They are similar in that both involve believers demanding a right to discriminate due to their religion. If Hobby Lobby wins, Walmart will have an argument to get around prohibitions based on race, gender, religion, alienage, and disability. All they need is one owner or board member and they are good to go.
But here is the critical difference: The state amendment proposals are not moderate or almost identical. Rfra applies only against the govt. These bills bring private vs private disputes under its misguided, concocted standard. It's ugly. Marci Sent from my iPhone On Feb 25, 2014, at 11:58 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > I have. My point is your condemnation is not compelling to me when we > disagree on a either more moderate or almost identical bill (depending on how > Hobby Lobby comes out). > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: >> Have you read anything I've written for the last 20 years? >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> >> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >> Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 8:47 pm >> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit >> businesses >> >> Would you say the Federal RFRA is egregious, Marci? >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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.
