joined our family.

My husband & I have been raising kids for 27 years.
Our eldest came to us when he was almost 3. His mom OD’d & his dad went to jail.
There was no one to take care of this little boy, so we did.
When you discriminate against LGBTQ couples, you deprive kids like mine of good homes.
8:01 ( https://twitter.com/RepSeanMaloney/status/1233149129125171203 )

- Sean Patrick Maloney @RepSeanMaloney | 4:57 PM · Feb 27, 2020

______________________________________________________________________

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez AOC | 11:44 AM · Feb 29, 2020:
There’s a long history in the US of abusing scripture to advance the causes of bigotry & discrimination.

Slaveholders did it.
Segregationists did it.
White supremacists do it.
And it continues.

Yet if Christ repeated himself today, they’d likely denounce him as a radical, too.

Quote Tweet
NowThis @nowthisnews · Feb 28
'The only time religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry and discrimination. I'm tired of it' —
AOC just flipped the entire ‘religious freedom’ argument on its head
3:31 ( https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1233795153585897473 )

>70 margd: There’s a long history in the US of abusing scripture to advance the causes of bigotry & discrimination.

Well said, Ms Ocasio-Cortez.

Kentucky worshipers met with nails in road as they defy coronavirus lockdown
Lee Brown | April 12, 2020

...Maryville Baptist Church appeared to have a near-full house for its Sunday service despite orders to avoid in-person services — and the heightened risk of catching COVID-19...

Kentucky state troopers...left large signs on every car left in the church lot, the paper said — accusing those present of “CREATING SCENES OF AN EMERGENCY.”...everyone in the car owner’s household would be forced to quarantine for 14 days for defying the warning — an order that several worshipers told the Courier Journal they planned to ignore.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear previously insisted that the state was not going to “padlock doors or arrest pastors” but just wanted to protect the wider community.
“To our knowledge, 99.89% of all churches and all synagogues and all mosques in Kentucky have chosen to do the right thing”...Maryville appeared to be the only church to defy the ruling against in-person services...

Pastor Roberts had previously said he was “not interested in trying to defy the government” — but maintained he has a constitutional right to hold services for his faithful, the paper noted.

The orders were at the heart of a wider constitutional feud over the right to worship at a time when even Pope Francis is holding Easter Mass behind locked doors because of the serious risk of COVID-19 spreading.

A federal judge ruled Saturday that the mayor of Louisville’s “stunning” ban on drive-in Easter church services was “unconstitutional.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) cheered the decision Saturday.

“Grateful for this strong, eloquent ruling defending Kentuckians’ religious liberty,” McConnell tweeted.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/12/kentucky-worshippers-met-with-nails-in-road-as-the...

>68 margd: ..To increase transparency, the state of Washington created a law mandating hospitals publicly post their reproductive health policies. Many Catholic providers say the law is unfair.

“Who does advertise what they don't do?,” said Sister Haddad. “You let the public know what you provide, not what you don't provide.”

The Coca-Cola Corporation agrees; why should they have to notify everyone how much sugar, real juice and vitamins are or aren't in their drinks?

>69 margd: Catholic Social Services, the agency at the center of the case, argues that Philadelphia violated its free exercise rights when it froze its contract because the group cannot "make foster certifications inconsistent with its religious beliefs about sex and marriage."

Is it okay for them to baptize the foster children and refuse to let them go to non-Catholic families, as per Edgardo Mortara (which some Catholics still support)?

>73 prosfilaes: In Ontario, Catholic hospital advertise what they don't do, e.g., :

"Providence Care, guided by our Mission and Values, as a Catholic sponsored health care organization, does not provide the act of medical assistance in dying (MAID) (physician assisted death/assisted suicide/voluntary euthanasia), but will assure that a patient’s request for MAID is acknowledged and appropriately addressed." https://providencecare.ca/inpatient-care-services/palliative-care/

Blasphemy to be decriminalised in Scottish hate crime bill (Guardian)

The Scottish government has published a bill that would decriminalise blasphemy, more than 175 years after the last case was prosecuted.The devolved administration in Edinburgh said the continued criminalisation of blasphemy, which falls under hate crime laws, “no longer reflects the kind of society in which we live”.

Justice minister Humza Yousaf said the law would be modernised and also cover discrimination against age, disability, race, religion and sexual orientation. “Stirring up of hatred can contribute to a social atmosphere in which discrimination is accepted as normal,” he said...

If the law is passed, Scotland will become the latest in a series of counties {sic}, including Denmark, Canada, Greece and Ireland, to decriminalise blasphemy... Blasphemy laws were repealed in England and Wales in 2008.

Related: lèse-majesté laws?

Not a crime today to demean Britain's Royal Family, but sounds like custom changed (a couple centuries?) before the law did in 1977?
David Cressy, author of Dangerous Talk: Scandalous, Seditious and Treasonable Speech in Pre-Modern England
https://www.facebook.com/notes/andrew-macgregor-marshall/how-insulting-britains-...

Good move. While folks can be pretty rude and intrusive, it sure can prove a slippery slope.

Thailand has an active lese majeste law: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2017158/lese-majeste-punishments-for-insulting-the...
Kazakhstan, Spain(!) and the Netherlands(!) also?

India should be placed on religious freedom blacklist, US panel says
AFP in Washington | 28 Apr 2020

A US government panel has called for India to be put on a religious freedom blacklist over a “drastic” downturn under the prime minister, Narendra Modi, triggering a sharp response from New Delhi.

The US commission on international religious freedom recommends but does not set policy, and there is virtually no chance the state department will follow its lead on India, an increasingly close US ally.

...It called on the US to impose punitive measures, including visa bans, on Indian officials believed responsible and grant funding to civil society groups that monitor hate speech.

The commission said that Modi’s Hindu nationalist government, which won a convincing election victory last year, “allowed violence against minorities and their houses of worship to continue with impunity, and also engaged in and tolerated hate speech and incitement to violence”.

It pointed to comments by the home minister, Amit Shah, who referred to mostly Muslim migrants as “termites”, and to a citizenship law that has triggered nationwide protests.

It also highlighted the revocation of the autonomy of Kashmir, which was India’s only Muslim-majority state, and allegations that Delhi police turned a blind eye to mobs who attacked Muslim neighborhoods in February this year.

...The state department designates nine “countries of particular concern” on religious freedom – China, Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

...In its latest report, the commission asked that all nine countries remain on the list. In addition to India, it sought the inclusion of four more – Nigeria, Russia, Syria and Vietnam.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/28/india-religious-freedom-narendra-m...

Supreme Court Lets Employers Opt Out of Birth Control Coverage
Adam Liptak | July 8, 2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/supreme-court-birth-control-obamacare.html

Supreme Court rules religious school teachers aren't covered by employment discrimination laws
Ariane de Vogue | July 8, 2020
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/politics/supreme-court-ruling-religious-freedom/i...

>78 margd:

Another strike against employer-provided "health care."

>79 paradoxosalpha: Yeah, that's what I was thinking... But then Little Sisters, Hobby Lobby et al. might come up with contraceptive-equivalent to Hyde amendment to prevent federal dollars being spent on contraception--or whatever, say, the United Church of Anti-Vaxxers or Anti-LGBTQ or anti-Viagra or Anti-Blood-Transfusions or Anti______ next want to block.

Some states might step up to the plate. According to the NYT story, "The states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the rules, saying they would have to shoulder much of the cost of providing contraceptives to women who lost coverage under the Trump administration’s rules."

I think I read somewhere that ruling allows Administration to come up with rules, but rules can still be challenged in lower courts, so we haven't heard the last of this issue?

Supreme Court rejects Nevada church plea to allow larger congregation
MATTHEW CHOI | 07/24/2020

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a Nevada church's request to block the state's cap on attendees for religious services amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The court voted 5 to 4 against the request, filed by Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberal-leaning justices. The decision keeps in place a limit of 50 people in houses of worship due to the pandemic.

The church had argued the cap was an unfair attack on its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. It pointed out that the state allowed higher caps for restaurants and casinos — 50 percent capacity — but would not let its 90-person congregation assemble, even with social distancing protocols. A federal court upheld the state's policy, and the church sought an appeal last month at the 9th Circuit.

The conservative justices wrote in their dissent that the decision revealed preferential treatment for for-profit enterprises over houses of worship...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/24/supreme-court-nevada-church-coronavirus...

Supreme Court will not hear Kim Davis same-sex marriage case
Robert Barnes | Oct. 5, 2020

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not hear a case from a Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but two conservative dissenters in the court’s landmark 2015 decision (Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. ) repeated their criticism of the “ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

The court turned aside a case from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County clerk who was sued after she said her religious convictions kept her from recognizing same-sex marriages, even after the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to those unions in Obergefell v. Hodges. She was briefly jailed over the matter, and her case had attracted national attention.

...“Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last,” Thomas wrote. “Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws.”

Thomas continued: “It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law. But it is quite another when the court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”

Still, Thomas and Alito said they agreed with the decision not to accept the case, because it did not “cleanly” present the questions they felt are raised by the court’s 5-to-4 decision.

“Nevertheless, this petition provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-kim-davis-same-...

Cuomo's rolling-shutdown order, having accomplished its objective, was no longer in effect by the time the Supreme Court ruled...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------

Splitting 5 to 4, Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge to Cuomo’s Virus Shutdown Order
Adam Liptak | Nov. 26, 2020

Justice Amy Coney Barrett played a decisive role in the decision, which took the opposite approach of earlier court rulings related to coronavirus restrictions in California and Nevada.

...The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberal members in dissent. The order was the first in which the court’s newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, played a decisive role.

...In asking the Supreme Court to step in, lawyers for the diocese argued that its “spacious churches” were safer than many “secular businesses that can open without restrictions, such as pet stores and broker’s offices and banks and bodegas.” An hourlong Mass, the diocese’s brief said, is “shorter than many trips to a supermarket or big-box store, not to mention a 9-to-5 job.”

(Barbara D. Underwood, New York’s solicitor general) responded that religious services pose special risks. “There is a documented history of religious gatherings serving as Covid-19 superspreader events,” she wrote.

Indoor religious services, Ms. Underwood wrote, “tend to involve large numbers of people from different households arriving simultaneously; congregating as an audience for an extended period of time to talk, sing or chant; and then leaving simultaneously — as well as the possibility that participants will mingle in close proximity throughout.”

Still, she wrote, religious services are subject to fewer restrictions than comparable secular ones. “Among other things, in both red and orange zones, casinos, bowling alleys, arcades, movie theaters and fitness centers are closed completely,” she wrote...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-yor...

>83 margd: Wonder how many cases resulted? See video in article: sure a lot of energetic singing by non-spaced, non-masked participants (see video in article). Looks like fun (if one was male)--any other time!

photo of wedding: https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/1330691733861117953/photo/1

Secret plans helped Brooklyn synagogue pull off massive, maskless wedding
Susan Edelman | November 21, 2020

Thousands secretly filled a Williamsburg synagogue to celebrate a wedding on Nov 8 (0:43)

A Hasidic synagogue in Brooklyn planned the wedding of a chief rabbi’s grandson with such secrecy, it was able to host thousands of maskless celebrants without the city catching on.

Despite a surge in COVID-19 cases, guests crammed shoulder to shoulder inside the Yetev Lev temple in Williamsburg for the Nov. 8 nuptials — stomping, dancing and singing at the top of their lungs without a mask in sight...

...The Satmar synagogue, which has a maximum capacity of 7,000, jammed men onto bleachers filled to the rafters, the videos show. Women sat in the balcony behind a barricade.

Last month, the state ordered the cancellation of another Williamsburg wedding planned for a grandson of Satmar Grand Rabbi Zalman Teitelbaum, a brother and rival of Aaron, after that publicized event was expected to draw 10,000 people. The congregation called it “an unwarranted attack.”

That crackdown led to a determination to keep plans for the Nov. 8 affair under wraps. The stealthy arrangements continued amid a fear that someone would blow their cover.

...The synagogue’s stunning willingness to host a potential superspreader event underscores what critics call the Hasidic community’s ongoing disregard and outright defiance of efforts to control the deadly coronavirus, which has killed nearly 25,000 people in New York City.

Ironically, the synagogue’s own president, R’Mayer Zelig Rispler, who openly urged Brooklyn’s Orthodox community to abide by coronavirus safety measures, died of COVID-19 last month at age 70.

...(Mayor Bill de Blasio) “This weekend is critical to fighting back #COVID19...A second wave is bearing down on us...We need restrictions. It’s just clear that restrictions are the only way to turn back this kind of a surge.”

https://nypost.com/2020/11/21/secret-plans-helped-synagogue-pull-off-massive-mas...

>84 margd:

god will protect them...

I find it very difficult to parse the cultivated ignorance of the majority opinion in this New York case. (The opinion disingenuously compares churches to liquor stores, when the more accurate comparison would be churches and live theater or indoor concerts.) The only sense I can make of it is that these "justices" are ruling on the principle of the thing, i.e. the specifically isolated and affirmed right of religious institutions to conduct that is forbidden to secular institutions, even when such conduct has been found to be hazardous to their own membership and the public at large.

Not a cheerful prospect.

>85 Crypto-Willobie: God, alas, will not protect us from knuckleheads who insist on congregational worship to accelerate the pandemic. Certainly the federal government won't.

>86 paradoxosalpha:

me tongue in cheek of course

>87 Crypto-Willobie:

Of course! And doubtless many of them think so.

I also fear that this paints opposition to public health measures as the "religious" position, further enflaming cultural divisions. (My own church has forbidden congregational worship under its aegis since early this year.)

Several days ago the PBS Newshour did a story on the Supreme Court's decision. Following the story, a note appeared on the screen, saying just two church groups each accounted for the spread of the Coronavirus to 200 other people. This didn't mention the many smaller numbers of infections spread by other Church groups.

Perhaps the State of New York should allow church groups to meet in any numbers and in any way they wish ... masks or no masks, two meter distances or not apart, just as long as they limit their travels to going only from home to church and from church to home.

If they want to risk their lives and the lives of other people in their church, why should the rest of society be put at risk because a religious group values religion above all else?

The Church losing its leaders to the pandemic (BBC)

Few organisations have taken a bigger hit from the coronavirus pandemic than the Serbian Orthodox Church. Over the past two months, Covid-19 has deprived the religious institution of its top leadership in both Serbia and Montenegro. But critics say the blows are self-inflicted, with traditional acts of worship the likely cause of infection...

Steven Mazie (The Economist) @stevenmazie | 5:49 PM · Nov 30, 2020:
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1333543785113001985
In sum, this is a well argued brief with smart citations that I imagine could flip at least Kavanaugh's vote from last week's NY orders to secure a 5-4 decision upholding the state's restrictions against the church's challenge. We'll see: the church still has a reply to write.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven Mazie (The Economist) @stevenmazie | 4:44 PM · Dec 2, 2020:
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1334252072187940866
After re-reading Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, I see it’s going to take a re-evaluation on his part if the Court is to uphold public health measures in CA, NJ & KY. 1/10

While I would hope that Kav & others would be more hesitant to meddle with state-level measures as covid reaches crisis levels in those places and elsewhere, I’m not confident they will. 2/10

Kavanaugh is more measured than Gorsuch and acknowledges that even severe restrictions on church attendance could be justified — but says that as long as just *one* secular venue is open while churches are closed, the state is violating free exercise.
Image--text ( https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1334252078840090635/photo/1 )
3/10

In its most restrictive zones, California closes not only houses of worship but movie theaters, museums, restaurants, bars, gyms and more. But it does leave essential businesses open with restrictions. 4/10

That may be enough to doom California’s rules in Kavanaugh’s eyes.
Image--text ( https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1334252083923611650/photo/1 )
5/10

But stores like these are places to enter, do business and leave. They are not gathering spots where people sit congregated for hours speaking and singing together. It baffles me that some justices do not see the difference, which public-health experts keep highlighting.
Image--text ( https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1334252089560666115/photo/1 )
6/10

Kavanaugh slips up on this point in his concurrence, calling the venues that are open “secular gatherings”. Here’s the thing: buying eggs at a grocery store or picking up dog food at a pet store is not partaking in a “secular gathering“. 7/10

Imagine the implications of Kavanaugh‘s rule, and keep in mind it’s the most reasonable one conveyed last week: if a state wants to bar in-person religious services, it must shutter every grocery store in the state. No praying? Ok then: no eating. 8/10

This is, of course, ludicrous. The Supreme Court is not always at its wisest when it is handling emergency applications like these. The briefing is limited, there is no oral argument, and there is little time to respond. 9/10

But the Court has a chance now to come to its senses & adopt a rule that permits states to take appropriate, scientifically backed measures to fight an increasingly deadly pandemic without violating religious liberty. We will soon see whether it is willing to do that. 10/10

The Supreme Court Broke Its Own Rules to Radically Redefine Religious Liberty
Mark Joseph Stern | April 12, 2021

Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Tandon v. Newsom, which blocked California’s COVID-related ban on religious gatherings in private homes. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did the three liberal justices, making Tandon yet another COVID decision in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made the difference.

Although the conservative majority’s decision was unsigned and ran just four pages long, it radically altered the law of religious liberty. Since 1990’s Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court has not interpreted the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to require religious exemptions to laws that don’t discriminate against religion...

...University of Texas School of Law Professor Steve Vladeck, a renowned critic of the shadow docket, and Lewis and Clark Law School Professor Jim Oleske, an expert on religious liberty jurisprudence...

...(Vladeck) As the Supreme Court has said for decades, its authority to issue that form of relief is very limited. There’s a very widely cited in-chambers opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia from 1986 where he says the court is only supposed to issue such relief “sparingly, and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances,” where “the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” It’s the “indisputably clear” part that makes what Jim said so important. Everyone understands that the court made new law on Friday, that the court changed the scope and meaning and applicability of the free exercise clause. Folks are going to disagree about whether or not this new approach is a good one. My point is, this is not something the court is allowed to do in a shadow docket ruling like this. Its own precedents preclude it from making new law in this context because, by definition, a newly minted right cannot have been “indisputably clear.”...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/supreme-court-religious-liberty-covi...

Supreme Court Backs Catholic Agency in Case on Gay Rights and Foster Care
Adam Liptak | June 17, 2021

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that Philadelphia may not bar a Catholic agency that refused to work with same-sex couples from screening potential foster parents.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for six members of the court, said that since the city allowed exceptions to its policies for some other agencies it must also do so in this instance. The Catholic agency, he wrote, “seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/us/supreme-court-gay-rights-foster-care.html
------------------------------------------------------------------

FULTON ET AL. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf

Is anti-abortionism the reason that Catholics are obscenely overrepresented on the US Supreme Court relative to the general population?

>95 paradoxosalpha: Her position on abortion certainly helped Amy Cony Barrett, but it's a little more complex. (below)

In California/COVID case as well as this Philadelphia/gay case, the Court seems to be saying churches must be treated same--if you make exception for one, can't hold church to standards? Wouldn't be so bad if church refers people elsewhere, but they seem to be fighting mere filing of paperwork in case of ACA/contraception. Also, upfront list of services a Catholic hospital won't provide, in US at least--cousin writes such notices for RC hospital in Canada.

SO different from time of President Kennedy, some RC bishops are pressing to deny communion to pro-choice politicians (like President Biden), and I wonder if bishops will likewise target Supreme Court justices if they follow law and not RC dogma on, say, abortion.
--------------------------------------------------------------

...With the confirmation of now Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court Oct. 27, there are now six practicing Catholic justices. Barrett joins Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh. To date, there have only been 15 Catholic justices — out of 115 justices total — in the history of the Supreme Court...
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/supreme-court-catholics

Gorsuch is Episcopalian, but was raised Catholic.
Breyer and Kagan are Jewish.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Religious identity and Supreme Court justices — a brief history
Nomi Stolzenberg | October 19, 2020

...Rise of the religious right...at the end of the 1970s amid a wider movement within religion and politics...

https://religionnews.com/2020/10/19/religious-identity-and-supreme-court-justice...
--------------------------------------------------------------

Why Are All of the Supreme Court Justices Jewish or Catholic?
Evan McClanahan | Oct 1, 2020

...This Is About Harvard and Yale More Than Faith...

https://felchouston.wordpress.com/2020/10/01/why-are-all-of-the-supreme-court-ju...
-------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

Christian 70.6%
Evangelical Protestant
25.4%
Mainline Protestant
14.7%
Historically Black Protestant
6.5%
Catholic
20.8
Mormon
1.6%
Orthodox Christian
0.5%
Jehovah's Witness
0.8%
Other Christian
0.4%

Non-Christian Faiths 5.9%
Jewish
1.9%
Muslim
0.9%
Buddhist
0.7%
Hindu
0.7%
Other World Religions
0.3%
Other Faiths
1.5%

Unaffiliated (religious "nones") 22.8%
Atheist
3.1%
Agnostic
4.0%
Nothing in particular
15.8%
Don't know
0.6%

>95 paradoxosalpha:

In this history of the Supreme Court there have been 114 justices, 14 of whom have been Catholic. Eight have been Jewish, and the rest WASPs. So if there is overrepresentation, it is on top of two centuries of underrepresentation. I'm reminded of Ginsberg's "When there are nine" quote.

Polemic aside, I think it's about a dynamic of a rising immigrant class, and a decline in WASP power and interest in the law. The law was one place mostly Irish Catholics found they could get ahead in the 60s and 70s. Meanwhile WASPs left the law in droves, going toward business careers. This dynamic is fading, but the sort of people who become justices grew up when Catholics flocked to the law.

Lastly, there are two exceptions in the mix. I don't think the Catholicism of Thomas or Sotomayor played a role in their nominations. FWIW—according to Wikipedia—Thomas was not practicing when he was nominated. I may be mistaken, but I don't think he was presented as a Catholic. He apparently lapsed over the church's mixed civil rights record, not being reconciled to the church after he became a justice. As for Sotomayor, she was obviously not chosen because she's pro-life; I'm sure everyone involved chose her knew or strongly hoped she was anything but! She was chosen because Obama wanted a Latina woman and she was an excellent choice in that context; that a New York Puerto Rican would be Catholic is not really a surprise.

>96 margd:

US Catholic bishops advance communion document, setting up potential rebuke of Biden
Tom Foreman | June 18, 2021
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/18/politics/catholic-bishops-biden/index.html

---------------------------------------------------

John F. Kennedy On Religion And Politics
October 2010 Church & State | Featured

On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy delivered one of the great American speeches on religion and government. Refuting charges that he might use the office of the presidency to advance his Roman Catholic faith, Kennedy reaffirmed the importance of church-state separation and tolerance for people of all religious perspectives. Here are his remarks:

...I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters – and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected – on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise...

https://www.au.org/church-state/october-2010-church-state/featured/john-f-kenned...

>98 margd: more

Targeting Biden, Catholic Bishops Advance Controversial Communion Plan
Elizabeth Dias | June 18, 2021

The Roman Catholic bishops of the United States, flouting a warning from the Vatican, have overwhelmingly voted to draft guidance on the sacrament of the Eucharist, advancing a push by conservative bishops to deny President Biden communion because of his support of abortion rights.

The decision, made public on Friday afternoon, is aimed at the nation’s second Catholic president, perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief since Jimmy Carter, and exposes bitter divisions in American Catholicism. It capped three days of contentious debate at a virtual June meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The measure was approved by a vote of 73 percent in favor and 24 percent opposed.

The Eucharist, or holy communion, is one of the most sacred rituals in Christianity, and bishops have grown worried in recent years about declining Mass attendance and misunderstanding of the importance of the sacrament to Catholic life.

But the move to target a president, who regularly attends Mass and has spent a lifetime steeped in Christian rituals and practices, is striking coming from leaders of the president’s own faith, particularly after many conservative Catholics turned a blind eye to the sexual improprieties of former President Donald J. Trump because they supported his political agenda. It reveals a uniquely American Catholicism increasingly at odds with Rome...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/us/targeting-biden-catholic-bishops-advance-c...

Bonkers.

US Bishops to Biden (in defiance of the Vatican): "Serve us, and what we demand of God, not a multi-religious public and what the Constitution demands of you."

>99 margd: increasingly at odds with Rome

And one has to add at odds with global Catholic trends and with the body of doctrine known as Catholic Social Teaching. It also by no means represents US Catholicism as a whole. The US Catholic church is split by a "culture war" rather than a religious debate.

>102 margd: US Bishops also seem to have lost sight of primacy of individual conscience, substituting themselves instead?
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#1778

Where will this end, I wonder? Will bishops force their viewpoints onto US Supreme Court? Weakened by sex & residential-school scandals, with conservatives using the courts against wider society, I suspect conservative Christians will themselves see pushback. Eventually.

_______________________________________________________
ETA: That didn't take long.

Christians Tell Catholic Bishops to 'Stop Partisan Politics,' Let Biden Take Communion
Jason Lemon | 6/18/21

More than 20,000 Christians have signed an online petition* urging U.S. Cathholic bishops to "stop partisan politics," pushing back against their efforts to rebuke President Joe Biden and other Catholic politicians that support womens' reproductive rights...

"If this right-wing hit job proceeds, it will be in spite of the Vatican warning against the inevitable divisions," said the petition by Faithful America, which describes itself as the largest online community of Christians putting faith into action for social justice. "It would also be just for show: Washington's Archbishop Wilton Cardinal Gregory has made it clear he will not deny Biden Communion, proving the vote's only point is to send a partisan signal."...

https://www.newsweek.com/christians-tell-catholic-bishops-stop-partisan-politics...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Faithful America. Love Your Neighbor. No exceptions.
Cancel the bishops' partisan, anti-Biden vote (petition)
https://act.faithfulamerica.org/sign/bishops-politicize-communion/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

ETA:
Opinion: Some Catholic Leaders Deserve to Have Biden’s Ear, and Some Do Not
The efforts by conservative bishops to arbitrate who receives communion reinforce why the American bishops so often stand alone.
Tom Perriello | June 19, 2021

...While the Catholic Church is far from infallible overseas, I frequently bear witness to Catholic leaders reminding me why my faith called me to a career promoting peace and justice. But back home, the persistent efforts by conservative bishops to arbitrate who among the faithful receives communion, while failing to practice the confession and penance they demand of others, reinforces why the American bishops so often stand alone...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/19/opinion/bishops-biden-communion.html

SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog | 9:47 AM · Jul 2, 2021:
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog

Other big news from today's order list:
The court DECLINES to take up the case of a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. The florist argued that the state of Washington's non-discrimination law infringed on her religious rights.

That case is Arlene's Flowers v. Washington. Justices Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch indicate that they voted to hear the case. Because it takes four votes to hear a case, that means the other six justices chose not to take it up.

Marc V @marc_v27 · 6m:
#SCOTUS is sending terribly mixed signals here. How can it issue the Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion and then not look at this on the same grounds?

James @JuicyJames94 | 9:46 AM · Jul 2, 2021:
interesting denial in Arlene’s Flowers. justice Barrett seemingly doesn’t want to take it up

Oh great. My son converted / married into Apostolic Pentecostal Christian Movement, of Kim Davis deny-gay-marriage-license fame. Nice people, who don't appear to be racial bigots (gays, however...), but I'm just beginning to understand implications of the medical ignorance on such matters as vaccine, masks, and saving grandson's cord blood. (He has congestive heart defect, for which his stem cells might some day have come in handy...no abortion involved, but never mind...) Son at least has had some biology and so, capability to understand medical options, but the authority and pull of church and of newly wed spouse is more powerful at the moment... :( Will he now forego employment in order to go unvaxxed for COVID? He who is otherwise fully vaxxed ...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-kim-daviss-apostolic-christian-church-is-all...

https://www.upci.org/statement-archive/article/2020/08/fighting-for-religious-li...
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Religious exemptions to vaccine mandates could test 'sincerely held beliefs'
“I don’t think most of this is sincere. I think it’s just a way to get out of having to take a vaccine,” a bioethics professor said.
Phil McCausland | Sept. 5, 2021

Religious exemptions could prove to be the latest legal battlefield of the pandemic, as Americans opposed to the coronavirus vaccines try to find ways around employer and government vaccination mandates...

Experts say that the threshold for religious exemptions could come down to proving whether the person attempting to obtain one has “sincerely held beliefs” against getting vaccinated on religious grounds...

One driver for testing sincerity is the fact that no major organized religion objects to the vaccines, and Roman Catholic and other Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders have advised followers to get the shots....

...The challenge with religious exemptions
The Christian argument for religious exemptions follows two tracks typically: first, that the vaccine shots at some point in their production used aborted fetal cell lines. The second argument cites a Bible verse that claims that the human body is God’s temple of the Holy Spirit and argues that for that reason receiving a vaccine would be a sin.

...there are many groups that are...giving individuals support and advice on ways to obtain a religious exemption or even challenge a vaccination mandate.

On its website, Liberty Counsel — an evangelical ministry that provides legal assistance in religious liberty cases — provides a 23-minute video guide that has been viewed more than 150,000 times on how to file a religious exemption. It, like other groups, also provides a handful of sample documents to file for an exemption.

Liberty Counsel is known for representing Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk whose refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015 led to a lawsuit. The group has also challenged the Affordable Care Act, attempted to reverse gay conversion therapy bans and supported lawsuits maintaining religious monuments and nativity scenes.

Since the start of the pandemic, the group has been dedicated to challenging Covid restrictions at places of worship, as well as mask mandates. It has shared misinformation on its social media accounts, podcasts and website alleging the vaccines are dangerous, and it has supported members of America’s Frontline Doctors — an anti-vaccination group whose founder stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Over the past few months, Liberty Counsel has become one of the groups leading the charge on claiming religious exemptions to the growing number of vaccination mandates.

“Just in a few weeks, we’ve received over 10,000 people contacting us for help,” Mathew Staver, the group’s founder and director said. “It’s more than anything we’ve ever encountered before. We’re getting people calling. Some are very concerned and upset, some break down, because they are being forced on a very quick time frame to make a decision between getting one of the Covid shots and their jobs.”

How past cases held up
Last week, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against Maine’s vaccination mandate, arguing it violates a worker’s right to object to the vaccines on religious grounds. The suit was filed on behalf of 2,000 unnamed Maine health care workers who objected to Maine's vaccination mandate for health care workers on the grounds that the state did not allow for a religious exemption.

"We will vigorously defend the requirement against this lawsuit and we are confident that it will be upheld," Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey said in a statement to NBC News. "For many years the state has required health care workers to be vaccinated against various communicable diseases and, to our knowledge, that requirement has never been challenged. The state has now simply added an additional disease — COVID-19 — to the list of ones for which health care workers must be vaccinated."

The statement added that federal courts have consistently upheld mandatory vaccination requirements.

Liberty Counsel has also sent letters to the states of New York and Washington, as well as United Airlines, which required its employees to be vaccinated. The letters threatened to sue the states and airline if they did not provide greater access to religious exemptions and accommodations.

Experts said some of their challenges have already been tested and pointed to past legal battles over vaccination mandates, such as those states created for children, nursing homes and hospitals...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/religious-exemptions-vaccine-mandates-could...

The quickest way I have to keep tabs on my old community is opening the emails for the prayer request line. There has been a steady litany of good people dying from the virus. Just yesterday we were notified of a husband and wife in ICU with Covid. This morning I see that the husband died. They appear to have ignored our Pope.

I think some Apostolics like some Catholics might go beyond the teaching of their respective churches, making it up in their ignorance and bursts of piety performance and reliance on mis- and disinformation... Apostolics are into healing, but my understanding is that it's "extra-medical", not a substitute, e.g., I gave first aid to one, while they prayed over him, but they didn't wave me away. Somewhere, somehow, some things like masks and vaccines became verboten for this little group of Apostolics, but my patient did go to urgent care and my grandson had the best medical care though his mother did not save his cord blood and is anti-vaxx. Aargh!`

The men going to military jail for their faith (BBC)

Yeo Zheng Ye grew up in Singapore knowing he would have to go to jail. A member of the Jehovah's Witnesses church, his beliefs prevent him from bearing weapons and from joining any organisations intended for war. So at age 20, he refused to attend mandatory military service, and was sent to prison for being a conscientious objector. Although Singapore is not at war, military conscription is compulsory in the city-state for all able-bodied male citizens and second generation permanent residents when they turn 18...

Religious exemptions a la carte...

Catholic Troops Can Refuse COVID Vaccine, Archbishop Declares
Elizabeth Howe | October 12, 2021

Catholic U.S. troops should be allowed to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine based solely on conscientious objection and regardless of whether abortion-related tissue was used in its creation or testing, the archbishop for the military declared in a new statement supporting service members who are seeking religious exemptions.

“No one should be forced to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if it would violate the sanctity of his or her conscience,” said Archbishop for the Military Services Timothy P. Broglio, in a statement released Tuesday.

Broglio previously has supported President Joe Biden’s mandatory vaccination order for U.S. troops, citing the church’s guidance that permits Catholics to receive even vaccines derived from fetal tissue, when no other vaccine option is available. In his new statement, the archbishop said that while he still encourages followers and troops to get vaccinated, some troops have questioned if the church’s permission to get vaccinated outweighed their own conscious objections to it.

“It does not,” Broglio wrote.

The Archdiocese for the Military Services, created by the church in 1985, claims responsibility for 1.8 million service members and their families at 220 installations. Broglio was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007...

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/10/catholic-troops-can-refuse-covid-vacci...
----------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHDIOCESE FOR THE MILITARY SERVICES, USA
The Most Reverend Timothy P. Broglio
Statement on Coronavirus Vaccines and the Sanctity of Conscience (2p)
https://files.milarch.org/archbishop/abp-statement-on-covid19-vaccines-and-consc...

Spanish bishops oppose government registry of medical conscience objectors
Inés San Martín | Sep 29, 2021

To guarantee the “right to terminate pregnancies in public hospital,” the Spanish Ministry of Equality is preparing the creation of a registry of medical doctors, nurses and other staff who are conscience objectors.

...Several bishops have expressed their opposition to a registry, arguing that it could eventually be used to justify not hiring a medical professional...

https://angelusnews.com/news/world/spanish-bishops-oppose-government-registry-of...

Supreme Court won’t block vaccine mandate for Maine health-care workers with religious objections
Robert Barnes | Oct 29, 2021

...The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a request from a group of Maine health-care workers to block a state coronavirus vaccination mandate that does not contain an exception for religious objectors.

Three conservative justices dissented from the decision...Justice(s) Neil M. Gorsuch...Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

...Nine pseudonymous health-care workers asked the court to block a requirement that they be vaccinated by Friday to keep their jobs. Represented by the religious legal organization Liberty Counsel, the workers said Maine was an “extreme outlier” in allowing only a medical exception for refusing the vaccine, and not an additional one based on religious objection, as they said 47 other states have done. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A90/197697/20211027075415906_Reply%2...

...The Supreme Court’s liberal justices, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., have generally been content with allowing local officials to set rules for vaccinations and other emergency requirements related to the pandemic.

(Justice Amy Coney) Barrett has joined the conservatives when religious issues have been at stake.

But she wrote separately in the Maine case to say she was not sure relief was warranted, and the court should not make such a decision “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument.”

Joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, she said that was not what the court’s emergency docket should be used for. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a90_6j37.pdf

...The court lately has come under intense criticism in Congress and elsewhere for making important decisions in the “shadow docket.”

...“The Legislature’s elimination of all nonmedical exemptions was intended to increase the overall rate of vaccination and protect individuals who are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons,” Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey said in a filing to the court. “Neither the Rule nor the Statute can be said to be directed at religious practice.”...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN DOES 1–3, ET AL. v. JANET T. MILLS, GOVERNOR OF MAINE, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
October 29, 2021
(19 p)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A90/197697/20211027075415906_Reply%2...

The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is denied.
JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, concurring in the denial of application for injunctive
relief...
JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting from the denial of applica-
tion for injunctive relief... (9 p)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A90/197697/20211027075415906_Reply%2...

Tennessee-based adoption agency refuses to help couple because they're Jewish
Tyler Whetstone | Jan 21, 2022

A Knoxville couple is suing the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, saying a state-sponsored Christian-based adoption agency refused to help them because they are Jewish.

It is the state’s first lawsuit to challenge a new law that allows religious adoption agencies to deny service to families whose religious or moral beliefs aren't in sync with the provider's, the family's attorney told Knox News on Wednesday.

The adoption agency, the Holston United Methodist Home for Children based in Greeneville, Tennessee, denied Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram from acquiring Tennessee-mandated foster-parent training and a home-study certification as they attempted to adopt a child from Florida last year, the Rutan-Rams say...

...The organization was previously but is no longer an arm of the Holston Conference of the United Methodist Church...

In December, the Greenville-based Holston sued the Biden administration for regulations that prohibit discrimination in programs funded by U.S. Health and Human Services grants “on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and same-sex marriage status,” saying it violates its First Amendment rights.

In that lawsuit, the organization said it receives public money to provide foster care placement and training, among other services, for the state Department of Children's Services...

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/20/holston-united-methodist...

BREAKING: US District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas rules that requiring employers to provide coverage for PrEP drugs (preventing the transmission of HIV) violates the religious rights of employers under federal law (RFRA {Religious Freedom Restoration Act}).

Text ( https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1567523876451614720/photo/1 )

- Chris “Subscribe to Law Dork!” Geidner @chrisgeidner | 10:43 AM · Sep 7, 2022
SCOTUS, legal & political journalism at @lawdorknews
Also: @msnbc @boltsmag @gridnews
-------------------------------------------------------------

NBC News: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that a provision of the Affordable Care Act that mandates free coverage of certain drugs that prevent HIV infections violate the religious beliefs of a Christian-owned company.

- Kyle Griffin (MSNBC) @kylegriffin11:00 PM · Sep 7, 2022

>112 margd: Because obviously, only active homosexuals can be afflicted by HIV, and we mustn’t be seen as encouraging such a lifestyle?

>112 margd:
Thfukk? I mean, I guess it follows from the Hobby Lobby decision that employers get to go crazy a la carte with medical coverage--which is so obviously a "religious" issue. But the stupid is like a pyroclastic surge.

Reed O’Connor is a product of the Federalist Society, I suppose.

>113 2wonderY: But even if it were only active homosexuals who can get HIV, how can providing medication, any medication, violate anyone's religious rights. No religion stipulates 'you're not to cover medical needs of employees who do not abide by your religion'. It's just outrageous from the basic legal point of view, way beyond ideology, different lifestyles etc. It opens the door for all sorts of discrimination under the guise of 'religious rights and freedoms'. Also, the basic premise is that one's religious views take precedence over basic human and civil rights. It's one of those cases where I start to despair over human race

HIV is God's Will. Monkeypox too. And poverty.
Shut up, heathen.

>113 2wonderY: One would think universal healthcare would be the fix, but Hyde Amendment barred the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion except when the life of the woman would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term.. You just know these intolerant folks will be asking for similar ban for HIV prevention, etc... :(

>112 margd:

Jerome Adams @JeromeAdamsMD | 6:13 PM · Sep 7, 2022:
Father, physician, Purdue Health Equity Director. Former IN Health Commissioner and 20th US Surgeon General

Just seeing this, and I’m confused. What religion believes in allowing people to get a preventable infectious disease, and what employer thinks it’s fiscally prudent to allow employees to contract a disease which will cost them $1/2- 1 million? 🤔

>113 2wonderY: If we're going for the seven deadly sins, there's way more people killed by gluttony and sloth than lust. But don't worry, people who eat too much and never exercise will get their blood pressure and cholesterol drugs, because the church can't other those people.

The Real Problem With the Second Alleged Leak at the Court
It doesn’t matter if Alito preemptively revealed the outcome in Hobby Lobby. Consider the rest of the story.
Dahlia Lithwick | Nov 22, 2022

...The (NYT) story dropped a bit of a bombshell: It alleges that in 2014, Justice Samuel Alito told donors to a religiously motivated Supreme Court lobby organization that he would be authoring the opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and that the religious objectors would be on the winning side of the case. This revelation can really only be compared to another leak—that of the full draft of the Dobbs opinion this May—but it passed through the media and legal worlds with much less fanfare...

...The fact that some of the justices believe that “casual” and “social” relationships with lobbyists, activists, and interested parties who have business before the court are appropriate and acceptable is the problem, because it means they cannot be trusted to avoid such contacts. The problem is that the same justices who keep blaming their colleagues and the press and the American public for broad declining trust in the institution seem to have no comprehension of what kinds of behaviors appear to be inappropriate because they actually are inappropriate. Traffic court judges in towns with four stoplights know better than to drink and vacation and shoot with interested parties before them, much less set aside choice seats for big ticket cases. Evidently it’s different when the interested parties are rich...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/alito-leak-hobby-lobby-real-problem....

James Martin, SJ @JamesMartinSJ | 4:06 PM · Dec 5, 2022:
Jesuit priest, editor at large @Americamag, author of "Learning to Pray" and "Jesus: A Pilgrimage," consultor to the Dicastery for Communication @VaticanNews
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1599872923795279872.html

I'm always surprised that nearly all religious liberty cases seem to focus on denying LGBTQ people things that most other people can get: a website designed, a cake baked, a job offered. Moreover, few cases focus on far more basic religious beliefs that could be offended. Viz....

I'm not arguing anyone should do this, but a Christian web designer could say, "I'm not creating a website for a non-Christian religious ceremony (bar mitzvah, Buddhist ritual, Hindu wedding, etc.) because the customer doesn't believe in Jesus, and I cannot support that...."

Obviously, belief in Jesus is a fundamental Christian tenet. The response is often, "Those ceremonies don't offend people's religious sensibilities like same-sex marriage does." But why not? They could. What offends is selective, almost always focused on LGBTQ people's lives....

The point is that most US Christians have realized that simply because something offends their own religious beliefs, they cannot legally refuse to serve people of a different religion or people who practice things that they (Christians) disagree with....

Few Christian merchants complain about being "forced" to serve non-Christians, which could, again, be seen as a tacit approval of non-Christian beliefs. No one claims religious liberty exemptions for that. (Yet.) But in the case of designing websites, baking cakes and..

....perhaps most critically, employing people, the religious liberty argument is raised. It would make more logical sense (and, again, I'm not suggesting they do this), if Christians merchants simply said, "I refuse to serve non-Christians." But they don't, thank God...

Why not? Mainly because they understand the legal requirements for public accommodation and, critically, they know and like non-Christians. But for some reason, when it comes to LGBTQ people and their lives, that tolerance dries up....

Religious liberty is an essential element of our laws. But it should not be used a fig leaf for homophobia.

Judge blocks ACA coverage mandate for cancer, diabetes screenings, PrEP
Brendan Pierson / Reuters | March 30, 2023

(Reuters) -A federal judge in Texas on Thursday blocked Obamacare's mandate that health insurance plans cover preventive care, including pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV (PrEP) and screenings for cancer, diabetes and depression at no cost to patients.

U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, previously found that the PrEP mandate violated a federal religious freedom law and that other preventive care mandates were based on recommendations by an illegally appointed task force.

The judge has now blocked the federal government from enforcing the mandates, a victory for conservative businesses and individuals that sued to challenge them in 2020.

..The legal challenge was brought by eight individuals and two businesses, all from Texas. They argued that the free PrEP requirement requires business owners and consumers to pay for services that "encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity and intravenous drug use" despite their religious beliefs.

They also said that the advisory body that recommends what preventive care should be covered, the Preventive Services Task Force, is illegal because its members are not directly appointed by the president, which they argue is required by the U.S. Constitution. The task force's recommendations automatically become mandatory under the Affordable Care Act.

The conservative America First Legal Foundation is helping to represent the plaintiffs. The group was founded by Stephen Miller, who served as an adviser to Republican President Donald Trump...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-judge-blocks-obamacare-coverage-144043635.html

Religious freedom for all means sacred Indigenous sites, too (The Hill)

There is a concerning double standard that many political leaders perpetuate when it comes to acknowledging and respecting Indigenous cultures and religions. While politicians rush to ensure that the buildings of churches, mosques and synagogues are protected, many of these leaders fail to recognize the need to safeguard the lands and waters where Indigenous people pray and worship... As Apache Stronghold Founder and former San Carlos Apache Chairman Wendsler Nosie Sr. so eloquently stated, “Just because his place of worship doesn’t have four walls and a steeple, he should not be denied the right to practice his religion on these sacred lands”...

History not clear from this, but I'm sure we'll hear more, maybe about pharmacist obligations to patients, etc.?

{Press Release}

HHS Issues New Nondiscrimination Final Rule to Protect Conscience Rights
Health & Human Service Press Office | 9 Jan 2023

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced a Final Rule, entitled Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes. The Final Rule clarifies the process for enforcing federal conscience laws and strengthens protections against conscience and religious discrimination. This important Final Rule is HHS’s latest action in furtherance of Executive Order 13985, entitled Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.

“Today’s rule is another promise delivered by President Biden, working to strengthen conscience protections and advance health care, free from discrimination,” said Secretary Xavier Becerra. “The Final Rule clarifies protections for people with religious or moral objections while also ensuring access to care for all in keeping with the law.”

“Protecting conscience rights and ensuring access to health care are critically important, no matter who you are, where you live, who you love, or your faith and conscience. Our office has statutory mandates to protect people across the country and takes this responsibility very seriously,” said Office for Civil Rights Director Melanie Fontes Rainer. “We are proud of today’s rule, which advances conscience protections, access to health care, and puts our health care system on notice that we will enforce the law. As a law enforcement agency, we are committed to this work.”

In 2019, OCR issued a sweeping final rule that was held unlawful by three federal district courts. Today’s Final Rule partially rescinds the 2019 rule, restores the longstanding process for enforcing federal conscience laws, and strengthens protections against conscience and religious discrimination.

The Department received over 48,000 comments on the proposed rule from faith-based organizations, patient advocacy organizations, lawmakers, reproductive rights organizations, and more. After carefully considering these comments, the Final Rule clarifies what federal conscience laws OCR enforces, details how OCR will enforce federal conscience laws, and encourages covered entities, such as grantees and providers, to voluntarily post a notice of rights to ensure compliance and educate the public about conscience statutes and rights.

The Final Rule strengthens the process for enforcing federal conscience laws and provides additional protections against conscience and religious discrimination.

...The effective date of this Final Rule is March 11, 2024. The Final Rule may be viewed here: https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-00091/safeguarding-the-ri....

View the Final Rule Fact Sheet here: https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/fact-sheet-safeguarding-ri...

HHS will be hosting a webinar On Wednesday, January 10 at 3:00 PM EST. To register for the webinar, visit here...

If you believe that you or someone else has been discriminated against based on claims of conscience (whether rooted in religious or moral convictions) or because of race, color, national origin, disability, age, sex, or religion in programs or activities that HHS directly operates or to which HHS provides Federal financial assistance, you may file a complaint with the HHS Office for Civil Rights at: https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/filing-a-complaint/index.html.

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/01/09/hhs-issues-new-nondiscrimination-final...
-----------------------------------------------------

PART 88—ENSURING THAT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
FUNDS DO NOT SUPPORT COERCIVE OR DISCIMINATORY POLICIES OR
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW
Sec.
88.1 Purpose
88.2 Complaint handling and investigating.
88.3 Notice of Federal conscience and nondiscrimination laws.
88.4 Severability.
Appendix A to Part 88—Model Text: Notice of Rights Under Federal Conscience and
Nondiscrimination Laws
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301...

{ p 94-100 at https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-00091/safeguarding-the-ri... }
--------------------------------------------------------

Fact Sheet: Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes

https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/fact-sheet-safeguarding-ri...

Judge: $360K judgment stands against Kentucky clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses
Bill Estep | April 24, 2024

...A federal judge has refused to overturn judgments totaling $360,104 against a former Kentucky {Rowna} county official {Kim Davis} who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

...Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group representing Davis, will appeal the ruling ... ultimately wants to get Davis’ case before the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of overturning its 2015 decision that same-sex couples have the right to marry.

...Davis was county clerk in Rowan County at the time. She made national headlines in the summer of 2015 because she would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Davis, an evangelical Christian {Apostolic}, said she believes marriage is only legitimate between a man and a woman and argued that issuing a marriage license under her name to a same-sex couple would violate her religious beliefs and rights.

A clerk in her office later issued licenses to gay couples, and the Kentucky legislature ultimately changed the state marriage form so it doesn’t display the name of the county clerk...

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article287968655.html

Drugs, sacraments, or medicine? Psychedelic churches blur the line
Ernesto Londono & Meridith Kohut | 12 May 2024
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/12/us/psychedelic-drugs-church-religion.html

{via https://dnyuz.com/2024/05/12/drugs-sacraments-or-medicine-psychedelic-churches-b... }
___________________________________

Also:
Psychedelic churches in US pushing boundaries of religion
MICHAEL CASEY | February 2, 2023
https://apnews.com/article/psychedelic-churches-ayahuasca-5101fe47fe9a6e28de6862...