First, not all claims of conscience satisfy examination.
Agreed.
Second, even if they do, some of them may be disallowed on the basis of compelling state interest.
Agreed.
But the whole idea is to ask yourself if it's worth coercive measures, not to dismiss conscience claims without examination.
Not agreed. If our court system had to examine every conscience claim that came up before it and give it a full hearing, as soon as that became known, the courts would be clogged and do nothing but. You have to have a compelling argument even to get over the threshold of being allowed to take the court's time arguing your position. And one threshold requirement is that you have done everything in your own power, first, to mitigate your damages. If mitigation is possible, or potentially possible, and you didn't try it, you don't even get to argue the point. Just as you can't bring suit against the government until you can show that you have exhausted every available administrative remedy.
If every case is an exception, there is no law. |
