That seems to me to be precisely the issue that the Court faced in United States v. Lee, and that lower courts have faced with regard to similar objectors -- granting such exemptions, especially given that they are sure to proliferate, would indeed substantially undermine the compelling government interest, and no less restrictive alternative is available. "Unlike the situation presented in Wisconsin v. Yoder, it would be difficult to accommodate the comprehensive social security system with myriad exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs."
But as O Centro made clear, not all statutory schemes would indeed be substantially undermined by grants of occasional exceptions. RFRA requires courts to analyze each statutory scheme on its own terms, to determine how much accommodating religious objectors would indeed interfere with the scheme. And I'm not at this point convinced (though I in principle could be) that accommodating religious objections to the ACA, especially given the ones we've seen so far, would create such interference. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:08 PM To: Law Religion & Law List Subject: Fwd: Contraception Mandate Brad and Eugene, How does compellingness analysis work when the government tortures people and kills civilians with drones and invades Iraq, all of which are against my religious beliefs and yet makes me pay for them? This is a serious question. I'm not a great fan of Smith (nor of RFRA, being more of a balancing kind a guy (not claiming to be balanced)), but how does a society function if there is such a unit veto? Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org<http://iipsj.org/> Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ "The modern trouble is in a low capacity to believe in precepts which restrict and restrain private interests and desires." Walter Lippmann On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Brad Pardee <bp51...@windstream.net<mailto:bp51...@windstream.net>> wrote: Marci, I believe that there should be strict scrutiny before a person is compelled by law to choose between obeying their God and obeying their government. Anything less gives the government a blank check to command or prohibit anything it wants to, and if that means you have to do what your God has prohibited or you cannot do what your God has commanded, that's just too bad. Either chuck your God or face the consequences. Your first example seems like an unlikely hypothetical because I don't know of any situation where providing equal salary and benfits regardless of religious beliefs or gender would force a person to act in opposition to the mandates of their faith. There may be faiths that permit an employer to pay an employee less based on religion or gender, but I'm not familiar of any that would require an employer to do so. I think that there is a compelling interest in the case of blood transfusions because that is a matter of life and death. Contraception is not a life and death issue, and I can't think of any other way in which it would become a compelling interest. Brad
_______________________________________________ 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.
