The underlying theory is exactly the same — complicity with evil. Once the naked assertion is made, it is, after Hobby Lobby, uncontestable by the government or courts.
Analogizing and distinguishing are tricky, manipulable rhetorical devices. But you can’t dodge the similarities just because there are differences. The question is not are there similarities or differences, but rather which ones that invariably exist matter to the court. Steve > On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:22 AM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > > A state actor does not have to defer to a religious belief for a benefit it > bestows (granting a marriage license). The actor is, however, required under > Hobby Lobby to not coerce a private, unelected, citizen to grant a benefit > contrary to its religious belief. > > The issues are worlds apart. Hobby Lobby never asked the govt. to identify > the drugs as abortcifatents; only to get hobby lobby out of the picture. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Assoc. Dir. of International Programs Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org http://sdjlaw.org "I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits." Martin Luther King, Jr., (1964, on accepting the Nobel Peace Prize) _______________________________________________ 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.
