Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
JibberJabberwocky
Mar 24, 2012

evilweasel posted:

Likewise, if you go into court and tell them that paying for contraception is a substantial burden on your exercise of religion and a receipt showing you paying for birth control pills for yourself/your wife/whoever falls out of your pocket, that also strongly suggests your professed substantial burden is bullshit.

To carry this a little further since people were asking about it above. This is why the science doesn't matter that much. You can have a sincere belief in something stupid, and believe it would be a burden to your religious activity. But yeah, being a lovely Christian matters. Substantial burden requires that you prove you are going to be forced to DO SOMETHING or NOT DO SOMETHING in such a way that this burdens your ability to practice your religion as you sincerely believe it to obligate you. The forcing has to be such that it goes against a belief you hold. I can't improve on evilweasel's examples but I can add that there's some significance in the burden being put on you. There's no burden in being forced to do something you do all the time - so being a lapsed <whatever you are> to the extent you normally ignore the prohibition you are trying to assert for protection, that matters here.

Note this is different from someone who, a while back, had a spiritual change of heart and joined a convent/converted/whatever as long as you could show it's a burden to their contigious belief NOW and they're consistent in their current belief. It'd be up to the court what the timeframe would be, but you need to be able to produce a coherent narrative of "this is loving with my ability to practice my religion and I would totally not do this thing if left to my own devices".

So inquiry into the advisability or scientific accuracy of their belief probably won't work as an argument before the actual court - but inquiry into their consistent adherence to the belief infringed would, sure. You can't grab the belief like a shield when it's convenient if there's proof you ignored it last week. This is like the one place where a test of the logical consistency of your complaint and your beliefs comes up.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply