I am not sure why this is important to you. As I have pointed out, the idea is derived from the First Amendment, and does, indeed, address the issue of government regulation, chiefly. We differentiate freedom of conscience and ordinary liberty interests this way: ordinary liberty interests are subject to reasonable regulation, and, as long as due process is followed, the presumption is in favor of the government. However, claims of freedom of conscience demand that the regulation or state action be subject to strict scrutiny, and that the state has the burden of showing a compelling interest that cannot be achieved without restricting the person's right to follow his core beliefs.
I will give an example of a civil action that I think could be defended on freedom of conscience grounds. Suppose that a woman initiated a breach of promise action. Surely the man could defend against such a tort by showing that after having become engaged, he was informed by the woman that she supported abortion rights, and could conceive of aborting under some circumstances, even if married.
I will see if any more occur to me in the course of the week.......... |
