In a message dated 12/17/09 3:41:12 PM, vol...@law.ucla.edu writes: > here Elaine Huguenin stressed that her objection was to the content of > the ceremony that she is being compelled to photograph, and not just to the > identity of the payer. >
In my experience, most people (including most lawyers) on the left side of the playing field simply cannot, or will not, acknowledge the possibility that there is a difference between these two objections, or at least that the difference should be taken seriously. I think the reason is that acknowledging the difference is felt as opening the door wide for letting bad people get away with invidious discrimination just by mouthing a non-bigoted reason for discriminating. If pressed, their usual response is: many Southerners said (or would have been happy to say) that race mixing was contrary to God's word; if this had been accepted as an excuse for race discrimination the civil rights laws would have come to naught. Art Spitzer
_______________________________________________ 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.
