WEBVTT - The Pitfalls of Accommodating Religious Employees

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.760 --> 0:00:12.559
<v Speaker 1>Last term, it was a high school football coach who

0:00:12.600 --> 0:00:16.200
<v Speaker 1>wanted to pray on the fifty yard line right after games.

0:00:16.640 --> 0:00:19.280
<v Speaker 1>This term, it was a part time postal worker in

0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:23.520
<v Speaker 1>rural Pennsylvania who didn't want to work on Sundays. I

0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:24.960
<v Speaker 1>told them I'm not going to be able to work

0:00:25.000 --> 0:00:26.160
<v Speaker 1>on the Lord's Day at all.

0:00:27.920 --> 0:00:29.480
<v Speaker 2>I didn't really think I should have to quit.

0:00:29.520 --> 0:00:32.040
<v Speaker 1>I really expected the post office to find a way

0:00:32.080 --> 0:00:35.320
<v Speaker 1>to accommodate me. And the Supreme Court agreed with Gerald

0:00:35.320 --> 0:00:39.760
<v Speaker 1>Groff in a unanimous decision expanding an employer's obligation to

0:00:39.800 --> 0:00:44.680
<v Speaker 1>accommodate the religious practices of its employees without clear guidelines,

0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:49.320
<v Speaker 1>under what circumstances can an employer force coworkers to carry

0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:53.559
<v Speaker 1>the burden of an employee's religious practices or beliefs, or

0:00:53.600 --> 0:00:57.040
<v Speaker 1>even their religious expression. Joining me is Debbie Kamener, a

0:00:57.080 --> 0:01:00.279
<v Speaker 1>professor at Peru College at the City University of New York,

0:01:00.840 --> 0:01:03.560
<v Speaker 1>tell us a little about this case of the fill

0:01:03.600 --> 0:01:07.040
<v Speaker 1>in postal worker who refused to fill in on Sundays.

0:01:07.800 --> 0:01:13.520
<v Speaker 2>So basically what happened is that there was a postal

0:01:13.600 --> 0:01:19.920
<v Speaker 2>worker in rural Pennsylvania, and he was a sabbatarian, and

0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:23.400
<v Speaker 2>he eventually ended up quitting his job and sued his

0:01:23.480 --> 0:01:26.880
<v Speaker 2>employer because he had been subject to progressive discipline for

0:01:26.920 --> 0:01:30.039
<v Speaker 2>refusing to work on his Sunday shifts. And the postal

0:01:30.080 --> 0:01:34.160
<v Speaker 2>Service simply was unable to find coverage in the small

0:01:34.240 --> 0:01:35.680
<v Speaker 2>rural postal office.

0:01:35.880 --> 0:01:38.679
<v Speaker 1>And what did the Supreme Court find the broad ruling.

0:01:39.160 --> 0:01:42.160
<v Speaker 2>The big issue in this case is that there is

0:01:42.200 --> 0:01:45.360
<v Speaker 2>a law, a civil rights law, Title seven of the

0:01:45.400 --> 0:01:49.000
<v Speaker 2>Civil Rights Actor of nineteen sixty four, and it mandates

0:01:49.080 --> 0:01:52.880
<v Speaker 2>religious accommodation in the workplace unless it would cause an

0:01:53.000 --> 0:01:56.880
<v Speaker 2>undue hardship. The big issue in this case is what

0:01:56.920 --> 0:02:00.800
<v Speaker 2>does undue hardship mean? Now? The Supreme Court had previously

0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:04.000
<v Speaker 2>said in an earlier case from about forty seven years

0:02:04.040 --> 0:02:08.080
<v Speaker 2>ago that undue hardship means more than a diminimus or

0:02:08.120 --> 0:02:12.160
<v Speaker 2>minimal cost. In this case, the Court changed its ruining

0:02:12.760 --> 0:02:17.359
<v Speaker 2>and said that undue hardship in fact means a substantial cost.

0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:21.040
<v Speaker 2>So what this means is that now additional accommodation is

0:02:21.120 --> 0:02:24.400
<v Speaker 2>going to be needed of religious employees in the workplace.

0:02:24.720 --> 0:02:29.320
<v Speaker 2>In terms of graph himself, the case was sent back

0:02:29.400 --> 0:02:32.320
<v Speaker 2>down to the lower court to decide whether or not

0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:37.240
<v Speaker 2>accommodation is possible under this new substantial cost standard. So

0:02:37.400 --> 0:02:40.320
<v Speaker 2>in terms of Grass, we still don't know whether or

0:02:40.400 --> 0:02:44.960
<v Speaker 2>not accommodation of him as required. In terms of employees

0:02:45.000 --> 0:02:48.080
<v Speaker 2>throughout the United States, this is really a pretty drastic

0:02:48.280 --> 0:02:50.000
<v Speaker 2>change in the rules of the workplace.

0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:53.720
<v Speaker 1>It sounded in this case like the post Office did

0:02:53.800 --> 0:02:57.359
<v Speaker 1>meet the standard of substantial costs. I mean, this was

0:02:57.400 --> 0:03:00.639
<v Speaker 1>a rural post office and officials initial tried to get

0:03:00.680 --> 0:03:04.760
<v Speaker 1>substitutes for grath shifts. They couldn't always accommodate him, and

0:03:04.840 --> 0:03:09.200
<v Speaker 1>they said his absences created a tense environment and contributed

0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:13.720
<v Speaker 1>to morale problems. I believe some employees even transferred out right.

0:03:14.040 --> 0:03:17.160
<v Speaker 2>And the Supreme Court even acknowledged that. The Supreme Court said,

0:03:17.240 --> 0:03:20.960
<v Speaker 2>in this specific case, it might be a substantial cost.

0:03:21.120 --> 0:03:23.720
<v Speaker 2>We just don't know. We're sending it back down with

0:03:23.840 --> 0:03:27.200
<v Speaker 2>this new rule meaning that you have to accommodate unless

0:03:27.240 --> 0:03:30.400
<v Speaker 2>there's a substantial cost, just so that you the lower

0:03:30.440 --> 0:03:34.079
<v Speaker 2>court knows more accommodation is needed, and the Supreme Court actually,

0:03:34.120 --> 0:03:37.400
<v Speaker 2>you know, agreed with that in this specific case. I

0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:40.920
<v Speaker 2>think the really big issue in this case is it's

0:03:41.160 --> 0:03:45.240
<v Speaker 2>changing the way rights are balanced. So it's changing the

0:03:45.480 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 2>balance of religious rights against other fundamental rights in the workplace.

0:03:50.600 --> 0:03:53.320
<v Speaker 2>Whether that's the right to be free from discrimination, is

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.280
<v Speaker 2>the right to public health, you know, or whatever it

0:03:56.360 --> 0:04:00.080
<v Speaker 2>might be. It's a real sea change in terms of

0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:03.280
<v Speaker 2>of how the workplace is going to run in the future.

0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:09.440
<v Speaker 1>So explain the additional question about when an accommodation burdens

0:04:09.840 --> 0:04:13.680
<v Speaker 1>the colleagues or the co workers of the religious employee.

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:17.200
<v Speaker 2>What's interesting to me is the Roberts Court is both

0:04:17.360 --> 0:04:21.120
<v Speaker 2>pro business and also pro religion. So they come down

0:04:21.160 --> 0:04:26.080
<v Speaker 2>with this decision which requires additional religious accommodation in the workplace,

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:28.719
<v Speaker 2>but they do it in a way that leaves the

0:04:28.839 --> 0:04:33.240
<v Speaker 2>door open for employers to shift the cost of accommodation

0:04:33.400 --> 0:04:36.480
<v Speaker 2>to coworkers. So, to give you an example, you have

0:04:36.560 --> 0:04:39.719
<v Speaker 2>an employee who needs time off for religious reasons, he's

0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:44.760
<v Speaker 2>a sabbatarian. The employer could pay employees premium wages or

0:04:44.839 --> 0:04:49.520
<v Speaker 2>over time, the employer could hire additional employees. All of

0:04:49.560 --> 0:04:52.880
<v Speaker 2>that would be a cost on the employer. What employers

0:04:52.920 --> 0:04:56.880
<v Speaker 2>may end up doing instead is saying to co workers, sorry,

0:04:56.960 --> 0:05:00.440
<v Speaker 2>you have no choice. This is what the law is now,

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:04.520
<v Speaker 2>and you need to work the religious employees on desirable shifts.

0:05:04.560 --> 0:05:07.080
<v Speaker 2>So I think that is the way that we may

0:05:07.279 --> 0:05:11.320
<v Speaker 2>end up seeing this burden being shifted to coworkers as

0:05:11.320 --> 0:05:15.599
<v Speaker 2>opposed to the actual businesses being willing to pay the

0:05:15.600 --> 0:05:16.480
<v Speaker 2>additional cost.

0:05:16.920 --> 0:05:18.960
<v Speaker 1>So what did the court mean when it said that

0:05:19.040 --> 0:05:23.159
<v Speaker 1>the impact on coworkers must quote have ramifications for the

0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:25.080
<v Speaker 1>conduct of the employer's business.

0:05:26.240 --> 0:05:28.760
<v Speaker 2>I have. I have no idea, and I think that's

0:05:28.800 --> 0:05:31.200
<v Speaker 2>what the problem is. It's not that I have no idea,

0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:34.080
<v Speaker 2>but that nobody has any idea. But the decision focused

0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:36.960
<v Speaker 2>primarily on the definition of underhartship, and the idea is

0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:40.120
<v Speaker 2>a substantial cost, not more than a deminamous cost, and

0:05:40.200 --> 0:05:43.440
<v Speaker 2>they want to turn to the issue of burden on coworkers.

0:05:44.000 --> 0:05:45.800
<v Speaker 2>You know, it was about a page and a half.

0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:48.880
<v Speaker 2>It just included this kind of throwaway line about the

0:05:48.920 --> 0:05:54.320
<v Speaker 2>conduct of the employer's business without really explaining what that means.

0:05:54.600 --> 0:05:58.880
<v Speaker 2>So does that mean that if employees are very very

0:05:59.000 --> 0:06:03.720
<v Speaker 2>upset and complete and it harms morale and productivity, it

0:06:03.880 --> 0:06:08.520
<v Speaker 2>would be an undue hardship. But if you have employees

0:06:08.560 --> 0:06:11.400
<v Speaker 2>who are scared about losing their jobs, and making ways,

0:06:11.440 --> 0:06:15.719
<v Speaker 2>so they just quietly do the religious employees' share of

0:06:15.839 --> 0:06:19.520
<v Speaker 2>undesirable work. It's not an undue hardship. I just don't know.

0:06:20.000 --> 0:06:23.000
<v Speaker 2>You know, in the past, most of the federal appellate

0:06:23.040 --> 0:06:26.520
<v Speaker 2>courts that considered this issue said that a burden on

0:06:26.600 --> 0:06:30.440
<v Speaker 2>a coworker alone could be an undue hardship. So just

0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:36.000
<v Speaker 2>making a coworker work or religious employees undesirable shifts, that

0:06:36.160 --> 0:06:39.800
<v Speaker 2>would be an undue hardship, regardless of the impact on

0:06:40.360 --> 0:06:43.600
<v Speaker 2>the business itself. And it's unclear at this point if

0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:44.560
<v Speaker 2>that's the law.

0:06:45.600 --> 0:06:48.839
<v Speaker 1>Looking at the implications of this decision, why do you

0:06:48.920 --> 0:06:52.600
<v Speaker 1>think the three liberal justices agreed.

0:06:52.839 --> 0:06:57.640
<v Speaker 2>It was a unanimous decision, which I think is really

0:06:57.720 --> 0:07:02.640
<v Speaker 2>really quite shocking. And I think the reason why the

0:07:02.760 --> 0:07:08.880
<v Speaker 2>liberal justices probably agreed with this is because it was

0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:13.800
<v Speaker 2>a compromise that kept the court from going even further.

0:07:14.200 --> 0:07:17.280
<v Speaker 2>That's my guess. I think the problem with the liberal

0:07:17.400 --> 0:07:21.280
<v Speaker 2>justices going along with this is that by virtue of

0:07:21.360 --> 0:07:25.760
<v Speaker 2>the fact it's the unanimous decision, the unanimity alone sort

0:07:25.800 --> 0:07:28.880
<v Speaker 2>of makes it feel like it is a reasonable decision

0:07:28.920 --> 0:07:31.840
<v Speaker 2>and it's not such a big decision. And I think

0:07:32.080 --> 0:07:35.160
<v Speaker 2>that on top of all of the blockbuster decisions that

0:07:35.240 --> 0:07:37.480
<v Speaker 2>came at at the end of the term on affirmative

0:07:37.520 --> 0:07:43.280
<v Speaker 2>action and on student loans and on public accommodation looks.

0:07:43.800 --> 0:07:47.200
<v Speaker 2>I think all of those decisions sort of took the

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:52.400
<v Speaker 2>focus away from graph which is also a crucially important decision,

0:07:53.000 --> 0:07:55.880
<v Speaker 2>and the fact it was this unanimous decision, a lot

0:07:55.920 --> 0:07:58.320
<v Speaker 2>of people, a lot of commentators sort of felt like

0:07:58.360 --> 0:08:01.120
<v Speaker 2>it just wasn't that big deal. I think it is

0:08:01.120 --> 0:08:05.120
<v Speaker 2>a huge, huge deal, huge change in the workplace.

0:08:04.880 --> 0:08:07.560
<v Speaker 1>And it just slipped by. So do you think that

0:08:07.640 --> 0:08:11.120
<v Speaker 1>this is going to lead to a lot more litigation

0:08:11.640 --> 0:08:14.000
<v Speaker 1>rather than less just trying to figure out what the

0:08:14.040 --> 0:08:15.880
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court actually meant.

0:08:16.120 --> 0:08:17.920
<v Speaker 2>Yes, I think it's going to lead to a lot

0:08:17.960 --> 0:08:20.440
<v Speaker 2>more litigation for a few reasons. I think one is

0:08:20.480 --> 0:08:22.960
<v Speaker 2>trying to figure out what the Supreme Court meant, and

0:08:23.040 --> 0:08:27.120
<v Speaker 2>I think the second is religious rights activists sort of

0:08:27.240 --> 0:08:31.600
<v Speaker 2>trying to test exactly what it means how much accommodation

0:08:31.800 --> 0:08:34.800
<v Speaker 2>can be required. I do think that this is really

0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:38.480
<v Speaker 2>part of a broad trend of the Supreme Court favoring

0:08:38.520 --> 0:08:43.119
<v Speaker 2>religious rights over other rights in cases where it's balancing

0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:47.560
<v Speaker 2>religious rights against other really important fundamental rights, and I

0:08:47.600 --> 0:08:49.600
<v Speaker 2>think this is going to end up leading to an

0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:51.240
<v Speaker 2>enormous amount of litigation.

0:08:51.600 --> 0:08:53.360
<v Speaker 1>And in this case, as you mentioned, it's a pro

0:08:53.440 --> 0:08:56.720
<v Speaker 1>business court and a pro religion court, and they're ruling

0:08:56.800 --> 0:09:00.600
<v Speaker 1>basically against business because it seems as if religious rights

0:09:01.360 --> 0:09:04.760
<v Speaker 1>trump every other right that comes before this court.

0:09:05.400 --> 0:09:09.360
<v Speaker 2>I agree with that. I agree that religion trump's other rights.

0:09:09.640 --> 0:09:13.320
<v Speaker 2>And I think also the way the decision is drafted,

0:09:14.040 --> 0:09:18.840
<v Speaker 2>allowing employers to shift the cost to the coworkers in

0:09:18.880 --> 0:09:22.000
<v Speaker 2>a way, it does allow the court to still come

0:09:22.040 --> 0:09:25.040
<v Speaker 2>down with a decision which it's not pro business, is

0:09:25.080 --> 0:09:29.360
<v Speaker 2>not anti business, it's you know, really anti coworkers who

0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:31.480
<v Speaker 2>are not requesting religious accommodation.

0:09:32.200 --> 0:09:36.200
<v Speaker 1>So you write that it's ironic, you said scary. I

0:09:36.280 --> 0:09:40.120
<v Speaker 1>say ironic that lower courts may now require permitting expression

0:09:40.160 --> 0:09:44.840
<v Speaker 1>that demeans LGBTQ plus individuals under a civil rights law

0:09:44.880 --> 0:09:50.679
<v Speaker 1>aimed at prohibiting employment discrimination and providing equality in the workplace.

0:09:51.280 --> 0:09:53.720
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you can't pick that up, but no.

0:09:53.679 --> 0:09:58.040
<v Speaker 2>It's insane. It's absolutely crazy that this is what is

0:09:58.120 --> 0:10:02.240
<v Speaker 2>now going on, and particularly because that stay in civil

0:10:02.360 --> 0:10:05.800
<v Speaker 2>rights law a few years ago in the bow Stock

0:10:05.960 --> 0:10:11.280
<v Speaker 2>case was interpreted to cover and include as a protected

0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:15.920
<v Speaker 2>class LGBTQ plus individual. The one thing I feel like

0:10:16.000 --> 0:10:19.679
<v Speaker 2>is sometimes a little bit lost is that you know,

0:10:19.960 --> 0:10:24.640
<v Speaker 2>there are many cases where religious accommodation really is possible

0:10:24.920 --> 0:10:29.320
<v Speaker 2>without it being an unfair burden on co workers. Like

0:10:29.400 --> 0:10:31.840
<v Speaker 2>if you have a business that work, you know, runs

0:10:31.840 --> 0:10:35.320
<v Speaker 2>seven days a week, three hundred and sixty five days

0:10:35.320 --> 0:10:39.880
<v Speaker 2>a year, and you have a Saturday sabatarian, you could

0:10:39.920 --> 0:10:43.040
<v Speaker 2>probably arrange a shift swop where that person gets their

0:10:43.120 --> 0:10:46.000
<v Speaker 2>Saturday off and works Sunday and someone else gets Sunday

0:10:46.040 --> 0:10:48.440
<v Speaker 2>off and works Saturday. So you know, there really are

0:10:48.640 --> 0:10:50.960
<v Speaker 2>a lot of times, in a lot of ways and

0:10:51.080 --> 0:10:55.960
<v Speaker 2>cases where religious accommodation is possible. And I feel like

0:10:56.120 --> 0:11:01.560
<v Speaker 2>sometimes the response to these types of cases almost comes

0:11:01.679 --> 0:11:07.400
<v Speaker 2>out is being anti religious. It's not that it's anti religious,

0:11:07.440 --> 0:11:11.240
<v Speaker 2>it's that you need to balance, you know, in society,

0:11:11.280 --> 0:11:14.520
<v Speaker 2>religious rights are important, but there are other countervailing rights

0:11:14.520 --> 0:11:17.040
<v Speaker 2>which are also very very important.

0:11:17.240 --> 0:11:20.760
<v Speaker 1>Do you think the court also is being pushed because

0:11:20.800 --> 0:11:25.000
<v Speaker 1>they're taking these cases. You have these Christian legal organizations

0:11:25.000 --> 0:11:29.680
<v Speaker 1>that are specifically bringing these cases to push the envelope.

0:11:29.720 --> 0:11:34.160
<v Speaker 1>For example, the case involving the Colorado Web designer who

0:11:34.960 --> 0:11:38.960
<v Speaker 1>hadn't designed any wedding websites yet and hadn't been asked

0:11:39.080 --> 0:11:42.880
<v Speaker 1>by a gay couple to design their wedding website yet,

0:11:43.120 --> 0:11:45.640
<v Speaker 1>took her case to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme

0:11:45.640 --> 0:11:48.440
<v Speaker 1>Court said, you didn't have to design wedding websites for

0:11:48.559 --> 0:11:49.240
<v Speaker 1>gay couples.

0:11:49.880 --> 0:11:53.240
<v Speaker 2>I one hundred percent agree with that, but the Court

0:11:53.400 --> 0:11:56.760
<v Speaker 2>doesn't have to grant start or agree to hear these cases.

0:11:57.360 --> 0:11:59.280
<v Speaker 2>One of the things which is really interesting in the

0:11:59.320 --> 0:12:02.600
<v Speaker 2>Graph case is over the last few years, there were

0:12:02.640 --> 0:12:07.360
<v Speaker 2>four times, including in the Graph case, where parties asked

0:12:07.440 --> 0:12:11.520
<v Speaker 2>the Supreme Court to hear a case interpreting the religious

0:12:11.520 --> 0:12:15.719
<v Speaker 2>accommodation requirement under Title seven and to increase the accommodation

0:12:15.840 --> 0:12:20.840
<v Speaker 2>requirement in the prior three cases. For sort of technical reasons.

0:12:21.320 --> 0:12:24.000
<v Speaker 2>The Court refused to hear the cases. But what the

0:12:24.080 --> 0:12:28.559
<v Speaker 2>conservative justices did a number of them real concurring opinions

0:12:28.600 --> 0:12:30.840
<v Speaker 2>where they said, we agree, we're not going to hear

0:12:31.000 --> 0:12:35.520
<v Speaker 2>this specific case, but we want to hear an appropriate

0:12:35.640 --> 0:12:39.880
<v Speaker 2>case where we can reinterpret the religious accommodation requirement of

0:12:39.920 --> 0:12:42.600
<v Speaker 2>Title seven. So I think it really is a court

0:12:42.760 --> 0:12:44.560
<v Speaker 2>looking for these kinds of cases.

0:12:45.120 --> 0:12:47.960
<v Speaker 1>Is the addition of Amy Cony Barrett a reason why

0:12:47.960 --> 0:12:49.959
<v Speaker 1>they're moving the way they are.

0:12:50.600 --> 0:12:52.760
<v Speaker 2>I think it is a big issue. I think that

0:12:52.920 --> 0:12:57.640
<v Speaker 2>since she has joined the court, it has really changed

0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:00.640
<v Speaker 2>the balance when it comes to religious right, not just

0:13:00.679 --> 0:13:03.439
<v Speaker 2>in the workplace, but in society as a whole, because

0:13:03.520 --> 0:13:05.600
<v Speaker 2>this was part of the bigger trend. Like you mentioned,

0:13:05.679 --> 0:13:09.160
<v Speaker 2>the three h three creative case. You know, Dobbs wasn't

0:13:09.240 --> 0:13:12.000
<v Speaker 2>broad is a religion case, but it really was a

0:13:12.120 --> 0:13:16.520
<v Speaker 2>case of favored religious conservatives and overturning Roe v Ways

0:13:16.640 --> 0:13:20.240
<v Speaker 2>right for an individual to have an abortion. There was

0:13:20.240 --> 0:13:24.600
<v Speaker 2>the case last term Kennedy versus Bremerton that said that

0:13:24.679 --> 0:13:27.160
<v Speaker 2>the First Amendment gives a high school football coach the

0:13:27.240 --> 0:13:30.640
<v Speaker 2>right to neil and pray at midfield after football games.

0:13:30.920 --> 0:13:34.520
<v Speaker 2>So I think this really falls within this general context.

0:13:35.480 --> 0:13:39.240
<v Speaker 1>And I can't think of a recent case involving a

0:13:39.320 --> 0:13:43.400
<v Speaker 1>non Christian religion, for example, someone who's a Muslim or

0:13:43.440 --> 0:13:44.480
<v Speaker 1>an atheist.

0:13:44.600 --> 0:13:47.920
<v Speaker 2>You know. Interestingly, there was, and I'm trying to remember

0:13:47.960 --> 0:13:52.640
<v Speaker 2>the exact data, it was sometime around twenty sixteen twenty

0:13:52.800 --> 0:13:58.960
<v Speaker 2>sixteen Abercarambi, which involved a Muslim woman and her right

0:13:59.120 --> 0:14:02.520
<v Speaker 2>to where he in the workplace Right that interpreted this

0:14:02.800 --> 0:14:07.280
<v Speaker 2>same statute. But in general it is Christian conservatives who

0:14:07.320 --> 0:14:08.600
<v Speaker 2>will bring in these cases.

0:14:09.120 --> 0:14:12.199
<v Speaker 1>I really appreciate your insights, Debbie. That's Debbie Kamener, a

0:14:12.240 --> 0:14:15.480
<v Speaker 1>professor at Peru College at the City University of New York.

0:14:16.080 --> 0:14:18.400
<v Speaker 1>And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

0:14:18.760 --> 0:14:21.080
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:25.400
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:14:25.600 --> 0:14:30.640
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,

0:14:31.040 --> 0:14:33.640
<v Speaker 1>And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:14:33.680 --> 0:14:37.600
<v Speaker 1>weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

0:14:37.720 --> 0:14:39.320
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg