I believe that New Mexico's speaks in terms of "restrict[ing] a person's free exercise of religion." Roman Storzer & Greene, P.L.L.C. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest Suite One Thousand Washington, D.C. 20011 Tel: (202) 857-9766 Fax: (202) 315-3996 110 Wall Street Eleventh Floor New York, N.Y. 10005 Tel: (212) 943-4343 Fax: (202) 315-3996
http://www.storzerandgreene.com <blocked::http://www.storzerandgreene.com/> stor...@storzerandgreene.com <blocked::mailto:stor...@storzerandgreene.com> _____ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:32 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; b...@jmcenter.org Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND Other than Conn and Alabama, I'm not aware of another state that eliminated "substantial" from the formulation. Are there others? I don't know that all bets would need to be off in any case, since other state RFRAs have long used "burden" rather than "substantial burden," e.g. Connecticut's. 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: Eric Rassbach <erassb...@becketfund.org> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; bob <b...@jmcenter.org> Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 9:26 pm Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND I don't know that all bets would need to be off in any case, since other state RFRAs have long used "burden" rather than "substantial burden," e.g. Connecticut's. ________________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [dlayc...@virginia.edu] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:15 PM To: b...@jmcenter.org; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND The Supreme Court of the United states would have had nothing to say about the meaning of Measure 3. It would have been a state law issue. On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:50:43 -0400 (EDT) "b...@jmcenter.org" <b...@jmcenter.org> wrote: >Eric, > >Glad to see you focusing on the claims made with respect to Measure 3. I've been >counseling a nontheistic North Dakota group for over a year on Measure 3 and its >predecessor. My primary concern has been the potential use of Measure 3 to >legalize discrimination against atheists, members of minority religions and >LGBT. Considering the fact that Justice Scalia doesn't believe the Establishment >Clause protects atheists, Justice Thomas doesn't believe in incorporation and >six of nine justices self-identify themselves as Catholic, all bets are off what >would have benn protected by mere burden in Measure 3. > >Bob Ritter >Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty >A Project of the Law Office of Robert V. Ritter >Falls Church, VA >703-533-0236 > > >On June 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM Eric Rassbach <erassb...@becketfund.org> wrote: > >> >> These appear to be some of the main arguments against passing the RFRA: >> >> http://ndagainst3.com/get-the-facts/ >> >> As an example, this TV ad said that the RFRA would allow men to marry girls >> aged 12 and to beat their spouses: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ngnqGR6e8 >> >> There was also quite a bit of blog chatter about sharia law being enforced in >> North Dakota as a result of passing the RFRA. >> >> I did not see anything about Native Americans. >> >> >> 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
