‘Granting an exemption … operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees’

Last updated on: May 20, 2014 at 7:32 am by Fred Clark

‘Granting an exemption … operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees’ 2014-05-20T01:50:13-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Reading this older Ian Millhiser column at ThinkProgress, I’m struck by how pertinent the 1982 Supreme Court ruling in United States vs. Lee seems to be to the current Hobby Lobby hubbub. It seems to me that ruling in favor of the billionaire owners of Hobby Lobby would require the justices to overturn Lee.

Here’s Millhiser:

One year before Bob Jones, the Court decided a case called United States v. Lee, which involved an Amish employer’s objection to paying Social Security taxes on religious grounds.

If Hobby Lobby wins its case for a religious exemption, could Bob Jones be headed back to the Supreme Court?

As the Court explained in Lee, allowing people with religious objections to opt out of Social Security could undermine the viability of the entire program. “The design of the system requires support by mandatory contributions from covered employers and employees,” Burger wrote for the Court. “This mandatory participation is indispensable to the fiscal vitality of the social security system. … Moreover, a comprehensive national social security system providing for voluntary participation would be almost a contradiction in terms and difficult, if not impossible, to administer.”

Just as importantly, allowing religious employers to exempt themselves from the law would be fundamentally unfair to the employees who are supposed to benefit from those laws. “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

I don’t doubt that at least four of the current justices have no problem tossing aside that argument and that legal precedent. And since the Hobby Lobby case pits the rights of billionaires against the rights of workers, I have little doubt how the Roberts court will decide. (They’ve already affirmed that money is speech, declaring that money is religion seems like the next logical step in rewriting the First Amendment.)

But I’m not a lawyer, and I can’t imagine what kind of legal or constitutional argument could possibly be constructed to rationalize gutting Lee.

I can just barely begin to imagine the consequences of doing so, though, and those are not pleasant to contemplate. Rewriting American law to make opting-out the default setting for citizen responsibility would seem to open up everything to relitigation on behalf of anyone claiming a religious objection — Social Security, taxation, the 14th Amendment … heck, even the 13th Amendment.

As someone once said:

Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy. … The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind … ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.

That was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 1990. His point there also seems applicable to Hobby Lobby’s attempt to exempt itself from the law, and Scalia would seem to have a hard time arguing with himself to reject his own precedent. But I suppose, from Antonin Scalia’s perspective, the opportunity to criminalize birth control, further privilege his version of Christianity, gut Social Security and hobble the IRS, “health and safety regulations … minimum wage laws … environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity” looks irresistible. Precedent be damned.

class warfare

church & state

persecuted hegemons

they are coming for your birth control

Previous Post

May 19, 2014

Smart people saying smart things

Next Post

May 20, 2014 I Don't Want to Bring Adjustment to This World

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Romans say about the mind governed by the flesh versus the mind governed by the Spirit?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace The flesh is weak, but the Spirit is strong The flesh leads to sin, but the Spirit leads to righteousness The flesh seeks itself, but the Spirit seeks God