Well, the opinion is a complete mess, and might not best be read as a
constitutional decision at all. It does, however, suggest a lurking
interesting question about religious accommodations and vaccinations,
albeit one not raised by this case.
This is an unemployment compensation case involving
Marty's comment below suggests that Employment Division v. Smith sets
the right standard. Consider this paragraph of Marty;s:
Assume that a state actor, such as a legislature or a state employer,
granted a religious-only exemption to a vaccination requirement. This
actually happens quite
Ellen Katz has an interesting article regarding the use of precedent by
the Roberts Court with a view to what it might do in Hobby Lobby. It is
an informative read and a good background for speculating on what the
result might be in that case.
Jon Mallamud writes:
4. Hobby Lobby represents to me an important test in how politically motivated
the Court is becoming. In Boerne the Court held that in enforcing the
fourteenth
amendment, the Congress had to stick to the Supreme Court's interpretation of
the constitution. In
I agree entirely on the bottom line, but let me ask what would
happen in the absence of concerns about harm to the sick. Say an employer has
a uniform policy that bars headgear, but exempts religious objectors; and say
that a secular employee insists on wearing a hat to work,
I would always want to know the rationale and why it didn't apply to the
religious person as well. But if ever I'm disinclined to be sympathetic to the
flat out equal treatment, it's in this instance, and I continue to wonder why
there's a religious exemption. I presume that a religious person
