Hobby Lobby filed its brief this week, as did the United States in Conestoga Wood. Final briefs are due March 12 in the contraception mandate cases. Oral argument is March 25.
= GWC
Balkinization: <i>Hobby Lobby</i> Part VI: The parties' common ground . . . and a fundamental divide about religious exemptions for for-profit employers:
by Marty Lederman
'via Blog this'
= GWC
Balkinization: <i>Hobby Lobby</i> Part VI: The parties' common ground . . . and a fundamental divide about religious exemptions for for-profit employers:
by Marty Lederman
The common ground is the parties' agreement that individuals can and do exercise religion in all aspects of their lives, including when they are engaged in commercial activities. As the Solicitor General puts it: "[T]he government’s argument in no sense depends on the proposition that people of faith must check their religious convictions at the door when they enter the commercial arena. . . . The government does not question the importance of religious exercise to the Hahns [the owners/directors of Conestoga Wood] or to the millions of other believers in this Nation. Nor does the government fail to appreciate that faith guides adherents throughout their day, including when they carry out responsibilities as corporate managers and directors."
... the basic message of the government's brief is clear--namely, that to grant a religious exemption here, to a for-profit employer whose employees would bear the burden of accommodating the owners' religious commitments, would be a groundbreaking departure from the judiciary's (and Congress's) historical practice, one that could well pave the way for religious exemption claims by for-profit employers with respect to many of the myriad other statutes governing commercial enterprises, including nondiscrimination requirements, zoning regulations, taxes, and the like.
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment