SG Verilli seemed a bit out of sorts (wish female employees had amicus time) but did
try to explain why accommodations are provided special for certain religious institutions (see, e.g., Brennan's concurrence
here). There are reasons why it isn't done for everyone, e.g., it's a limited group made up mostly of fellow believers, not employees more broadly of all faiths, whose religious and associational rights are weighed in the balance with the extra effort.
Update: O'Connor also concurred in the
Amos case & this is another case where she might very well have voted differently than Alito. Amazing how even shades of Republican matters.
2 comments:
I've never researched the issue but it appears that the cases you cite would allow Catholic, Lutheran, etc. hospitals, organized as non profits, to discriminate in employment.
The first footnote does note:
"This subchapter [i. e., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.] shall not apply . . . to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment [483 U.S. 327, 330] of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities."
The limits of that is troubling as you suggest and listening to the oral argument, when pressed, an advocate did say the logic would apply to race too. The whole giving emergency contraception to rape victims (even if Lieberman recommends going to another hospital) shows the possibilities -- and that is for patients who might be there in emergency cases.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!