Marci's view of the rights of a Walmart under tha AZ bill, and likely even the 
Kansas bill, is simply wrong.

The application in the AZ bill to private enforcement by way of lawsuit simply 
prevents the state from doing indirectly what it can't do directly, cf. NY 
Times v. Sullivan, and makes clear something that already should be the case 
under RFRAs, properly interpreted.

It also is the case that the AZ bill is much more moderate/sweeping than the 
Kansas bill.

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Marci Hamilton
Date:02/26/2014 5:09 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit 
businesses

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://sol-reform.com/>
[http://sol-reform.com/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts>
   [http://www.sol-reform.com/tw.png] <https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton>


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net<mailto:mwor...@byulaw.net>>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Hamilton
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:55 PM
To: mich...@californialaw.org<mailto: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/>

<image001.jpg><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



_______________________________________________

To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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