Skip to main content

View Diary: Hobby Lobby: Does RFRA violate the Establishment Clause? (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm confused (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, Armando
    A case like Sherbert, for instance, providing employment accommodation to a member of a religion whose Sabbath observance falls on a different day, or cases where Sikhs are otherwise kept from jobs that require shaving.
    I'm confused: what law does Sherbert allow someone to break because of their religious convictions?

    Indeed, if we apply the Hobby Lobby (probable) precedent to Sherbert, it actually means that the employer could refuse to accommodate their employees due to religious convictions, and the Federal government would be powerless.

    I think you have it absolutely reversed.

    •  Sherbert allowed someone to receive unemployment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, Certifiable Genius

      compensation they otherwise wouldn't be entitled to.  Both Sherbert and Hobby Lobby (if successful) get to have their cake and eat it to, basically.  But isn't your example Sherbert exactly? Here, you had a person who was required to work 6 days a week, but Sunday wasn't available.  That's an employer refusing to accommodate the employee, if not due to explicit religious conviction, than implicit majoritarian religious bias. What makes the Hobby Lobby case so egregious is that they're not compelled to buy the contraception they object to so the argument for an accommodation is weak (it's (a) the employees money, and they're at least two steps removed by the nature of insurance), and it is indeed a one-sided application of religious accommodation - and not the side where it's justifiable for the state to intervene to protect.

      This does indeed reflect the exact problem with RFRA I flagged, in that it fails to distinguish between the rights of an employee and the employer, but the argument that religious accomodation violates the establishment clause, which is the more abstract question,  i think is wrong.   It's the power disparity that raises the unfair outcome, than the idea of religious accommodation itself.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:13:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It seems to me (IANAL) (0+ / 0-)

      that "accomodation" should have to go both ways.  Just as reasonable accomodation should be made for religious observances by a corporation whose owners are a different religion, Hobby Lobby should have to accomodate the women who work for the corporation, but have  different religious views than the owners.

      As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

      by BPARTR on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:10:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  RFRA only applies to the federal government (0+ / 0-)

      It says the feds have to accommodate religion.  It says nothing about anyone else having to do so.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (19)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site