I have read them and both are egregious. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:15 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: > 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 > > <image001.jpg> > > Championing Religious Freedom and Human Rights for All People of Faith > > From: 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 > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
