RE: Free Exercise, compelled subsidies, and Abood

I would assume that what justifies the asymmetry is, in large measure, Congress's judgment. In RFRA, Congress said that substantial burdens on religious exercise lead to strict scrutiny. Substantial burdens include compulsion to do what one thinks is religiously forbidden;

Re: Free Exercise, compelled subsidies, and Abood

I'll stop after this, but I realize that RFRA requires strict scrutiny for substantial burdens on religion. Under that standard, if Knox and United Foods are right about Abood, then, by analogy, Hobby Lobby should be a relatively easy case. Here, Glickman is relevant because the Court said that

third party burdens

I have enjoyed the discussion of the third party burden issue. Thanks to all, especially Nelson and Micah for kicking it off. I would add a couple of thoughts to Eugene’s argument against applying the Establishment Clause to limit RFRA in these cases.

Re: Comparing religious exemptions and free speech

I am coming in very late on this. Sorry. But Eugene's most recent post about 3rd-party harms caused by religious conduct (as opposed to communicative impact) caused me to think about other constitutionally-protected conduct that may result in 3rd party harms. Moore v. City of East Cleveland

Re: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties

Is that accurate? It may vary, but I thought the privilege could be claimed for any confidential communication made to a clergy member in his/her professional capacity as a spiritual advisor. The person seeking that counsel need not necessarily be a co-communicant. I don't think this is just

Re: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties

It depends on the state actually. But generally the confession must be for spiritual/salvation purposes Marci A. Hamilton Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School Yeshiva University @Marci_Hamilton On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Paul Horwitz phorw...@hotmail.com wrote: Is

RE: Free Exercise, compelled subsidies, and Abood

I'm sorry that I misunderstood Micah's points; I thought they were just about applying the law, but on reflection I see how they included a policy question about the merits of RFRA. Let me try to tentatively respond to this, as someone who is not one of RFRA's biggest boosters.

RE: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties

My sense is that I (as someone who is irreligious) would get relatively little solace or even wise counsel from speaking to an average Catholic priest about my troubles and misdeeds, at least unless I was at least contemplating converting to Catholicism. Unsurprisingly, the

RE: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties

Actually, I think non-Catholics mostly would be pleasantly surprised, both on the receptivity of the priest-confessor and the wisdom of the response. To be sure, there are some misdeeds that are shared in confession that are understood to be such solely from the perspective of the Catholic

Re: third party burdens

Nelson, I look forward to your blog post. As to the first, this case seems a poor vehicle because no party is complaining about RFRA applying only to religious objectors. Second, I think parties are usually better at focusing a court's analysis of their interests than others are, ergo the

RE: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties

I’m sure there are some such situations, perhaps even quite a few. But I imagine there are quite a few situations where the priest would quite rightly not give me the advice that works for me given my philosophical worldview. The benefit of the clergy-penitent privilege to the

RE: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties

I have no doubt that Steve is accurately reporting his own experience, but I still don't see why it should add up to a confidentiality privilege. sandy From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Thursday, December 05,

Re: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties

Sandy and Marci, I agree my conversations were not and should not have been privileged. But it is not the case that non-believers cannot be helped by priests either in a priest/pentitent setting or less formally. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017

Re: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties

No question. They can be helped just as believers might not be! But that is separate from whether, as a legal matter, a privilege attaches. Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212)

RE: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties

I’m genuinely curious: Do we have any idea which denominations impose a duty on their clergy to preserve confidentiality? Every Sunday I read in the Style section of the Times of couples who are married by someone who has been licensed by the Universal Church (I think it’s called) to perform