Active Users:172 Time:24/06/2018 09:55:37 AM
Catholic Charities of Sacramento Inc. v. Superior Court Roland00 Send a noteboard - 11/02/2012 01:21:46 AM
Here is a quick summary

Catholic Charities of Sacramento Inc. v. Superior Court
32 Cal.4th 527, 85 P.2d 67 (2004)

* California enacted the Women's Contraception Equity Act (WCEA) to force employers to cover the cost of contraception under their insurance plan.
* Catholic opposed the bill because they felt contraception was against their religion, and therefore the law was an unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment.
* The Trial Court found WCEA to be constitutional. Catholic appealed.
* The Appellate Court affirmed. Catholic appealed.
* The California Supreme Court affirmed.

* The California Supreme Court found that the law was required to eliminate gender discrimination.
* The Court noted that WCEA doesn't require employers to cover prescription drugs. It just says that if they do, then they must also cover contraception.
* WCEA had an exception for 'religious employers' such as the Catholic Church. But Catholic Charities was an independent non-profit corporation, and so didn't fit under that exemption.
* The Court suggested that Catholic should go back to the Legislature and ask them to amend the Statute if they didn't like it.
* Catholic unsuccessfully argued that the law interfered with religious autonomy, but the Court found that it wasn't a religious organization, it was just a non-profit corporation.
* Many of Catholic's employees weren't even catholic.
* Catholic unsuccessfully argued that WCEA interfered with the free exercise of religion, but the Court found that the law was religiously neutral and didn't discriminate against any one religion in particular.
* Catholic unsuccessfully argued that WCEA was arbitrary and capricious in their narrow construction of the 'religious employer' exemption, but the Court found that the law had a rational basis.

* The basic point of this case is that you can't use the 1st Amendment to avoid provisions of legally enacted and otherwise constitutional Statutes.
* See also Smith v. Fair Employment Housing Commission (12 Cal.4th (1996)), which held that a religious landlord couldn't keep non-married couples from renting rooms, just because they felt it was sinful.
* "You cannot isolate yourself via the 1st Amendment if you are in the marketplace."
http://www.invispress.com/law/family/catholic.html
Reply to message
Democrats bailing on Obama - War against the Catholic Church heats up - 09/02/2012 04:03:35 AM 1218 Views
This is not a war on Catholics, it is Obama being an idiot again. - 09/02/2012 04:52:01 AM 349 Views
For someone who used to be a Con Law professor - 10/02/2012 08:23:34 PM 232 Views
Also, kudos for linking to a source, and a fairly non-partisan one as well. - 09/02/2012 01:33:07 PM 458 Views
I am a non-partisan guy, so I only use unbiased sources! *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:02:50 PM 354 Views
Is there really such a thing? *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:11:30 PM 270 Views
You lost all credibility in the first line of your post. - 09/02/2012 04:49:23 PM 432 Views
The subject line didn't help. *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:04:11 PM 275 Views
But it added some flair to the discussion! *NM* - 09/02/2012 07:46:47 PM 230 Views
You actually think any of us has 'credibility' anymore in regards to neutrality? *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:46:13 PM 254 Views
It's one thing to have a bias. - 09/02/2012 07:28:51 PM 389 Views
Some would say putting a spotlight on it is more honest. *NM* - 09/02/2012 09:34:17 PM 209 Views
Ah, the Rupert Murdoch School of Objectivity. - 09/02/2012 10:15:57 PM 338 Views
Wow, talk about making a supernova out of a couple hydrogen atoms. - 09/02/2012 08:41:44 PM 267 Views
I'm somewhat suprised that Obama blundered this badly. - 10/02/2012 01:40:14 AM 1284 Views
Why? Have you not been paying attention? - 10/02/2012 02:03:43 AM 1636 Views
If I am not satisfied with Romney then my Plan B is to not vote. - 10/02/2012 10:58:34 PM 1590 Views
How does that help anything? Except Romneys election chances, of course. - 11/02/2012 01:08:22 AM 1538 Views
Bullshit. - 11/02/2012 04:29:31 AM 1667 Views
A vote for no one is a vote for more BS. - 11/02/2012 05:55:11 AM 1599 Views
Obama doing this actually impresses me to no end. - 10/02/2012 02:21:10 AM 1752 Views
He is already preparing to cave. - 10/02/2012 02:42:32 AM 1714 Views
Why are you even replying to me? What you said has little meaning to what I said. - 10/02/2012 03:33:27 AM 1555 Views
"And here I thought he was just another politician." - 10/02/2012 01:29:36 PM 1588 Views
Aaaaand you can put your hat back on now: Obama has already caved. - 10/02/2012 04:04:30 PM 1672 Views
So Jehovah Witness employers should not have to pay for blood transfusions? - 10/02/2012 03:57:47 AM 343 Views
Not if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. - 10/02/2012 04:20:32 PM 394 Views
Money is not the same as speech! - 10/02/2012 07:20:56 PM 265 Views
No it isn't Joel, empirically you are dead wrong - 10/02/2012 11:24:19 PM 441 Views
I do not see how requiring private entities do it instead of the feds is "least restrictive way." - 11/02/2012 12:53:22 AM 372 Views
Catholic Charities of Sacramento Inc. v. Superior Court - 11/02/2012 01:21:46 AM 350 Views
"the Court found that it wasn't a religious organization, it was just a non-profit corporation." - 11/02/2012 01:36:33 AM 277 Views
The situation was identical to the pre obama controversy - 11/02/2012 02:42:57 AM 218 Views
The affiliation is the sticking point. - 11/02/2012 03:41:33 AM 381 Views
One last point - 10/02/2012 11:35:25 PM 413 Views
The federal government forcing private groups to facilitate without committing sin also infringes. - 11/02/2012 01:03:30 AM 327 Views
You argument does not make sense - 11/02/2012 01:26:57 AM 280 Views
It was an analogy, not an equivalency. - 11/02/2012 01:48:14 AM 333 Views
Lets enhance your analogy making it closer to reality - 11/02/2012 02:19:41 AM 422 Views
Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 03:46:33 AM 416 Views
Re: Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 04:17:17 AM 1261 Views
In other words, I could. - 11/02/2012 04:21:05 AM 168 Views
Some more points - 11/02/2012 02:30:27 AM 445 Views
Sex is not a necessity either. - 11/02/2012 03:56:51 AM 397 Views
I can't believe you just said that - 11/02/2012 04:30:12 AM 271 Views
The widespread inability to believe that is deeply worrisome. - 11/02/2012 06:33:01 AM 415 Views
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a in it ) - 11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM 424 Views
Obama just got two weeks of being portrayed as "anti-church" to the point even Dems complained. - 11/02/2012 02:00:28 AM 380 Views
The polls disagree with you. - 11/02/2012 02:32:59 AM 287 Views
It is an interesting article, but not for the polls. - 11/02/2012 04:18:17 AM 395 Views
I wouldn't put too much into that poll anyway - 11/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 525 Views
I don't think it's quite the laughing matter you think it is - 11/02/2012 12:31:23 PM 368 Views
Nossy that was not Joel, that was me - 11/02/2012 01:56:39 PM 413 Views
I know that. - 11/02/2012 03:23:32 PM 447 Views
Understood. - 11/02/2012 07:51:14 PM 360 Views
mmm... - 11/02/2012 08:20:26 PM 377 Views

Reply to Message