Ruling strikes down parts of St. Louis 'abortion ordinance'
Source: Associated Press
Jim Salter, Associated Press Updated 3:57 pm CDT, Thursday, October 4, 2018
ST. LOUIS (AP) A federal judge has ruled that some provisions of a St. Louis ordinance banning discrimination based on reproductive health decisions violate the U.S. Constitution and Missouri law.
A lawsuit questioned the city's 2017 ordinance that bars employers from hiring or firing workers based on whether they have had an abortion, been pregnant outside marriage, or used contraceptives or artificial insemination. Landlords also can't refuse tenants based on those criteria.
Judge Audrey Fleissig's ruling said the ordinance violated the First Amendment rights of Catholic elementary schools and Our Lady's Inn, a home for pregnant homeless women, by requiring them to employ or house people who are not abortion opponents. She ruled that a provision requiring O'Brien Industrial Holdings LLC, a company operated by a devout Catholic, to offer health care covering abortion and contraception violated Missouri law.
But the judge's order stopped short of declaring the ordinance unconstitutional. Fleissig wrote that it remains valid for organizations that "hold no contrary expressive or religious beliefs." The ruling, issued Sunday, offered no explanation of how the city should draw that distinction.
Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Ruling-strikes-down-parts-of-St-Louis-abortion-13281693.php
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)malthaussen
(17,200 posts)... was a really good idea.
-- Mal
SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)In fact I propose a reinstatement of that policy, effective immediately.
bucolic_frolic
(43,173 posts)anyone can say just about anything is a personally held religious belief. If you lobby enough or sue enough you'll get your day your way. And we can all disobey everything, all laws, totally a matter of conscience.
forgotmylogin
(7,529 posts)As well as credit checking applicants - I've never understood that. You have bills to pay, that's why you need a job.
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)AZ8theist
(5,470 posts)The judge struck down parts of the ordinance that PREVENTED discrimination based on reproductive decisions. She basically said the Catholics are free to discriminate if you take birth control. This was a bad decision. Just wait, with KavaNOPE on the SC, the wing nuts will overturn Griswold v. Connecticut. Forget Roe v. Wade, thats a lost cause.