The Sherbert/Yoder test was never treated by the Supreme Court as a test available across the board. So NARAL's concerns and CHILD 's Issues would not have been controlled by it
The concern is not over enforcement but rather enforcement Giving religious groups more power to endanger children is not a good idea. Marci On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:34 PM, "Christopher Lund" <l...@wayne.edu> wrote: > Connecticut and Alabama use “burden” instead of “substantial burden” in their > state RFRAs. Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Missouri speak of “restrictions > on religious liberty.” But I really don’t know how much the difference in > language ends up mattering. Connecticut is a “burden” state, like North > Dakota would have been. But the lower courts in Connecticut have interpreted > Connecticut’s RFRA to be equivalent to the standard laid out in Employment > Division v. Smith. It’s hard to see how that is even possible, given what > state RFRAs were designed to do. But there it is. My South Dakota piece > (which Doug referred to earlier) provides the details. > > Given all this, it’s hard for me to understand these fears of dramatic > overenforcement. Even with explicit authorization from state legislatures, > we can’t even seem to get back to Sherbert/Yoder—and it’s not as if the > Sherbert/Yoder regime led to the horrible things that NARAL was fearing. > > Best, Chris > ___________________________ > Christopher C. Lund > Assistant Professor of Law > Wayne State University Law School > 471 West Palmer St. > Detroit, MI 48202 > l...@wayne.edu > (313) 577-4046 (phone) > (313) 577-9016 (fax) > Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/ > Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Roman P. Storzer > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:45 PM > To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' > Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND > > 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 > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
