California courts and ACLU say First Amendment doesn't apply to Catholic Charities

It's hard to say how disappointed I am in this case. To vigorously defend women's rights to equality is entirely proper for an organization like the American Civil Liberties Union. Likewise, for them to oppose legalistic restrictions on public access to contraceptives. For them to vigorously defend abortion is understandable, although I believe their position is tragically and horribly wrong. But when they insist that state governments compel a religious charity to violate its beliefs by supplying contraceptives (possibly including abortifacients like RU486) to its employees, they have clearly lost all respect for the religious freedom guaranteed in the First Amendment.

The ACLU's brief in the case argues that "The Women’s Contraception Equity Act (“Contraception Equity Act”) requires employment health insurance policies that include prescription drug benefits to cover contraception....The statute exempts “religious employers” that satisfy four criteria:
(A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity. (B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. (C) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity. (D) The entity is a nonprofit organization pursuant to Section 6033(a)(2)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal
Revenue Code.1"

It goes on to argue that the right to consider religious beliefs in employment practices on the part of religious organizations applies only to "clergy officials, members of religious orders, and teachers at church schools established for religious instruction.... In contrast, the Act does not excuse institutions that provide secular services, such as hospitals, universities and relief agencies, from giving their religiously diverse workforce equitable health benefits, regardless of whether the employing organizations have a religious affiliation."

Note that the "religiously diverse workforce" results in part from the legal mandate that religious organizations may not exercise religious criteria outside of the narrow categories mentioned, and that 'equitable' has been quite arbitrarily defined by the state to mean 'supplying subsidized contraceptives'."

Unless Catholic Charities is somehow legally mandated to provide prescription drug coverage by California law, it appears that they have no choice but to drop their employees' coverage or violate their own beliefs by financially subsidizing practices repugnant to them. (Perhaps Pablo has some knowledge of the relevant laws/regulations?) Perhaps it would serve the state of California right if Catholic Charities promptly fired all non-Catholic employees and ceased all services to non-Catholics in hopes of fitting within the narrow, crabbed confines of the ACLU's and the court's definition of a religious organization, and thus still being allowed to honor their beliefs. The affected people could all be handed copies of the Court's decision and informed to seek help from the State of California and the ACLU.

I suppose if that happened, they would probably be sued for violating the First Amendment, or for violating some codicil of labor law. More distressingly, it would violate Christ's teachings and example of healing the sick and helping the poor.

Guess I won't be sending that check to the ACLU after all. I wonder: does the ACLU headquarters have a "No Catholics Need Apply" sign hanging in the front window?

Wouldn't it be nice if there were a civil liberties organization that truly cared about, well, civil liberties in general, even those of people who disagreed with its hyper-feminist faction's strident demands for subsidized abortions at all costs?

Now perhaps some folks reading this think that it's just hunky-dory to mandate that churches pay for their employees' contraceptives and, in the near future, pay for abortions, or euthanasia, or health care to homosexual partners/spouses, etc. Some may even consider it a victory to be crowed and bragged over. Such is left-wing triumphalism, no better than right-wing triumphalism. But consider: what would be the appropriate response if you, as the operator of a charity, were ordered by the State to do something you found sinful and utterly repugnant to your beliefs. Say, involuntarily sterilizing members of "genetically inferior" races, or euthanizing "economically non-viable" people, or forcibly administering mind-altering drugs to patients who held politically "undesirable" views? Think about it. Then ask yourself whether it's right to force Catholics to -- in their eyes -- financially support the murder of children.

Here's more food for thought. One of the key arguments in the ACLU's brief to ignore Catholic Charities' First Amendment rights in this case was, and I quote,

Catholic Charities is the paradigm of a secular organization that is not exempt from state labor policy. Its employees predominantly do not share the Catholic faith. Its charitable work is secular. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, which receives substantial government funds. Catholic Charities serves people of all faiths – and people who adhere to no faith – in California’s pluralistic population. (emphasis added.)

What does this foretell about the "Faith-Based Initiatives" that propose to direct governmental money into the activities of religious organizations all over the country?