|
California generally requires
employers providing health insurance to their employees to ensure that such
insurance covers the costs of contraception. California has enacted a
limited religious accommodation that exempts certain religious
organzations (viz., churches), but not others, from this requirement.
Catholic Charities does not satisfy any of the four statutory criteria for the
exemption, and it sued under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses to have
the exemption extended. The Cal Supreme Court ruled 6 to 1 that the
limited exemption was constitutional -- although the court did tentatively
conclude that at least one of the criteria was of dubious
constitutionality.
The case raises numerous
interesting issues concerning, e.g., the Ministerial Exception, general
applicability under Lukumi, the so-called hybrid exception, Larson
v. Valente, the scope of California's state constitutional free exercise
guarantee, the notion of "substantial burden," etc. To my mind one of the
most interesting and difficult questions it raises is how a legislature can and
should craft, and limit, religious accommodations. The case
demonstrates, in my view, why an across-the-board standard for exemptions --
such as those codified in federal and state RFRAs -- is preferable to a
series of stand-alone, statute-by-statute legislative
exemptions.
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
