RFRA and contractual obligations

[at marie a. failinger]

It is I who must be missing something.  On what theoretical basis would we
want to say that the value of promise-keeping is superior to the value of
obedience to God, and therefore a Catholic hospital must keep its promises
even in disobedience to God?  (After all, the initial promise might be
disobedient.  A promises B that he will "hit" C for $1 million dollars.  A
realizes that this contract violates his obligations to God and therefore
recants.  Excluding the question of whether the contract is void in
violation of  public
policy, would we want A to have to keep his promise to B?)

Perhaps a neutrality argument--that not to require promises to be kept
violates the state's obligation to be neutral as between religions.

As to the harm caused by A's decision to break his contract, on the other
hand, one could make both an internal and external argument for damages:
    A.  Internal:  you have an obligation not to violate what God expects,
but you also have an obligation not to harm others.  To break your
contract without compensation meets one obligation but not the other.  To
break your contract with compensation meets both obligations.
    B.  External:  A's exercise of his rights of conscience should not
cause B substantial harm.  (Yes, yes, that is the $24,000 question, as the
landlord and the unmarried couple saga shows).  Therefore, A may exercise
his right so long as he makes B good (i.e., through damages, another job,
an alternative provider or landlord, etc.)

Marie Failinger

                                            Voice: (612) 641-2124
Professor of Law                            Fax:   (612) 641-2236
Co-Editor, Journal of Law and Religion
Hamline University School of Law            E-mail:mfailing at seq.hamline.edu
1536 Hewitt Avenue                            OR mfailinger at gw.hamline.edu
Saint Paul, Minnesota USA 55104-1284