http://www.azcentral.com/business/arizonaeconomy/articles/20140221arizona-business-opposition-religion-bill.html
If businesses don't want these protections (which is basically simply RFRA), then my point that very few will use the protections, and most for marriage-based differences, rather than orientation, seems validated. On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > Michael-- Your assumptions and conclusions are wrong as a matter of > empirical fact. > > > 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 > http://sol-reform.com > <https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts> > <https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton> > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 3:00 pm > Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses > > Not only are "religious believers [] inherently beneficial to society", > but that public opinion on same-sex couples is evolving so rapidly that > most people will not discriminate against gays and lesbians except in the > context of marriage. Just because something is legal doesn't mean people > will use it. > > As to the Westboro Baptist Churches of the world, the public will have > societal pressure on them while respecting their rights in the first > amendment. > > And opposing same-sex marriage for religious reasons is not animus. > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > >> I think we can all agree, as legal scholars, that religiously-based >> animus is still animus. See *Loving v. VA; Bob Jones Univ. v. US* >> >> >> The so-called "hysterical" parade of horribles is squarely included in >> the language of the law, no? >> Are we supposed to believe that religious believers will not use the law >> to the full extent of its language? >> What would be the reasoning behind that? That religious believers are >> inherently beneficial to society and, therefore, >> will always act in ways that are not hateful or dangerous or bad for >> society? >> >> 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 >> http://sol-reform.com >> <https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts> >> <https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> >> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >> Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 12:40 pm >> Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses >> >> The famous cases (Elane, etc.) which prompted this all involve same-sex >> ceremonies, not that parade of horribles Marci said. >> >> >> I hope all can agree opposition to same-sex marriage is not "hatred of >> homosexuals." >> See this amicus brief: >> http://www.scribd.com/doc/206330147/13-4178-Amicus-Brief-of-Law-Professors >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:08 AM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> The "hysteria" involves the capacity of the bill to permit restaurants, >>> hotels, and other places of public accommodation to refuse >>> service to homosexuals. How is it different from a Jim Crow law in >>> that way? Don't forget the Jim Crow laws were supported >>> by religious principles and believers as well. It was the entire >>> southern society, including many clergy and believers, who were racist >>> and didn't want to have to eat near or be with blacks. >>> >>> It is unconstitutional under the Romer reasoning, not because it is >>> facially aimed at homosexuals, but rather because its only >>> justification is hatred of homosexuals. As in the free exercise >>> doctrine, facial neutrality is not enough to save a law that has >>> no justification other than animus. >>> >>> 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 >>> http://sol-reform.com >>> <https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts> >>> <https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu> >>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; >>> Penalver, Eduardo <penal...@uchicago.edu> >>> Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 10:14 am >>> Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses >>> >>> You're not missing anything; you're failing to join in the hysteria. The >>> Arizona >>> bill leaves to the courts the questions whether assisting with a wedding you >>> find sinful is a substantial burden and whether there is a compelling >>> interest >>> in making you do it anyway. It is in no way like the Kansas bill. >>> >>> Instead, it amends the Arizona RFRA to resolve two issues that have become >>> the >>> subject of dispute -- are people covered with respect to things they do in >>> their >>> businesses, and can you use RFRA as a defense when sued by a private >>> citizens -- >>> and some other tweaks that address no live issue that I'm aware of and don't >>> seem to make much difference. >>> >>> On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 04:07:40 +0000 >>> "Penalver, Eduardo" <penal...@uchicago.edu> wrote: >>> >What's interesting about the Az bill is that it does not facially target >>> >same >>> sex couples - it seems to just extend the state RFRA to disputes among >>> private >>> parties. I don't think Romer would really apply. On the other hand, it's >>> not >>> clear that it would accomplish what its proponents want. Am I missing >>> something? >>> > >>> >On Feb 21, 2014, at 9:18 PM, "Marty Lederman" >>> ><lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com >>> ><lederman.ma...@gmail.com?>>> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >And a story out of Arizona . . . >>> > >>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/us/religious-right-in-arizona-cheers-bill-allowing-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-gays.html?hpw&rref=politics >>> > >>> >Here's the bill (likely to be vetoed): >>> > >>> >http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf >>> > >>> > >>> >On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Marty Lederman >>> ><lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com >>> ><lederman.ma...@gmail.com?>>> >>> wrote: >>> >Not so fast, Chip! >>> > >>> >The Kansas House passed it, but it appears that the Senate will not do so >>> >. . . >>> despite a 32-8 Republican majority! >>> > >>> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-usa-gaymarriagekansas-20140212,0,4249694,full.story >>> > >>> >Even in red states, it's incredible how fast hearts and minds are changing >>> >. . >>> . >>> > >>> > >>> >On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Ira Lupu >>> ><icl...@law.gwu.edu<mailto:icl...@law.gwu.edu <icl...@law.gwu.edu?>>> >>> wrote: >>> >Look at the new Kansas law on the right of individuals and religious >>> >entities >>> to discriminate against those in same sex marriages, domestic partnerships, >>> etc.: >>> http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf\<http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf%5C >>> >>> <http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf%5C%3Chttp://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf%5C>> >>> > >>> >Note the definitions in section 3 (a) which defines religious entity to >>> >include >>> "a privately-held business . . ." (section 3(a)(3)). Perhaps this is the >>> unfortunate wave of the future in red states, preparing for a 14th Amendment >>> obligation to recognize same sex marriage. >>> > >>> > >>> >On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Marty Lederman >>> ><lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com >>> ><lederman.ma...@gmail.com?>>> >>> wrote: >>> >On a quick read, it appears that neither of the state assisted suicide >>> >statutes >>> is analogous, either. They merely confirm that although entities can assist >>> suicides, no one is under any obligation to do so. No need for any >>> exemption at >>> all, since there's no duty in the first place. And thus, not surprisingly, >>> no >>> reference to religion at all, far as I could see. >>> > >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> >To post, send message to >>> >Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> ><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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Worley >> BYU Law School, Class of 2014 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Michael Worley > BYU Law School, Class of 2014 > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Michael Worley BYU Law School, Class of 2014
_______________________________________________ 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.
