Not the issue. I am completely in support of birth control and I wish there was a free clinic for just birth control issues.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their religious principals is preventing them from exercising their right to not participate.

Are your talking about a persons "Right" to have birth control? Because if you are no such Right exists.

It's called Planned Parenthood.

Then you can say the same about everything that is banned...

Not when it comes to what the Constitution says about it's limits on it's ability to regulate religious practice.

Hey I support them. Just as much as I support groups Right to oppose their beliefs as well. Although I am not sure everyone can get free Birth Control there or more people I know would do so.

See Bigelow v. Virginia
I believe (hard for me to totally understand) negates your point. There is a difference between a commercial entity and an individual.
In this case, the hospital IS a commercial entity.

I believe most Catholic run hospitals are Not-For-Profit, so, no, they are not a Commercial entity. Different rules apply.

Hmmm... dunno where the line is there.

King Obama's Royal Decree on Catholics

thepeoplescube.com

"I shall not force Catholics to pay for abortion -- for now. But I do order you Catholics to buy insurance. And I order the insurance company to pay for the abortion."

There are two parts to the question of whether or not it's a legitimate infringement of the employer's conscience. The first is whether or not there is EVER a legitimate infringement - and the weight of precedent says, yes, there are things that society can ask of religiously-affiliated public entities like hospitals and schools, even if the religion opposes those demands - again, religious conviction is not considered to legally justify racist hiring policies, or to allow for the selective offering of their services. Then, of course, the question is, where does this issue fall on the continuum of what we as a society (and more importantly, our judiciary) consider acceptable infringements of religious liberty in the name of fair and just application of the law.

In this case, the law says that ALL employer-provided insurance has to cover a certain minimum standard of care. And, as it turns out, even 60% of catholics agree that hospitals and schools and other public institutions, regardless of religious affiliation, should be held to the same standard as any other institution or entity in having to comply with that coverage.

Merc, if a private citizen owning and operating a college or hospital wanted to refuse to comply with that provision based on their personal faith, they would have no legal standing to do so, the same way they would have no legal standing to refuse to serve customers on a racial basis, even if their religion preached segregation. Why should a religiously-affiliated entity be treated differently?

Because they are protected by the Constitution. I guess one could make a case that my religion allows me to pass out crack cocaine because that is my personal faith, but somehow I don't think it will pass mustard.

I guess that's the question I'm asking. WHAT, exactly, should be protected, and what shouldn't be? should a religious institution be UTTERLY exempt from ALL laws?

You now, you could dodge this whole issue by abolishing this weird arrangement of having the employer provide health insurance. That has a whole bunch of problems with it.

Employer provides money. Employee uses money to buy health insurance from the organisation of their choice, which may include a government system.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...te?detail=hide

fairly dense reading - almost entirely supreme court opinion quotes - but one that CLEARLY establishes the constitutionality of the decision, pre-compromise.

Obviously not. And that is the point bluntly stated by Scalia. Religion is only a relationship between one man and his god. That relationship is protected by religious freedom. Any relationship that man has with other people is determined by civil law. Religion cannot restrict or regulate any 'man to man' relationship. Religion cannot be imposed on any other person. Because religion is only a 'man to god' relationship.

Religious freedom: you can talk to and believe anything your god demands. But you cannot impose those beliefs on anyone else. A church imposing church doctrine on anyone else is discriminating based in religion. That is illegal.

Scalia made the point repeatedly. Any relationship between two people is defined by civil laws - not by religion. Unfortunately many give religion liberties it does not deserve.

A church is not a god and is not a religion. The church is only a religious consultant. An advisor. Someone that the individual hires to help him with his 'man to god' relationship.

BTW, this is the same church that said an organ transplant is a mortal sin. Ordered all people to not have organ transplants (after the first organ transplant - a kidney donated to his twin brother). The pope can deny himself a transplant if that is his religion. But the pope cannot impose his beliefs on anyone else - as Scalia notes. Religion must not exist beyond a 'man to god' relationship.