by Matt Barr

Your "free exercise" can be to take the stairs instead of the elevator

I read this piece by Richard Thompson Ford earlier today and began to blog about it then stopped. I couldn't muster the energy. So I'll let you read it and I'll just comment briefly.

Employers shouldn't have to "accommodate" a person's religion under penalty of law. Businesspersons are trying to make money, not teach the world to sing. And if an employee is valuable, they'll accommodate till the sacred cows come home.

That said, the discussion of whether and to what extent the law should recognize "religious freedom" -- in quotes because, as Mr. Ford explains, everyone's noodling around about the definition these days -- strikes me as a little weird. Sure, we'd like to make you as comfortable as possible, especially if you're wearing a turban or headscarf, but we can't go overboard or pharmacists will keep not filling birth control pill prescriptions. And, well, that speaks for itself.

The article ends with a confounding argument: If judges have to figure out which claims of religious discrimination are real and which are people trying to get out of unpleasant parts of their job, that itself will be an unconstitutional mucking about in religion. As far as I know, as emanating penumbrae go, access to the courts is pretty basic. Is Ford suggesting people pressing religious discrimination causes of action shouldn't be heard? That's just dumb, if so.

Browse books from Amazon.com: