100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 50 - 52 out of 62 pages.
335The movement seems to be toward making it clear that for-profit entities are not exempt from these contraceptive coverage laws.336As the situation in Michigan and the other states addressed above demonstrate, public perception of religious freedom is changing. When RFRA was passed more than twenty years ago, it was supported by a wide range of civil liberties, civil rights, and religious groups.337Today, many of these same groups have shifted their positions and oppose RFRA legislation.338The raison d’etrefor this shift is the impact religious freedom claims can have on innocent third parties.339This concern is obvious when for-profit businesses are protected by RFRA.340RFRA was once widely seen as landmark legislation protecting the religious freedom of those who are not considered in the legislative process.341Now it is seen as a threat to women, members of the LGBT community, and others who may be harmed if certain religious beliefs are accommodated.342When homeowners rented a room and discriminated against LGBT individuals it made 333. ARIZ.REV.STAT.ANN. § 20-826(Z) (2010 & Supp. 2015);CONN.GEN.STAT.§ 38a-530e (2012); MO.REV.STAT. § 376.1199.4 (2012) (held preempted by the Federal ACA in Mo. Ins. Coal. v. Huff, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1020 (E.D. Mo. 2013)); N.J.STAT.ANN. § 17B:26-2.1y (West 2006); N.M.STAT.ANN. § 59A-46-44(c) (2001);R.I.GEN.LAWS § 27-18-57 (2008).334. This concern has received a good deal of attention in Connecticut. Dowling, supra note 277. 335. Id.336. See supranotes 277–278. 337. NUSSBAUM,supranote 12, at157–58,160–61; Idleman, supranote 10, at 248; J. Thomas Sullivan, Requiem for RFRA: A Philosophical and Political Response, 20 U.ARK.LITTLE ROCK L.J. 295 (1998). 338. Garfield, supra note 226. 339. See supranote 281; Corbin, supra note 5, at 1481–82. 340. See supra notes 304–307 and accompanying text. 341. Idleman,supranote 10, at 248–51. 342. See supranote 278 and accompanying text; Mary Anne Case, Why “Live-and-Let-Live” Is Not a Viable Solution to the Difficult Problems of Religious Accommodation in the Age of Sexual Civil Rights, 88 SO.CAL.L.REV. 463 (2015); Oleske, supra note 120.
02.RAVITCH.FIN(DO NOT DELETE) 8/4/20166:07PM 55 Be Careful What You Wish for105 headlines,343but we still spoke in terms of that individual’s religious freedom balanced against the state interest in prohibiting discrimination. The homeowner might have won or lost in court depending on how the court viewed the weighing of those interests. Today, however, larger corporate landlords may try to discriminate citing Hobby Lobby. Whether they win or lose their cases, however, each such case will further alienate the public from the concept of religious freedom. In a debate about Hobby Lobby several months before the case was decided, I argued that if Hobby Lobby wins, within five years there will be a significant increase in the backlash against religious freedom and that religious freedom would be eroded through the more-is-less phenomenon, legislative activity, public perception, and a failure to distinguish between traditional religious entities and for-profit entities. It seems I was naive in thinking it would take five