E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
More than forty lawsuits
blanket the country with various institutions – ranging from Notre Dame to a
chain of arts and crafts stores to archdioceses to a mining company –
challenging the requirement
that they include prescription birth control among the services covered by the
insurance they provide employees. In every
case, the plaintiffs claim the contraception requirement violates their
religious freedom.
These challenges to the contraception requirement are the
most prominent of a rash of cases challenging anti-discrimination rules in
the name of religion. We see bakeries
and bucolic inns closing their doors to same-sex couples, Christian schools
firing employees
who are pregnant and unmarried, and nurses protesting even taking the blood
pressure of abortion patients. In every
case, the refusal to provide services or equal treatment is rooted in religious
beliefs.
The cases pose this fundamental question: Does the right to religious freedom include
the right to impose your views on others?
Does it include the right to impose your views on a diverse workforce? On customers and patients seeking your services
you offer the public? Does it include
the right to close the door – in your office or your bakery or your emergency
room – because you disagree with the person seeking services?
In the past, we have said no. When a restaurant resisted racial integration
because the owner’s faith taught that the races were to be separate, the courts
said no. When Bob Jones University
asserted a religious objection to nondiscrimination in admissions (in that
case, of the right to turn away students who believed in interracial dating),
the courts said no. And when Christian
schools sought to pay men more than women because, consistent with their faith,
men were supposed to be heads of the household, the courts said no. In every case, the principle of
nondiscrimination was sufficiently compelling to override the religious
objection.
The stakes now are every bit as critical. We should no more tolerate an inn turning
away a same-sex couple than we sanctioned it turning away an interracial
couple. And we can no more sanction a
view that women should be mothers than we could that only men should heads of
households. The court of public
opinion understands that. Will the
courts of law? The next few months will
be telling.
Louise Melling is a Deputy Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. You can reach her by e-mail at lmelling at aclu.org