| Summary: | "In this work, Professors Rosenfeld and Mancini have brought together an impressive group of authors to provide a comprehensive analysis on the greater demand for religions exemptions to government mandates. Traditional religious conscientious objection cases, such as refusal to salute the flag or to serve in the military during war, had a diffused effect throughout society. In sharp contrast, these authors argue that today's most notorious objections impinge on the rights of others, targeting practices like abortion, LGTBQ adoption, and same-sex marriage. The dramatic expansion of conscientious objection claims have revolutionized the battle between religious traditionalists and secular civil libertarians, raising novel political, legal, constitutional and philosophical challenges. Highlighting the intersection between conscientious objections, religious liberty, and the equality of women and sexual minorities, this volume showcases this political debate and the principal jurisprudence from different parts of the world and emphasizes the little known international social movements that compete globally to alter the debate's terms"--
"Rethinking the Balance between Religion, Identity, and Equality Introduction: The New Generation of Conscience Objections in Legal, Political and Cultural Context Susanna Mancini and Michel Rosenfeld I. The New Conscientious Objection versus the Old The new generation of conscience based objections differs sharply from its predecessors in that it involves claims that are interventionist and intrusive as opposed to claims aimed at withdrawal and absence from discrete areas of mainstream collective undertakings. Typical of the past, are conscientious objectors who sought to be excused from serving in the military or from going to war, or else from pledging allegiance to their country's flag in public gatherings. In contrast, today's most notorious conscientious objectors seek exemption from generally applicable laws requiring employers to provide contraception coverage in the medical insurance benefits they must extend to their women employees; or from providing services offered to the general public, such as cakes or flowers for wedding celebrations or hotel rooms with large beds, to individuals belonging to sexual minorities; or from issuing marriage or civil union licenses in their capacity as state employees to same-sex couples"--
|
|---|
