If a large business can refuse to provide reproductive healthcare to women for reasons of religious conscience, why can’t a business owned by a Christian Scientist refuse to provide healthcare at all? What principle would stop a Protestant pro-choice business owner from ordering employees not to work through Catholic agencies, or an anti-Semitic business owner from ordering employees not to work through Jewish agencies? How can it ever be a religious right to impose our religion upon another? By what principle do the religious rights of a business owner trump that of a worker?
Jim,
Good questions! They don’t.
Jim,
Hummingbird? 1/3/14, 10:14 CST
Bob, do you see a difference in someone who refuses to serve in a war and someone who refuses to pay taxes to the common fund because they don’t believe in war? The personal right of conscience for an employer is not to use contraception personally, not to deny a woman employee of her own constitutional right (according to the Supreme Court) over her own body. I realize it is complex, but I’m still waiting for anyone to explain why a Religious Scientist does not have a right to deny medical coverage all together if pro-life employers can trump a pro-choice worker’s rights. What do you think?
Jim,
Both serving as a combatant in a war and paying taxes that support a war compromise one or more common principles, it seems to me, but each also falls under a much larger set of principles that have perhaps only a small overlap. That is to say that many other principles come into play on each, and they are not only not the same set as each other, but may be competing. If the overlapping principles are core for a person or entity, then the response must be the same in both cases. Otherwise, the remainder of the sets of principles that enter into the response must be considered, which could lead one to respond differently in those two cases. I hope this is not too abstract to effectively communicate my point.
Going to the issue in your blog, from what I can tell, for some of the plaintiffs in these cases, what they consider to be core principles are being violated. Nuns are between a rock and hard place with the church and the state. Proprietors are threatening to shut down their business rather than comply. That sounds pretty core to me. Hummingbird! They are not denying anyone anything other than their complicity in any way to acts that would violate their core principles. Employees who don’t accept their principles are free to work elsewhere or find other ways to support those particular options. The idea that employers must provide health insurance may be a flaw in the system that is bound to lead to such issues.
Things get a little dicier, I think, when health care providers are required to include services in their practice which violates their fundamental principles. Should customers be turned away or should providers find another occupation? What happens when turning a customer away is, effectively, a denial? Whose right trumps? What if medical personnel were required to provide euthanasia services or serve as executioners on demand or abort fetuses for population control, etc.? Should “majority rule” or judge’s opinion force violation of one’s personal principles for “common good”? 1/4/14, 10:06 CST
I get your point. Here’s where I disagree. If there is to be a commons (such as a health care fund) it cannot be under the control of individuals. So whereas I would support someone’s right not to serve in a war or to have an abortion, it is a different matter to me when any of us refuse to allow the common fund to be under democratic control of the whole group. At this point in time, a woman is considered to have a constitutional right to have an abortion, which means comprehensive health care would include the full range of reproductive options. You are describing the reductio ad absurdum in one direction of the dilemma, but think of the nightmare that would result if every employer had the right to pick and choose which constitutional rights of their employees they personally felt good about granting?
Jim,
So, are you saying that, in the case of common funds, it’s ok to violate our core principles? That would be to say that, perhaps, a core principle must be to support whatever democratic process requires, wouldn’t it? Is that a convenience to avoid being sent to jail for tax evasion, when the same penalty may not apply for not volunteering to serve in the armed forces?
I did not intend to go so far as reductio ad absurdum, but I did want to be sure to mention something I was pretty sure would violate one of your core principles, yet not be too far fetched. Hopefully some of my choices are not completely absurd, and others, I hope, really are. I had trouble with that, apparently, so I’ll let you come up with the example that might help you feel the tension and murkiness which your post seems to me to imply should not exist, but, for some, again, it seems to me, really does. 1/6/14, 08:08 CST
Bob, I’m not saying your examples were absurd. “Reductio ad absurdum” is just a name for that argument that takes a proposition and poses horrific examples of how it might go wrong. Your arguments are plausible, they are just one side of the dilemma. I apologize if that sounded disrespectful. I didn’t mean it that way.
No, I’m not saying our core principles can be violated in the name of democracy, I’m saying my core principles cannot be about something YOU should do. It is okay for me to refuse to go into the military or refuse to get an abortion under any circumstances. It is not okay for me (by my argument) to withhold my part of the common store because I don’t want YOU to do something.
The problem with dilemmas is there is truth on both sides. So either side can think of ridiculous examples for the other. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m describing my attempt to find balance within that dilemma. Your points are perfectly valid logically. Again, I apologize if it sounded like I thought otherwise.
Jim,
No offense taken. I did not think you were being in any way disrespectful. You’re right. Serious dilemmas arise when we let things seem very simple. I get your point, I think. I must say that, in community, I really don’t see any way that rights won’t come into fatal (for the rights of one or the other) conflict. The losing side always screams “unfair,” and that’s probably the case. It’s a serious cost of community. 1/6/14, 08:14 CST