“宗教必胜”的规则不利于宗教自由

A. Koppelman
{"title":"“宗教必胜”的规则不利于宗教自由","authors":"A. Koppelman","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197500989.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the First Amendment doctrine that the Supreme Court is now developing. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court’s most important recent decision on accommodation, is no victory for religious liberty. It replaces the sensible regime of balancing with a rule whereby religion will almost always be given special treatment, even if that means that nonadherents suffer enormous harm. If this is now to be the authoritative meaning of freedom of religion, then the consensus that once supported it will inevitably collapse. This chapter shows the destructive implications of the decision for the discrimination question—implications that have already been drawn by several federal courts.","PeriodicalId":149656,"journal":{"name":"Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Religion always wins” rules are bad for religious liberty\",\"authors\":\"A. Koppelman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197500989.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter examines the First Amendment doctrine that the Supreme Court is now developing. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court’s most important recent decision on accommodation, is no victory for religious liberty. It replaces the sensible regime of balancing with a rule whereby religion will almost always be given special treatment, even if that means that nonadherents suffer enormous harm. If this is now to be the authoritative meaning of freedom of religion, then the consensus that once supported it will inevitably collapse. This chapter shows the destructive implications of the decision for the discrimination question—implications that have already been drawn by several federal courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":149656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197500989.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197500989.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章考察最高法院目前正在发展的第一修正案原则。Burwell诉Hobby Lobby案是最高法院最近在住宿问题上最重要的裁决,它并不是宗教自由的胜利。它用一种规则取代了理智的平衡制度,即宗教几乎总是得到特殊待遇,即使这意味着非信徒遭受巨大的伤害。如果这是现在宗教自由的权威意义,那么曾经支持它的共识将不可避免地崩溃。这一章显示了对歧视问题的裁决的破坏性影响,这些影响已经被几个联邦法院得出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Religion always wins” rules are bad for religious liberty
This chapter examines the First Amendment doctrine that the Supreme Court is now developing. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court’s most important recent decision on accommodation, is no victory for religious liberty. It replaces the sensible regime of balancing with a rule whereby religion will almost always be given special treatment, even if that means that nonadherents suffer enormous harm. If this is now to be the authoritative meaning of freedom of religion, then the consensus that once supported it will inevitably collapse. This chapter shows the destructive implications of the decision for the discrimination question—implications that have already been drawn by several federal courts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信