No. The logic of the decision could be pushed that far in a parallel universe or by faculty like us who may indeed inhabit a parallel universe, but such a case is so easily distinguishable from a commercial business as to be essentially irrelevant.
Steve On Oct 1, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Rick Garnett wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Rob Vischer (St. Thomas – MN) has a reaction – one that identifies well the > decision’s many flaws -- to the decision we’re discussing, at the “Mirror of > Justice” blog: > http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/10/forcing-a-church-to-pay-for-its-employees-abortions-would-not-create-a-substantial-burden-on-religio.html > > As Prof. Vischer reads the decision, its reasoning – i.e., no “substantial > burden” -- would apply to a RFRA challenge brought by a Catholic diocese to > an exemption-less requirement that the diocese provide insurance coverage for > elective abortions. Do those who have been welcoming this decision agree > that RFRA would not / should not protect the diocese in such a case? > > Best, R > > Richard W. Garnett > Professor of Law and Associate Dean > Notre Dame Law School > P.O. Box 780 > Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0780 > > 574-631-6981 (w) > 574-276-2252 (cell) > > SSRN page > > Blogs: > > Prawfsblawg > Mirror of Justice > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:55 AM > To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' > Subject: FW: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA > Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden" > > Lyng and Bowen involved no regulation of religious behavior. Lee expressly > found a burden on free exercise (455 U.S. at 257); the case was decided on > compelling interest grounds. None of these cases have any relevance to the > burden issue in the ACA cases. > > And by the way, I think that all three were rightly decided. > > Douglas Laycock > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > University of Virginia Law School > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:34 AM > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA > Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden" > > Religious groups and their supporters have been trying to water down > "substantial" > for years. The Alabama rfra doesn't include "substantial" and neither did > the failed North Dakota or Colorado > initiatives. One of the reasons the latter failed is overreaching, though it > is also attributable to the fact > that the Rutherford Institute and others lobbying for rfras have met their > match in a number of opposing groups. > > The court in the ACA case did little more than apply existing law on the > interpretation of "substantial." Those arguing > the case was wrongly decided on this issue are arguing for a new standard. > That is contrary to RFRA's (and RLUIPA's) legislative history, which indicate > "substantial burden" was to be interpreted according to existing precedents > (as of 1993 and 2000)..... In other words, Lyng, Bowen, and Lee are the > governing interpretations for RFRA. Subjective views of burden are not part > of the doctrine. It would take the Supreme Court to overturn these > decisions to grant a win to the religiously affiliated institutions. > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- 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/ "Education: the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty." Mark Twain
_______________________________________________ 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.
