Normally, I hesitate to opine on matters in which I am not thoroughly versed and I must confess that I am not up to speed on these cases. That said, I am an observant Jew and I do not travel or work on Shabbat (which also begins Friday night). In the traditional Jewish community, such swaps are encouraged and very much appreciated. Jews do not believe that the laws concerning Shabbat observance apply to non-Jews (there are other laws that do, but not these).
So I don't understand why this would also not be the case here. Does she feel she is complicit because she believes everyone who doesn't observe the way she does would be a sinner, even if they aren't of the same religion? Warmly, Bobbi Roberta Rosenthal Kwall Raymond P. Niro Professor Founding Director, DePaul University College of Law Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology Author of The Myth of the Cultural Jew: Culture and Law in Jewish Tradition http://amzn.to/15f7bLH You can view my papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/author=345249 ________________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Peabody [mich...@californialaw.org] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:35 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical The Supreme Court will be hearing these cases on Wednesday and I'm trying to figure out how broadly this may affect religious accommodation beyond the ACA cases. Most of the briefs in favor of the petitioners describe broad sweeping "attacks" on religious freedom while the respondents seem to argue that the built-in accommodation should be considered sufficient. In an effort to try to explain this to non-lawyers (of which many are Seventh-day Adventists) who are asking me about what this case means, I've come up with a hypothetical that I'm presently testing out. In making this hypothetical, I make an assumption that RFRA was originally intended to protect individuals (not institutions) to avoid the post-Hobby Lobby reaction that it is now about organizations and I am relying on a federal regulation model to avoid jurisdictional confusion. I do realize that my hypothetical involves an employer-employee relationship, but I tried to manage this angle by making the closing time a function of a bill passed by Congress than an employee scheduling issue. Here is the hypothetical: A Seventh-day Adventist is a federal employee who works as the manager of a gift shop in a remote national park. As part of a bill designed to encourage people to visit the parks, Congress requires that all park gift shop facilities remain open until 6:00 p.m. For our Seventh-day Adventist, this poses a problem in the winter months as it violates her religious beliefs to work past sundown on Friday. The EEOC guidelines suggest an accommodation that would work (swapping shifts with co-workers) and a co-worker is willing to fulfill the duty, and other accommodations such as shifting positions are simply not possible. The Seventh-day Adventist refuses to swap shifts because she believes that this would make her complicit in a sinful act. In fact, she refuses to even acknowledge that such an accommodation is possible because by admitting that, she would be opening the door for somebody to attempt to fulfill the accommodation which would violate her religious beliefs. Could a finding for the petitioners in these cases permit this and similar scenarios? Is there a better hypothetical? Thanks! Michael Peabody, Esq. ReligiousLiberty.TV http://www.religiousliberty.tv _______________________________________________ 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.
