An Argument for Blue Laws

"Blue laws" is the nickname for laws that prevent certain forms of commerce for religious reasons.  In the U.S.A., a common type of blue law is a law that forbids certain commercial or recreational activities on Sundays, but there are a variety of these laws.  Many of these laws were abolished during the mid-to-late twentieth century.  However, they were not abolished because they were deemed unconstitutional but rather because they were unwanted.  So that raises the question of whether the laws should be unwanted or should be brought back.

This article published at vox.com argues that they should be brought back because they improve overall well-being.  Here's a key part of the argument:

[W[hile the very secularly minded may celebrate the end of blue laws, seeing them as a violation of church-state separation, the result of blue law repeals may be distinctly non-progressive. To begin with, the Supreme Court has repeatedly, and fairly recently, ruled that blue laws are constitutional: The state can prohibit commercial activities on certain days, even if the days are selected for apparently religious reasons. The reasoning is that the state may have an interest in people spending social time away from work or commerce in a coordinated way, and it is reasonable for the state to accommodate existing social forms, such as religion.

While this may seem like a back door to the establishment of religion, it’s actually a distinctively progressive view of how the law functions. Implicitly, by approving blue laws, the Supreme Court is admitting the view that the state may implement very specific, apparently arbitrary rules to achieve non-economic, general well-being-related goals like “leisure time for workers."

In other words, blue laws are also a way that the state enshrines a special time for citizens to exercise rights to assembly, religious and secular. Assembly requires that people have time off together, so it doesn’t work to simply mandate that businesses close for any random 24-hour period, because that doesn’t ensure that people have time off together. The state cannot force you to go to church or a community meeting or spend time with loved ones, but it can force your employer to close up shop, raising the odds that you’ll invest in social and civic capital instead of paid labor. 

This compelling interest in togetherness is vital, as it suggests the state may have a valid legal interest in supporting the formation of strong communities and social bonds outside of taxpaying employment.

In short, blue laws can help communities for purely secular reasons in addition to religious reasons, and they do this by enhancing communities' abilities to thrive.

Read the entire article and try to answer a few questions.  What are other examples of blue laws?  What are examples of blue laws that are not religiously based?  Do you think that communities are better off with blue laws?  How convincing is the author of this article?