Freedom of Conscience Update.

It is both nice to see that a majority of Americans still respect something like "Mind Your Own Business" ("MYOB") but sad to see that a substantial majority want to be gauleiters of love.

Extra points for the person who first identifies the text that used "MYOB" as a political philosphy. (Hint: Gands.)

//The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who was prosecuted for refusing for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Most voters agree the baker has the right to say no.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it should be legal for a baker to refuse for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Only 29% think the baker should be prosecuted for discrimination instead. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)//

Religious tests are bad...

...except when applied by Socialists to American Evangelicals.

Obviously.

Bernie Sanders interrogates nominee about his position on religious doctrine.

Given the ability of people to compartmentalize religion and daily life, and the constitutional protection given to freedom of thought/conscience, shouldn't the focus be on actions rather than doctrine?


//This is a disgraceful and unconstitutional line of questioning from the man who came close to being the Democratic nominee for president. He’s not only imposing a religious test for public office in direct violation of Article VI of the United States Constitution, he’s gone so far as to label this decent man — who’s seeking to serve his country in a vital role — as “not someone who this country is supposed to be about.” Vought expressed entirely orthodox Christian beliefs. There is nothing “extreme” about his statements, and they mirror the statements of faith of countless Christian churches and schools across the land. Are these believers also not fit for public office? I’ve written that Christians and Muslims don’t worship the same God. I suppose that means America’s not “about” me, either.  

It got worse. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland doubled down, attacking the same expression of belief all while absurdly stating that “no one” is questioning Vought’s faith. Leading media outlets need to immediately ask Senator Sanders and Senator Van Hollen if they believe that orthodox, traditional Christians aren’t fit for public office. If there was any evidence at all that Vought had ever violated the legal rights of Muslims, that would certainly be relevant to his confirmation. His Christian faith is not.

Increasingly, the battle between Democrats and many Evangelicals is becoming a struggle against leftist efforts to treat orthodox Christians as second-class citizens. I can think of few better examples than the exchange above. Christians can and do believe that Jesus Christ is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” while also defending the fundamental freedoms of all their fellow citizens. That’s how our constitutional republic works. Bernie Sanders would do well to brush up on his civic education and remember that religious freedom belongs even to citizens (and nominees) he doesn’t like.

Freedom of Conscience...

...for the atheist "me" but not for the cake-baking Christian "thee."

Obviously, this makes sense based on the finest ad hoc, goal directed unprincipled principles.

Nearly a year after the United States Supreme Court ruled that government meetings could include Christian prayers, Canada's highest legal authority has concluded the opposite.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously on Wednesday that prayers at town hall meetings are a violation of law, since they show preference for one religion over another.

In Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), Canada's highest court upheld a lower court decision concluding that the mayor of Saguenay had violated an atheist's freedom of conscience by opening public meetings with a prayer.

"The prayer recited by the municipal council in breach of the state's duty of neutrality resulted in a distinction, exclusion and preference based on religion …. which, in combination with the circumstances in which the prayer was recited, turned the meetings into a preferential space for people with theistic beliefs," wrote the court.

 "Although non‑believers could also participate, the price for doing so was isolation, exclusion and stigmatization. This impaired [plaintiff's] right to exercise his freedom of conscience and religion."

Canadian Secular Alliance, an organization that was an official intervener in the case, called the decision a "victory" for Canada.

"The decision is a victory for pluralism, equality and neutrality, rather than a promotion of atheism," stated CSA President Greg Oliver.

"The CSA congratulates Alain Simoneau and Mouvement laïque québécois for their successful effort to make Canada a more inclusive country and calls on municipal councils still reciting government prayers to respect the decision and end this discriminatory practice."

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/canada-supreme-court-rules-against-christian-prayers-at-city-council-meetings-says-it-stigmatizes-atheists-137662/#0E1Q8dXXhk0CvLyA.99

Nearly a year after the United States Supreme Court ruled that government meetings could include Christian prayers, Canada's highest legal authority has concluded the opposite.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously on Wednesday that prayers at town hall meetings are a violation of law, since they show preference for one religion over another.

In Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), Canada's highest court upheld a lower court decision concluding that the mayor of Saguenay had violated an atheist's freedom of conscience by opening public meetings with a prayer.

"The prayer recited by the municipal council in breach of the state's duty of neutrality resulted in a distinction, exclusion and preference based on religion …. which, in combination with the circumstances in which the prayer was recited, turned the meetings into a preferential space for people with theistic beliefs," wrote the court.

 "Although non‑believers could also participate, the price for doing so was isolation, exclusion and stigmatization. This impaired [plaintiff's] right to exercise his freedom of conscience and religion."

Canadian Secular Alliance, an organization that was an official intervener in the case, called the decision a "victory" for Canada.

"The decision is a victory for pluralism, equality and neutrality, rather than a promotion of atheism," stated CSA President Greg Oliver.

"The CSA congratulates Alain Simoneau and Mouvement laïque québécois for their successful effort to make Canada a more inclusive country and calls on municipal councils still reciting government prayers to respect the decision and end this discriminatory practice."

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/canada-supreme-court-rules-against-christian-prayers-at-city-council-meetings-says-it-stigmatizes-atheists-137662/#0E1Q8dXXhk0CvLyA.99

It is amazing how the value of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience has fallen since the 1960s.

The judicial cheapening of conscience.

It used to be that those two things were the most important rights around.

Ask a potential public employee to sign a statement that said he wouldn't join an organization committed to the armed overthrow of Democracy and that was simply intolerable because of Freedom of Conscience. Pass a law that criminalized the offense to others involved in burning the American flag and that was an intolerable abridgment of Freedom of Speech.

Now, all that is so ho-hum.

Everyone must conform.

Wouldn't be my call, but it's not my call.

If you read only the headline, your reaction is probably to condemn the pediatrician as an evil, narrow-minded, heartless woman.

But if you read more than the headline, you see:

//Jami and Krista Contreras live in Oak Park, Michigan, a state without protections for LGBT people, and the state the 6th Circuit ruled can deny marriage to same-sex couples. But when they found a pediatrician who met their requirements, and knew they were a couple, they were thrilled to bring their six-day old newborn baby to her for her first wellness checkup.

The couple met with Dr. Roi before their baby was born, and were pleased. But they say when the got to the office of Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics last October for the baby's first checkup, they were told that they would have to see a different pediatrician. Now they're speaking out because they feel a great sense of injustice.

A few weeks ago, Dr. Roi sent them a letter to explain her decision.

"I never meant to hurt either of you," Dr. Roi writes. "After much prayer following your prenatal [visit], I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients."

"Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice," the letter, obtained by the Detroit Free Press, continues. "Again, I am very sorry for the hurt and angry feelings that were created by this. I hope that you can accept my apology."

She signed the message, "Blessings."

The Contreras couple are not satisfied.

"We want people to know that this is happening to families. This is really happening," Jami Contreras says. "It was embarrassing. It was humiliating. ... It's just wrong."//

So, the pediatrician was concerned that she couldn't overcome her own prejudices in forming a relationship with the mothers of the child, and she felt that would be detrimental to her care for the child, and she exercised her freedom of choice/conscience/contract in the best interests of the child.

Is this evil?

Is this even wrong?

It's not the direction I would go in, because, frankly, I just don't care enough, but that would probably be true if they were smokers or adulterers or spoke like Okies. Also it seems like a great business opportunity for doctors who have a more inclusive approach to their marketing.

We recognize that freedom means that some people will make choices that other people disagree with, but the alternative is to make this pediatrician into a kind of slave and to punish her for exercising her freedom of choice and conscience.

Nothing in this article says that the child is not being cared for, or that the pediatrician would have made the same decision if she was the only available pediatrician.  Insofar as she doesn't have a monopoly on pediatric services, isn't her exercise of her choice over her body?

It would seem that this is less about health care for the baby than about punishing someone who holds an ungood badthink opinion.

Obamacare - making you complicit in moral evil since 2009.

This is one of those Pelosi "We had to pass the bill to find out what was in it" moments:

Minor children on their parents’ health care plans will have free coverage of sterilization and contraception, including abortion-causing drugs, under the controversial HHS mandate – and depending on the state, they can obtain access without parental consent.

Matt Bowman, senior counsel for the religious liberty legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, said the mandate “tramples parental rights” because it requires them to “pay for and sponsor coverage of abortifacients, sterilization, contraception and education in favor of the same for their own children.”

The Department of Health and Human Services ruled in January 2012 that most employers who have 50 or more employees must provide the coverage as “preventive care” for “all women with reproductive capacity.”

The mandate also requires the coverage for beneficiaries, including minors, on the affected health plans, Bowman told CNA Sept. 20. That means that a minor on her parents’ plan could be sterilized if she finds a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

“She can be sterilized at no cost,” Bowman stated. “Whether her parents will know and/or consent might differ by state. But the Guttmacher Institute and other abortion advocates explicitly advocated for this mandated coverage of minors so that access without parental involvement might be able to increase.”

The Guttmacher Institute, in a Sept. 1 briefing on state policies, said that an increase in minors’ access to reproductive health care over the last 30 years shows a broader recognition that “while parental involvement in minors’ health care decisions is desirable, many minors will not avail themselves of important services if they are forced to involve their parents.”

The institute, the former research arm of abortion provider Planned Parenthood, said that 26 states and the District of Columbia allow all minors 12 years and older to consent to contraceptive services. At least one state, Oregon, allows 15-year-olds to consent to sterilization.

CNA repeatedly contacted the Department of Health and Human Services for comment but did not receive a response.

Mark Shea asks:

If you are Catholic and voting for this tyrant, may I ask “What happened to your soul? How do square this with all that blather you emit about ‘conscience’ and ‘freedom’ every time you proclaim your brave defiance of the Old Geezer in Rome? How do you reconcile the sheer cognitive dissonance when you chatter about your superior intellect, open-mind and so forth? How, in short, can you sleep at night?”