Doug: What do you mean by the following: "Apart from marriage, there is no reason to have religious exemptions for businesses from laws on sexual-orientation discrimination."
There certainly are some religious people (I don't agree with them, but I could give you their names and numbers) who would find it religiously problematic to provide certain services to same-sex couples, including, for example, renting them an apartment. Why is there "no reason" to accommodate such people if you *would* accommodate the wedding photographer? Am I misunderstanding you? On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>wrote: > Many state laws on sexual-orientation discrimination, and most laws on > same-sex marriage, have exemptions for religious organizations. Some are > broad; some are narrow. Some are well drafted; some are a mess. But they > are mostly there. > > > > Apart from marriage, there is no reason to have religious exemptions for > businesses from laws on sexual-orientation discrimination. No one in the > groups I have been part of has ever suggested such exemptions. Not even the > Kansas bill provides such exemptions. > > > > Chip is correct that no state has explicitly exempted small businesses in > the wedding industry, or in marriage counseling, from its same-sex marriage > legislation. All those laws so far have been in blue states. The absurd > overreach in the Kansas bill, and the resulting political reaction to the > radically different Arizona bill, and some bills caught in the fire > elsewhere with less publicity, may indicate that such exemptions will be > hard to enact even in red states. Or maybe not, if someone offers a well > drafted, narrowly targeted bill when or after same-sex marriage becomes the > law in those states. > > > > I agree with Alan Brownstein that part of the problem in red states is > that they want to protect religious conservatives without protecting gays > and lesbians. Not only does Arizona not have same-sex marriage; it doesn't > have a law on sexual-orientation discrimination. The blue states are mostly > the mirror image. More and more they want to protect gays and lesbians but > not religious conservatives. Hardly any political actors appear to be > interested in protecting the liberty of both sides. > > > > > > Douglas Laycock > > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > > University of Virginia Law School > > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:34 AM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit > businesses > > > > That is my understanding, Hillel. If Doug, Rick, Tom, or others know of > counterexamples, I'm sure they will bring them forward to the list. > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Hillel Y. Levin <hillelle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Chip: > > > > Thanks for the cite! I will take a look. > > > > And just so I understand: are you asserting that *none* have adopted the > broader exceptions (wedding vendors, etc)? > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > > Hillel: > > > > The same sex marriage laws to which you refer do have "exceptions," for > clergy, houses of worship, and (sometimes) for religious charities and > social services. Bob Tuttle and I analyze and collect some of that here: > http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=njlsp. > There is plenty of other literature on the subject. > > > > What has happened in other states since we wrote that piece is quite > consistent with the pattern we described. These laws do NOT contain > exceptions for wedding vendors (bakers, caterers, etc.) or public employees > like marriage license clerks. Those are the efforts that have failed, over > and over. > > > > Chip (not Ira, please) > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Hillel Y. Levin <hillelle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Ira: > > > > You say that these bills have failed over and over again. If I'm not > mistaken, several states that recognize same-sex marriage and/or have > non-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians *do* have religious > exceptions (as does the ENDA that passed the senate not long ago, only to > die in the House). Am I mistaken? Do you (or anyone else here!) know of any > literature that canvasses the laws in this context? > > > > Many thanks. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Hillel Y. Levin Associate Professor University of Georgia School of Law 120 Herty Dr. Athens, GA 30602 (678) 641-7452 hle...@uga.edu hillelle...@gmail.com SSRN Author Page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=466645
_______________________________________________ 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.
