Why would the assumed right of expressive association preclude
liability for breach of contract, for fraud, or for tortious
interference with a contractual relationship? To be sure Ave Maria
might regret having chosen to grant tenure to its faculty, but having
done so, why would a right of expressive association permit it to
ignore the contractual and tort duties arising from the contract it
freely entered? Without conceding the right as applied to the school,
why would its presumed existence affect any of the claims against
either the school or the individual defendants?
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
masin...@nova.edu 954.262.3835 (fax)
Quoting Rick Duncan <nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com>:
Even if the ministerial exception doesn't apply, why wouldn't the
right of expressive association apply to a school's right to exclude
teachers who are part of its expressive mission? Surely, Ave Maria
is at least as much of an expressive association as are the BSA. No?
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
