Eugene read my mind and wrote exactly what I was going to write. Maybe gross
underinclusion isn't entirely irrelevant, but standing alone it has little
bearing on whether the state's interest is compelling or not for religious
liberty exemption purposes.
Alan
________________________________
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:09 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
The Court also said that there’s a compelling government
interest in preventing race discrimination in employment, even though there are
literally millions of people who are exempted from Title VII (since they work
for employers who have fewer than 15 employees). Is such gross underinclusion
relevant to the issue of compelling interest? If so, does it keep the interest
from being compelling, and entitle religiously objecting employers with more
than 15 employees to an exemption from Title VII?
The Court has also said that there’s a compelling government
interest in collecting federal income taxes, even though there are literally
millions of people who pay no net federal income tax. Is such gross
underinclusion relevant to the issue of compelling interest, to the point that
people who object to paying certain kinds of taxes are entitled to an exemption
from federal text law?
The Court has also rejected a claim of religious exemption from
the draft (for people who oppose only unjust wars, and therefore aren’t
entitled to a statutory exemption), and has been understood as saying that
there’s a compelling government interest in raising armies, even though there
are literally tens of millions of people who aren’t eligible for the draft. Is
such gross underinclusion relevant to the issue of compelling interest, to the
point that people who object to unjust wars really are entitled to a draft
exemption?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 5:04 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby Question
The Court assumed that there is a compelling interest in covering
contraceptives, even though there are literally millions of women whose
policies are exempted from the mandate under the ACA. Do we all agree that such
gross underinclusion is irrelevant to the issue of compelling interest?
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as
a Heckler's Veto, is available at
SSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2361504>
"And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels
who've corrupted it that I want to reform" --Dick Gaughan (from the song,
Thomas Muir of Huntershill)
_______________________________________________
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.
