Since I've already accidentally intruded on this conversation (Hello everyone), why are you looking at a count of employees rather than whether the business entity is closely held, which would also go to the Walmart objection. In my experience, small business owners operate as if their legal entities are an extension of their personalities, regardless of the number of employees.
-Kevin Chen, Esq. On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>wrote: > It would protect only very small businesses that are personal extensions > of the owner, and where the owner must necessarily be involved in providing > the services. We have suggested five or fewer employees as a workable rule > that is in the right range. And it would have a hardship exception for > local monopolies; ir you're the only wedding planner in the area, you have > to do same-sex weddings too. So it would guarantee that same-sex couples > get the goods and services they need. It would not enable that couple to > demand those services from the merchant who thinks that what they're doing > is seriously evil. > > > > They don't want personal services from that guy anyway. They want that guy > to change his religious views or to go out of business. > > > > 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 *hamilto...@aol.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:32 PM > *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > *Subject:* Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit > businesses > > > > Doug--What does such an exemption look like if it is available to anyone > other than clergy or a house of worship? Or is that limitation what makes > it reasonable? > > I take it that the Arizona law does not fit your "well-drafted" notion? > > well drafted, narrowly targeted bill when or after same-sex marriage > becomes the law in those states. > > > > Marci > > 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 > > [image: > http://sol-reform.com/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts> > [image: http://www.sol-reform.com/tw.png]<https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu> > To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 2:24 pm > Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit > businesses > > 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<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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
