Eugene's division of RFRA and non-RFRA jurisdictions is also oversimplified.
There were RFRAs like Alabama's, where there is no substantial before burden
(that was another fault with North Dakota's formulation). But as RFRAs
developed, the dangers of permitting large classes of individuals to break the
law simply because they are religious became apparent, pure RFRAs became a
thing of the past. RFRAs started to include exemptions for arenas, e.g., in PA
for crimes against children.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Vance R. Koven <vrko...@gmail.com>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 8:58 pm
Subject: Re: PS RE: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota
I should clarify that I was not attempting to address the North Dakota vote
specifically, which of course could have been influenced by a number of
particularized factors, but was addressing Eugene's broader question of why the
RFRA enactment engine nationally seems to be sputtering.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Finkelman, Paul <paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu>
<paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu> wrote:
Among many other reasons it may reflect hostility to Native Americans.
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message-----
From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 20:49:25 GMT+00:00
Subject: PS RE: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota
I meant to say that Vance’s point about the fears of Muslims and Sharia law is
surely also part of the explanation. The evangelical rank and file conceives
religious liberty mostly in terms of their own religious liberty – they are
certainly not the only ones, but as Vance notes, they are an important voting
block on this issue – and when attention is focused on religious liberty for
Muslims instead, many of them will take a different view. So that no doubt
affected some votes. But it was NARAL and Planned Parenthood that spent the
money.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
_______________________________________________
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.
--
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
vrko...@world.std.com
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
