5 HL Application to contested cases

Application to contested cases
Note:5@@@@@@@@@ OBIEZIONE AL DOVERE DI OBIETTARE FACENDO IN MODO CHE QUALCUNO TAPPI IL BUCO

Yellow highlight | Location: 902

Hobby Lobby: what it got right, what it got wrong
Note:TtttttttttttttOBAMACARE

Yellow highlight | Location: 906

President Obama’s health-care law required employers to provide health insurance that also covered contraception,
Note:IL CASO

Yellow highlight | Location: 907

sincerely believed
Note:ACCERTATA

Yellow highlight | Location: 918

purchase of the insurance
Note:L ATTO

Yellow highlight | Location: 919

the employers would be material but proximate cooperators in serious wrongdoing,
Note:GIUDIZIO

Yellow highlight | Location: 921

financial help is probably the next closest kind of assistance.
Note:DARE SOLDI => PROSSIMITÀ

Yellow highlight | Location: 924

So, on an objective theory of cooperation such as I am defending, the owners do come out as illicit cooperators.
Note:CONCLUSIONE

Yellow highlight | Location: 930

‘As they [the company owners] understand it, ordering their companies to provide insurance coverage for drugs or devices whose use is inconsistent with their faith itself violates their faith,
Note:GIUDIZIO GIUSTO CON MOTIVAZIONI SBAGLIATE...UNA QUESTIONE ETICA E NN DI FEDE

Yellow highlight | Location: 936

do not look behind the sincerity of the belief to question its reasonableness.
Note:IL DIFETTO DELLA CORTE AMERICANA

Yellow highlight | Location: 952

In my view, this is a recipe for significant future problems that will undermine religious freedom itself.
Note:UNA SUPEEFICIALITÀ XCOLOSA

Yellow highlight | Location: 953

Zubik v. Burwell: an opt-out or a trigger?
Note:TttttttttALTRO CASO OBAMACARE

Yellow highlight | Location: 955

a religious non-profit organisation also objected to the contraceptive mandate

Yellow highlight | Location: 959

Little Sisters of the Poor and then in Zubik, however, objected to the very accommodation itself.
Note:CASO DIVERSO DAL PRECEDENTE....QUI SI VOGLIONO OSTACOLARE VIE ALTERNATIVE AL MALE

Yellow highlight | Location: 963

the objectors in Little Sisters and related cases, and then in Zubik, considered the very act of opting out to be illicit cooperation,
Note:CASO PIÙ RADICALE....SI VUOLE NASCONDERE

Yellow highlight | Location: 965

The objectors wanted no part whatsoever in any activity that ‘triggered’ contraceptive coverage,
Note:L OBIETTORE NN VUOLE NEMMENO COMUNICARE L OBIEZIONE POICHÈ COSÌ FACENDO INNESCA UNA COPERTURA STATALE

Yellow highlight | Location: 970

court, however, rejected
Note:ESITO

Yellow highlight | Location: 971

How else was the government supposed to know what to do if they did not at least know who was opting out?
Note:L OBIEZIONE DELLA CORTE

Yellow highlight | Location: 976

it did not justify the argument that, given the scheme in place, an opt-out was a form of illicit cooperation.
Note:L ARGOMENTO DELLA CORTE

Yellow highlight | Location: 977

mistaken argument
Note:MIO GOUDIZIO SULLA SENTENZA

Yellow highlight | Location: 977

it treats their belief about whether they are cooperating illicitly as itself a matter of religion,
Note:XCHÈ

Yellow highlight | Location: 987

if a conscientious objector sincerely believes he is cooperating impermissibly, and if that belief is not subject to any test of reasonableness, it must be protected under law – no matter how unreasonable it is.
Note:L ERRORE DELLA CORTE

Yellow highlight | Location: 988

to believe that opting out is just such a case of cooperation is unreasonable
Note:INVECE...

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,002

Doogan and Wood cannot stand
Note:TtttttttttttPARTECIPAZIONE DIRETTA E NO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,003

Doogan and Wood limited freedom of religion and conscience in abortion cases to actual participation in the abortion process,
Note:IL CASO DELLE OSTETRI CHE SCOZZESI

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,005

Glasgow midwives believed that ‘any involvement in the process
Note:IL RICORENTE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,006

‘delegating, supervising and/or supporting staff to participate
Note:ATTI MALVAGI

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,013

Given the law as it stands, it is hard to see how the court could have arrived at any other result.
Note:SENTENZA CONFORME ALLA LEGGE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,015

This does not, however, make the result satisfactory from the viewpoint of freedom of religion and conscience.
Note:LEGGE SBAGLIATA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,016

Supervising an abortion ward, making bookings, managing shifts, offering psychological support before and after the abortion, are all forms of cooperation
Note:INFATTI

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,021

This is where judicial notice of the principles of cooperation would have helped.
Note:PURTROPPO MANCA UNA FILOSOFIA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,022

What about euthanasia? Transgender surgery? Extreme cosmetic surgery? Apotemnophilia
Note:TUTTO NEL LIMBO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,028

arranging the night shift or managing rest breaks on the ward was remote, dispensable, material cooperation for which a serious reason, such as loss of employment, existed.
Note:COSA AVREBBE POTUTO DIRE LA CORTE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,033

On the other hand, the court might also have held that booking a specific patient in for an abortion was proximate cooperation since this would involve setting the particular process in motion leading to the objectionable primary act.
Note:D ALTRO CANTO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,045

Equality Acts and regulations: a charter for inequality
Note:ttttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,048

anti-discrimination
Note:UN NODO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,050

age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation.
Note:CATEGORIE PROTETTE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,053

Bull v. Hall, the case of the Christian guest house owners who refused a room to a same-sex couple in a civil partnership.
Note:IL CASO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,055

judgment, dismissed the Christian guest house owners’ appeal
Note:SENTENZA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,063

reedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the … protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’
Note:RICONOSCIUTO QS LIMITE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,069

the gay couple found alternative accommodation. So they were not denied access to accommodation as such, only to accommodation in a particular guest house.

Note | Location: 1,069

RILEVANTE?

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,071

the guest house owners were penalised for not being allowed to manifest a particular religious belief,
Note:IN COMPENSO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,078

it is hard to see why availability is more important, legally or morally, than provision – or vice versa.
Note:I CATTOLICI FORNISCONO I GAY SI RIFORNISCONO...COSA È PIÙ IMPORTANTE LIMITARE?

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,079

A similar case involves the so-called ‘Christian bakers’ in Northern Ireland (the Ashers Baking Company case) who refused to sell to a gay man a cake
Note:UN CASO SIMILE

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,081

the bakers had directly discriminated
Note:SENTENZA

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,084

‘to hold and manifest their genuinely held religious belief that marriage is, according to God’s law, between one man and one woman’.
Note:IL DIRITTO DEL PANETTIERE LIMITATO

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,087

Why the partiality for one right over another?
Note:DISCRIMINARE I CATTOLICI È POSSIBILE?

Yellow highlight | Location: 1,088

just as the couple in the guest house case had no trouble finding alternative accommodation, so the man in the bakery case had no trouble finding another baker
ANCHE QUI