Nathan: I agree that "the government has other ways to achieve its compelling interest -- paying for the coverage itself" -- if by "coverage" you mean "health insurance coverage." And thus, for unemployed persons, and employees who do not have access to employer-offered insurance, that's exactly what Congress has done: It offers access to affordable insurance plans under Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA exchanges. And every employer has the option of ceding the responsibility for such coverage to the government-created and government-subsidized exchanges if it wishes.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:03 PM, nathan chapman <nathan.s.chap...@gmail.com > wrote: > Marty, > > I ran out of space on the other chain. Thanks for carefully responding to > my questions, and I'm sorry for any confusion. > > I think nonreligious statutory exemptions could be relevant to RFRA and > First Amendment analyses in at least three different ways. > > First, they could suggest that the government's interest isn't really > compelling. I don't take issue with your analysis of that. > > An exemption could also suggest an intent to discriminate on the basis of > religion, ala Lukumi. I wouldn't find that argument persuasive here. > > The ACA small business exemption, in particular, could also suggest that > the government has other ways to achieve its compelling interest -- paying > for the coverage itself. I'm not sure I find it persuasive in this case -- > I just meant to suggest that pointing out the exemption was not > *irrelevant* to the RFRA analysis. > > What is somewhat ironic here, and perhaps it is a necessary feature of the > way these different analyses interact, is that by addressing the first > issue, that is, by making sure everyone is eligible for coverage and > therefore showing that coverage is a compelling government interest, the > government has also demonstrated a less restrictive way of meeting that > compelling government interest. > > In terms of nomenclature, I think of these as three different questions of > underinclusivity. But of course I understand how folks could disagree with > the lingo. > > Nathan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
