This is where the debate on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act between Marci A. Hamilton and Howard M. Friedman continues. All registered members of PublicSquare.net are invited to join in.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Bad law or bad lawyering?
(2 posts) (2 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
There exist many flaws in Hamilton's arguments, but to me the most glaring is her assertion that legislatures are better prepared than courts to hammer out conflicts between religious life and state regulation. In an ideal world, perhaps. But, then again, in an ideal world we would not need courts at all.
In the real world laws like RFRA exist precisely because of flaws in the legislative process. Contrary to Hamilton's assertion, not all voices are heard in the legislative process. Moreover, it would be impossible for every legislative body to identify and address every possible religious concern. At best, only majority religions will have the resources and expertise to recognize potential burdens and lobby for accommodations. The minority religion gets the bad end of the deal in the legislative process.
RFRA, contrary to Hamilton's assertion, restores equal access and fairness to society's desire to balance legitimate state interests and religious liberty.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.