Doug-- your downplaying of rfras' effect is inaccurate and misleading. The rfras can apply and they are invoked in these cases Just because a case comes down on common law theory doesn't mean rfras don't apply.
I think you have sidestepped the issues. Obviously, rfras can be invoked in these cases Are you opposed to exempting child safety from the RFRAs? And what is your view on a RFRA without substantial modifying burden? Marci On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:01 AM, "Douglas Laycock" <dlayc...@virginia.edu> wrote: > Gibson v. Brewer is an outlier, giving the church more protection than most > states provide. And the protection Gibson provides is roughly equivalent to > what state and federal law provides the public schools in similar > circumstances. No state has even considered giving religious liberty > protection to abusers. The only dispute is with respect to entities who > weren’t there and didn’t do it, but might have been able to prevent it. And > most of those cases are decided under common law rules uninfluenced by RFRAs > or free exercise clauses. > > I have written about Gibson v. Brewer in Michigan in 2007. > > Douglas Laycock > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > University of Virginia Law School > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:02 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Religious exemptions and child sexual abuse > > I was talking about the facts of how these cases are litigated. I represent > many victims in numerous cases around the country on the First Am and RFRA > issues. The RCC and LDS on particular push the religious freedom claims hard > in such cases. Sometimes together > > > Gibson v Brewer out of Missouri Is a good case to start with > > Marci > > On Jun 14, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Arthur Spitzer <artspit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Marci - I don't believe you've stated the facts of a single case. I'd say the > same thing if you were a man. > Art > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure why stating the facts in these cases is "rhetoric" I sincerely > hope it is not because a woman is pointing out the facts rather than a man. > This last statement also is not rhetoric but an honest observation. > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
