I don't have any desire for them to go out of "business," but if they are going 
to be in "business," they need to operate in the marketplace without
discrimination.   If the business they have chosen does not fit their belief, 
they need to adjust, or move on.   No one is barring religious minorities from 
professions.
What is being suggested is that believers cannot shape the business world and 
customers to fit their prejudices.  The insidious notion that believers have a 
right
not to adjust to the law is the most damaging element of the RFRA movement, not 
just to those harmed by it, but by the believers who are permitted to avoid 
dealing
with the changes that increase human rights, and demand their consideration and 
accommodation.   Believers have enthusiastically supported the subjugation of 
blacks, women, children,
and homosexuals.    Not requiring them to adjust when what they are doing is a 
violation of human rights is a disservice to all.   It is an understanding of 
religion removed from history, which
is false.

The ship has sailed on distinguishing homophobic discrimination and race 
discrimination.

Even if the compelling interest test can be overcome (assuming we are dealing 
with balancing and not an absolute right), the least restrictive means test 
remains, and that
is the element that drives cases in favor of the religious actor and against 
those they burden and harm.




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: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 3:31 pm
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes       protecting      
for-profit      businesses



“He needs to change jobs.” As I said, what you really want is for these people 
to go out of business. Barring religious minorities from professions is a very 
traditional form of religious persecution. Reviving it here is not the solution 
to these disagreements over conscience.
 
I think that race is constitutionally unique. And it is clear that in the 
comparable period with race discrimination laws, resistance was so 
geographically concentrated, and so widespread within those locations, that 
exemptions would have defeated the purpose of the law. The government would 
have had a compelling interest in refusing religious exemptions. 
 
I see no reason to think that we are in anything like that situation with 
respect to gay rights today. If it turns out that we are, then there will be a 
compelling interest. And under the legislative proposals we have offered, if 
all the wedding planners in a community refuse to do gay weddings, then all of 
them lose their exemption.
 
 
 
 
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 3:19 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit 
businesses
 

Would you suggest this if it were based on race rather than homosexuality?    

 

If the wedding photographer thinks what the couple is doing, as in getting 
married under the state's duly enacted laws, is seriously evil, he needs to 
change jobs.

Become a school photographer, though I suppose then he would object to taking 
pictures of children from same-sex

families.  

 

I get the clergy and house of worship exemption.  I don't get the business 
exemption.  As Chip has said, these "compromise" exemptions have gone nowhere,

and in this environment, I would wager that they won't.

 

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

    


-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 2:56 pm
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit 
businesses


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


    



-----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] 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.

 
_______________________________________________
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