This post on a legal blog feeds into something I’ve been reading lately.
Can an employer make his employees foot the bill for his religious beliefs? Merely to ask this question is to answer it. “Religious liberty” does not and cannot include the right to impose the costs of observing one’s religion on someone else, especially in the for-profit workplace. Until Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, this was a basic and unquestioned aspect of the law of freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause forbids accommodations of religion in the for-profit workplace that impose significant burdens on identifiable and discrete third parties. In Hobby Lobby, a group of employers are demanding the right to refuse health insurance coverage of contraception needed by women who do not share the employers’ religious beliefs. Upholding the exemption would shift the cost of accommodating Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs about contraception to those women. Such cost-shifting violates the Establishment Clause.
Frederick Mark Gedicks, Jr., the person posting that bit above, could very well be a lunatic for all I know. I don’t follow the legal trade. His CV suggests he is a respected man in the field, teaching at a university. I make sport of economics for its quasi-scientific assertions, but they are models of logic compared to the law. The person who said, The law is an ass” obviously hated the ass. The irrationality of the law is right here to see.
In order to have a lawful society, that is, one with commonly understood rules and a transparent method to adjudicate disputes, you must respect the rights of the citizens to hold and keep property. This is axiomatic. Another axiom is a lawful society must have absolute freedom of association. If the state can dictate how citizens group together, the citizens are subjects, living at the whim of their rulers. If the state can willy-nilly take property from one citizen, then you have no property rights and nothing to stand upon as citizens. These axioms are fundamental to the American conception of liberty.
Let’s call respect for private property A and freedom of association B. When quizzed, Frederick Mark Gedicks, Jr., I’m sure, would accept A and B to be true and that A does not contradict B. Yet, here he is arguing that a private employer has no right to associate with whom he chooses (hiring) and he cannot set the terms of employment (insurance coverage). This, of course, undermines the concept of private property. If you must seek permission from the state whenever you wish to enjoy the use of your property (business, land, money, clothing, food, etc), it really is not your property.
Lawyers are by nature liars. They spend all of their time lying for a fee. If you doubt this, ask how many times has a lawyer stood before the court and admitted his client was guilty? When has a lawyer stood before a judge and admitted he did not know the law? Everyday in every court in America, lawyers tell one baldfaced lie after another in an attempt to deceive the court. Irrationalism, is the only possible outcome. A nation run by lawyers will eventually be a nation run by madmen.