Alan, can the harm to religious feelings really be measured -- whether its a
commercial employer who has religious scruples about the contraceptive mandate
or someone like myself who (with Mike Newdow) sued the Chief Justice for
inserting "under God" in the presidential oath? I say this in sincerity. There
is no objective meter (or metric). Our lives go on and there is no outer
appearance of injury. But inside we may fester. (Especially after the courts
said we didn't have standing notwithstanding affidavits of over 250 individuals
alleging harm!)
I share your concern that the talking points of both sides either start with the
premise that he employer is not harmed or women are not harmed -- when in fact
one or the other would be depending upon whether contraceptive coverage is
included or excluded, respectively.
In this situation, I start with the premise that the commercial employer's free
exercise right is implicated. However, as I've said previously on this list,
that in my attempt to measure the harm to the employer I simply have of not been
able to identify a "substantial burden" -- especially in view of the facts that
(1) the employer himself or herself isn't required to use contraceptives (or
other mandated services or products), (2) is free to voice an opinion that they
consider contraceptive use wrong according to their religion, (3) pays employees
wages that the employee may or may not use for the same problematic services or
products and (4) the employee also has "rights."
If the employer is harmed, under our legal system it is up to them (and their
attorneys) to make the case of substantial (or any level of) harm and, in my
opinion, that case has not been articulated beyond statement that the mandate
violates the religious beliefs of some employers. That is not sufficient.
Bob Ritter
On September 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM Alan Brownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu>
wrote:
>
> Please do not construe this post as being directed at any of the participants
> to this discussion so far. (It is certainly not directed at either Marty or
> Mark S or Marc G.)
>
>
>
> I think political attitudes about church-state issues, and religion clause
> jurisprudence generally, is spiraling downward in at least one unfortunate
> sense. People seem increasingly unwilling to recognize as harm what other
> people who are alleging being harmed claim to experience as harm. When we
> don't attempt to see or feel what other people experience, we can hardly be
> surprised when their eyes and ears are closed to our calls for redress.
>
>
>
> Opponents of the rigorous enforcement of various Establishment Clause
> principles argue that taxpayers being forced to subsidize the teachings of
> other faiths suffer no harm, job applicants who are denied employment
> opportunities because of their religion at government subsidized programs
> operated by faith-based institutions suffer no harm, veterans of minority
> faiths suffer no harm when the government memorializes the sacrifice of "all"
> veterans with a Latin Cross or other religion specific symbol.
>
>
>
> Opponents of any meaningful enforcement of free exercise rights or many
> discretionary accommodations insist that what religious individuals experience
> as interference with, and the burdening of, their beliefs or practices really
> do not harm the claimant in a way that matters.
>
>
>
> In my judgment, starting with the premise that the claimant suffers no
> cognizable harm is often the worst way to approach these issues. It precludes
> any discussion of how the harm might be mitigated or reduced, any discussion
> of less restrictive alternatives, and any balancing to determine if the harm
> is justified by sufficiently important state interests. And it rubs salt in
> the wounds of the claimant -- who is told that his or her harm does not need
> to be justified and need not be avoided even when the state can do so without
> seriously undermining its interests.
>
>
>
> Not all harms are unconstitutional or avoidable. But beginning the discussion
> by concluding that no harm exists ends the analysis at the place where it
> should begin.
>
>
>
> My guess is that courts that interpret substantial burden very narrowly do so
> because they believe that the strict scrutiny standard of review the court is
> required to apply if a substantial burden is identified is too rigorous and
> confining and will not allow the kind of contextual balancing that some cases
> deserve. If I had my druthers, I would give up strict scrutiny in return for a
> more expansive understanding of what constitutes a substantial burden.
>
>
>
> Alan Brownstein
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of Marc DeGirolami [marc.degirol...@stjohns.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:36 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA Mandate
>
>
> I wonder what sort of evidence Marty is looking for. What arguments qualify
> as “serious” arguments? And “serious” for whom? A “serious” argument is not
> necessarily an argument that one finds persuasive, though that might be the
> standard. It could instead be an argument that one disagrees with but that
> one finds plausible. Or perhaps not outrageous. Or is it instead one which
> the religious claimant takes “seriously,” even if the court does not? How
> should one measure the standard for seriousness?
>
>
>
> The standard that RFRA sets is not whether a court believes that the argument
> raised by the objecting religious claimant is “serious.” It is whether the
> claimant has alleged a substantial burden. Alleging a substantial burden does
> not require that the court gauge the seriousness of the objector, or his or
> her objection, or the degree to which the argument has achieved theological
> consensus, or its importance or centrality within the overarching system of
> belief. It does not demand the assent of a selection of theologians. After
> all, other theologians, at other conferences, surely would disagree with the
> conclusions of the theologians at Marty’s conference, but I take it that their
> feelings are also not the gauge by which we measure whether a burden is
> substantial.
>
>
>
> One possibility is to demand some sort of pain threshold, as the Missouri
> court intimates, going so far as to suggest (in what I believe is a misreading
> of Wisconsin v. Yoder) that suffering a substantial burden may even require a
> willingness to suffer criminal prosecution. Putting aside the objection that
> there is of course a difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient
> condition, would the argument become a “serious” argument if the owner of the
> company would prefer to be prosecuted rather than to comply? Or to prefer to
> pay a fine? Or does the “seriousness” of the argument not depend at all on
> the degree of suffering that the claimant is willing to endure?
>
>
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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.
