(Not on list) Prof. Brownstein
I've been following this thread with considerable interest. Something you might consider is the first post-*Smith *political generation is coming into their own, as well as a generation of young people whose only experiences with religion has been as hide bound reactionaries, instead of say, the Christianity v. Christianity fight in the civil rights movement. (Not endorsing these viewpoints, just observing them) -Kevin Chen, Esq. On Feb 26, 2014 1:03 PM, "Alan Brownstein" <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: > I have been struck by the intensity of the blowback against both bills, > but particularly the reaction to the Arizona bill. I think there are > several possible rationales for the power of the reaction. > > > > The breadth of the bill is one factor. > > > > Another factor is that the business community is increasingly viewing > these kinds of laws as having a significant downside and no upside. > Economic forces may do more to advance marriage equality in red states than > anything else. > > > > I think a final factor is that legislation providing some accommodations > for religious objectors to same-sex marriage can be justified by its > supporters as a "live and let live" solution to conflicting views when > these accommodations are proposed at the same time the legislature is > considering recognizing same-sex marriages. The Kansas and Arizona bills > are more like "live and let die" laws. These states have made it clear that > they do not respect the liberty and equality interests of same-sex couples. > In this context, the laws cannot be justified under a broader principle of > attempting to reconcile conflicting interests. The laws seem to suggest > that only certain people count in these states and deserve respect for > their autonomy rights. For many people, that is a problematic message. > > > > Alan > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Conkle, Daniel O. > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:35 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit > businesses > > > > Whether or not the bills are similar in political motivation or in > potential impact, the media coverage of the Arizona bill - at least what > I've seen - has been woeful. Until reading the actual Kansas bill, I > certainly thought that it was a specific accommodation for religious > objectors to sexual-orientation discrimination claims and that its > protection was absolute, not subject to balancing. > > > > Dan Conkle > ************************************************ > Daniel O. Conkle > Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law > Indiana University Maurer School of Law > Bloomington, Indiana 47405 > (812) 855-4331 > fax (812) 855-0555 > e-mail con...@indiana.edu > ************************************************ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
