General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court now stomping on the rights of the Catholic Church?
Yep.
Remember, a few months back:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and several other Christian denominations filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Arizona vs. United States, supporting the principle that the federal government controls the enactment and implementation of the nations immigration laws. The March 26 brief argued that the federal government is in the best position to protect the well-established goals of family unity and human dignity in the nations immigration system. The brief also made the case that a patchwork of state laws could inhibit the Churchs mission to serve immigrants, thus impinging upon religious liberty. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service joined the bishops in filing the brief.
the brief argued that Arizonas SB 1070 is not a solution to the problems in federal law and in fact creates more problems than it solves.
The brief said that state laws such as SB 1070 threaten to restrict the Churchs ability to provide pastoral and social service care to immigrants and their families, thus infringing upon the Churchs religious liberty.
http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-056.cfm
So I'm waiting for all of the howls of violations of religious liberty in the media.
I'm waiting.
Waiting.
I'm sure any moment now we'll see an army of Catholics on TV declaring that the Supreme Court has declared war on Her. Any time now.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)but all private employers who are catholic. While you may have an argument for a catholic insitutions, but now you have to adhere to the religious views of your private employer who is catholic too? I don't think so.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)is not what the Catholic church wanted?
Perhaps I'm mis-reading, but it sounds like the church was against the bill, and USSC mostly shot down the bill, certainly took any teeth out of it, and the administration followed up by rescinding the 287(c) thingy. So where's the beef?