Comments: An Easy Pill to Swallow: While the Supreme Court Found That for-Profit, Secular Companies Can Exercise Religion within the Meaning of the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT, the Mandate Should Have Prevailed with Respect to Those Entities Because It Advances the Government's Compelling Interests in Public Health and Is the Least Restrictive Means of Doing So

Authors

Maria Iliadis, University of Baltimore School of Law

Abstract

Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?

–Edward, First Baron Thurlow

Recommended Citation

Iliadis, Maria (2015) "Comments: An Easy Pill to Swallow: While the Supreme Court Found That for-Profit, Secular Companies Can Exercise Religion within the Meaning of the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT, the Mandate Should Have Prevailed with Respect to Those Entities Because It Advances the Government's Compelling Interests in Public Health and Is the Least Restrictive Means of Doing So," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 44: Iss. 2, Article 6.
Available at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol44/iss2/6