If that was Steve's point, then he was evading my question. I said, "I'm
not saying such a statute would be unconstitutional. I'm just asking if the
burden would be different."
Art
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:22 PM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
_______________________________________________
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.
