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.

Reply via email to