首页> 外文期刊>International journal of constitutional law >Hobby Lobby, SAS, and the resolution of religion-based conflicts in liberal states
【24h】

Hobby Lobby, SAS, and the resolution of religion-based conflicts in liberal states

机译:业余爱好,SAS和解决自由主义国家基于宗教的冲突

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Two recent high profile cases on both sides of the ocean. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ill the USA, and S.A.S. v. France in Europe, have brought to the.forefront yet again, the difficulty in resolving religion-based conflicts in liberal states. While in many important senses these two cases and their outcomes are fmulamonally different, and even contradictory, this at will highlight two important similarities between these cases, which may indicate a shill in the mode of resolution of some religion-based conflicts in liberal states. First, while in both cases the courts held that the basis for their decisions was the protection of rights (in Hobby Lobby the rights of the petitioning religious employers, ill S.A.S. the rights of the public at large), in both cases the courts are in fact protecting the offended religious/anti-religious feelings of dot nit groups and engaging in legal moralism, while condoning a violation of the basic rights of a disempowered minority (in Hobby Lobby women employees who wish to use contraceptives; in S.A.S. women who wear the full-face veil). Second, in both cases the disempowered groups whose rights are restricted are women and the right that is restricted is their autonomy over their body. This article argues that this is not accidelltal, since control over women's bodies is central to both religious and state authority, and both religious and state at devalue women's right to make autonomous decisions regarding their bodies.
机译:海洋两岸最近有两起备受瞩目的案件。 Burwell诉美国的Hobby Lobby和S.A.S.欧洲诉法国一案再次使解决自由主义国家中基于宗教的冲突变得困难。尽管在很多重要意义上,这两种情况及其结局在形式上是不同的,甚至是矛盾的,但这将突出显示这两种情况之间的两个重要相似之处,这可能表明在解决自由主义国家中某些基于宗教的冲突的方式上存在缺陷。首先,尽管在这两种情况下,法院都认为其决定的基础是权利的保护(在Hobby Lobby中,上访的宗教雇主的权利,而在SAS中,则是整个公众的权利),但在两种情况下,法院都处于保护纵容族群冒犯的宗教/反宗教情感并从事法律道德的事实,同时宽恕被剥夺权利的少数群体的基本权利(在Hobby Lobby女雇员中使用避孕药具;在SAS妇女中使用避孕药具全脸面纱)。其次,在这两种情况下,权利受到限制的无权群体是妇女,而权利受到限制的是她们对身体的自主权。本文认为,这不是偶然的,因为对女性身体的控制对于宗教和国家权威都是至关重要的,并且宗教和国家都贬低了妇女对自己的身体做出自主决定的权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号