Americans United: IowaSupremeCourtRulingOnMarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United

[Volokh, Eugene]

            Well, at that level of generality, I agree - we do need to
weigh costs of accommodations carefully, and try to identify ways to
reduce those costs.  But my point is that a referral may in the
aggregate decrease the burdens on the client, by assuring him the best
service, on balance, that he can get.  

 

To be sure, the lowest-burden-on-the-client scenario might be not to
hire at all anyone who has any deep moral objection to homosexuality, or
for that matter to any of a variety of religious belief systems
(assuming one can ferret out all such people).  That way, clients would
be assured that they could get a counselor who's sympathetic with them,
with no extra difficulty posed by the need to shift from one counselor
to another.  But I take it that this approach would impose an
unacceptable burden on prospective counselors.

 

Eugene

 

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brownstein,
Alan
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 1:10 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Americans United:
IowaSupremeCourtRulingOnMarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty,Says Americans
United

 

Eugene may be right that a referral is ultimately the best alternative -
even it imposes real burdens on the client.  But that doesn't mean it is
an easy case.  The best result would be one that minimizes the burdens
to the client while respecting decisions based on conscience. As
exemptions and accommodations are developed, I think we need to weigh
the cost of accommodations carefully and try to identify ways to reduce
those costs. 

 

Alan Brownstein

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090407/cee5b4d2/attachment.htm>