Legal Studies and Business Ethics Papers
Document Type
Journal Article
Date of this Version
2015
Publication Source
University of Chicago Law Review
Volume
82
Start Page
1897
Last Page
1980
Abstract
In the paradigmatic case of conscientious objection, the objector claims that his religion forbids him from actively participating in a wrong (for example, by fighting in a war). In the religious challenges to the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate, on the other hand, employers claim that their religious convictions forbid them from merely subsidizing insurance through which their employees might commit a wrong (for example, by using contraception). The understanding of complicity underpinning these challenges is vastly more expansive than the standard that legal doctrine or moral theory contemplates. Courts routinely reject claims of conscientious objection to taxes that fund military initiatives or to university fees that support abortion services. In Hobby Lobby, however, the Supreme Court took the corporate owners at their word: the mere fact that Hobby Lobby believed that it would be complicit, no matter how idiosyncratic that belief, sufficed to qualify it for an exemption. In this way, the Court made elements of an employee's health-care package the "boss's business" (to borrow from the nickname of the Democrats' proposed bill to overturn Hobby Lobby).
Copyright/Permission Statement
Originally published in the University of Chicago Law Review © 2015 University of Chicago Law School. Reproduced with permission.
Recommended Citation
Sepinwall, A. J. (2015). Conscience and Complicity: Assessing Pleas of Religious Exemptions in Hobby Lobby's Wake. University of Chicago Law Review, 82 1897-1980. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/lgst_papers/76
Included in
Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Human Resources Management Commons, Insurance Commons, Insurance Law Commons, Legal Theory Commons, Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons, Organizations Law Commons, Religion Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
Date Posted: 25 October 2018
This document has been peer reviewed.