Gorsuch’s Hobby Lobby concurrence characterizes the Amish claim in US v Lee as follows: “The employer's faith taught that it is sinful to accept governmental assistance. By being forced to pay social security taxes on behalf of his employees, the employer argued, he was being forced to create for his employees the possibility of accepting governmental assistance later. This much involvement or complicity, the employer argued, was itself sinful under the teachings of his religion.”
I see no evidence of this sort complicity claim (i.e. employer arguing his was obligation to keep temptation away from underlings) in the Lee briefs or opinions. Rather, Lee argues that “to pay money into a system which provides governmental benefits is to admit that the government has a responsibility for aged Amish members and to admit this is to deny their own responsibility.” In other words, it’s all about Lee’s own direct responsibilities, not the “possibility” he was “creat[ing] for his employees” “of accepting governmental assistance” the way ACA employees can “accept” contraception . Am I misunderstanding either Lee’s claim or Gorsuch’s take on it? I ________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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.
