|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Churches Sue American Government over Health Insurance Mandate
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Just in case anyone's unclear on the way "religious conscience" will be used if the plaintiffs in this case prevail, we have this story:
quote:
A gay HIV-positive man says in court that a hospital denied him treatment and visitors, as the doctor remarked, "This is what he gets for going against God's will."
Joao Simoes sued Trinitas Regional Medical Center in Union County Superior Court. He says that the hospital admitted him in August 2011, but that "requests for his lifesaving medication were not honored," and his sister was denied visitation rights.
Now this is from a complaint filed [PDF] with the Superior Court of New Jersey, so the usual caveats about these being as-yet unproven allegations apply, but if we assume the facts are correct why wouldn't a hospital be allowed to do this if "religious liberty" is held to be the paramount value?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
In keeping with the Citizen's United decision, it would seem that the "religious freedom" of institutions holds priority over the religious freedom of individuals (employees or, in the above case, patients).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
