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
Patience
Jul 1, 2006
Success on someone else's terms don't mean a fucking thing.
If I work for Hobby Lobby and take a drug to prevent implantation or fertilization of a embryo, is that a religious act?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Patience
Jul 1, 2006
Success on someone else's terms don't mean a fucking thing.

Patience posted:

If I work for Hobby Lobby and take a drug to prevent implantation or fertilization of a embryo, is that a religious act?

Feeling like a law professor in a room full of bug-eyed 1Ls here. I'll expand my point.

If I work for a business owned by Jews who practice kosher and eat a cheeseburger, is that a religious act?
If I work for a business owned by Hindus and eat beef, is that a religious act?
If I work for a business owned by Mormons and drink alcoholic or caffeinated beverages, is that a religious act?

Most people would say no, that an act that defies the conventions of a particular religion is not a religious act whether or not it is done while employed for a business that would have a religious objection to that act.

However, if SCOTUS were to agree with Hobby Lobby in the suit, they'd be showing a preference to the practitioners of one religion over others, in that a business can circumscribe the rights of their employees if they are not in accord with the tenets of the "business' religion" (what a weird thing to type).

I can recall a few Family law cases (a Mormon polygamist one and a Hindu divorce one) which ruled against the adherents to a religion and for settled law, in suits brought on essentially religious grounds. So maybe the Court will go that way again. But the recent rise of "right of refusal" and conscience clauses in what is essentially a way for religious groups to preserve their rights at the expense of others is an added concern.

http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...egislation.html

To play at Chicken Little, then all a business would have to do to get around any law would be to claim to practice a particular religion that was opposed to that law. What would stop a business that didn't want to pay for any of their employees healthcare costs from convert to Christian Scientists? Or invent a religion to circumvent government regulation of industry?

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