This is getting a bit removed from the main discussion, but just a couple of points in response to Brad Jacob's post:
1. The federal government, of course, has not required anyone to "provide abortifacients to their employees." That's simply a tendentious way of characterizing the regulation. 2. More broadly, although the focus of RFRA surely was to reject *Smith*, and to subject free exercise cases to the pre-*Smith *jurisprudence, that pre-*Smith* protection was hardly "vigorous," as my co-amici and I explain in this brief: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/02.17.16_amicus_brief_in_support_of_respondents-_religious_liberty_scholars.pdf and as I elaborate further in this article: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/Lederman_PDF_pt9q3ynr.pdf On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Bradley Jacob <brad...@regent.edu> wrote: > While it is certainly true that *Smith* was the catalyst for RFRA, if you > are suggesting that the statute itself had a small focus, that was not the > case. Those of us involved in working RFRA through Congress had a huge > vision – to overturn the effects of *Smith* and return all free exercise > cases to the vigorous protection of strict scrutiny. It was that big vision > that drew together the broad, bipartisan coalition. No one was thinking of > *Hobby > Lobby* in 1991-93 – because no one at that time would have dreamed that > the federal government would have required religious employers to provide > abortifacients to their employees – but the case was certainly consistent > with the broad vision of strong free exercise for all Americans that > motivated the RFRA effort. > > > > Brad > > > > *Bradley P. Jacob > <http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/faculty_staff/jacob.cfm>* > > *Associate Professor* > > Regent University School of Law > > t. 757.352.4523; f. 757.352.4571 > > brad...@regent.edu > > Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/regentlaw> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/RegentLaw> | SSRN > <http://www.ssrn.com/author=519370> > > [image: cid:image001.jpg@01D0F61B.F29F9940] > <http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Peabody > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:22 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical > > > > RFRA came into being following the Smith case which involved the smallest > of religious minorities and now it's grown into this huge thing that > protects the "free exercise" rights of corporations that are owned by > religious people to take actions that are against the rights that their > employees would otherwise get under federal law (ACA contraception for > instance). . . . > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
