NYT Editorial Board Rejects Freedom of Conscience and Religious Liberty

You don’t want to pay for other people’s contraception? Here’s what the editorial board of the New York Times thinks of your freedom of conscience and religious liberty:

If the Supreme Court takes up these cases, it should soundly reject the warped view that some employers can get out of complying with the new law, and in effect use their religious beliefs to discriminate against women.

Got that? You thinking you can avoid being coerced into this is “warped” and you’re trying to “get out of complying” with the requirement that you pay for other people’s “contraception.” Moreover, thinking that this is something you don’t want to pay for is discriminating against women.

Note that it’s not discriminating against men, since only women are responsible, evidently, for contraception. How is that view not discriminating against women? How is it not discriminating against women to hold them solely responsible for something that could not have happened without a man?

What about the discrimination against human dignity, morality, self-control, and uprightness inherent in the assumption that the people who have this “right” to have their employees provide contraception coverage will not be married, will not be able to take responsibility for these decisions themselves, will not want children, and so on?

Remember: these are “liberals,” and here “liberal” doesn’t mean free. It means “free to think and do what we tell you to think and do.”

And if you don’t like what we tell you to think and do? Your views are “warped.” You’re trying to “get out of complying” (as though you’re obviously shirking your duties). And you are using your “religious beliefs to discriminate against women.”

Outrageous.