Supreme Court won't hear appeal inCatholicCharitiesoftheDioceseof

[Richard Dougherty]

Steven and Mark both make very good points here.  If the state's
concern was really with ensuring contraceptive coverage, wouldn't they
just require all employers to provide it, rather than predicating it on
the pre-existence of a drug plan benefit?
A point of information: Does anyone know if any groups other than
Catholics have opposed these laws because they are opposed to
contraception?  I know that other religious denominations have
supported the Catholic position in principle, on free exercise grounds,
but does the law actually affect anyone other than Catholics?  I
just don't know, and haven't seen anything in the records.Richard J. Dougherty
-----Original Message-----
From: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
Sent 10/3/2007 12:26:15 PM
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Supreme Court won't hear appeal inCatholicCharitiesoftheDioceseof
Alba...Full disclosure: I participated in a moot court helping to prepare
Catholic Charities' lawyers for oral argument in the Cal S Ct.
One of the real issues as I saw it was that the law was not a neutral
law of general applicability. Conditions for its application were
carefully tailured to apply to Catholic Charities, including, IIRC, a
requirement that the group serve persons beyond its own faith community.
So if Catholic Charities limited its ministry to Catholics, the law
would not have applied. Of course then the group wouldn't have qualified
for federal dollars, but that is not appropriately a matter of concern
to the State of Califonia. (There was more to the argument than that,
with regard to the law not being neutral or generally applicable, but I
don't have the materials here with me.)
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
Robert M. Zinman Scholar in Residence, American Bankruptcy Institute
(Alexandria, Virginia), Fall 2007
________________________________
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Steven Jamar
Sent: Wed 10/3/2007 1:02 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court won't hear appeal
inCatholicCharitiesoftheDioceseof Alba...
isn't it about more than just spending money that would violate their
faith -- isn't it even more about being required to DO something that
would violate beliefs?
For that, who pays what doesn't matter.
On 10/3/07, Brownstein, Alan <aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>>
> When we are talking about money - which is what this case is about -
the
> free exercise interest here isn't the right of Catholic Charities to
be
> exempt from a financial expense that all other employers must accept,
it is
> the right not to be required to spend the money in a way that violates
the
> tenets of their faith. (By analogy, the free exercise interest of the
> religious pacifist is not in being exempt from a civil obligation of
public
> service for two years of his life, it is in not having that service
directed
> to killing people in war.)
>
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071003/9437463b/attachment.htm