[Ibby]

There are two parts to the question of whether or not it's a legitimate infringement of the employer's conscience. The first is whether or not there is EVER a legitimate infringement - and the weight of precedent says, yes, there are things that society can ask of religiously-affiliated public entities like hospitals and schools, even if the religion opposes those demands - again, religious conviction is not considered to legally justify racist hiring policies, or to allow for the selective offering of their services. Then, of course, the question is, where does this issue fall on the continuum of what we as a society (and more importantly, our judiciary) consider acceptable infringements of religious liberty in the name of fair and just application of the law.

In this case, the law says that ALL employer-provided insurance has to cover a certain minimum standard of care. And, as it turns out, even 60% of catholics agree that hospitals and schools and other public institutions, regardless of religious affiliation, should be held to the same standard as any other institution or entity in having to comply with that coverage.

Merc, if a private citizen owning and operating a college or hospital wanted to refuse to comply with that provision based on their personal faith, they would have no legal standing to do so, the same way they would have no legal standing to refuse to serve customers on a racial basis, even if their religion preached segregation. Why should a religiously-affiliated entity be treated differently?