Brad- Is it your view that for-profit companies over 50 employees (those affected here), who are subject to Title VII, and may not discriminate on the basis of religion or gender, can tailor their salary and benefit plans according to religious beliefs and gender?
Separately, what is your view on whether a Jehovah's Witness for-profit company can exclude blood transfusions as part of its benefits plan? Thanks Marci 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) 790-0215 http://sol-reform.com -----Original Message----- From: Brad Pardee <bp51...@windstream.net> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 4:57 pm Subject: RE: Contraception Mandate There is a problem with using, as the article does, the quote from Justice Learned Hand that "[t]he First Amendment gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities." If Hobby Lobby was stating that, because the owners oppose contraception, no employees are allowed to use contraception, then this would be a valid argument. That is not the case here, though. By being compelled to provide contraception coverage for their employees, the owners of Hobby Lobby are being forced to act in a way that is in direct opposition to the teachings of their faith. Nobody is arguing that, based on the owners' religious beliefs, the employees shouldn't be permitted to access contraception if that is their choice. By ruling against Hobby Lobby, the Court will be telling us that nobody who is pro-life can own a large company unless they are willing to check their faith at the door. I'm not sure that fits any definition of religious freedom that I'm aware of. Brad Pardee -----Original Message----- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Nelson Tebbe Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:36 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Contraception Mandate Here's a Slate piece that I wrote with Micah Schwartzman (Virginia), commenting on today's cert. grant. We emphasize three differences between these cases and Citizens United, including the significant Establishment Clause ramifications of ruling in favor of the corporations here. We link to important work by Fred Gedicks developing the nonestablishment argument. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/11/obamac are_birth_control_mandate_lawsuit_how_a_radical_argument_went_mainstream.htm l Nelson Tebbe _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
