Steve Jamar wrote:
> [1] How about owning stock in companies that make and sell contraceptives? They had to sign a contract to do that. > > [2] The distance between doing the improper thing -- selling, paying for, using contraceptives -- and buying general health insurance with coverages mandated by the government is attenuated sufficiently for me. However, I understand how one can rhetorically manipulate these matters as Prof. Dane (and I) have done. And that is fully fair game and 5 justices agreed with one rethorical approach and 4 did not. 5 thought religion under RFRA should trump the other values (as a matter of statutory interpretation); 4 did not. Point 1 simply confirms that we all draw have to draw lines of causation and moral responsibility somewhere, and those different lines will be embedded in a variety of discourses and grounded in a variety of different assumptions. As to point 2, I don't think that "5 justices agreed" with Hobby Lobby's conclusions about causation and moral responsibility. They simply, and correctly, accepted them as religious views. It's as if Hobby Lobby had just said, "for religious reasons, we can't sign a document that alludes to 'Plan B, Ella, or intrauterine devices.' It's just something about those words."
_______________________________________________ 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.
