The Arizona bill and the Kansas bill are very different. I don't have time right now to discuss this further, but all you have to do is to read the bills. If you do, you will see that the arguments equating the two are simply and egregiously wrong. I hope no one will comment in any strong way without actually reading them.
Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Hamilton Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:55 PM To: mich...@californialaw.org; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses ...and Alan has been championing this bill on the spot at the Arizona capitol. Sigh. I have fought him over it when he tried to push me into supporting the Idaho bill which was just as egregious as the Arizona bill, but perhaps more targeted. Gregory W. Hamilton, President Northwest Religious Liberty Association 5709 N. 20th Street Ridgefield, WA 98642 Office: (360) 857-7040 Website: www.nrla.com<http://www.nrla.com/> [cid:image001.jpg@01CF323C.54BF1830]<http://www.nrla.com/> Championing Religious Freedom and Human Rights for All People of Faith From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Peabody Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:38 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses After reading the legislation, it's amazing how broadly it is drafted. It would seem to not only include permitting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status, but also on the basis of religion. It would make it very easy for any business with a religious inkling to refuse to accommodate the religious exercise of employees, or even terminate them on the basis of religious differences. The Hobby Lobby case may go a long way in showing what rights employers have, and it seems to be part of a general strike against the application of the Bill of Rights to the states (14th Amendment). Any time the principle argument in favor of a potentially dangerous law is, "What's the worse that can happen?" I think there's reason to get really nervous. There is probably an answer for those who don't want to violate their religious conscience by accommodating those members of protected classes that disagree with them, but this legislation is not it. Michael D. Peabody, Esq. Editor ReligiousLiberty.TV http://www.religiousliberty.tv
<<inline: image001.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ 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.
