I'm not Brad, but I thought I'd put my two cents' worth in:
Brad- Is it your view that for-profit companies over 50 employees (those
affected here), who are subject to Title VII, and may not discriminate on the
basis of religion or gender,
can tailor their salary and benefit plans according to religious beliefs and
gender?
I should think that, whether the company is for-profit or
non-profit (and corporation or sole proprietorship), the ban on discrimination
might well impose a substantial burden on the employer -- if the employer feels
a religious obligation to discriminate -- but would be upheld under strict
scrutiny, no? But I take it that the case for the contraception mandate being
narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest is different from the
case for Title VII being thus narrowly tailored.
Separately, what is your view on whether a Jehovah's Witness for-profit company
can exclude blood transfusions as part of its benefits plan?
There too the question -- whether as to a for-profit or a
non-profit, and corporation or sole proprietorship -- would be whether the law
is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest, or whether the
government has some other less restrictive means of serving the interest (e.g.,
offering what would likely be a very cheap supplementary insurance plan
covering only blood transfusions, for anyone who has such an exclusion and who
just needs the transfusions).
Eugene
_______________________________________________
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.
