VARIETIES OF BURDEN IN RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS

Religious accommodation analysis often takes the form of a tripartite test. One of the factors in such a test is the presence of burden, the current judicial understandings of which have been inadequate to capture a wide range of impact that government regulations have on the individual or community...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Su, Anna 1980- (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge Univ. Press [2019]
In: Journal of law and religion
Year: 2019, Volume: 34, Issue: 1, Pages: 42-63
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains:B Canada, Supreme Court / USA, Supreme Court / Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte / Religious freedom / Legislation
IxTheo Classification:AD Sociology of religion; religious policy
AG Religious life; material religion
KBA Western Europe
KBQ North America
XA Law
Further subjects:B religious accommodations
B substantial burden
B Religious Freedom Restoration Act
B Freedom Of Religion
B interference
B religious exemption
B infringement
Online Access: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Volltext (doi)
Description
Summary:Religious accommodation analysis often takes the form of a tripartite test. One of the factors in such a test is the presence of burden, the current judicial understandings of which have been inadequate to capture a wide range of impact that government regulations have on the individual or community practice of religion. This article considers and compares the jurisprudence of the high courts of the United States and Canada and the European Court of Human Rights and argues for an expansive understanding of the burden requirement in the evaluation of religious accommodation claims, namely to consider burden as (1) coercion, (2) impact, and (3) ratification. I argue that it is imperative to acknowledge different kinds of burden before proceeding to determine its gravity. This approach takes religion more seriously than prevailing approaches and provides for a more equitable distribution of the burden of proof in religious accommodation claims.
ISSN:2163-3088
Contains:Enthalten in: Journal of law and religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1017/jlr.2019.12