Sodomy, discrimination, and religious freedom

[Volokh, Eugene]

        My point is precisely about the inappropriateness of treating
"economic" religious claims different from "noneconomic" ones --
something current religious freedom law doesn't do, and I think
shouldn't do.


        Jim Maule writes:

> reply: I understand Gene's point but it illustrates the difficulty of
> economic v noneconomic characterization. Why is vaccination
> noneconomic? Consider the impact of no vaccinations --- there is a
> substantial economic burden on the person and family when the disease
> strikes, and quarantines can  and do adversely affect the local
> economy, etc.
>
> Is the sect opposed to vaccinations doing any more or less economic
> harm that the sect that opposes the construction of certain types of
> businesses in the town that it dominates demographically? Perhaps one
> is more easily discerned, or is more direct, or is more adversely
> affected, but I don't think that, in and of itself, qualifies one as
> economic and the other as noneconomic.
>
> Doesn't it come down to "give us a reason why we ought to do or
> refrain from doing what the government wants us to do or refrain from
> doing"? And if the objection generating the question is religiously
> motivated or compelled, doesn't that require putting an adjective such
> as compelling in front of the word "reason"? Gene,  are you taking the
> position that if the activity being required or prohibited is
> "economic" (whatever that might mean) then the adjective differs from
> what it would be if the activity were not economic? Or is it a matter
> of what factors are relevant in evaluating the "compellingness" of the
> reason?
>