Moral Implications Concerning Case Study 10 4

Religious freedom is nally something people are actually voicing opposition to. Returning to its roots in the Reynolds Mormon anti-polygamy cases of nearly 150 years ago, 1 people are nally asking the hard questions about the limits of religious freedom, opposing expansive religious freedom restoration bills and even opposing the widely supported federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of twenty years ago. 2 Maybe religious freedom is like a ne wine-too much of a good thing is unwise.

Security and Human Rights, 2010

Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 1990

West, Ellis. "The Case Against a Right to Religion-Based Exemptions.

Madridge J Behav Soc Sci, 2019

The United States is in the grip of an extended debate over the meaning of the free exercise of religion. This is especially true as religious liberty has come increasingly to be claimants. One case that raises challenging questions about the scope of religious freedom is the federal district court case of Cochran v. City of Atlanta. In this short piece, I first provide a summary of the Cochran decision. Although detailed jurisprudential analysis cannot be provided in this piece, I do work to situate this decision within an emerging trend within American constitutional law: the trend to redefine religious liberty not as a free-standing constitutional protection but as one sub-element of a wider species of rights, specifically, the right of personally expressive speech. Through a short review of salient aspects of English and American legal history, I develop a three-stage argument for suspecting that this move contains the potential to water down the degree to which the federal judiciary provides robust protection of the right of religious liberty.

2013

, for their useful comments on drafts of the manuscript. I would also like to thank Mrs. Ann Raney of the Curriculum Materials Center at the University of Dayton for her help in locating materials cited in this article, my Assistant, Ms. Elizabeth Pearn for proofreading the manuscript and helping to prepare it for publication, and Mr. Mohamed Al-Hamdani, University of Dayton School of Law, Class of 2013, for his help in researching citations and commenting on a draft of the paper. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not offer my greatest thanks to my wife and love of my life, Debbie Russo, a fellow educator, for proofreading and commenting on drafts of this article in addition to everything else that she does for me in our life together. 1 YOGI BERRA WITH DAVE KAPLAN, WHAT TIME IS IT? YOU MEAN NOW? ADVICE FOR LIFE FROM THE ZENNEST MASTER OF THEM ALL 33 (2002). 2 Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cnty., Kan. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 711 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (affirming that the First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination of or prevention of automatic renewals of at-will government contracts in retaliation for exercising their right to freedom of speech). 364 UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 38:3 purposes without prior approval of public officials). But cf. Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (holding that the Bill of Rights was inapplicable to the states since its history demonstrated that it was limited to the federal government). 8 Although issues associated with the practice of religion are more likely to be covered by the Free Exercise Clause, such disputes are often referred to as Establishment Clause disputes.

2011

2011

The Age of Human Rights Journal, 2018

In certain situations, religious minority members ask for an exception to general rules because they could be discriminatory for this collective. These exceptions are called reasonable accomodations and have been recognised in different legal systems, but always conditioned not to the presence of certain circumstances (costs, safety, third-party rights, etc.). In this article, the regulations and case law on reasonable accommodation in Canada, United States and Europe are analysed.

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class, 2005

Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 2014

This article considers some of the features of the judgment in Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, which are positive from a religious claimant's perspective-not least the welcome removal of unhelpful definitional 'filters' preventing individuals from making successful Article 9 ECHR applications, and we explore the implications of this for both European and domestic law. We also consider the arguably less satisfactory features of the judgment, particularly the absence of a full consideration of proportionality balancing, most obviously with regard to Ladele's application. We argue that the helpful analysis of a minority judgment correctly conceptualizes the claim as one of individual conscience rather than the right to discriminate against others. To illustrate this point, we propose a 'reversibility test' requiring the court to identify which other individuals' rights would be violated if the religious claimant was accommodated. In Ladele's case we argue that the harm to others was purely notional and amounted to no more than 'bare knowledge offence' at the idea of accommodation (which is not protected under the ECHR). Finally, we consider the extent to which, after the judgment, a public authority might be compelled to require staff to act in conformity with its non-discriminatory goals.