私营部门工作场所的宗教表达与豁免:发现偏见

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Current Legal Problems Pub Date : 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1093/clp/cuae008
Myriam Hunter-Henin
{"title":"私营部门工作场所的宗教表达与豁免:发现偏见","authors":"Myriam Hunter-Henin","doi":"10.1093/clp/cuae008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Courts tasked with ruling on religious freedom claims in the private sector workplace have been faced with the following challenge: too weak a protection of religious freedom and it will become meaningless; too strong, and individual freedom will be stifled. Recently, courts on each side of the Atlantic have, respectively, leant towards each of these two extremes. In Europe, courts have afforded minimalist and, as I will argue, too restrictive a protection to religious interests. Whether out of deference to state constitutional traditions or economic interests, they have often undermined the protection of religious freedom. Conversely, in the United States, the Supreme Court has granted a maximalist and, as I will argue, excessive protection to religious interests. The article will demonstrate the flaws of each approach. It will unravel the main three types of bias that underlie these extreme positions, namely the state, the economic and the religious bias.","PeriodicalId":45282,"journal":{"name":"Current Legal Problems","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religious Expression and Exemptions in the Private Sector Workplace: Spotting Bias\",\"authors\":\"Myriam Hunter-Henin\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/clp/cuae008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Courts tasked with ruling on religious freedom claims in the private sector workplace have been faced with the following challenge: too weak a protection of religious freedom and it will become meaningless; too strong, and individual freedom will be stifled. Recently, courts on each side of the Atlantic have, respectively, leant towards each of these two extremes. In Europe, courts have afforded minimalist and, as I will argue, too restrictive a protection to religious interests. Whether out of deference to state constitutional traditions or economic interests, they have often undermined the protection of religious freedom. Conversely, in the United States, the Supreme Court has granted a maximalist and, as I will argue, excessive protection to religious interests. The article will demonstrate the flaws of each approach. It will unravel the main three types of bias that underlie these extreme positions, namely the state, the economic and the religious bias.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Legal Problems\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Legal Problems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuae008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Legal Problems","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuae008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

负责裁决私营部门工作场所宗教自由诉求的法院一直面临着以下挑战:对宗教自由的保护太弱,就会变得毫无意义;太强,个人自由就会被扼杀。最近,大西洋两岸的法院分别倾向于这两个极端。在欧洲,法院为宗教利益提供了最低限度的保护,正如我将论证的那样,这种保护过于严格。无论是出于对各州宪法传统的尊重,还是出于经济利益的考虑,它们都经常破坏对宗教自由的保护。相反,在美国,最高法院对宗教利益的保护是最大化的,正如我将论证的那样,是过度的。本文将说明每种方法的缺陷。文章将揭示导致这些极端立场的主要三种偏见,即国家偏见、经济偏见和宗教偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Religious Expression and Exemptions in the Private Sector Workplace: Spotting Bias
Courts tasked with ruling on religious freedom claims in the private sector workplace have been faced with the following challenge: too weak a protection of religious freedom and it will become meaningless; too strong, and individual freedom will be stifled. Recently, courts on each side of the Atlantic have, respectively, leant towards each of these two extremes. In Europe, courts have afforded minimalist and, as I will argue, too restrictive a protection to religious interests. Whether out of deference to state constitutional traditions or economic interests, they have often undermined the protection of religious freedom. Conversely, in the United States, the Supreme Court has granted a maximalist and, as I will argue, excessive protection to religious interests. The article will demonstrate the flaws of each approach. It will unravel the main three types of bias that underlie these extreme positions, namely the state, the economic and the religious bias.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The lectures are public, delivered on a weekly basis and chaired by members of the judiciary. CLP features scholarly articles that offer a critical analysis of important current legal issues. It covers all areas of legal scholarship and features a wide range of methodological approaches to law.
期刊最新文献
Interpreting the Paris Agreement in its Normative Environment Religious Expression and Exemptions in the Private Sector Workplace: Spotting Bias Contracting in the Public Interest? Re-examining the Role of Planning Obligations in Contemporary Town Planning Processes Atrocity’s Glass Booth The Challenges of Designing Sexual Assault Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1