I appreciate the sentiment in opposition to Mississippi SB 2681 in that this law would provide protection for business owners who wanted to discriminate through their corporation. (I still can't see how this wouldn't signal a breach in the corporate veil as the ultimate expression of an alter ego, but I digress.)
I'm reminded of a case I was involved with a few years ago represented a plaintiff who was a member of a religious minority, employed for a secular small company, who was terminated by her employer soon after the owner of the company received a memorandum from a trusted staff member expressing concern about religious "influences" that conflicted with the evangelical world view of the owner. Had an Arizona-style RFRA been in place, the employer would have used the law against my client as a defense, and could have claimed that he was in fact a victim of an attempt to force him to maintain the employment of people who did not share his (i.e. the company's) religious beliefs. Conceivably this type of event would be repeated over and over and the discrimination would become systematic. However there does not seem to be a need to diminish the existing individual religious exercise rights which are protected under the existing state RFRAs. In many ways, RFRAs for individuals (not businesses) are the guardians of individual rights to free exercise of religion. Michael Peabody, Esq. ReligiousLiberty.TV
_______________________________________________ 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.
