Steve's point, I believe, was simply that there is no constitutional right to
hold a particular job or conduct a particular business, or business at all.
That has been settled for decades, has it not? Religious believers sometimes
have to make life choices that are narrower than others might choose,
because of their faith. Is the point here that there is a constitutional right
to avoid making such choices?
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Spitzer <artspit...@gmail.com>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Sun, Sep 30, 2012 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA Mandate
I find Steve Jamar's post ("No one needs to be an employer") puzzling. Could
Congress enact a statute providing "observant Roman Catholics (or Moslems, or
Jews, or Seventh Day Adventists, or Mormons) may not be employers"?
Would such a statute be different, in its burden on such people, from a statute
saying "all employers must do X, when X is something that observant Roman
Catholics (or Moslems, or Jews, or Seventh Day Adventists, or Mormons) cannot
do?
I'm not saying such a statute would be unconstitutional. I'm just asking if the
burden would be different.
Art Spitzer
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com> wrote:
How about an employer being exempt from buying insurance, but then paying a tax
that goes into a pool for the government to buy group insurance for those
employees. How is that substantively different from just requiring the
insurance benefit in the first place? And yet this sort of tax seemed ok to
Mark. I don't see how this really insulates the employer from the complicity
in evil through paying for it. Is the "agreement" (coerced agreement is
agreement?) that different?
Isn't the proper agreement the one between the employer and society that lets
the employer exploit the economic system and all of its supports in exchange
for doing business within the rules of commerce to be followed by everyone?
That agreement may be one with the devil, but no one is making the person agree
to it. No one needs to be an employer.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice
http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
"The aim of education must be the training of independently acting and thinking
individuals who, however, see in the service to the community their highest
life achievement."
Albert Einstein
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
