Alan,
Like you, I haven't given a lot of thought to how the free-speech conundrum
might play out in the contraceptive mandate cases, but back in the 90s I
gave some general thought to the free-speech objection to constitutionally
compelled exemptions. I've copied below what I wrote then about the
This very thoughtful discussion reminded me of an issue that has often
perplexed me: how do we reconcile religious accommodation statutes, such as
RFRA, with the Court's repeated admonition that discrimination based on
religion beliefs, ideas, or messages constitutes viewpoint discrimination
pr
An excellent question, but one that I think ultimately challenges the Tenth
Circuit's framing of the case, not my argument that the Tenth Circuit's
analysis was incomplete within its own frame.
In focusing its analysis on Lee, the Tenth Circuit emphasized that Lee was
a case in which the Supreme C
Why do you say the language quoted from Lee is "arguably the most relevant"?
The Supreme Court appears never to have relied on that language in subsequent
cases. The Court's most recent reading of Lee comes from the 2006 O Centro
case:
The Government points to some pre-Smith cases relying on
Folks: Please make sure the discussion is focused on legal analysis, not
general matters of right and wrong or good or bad policy, except insofar as
they are tied to the legal analysis. The recent discussion of marriage
restrictions has departed in some measure from the list’s focus on the law
How so, Bob? Please explain why the state may interfere in our decision whether
to have children or not, or HOW, and why procreation should be a prescribed
goal of marriage?
Marriage is a contract between two consenting individuals. The terms of that
marriage are up to the parties involved, pr
