Assume neither bill becomes law. A wedding photographer hangs a sign in his shop saying SSM is immoral but state civil rights require us to photograph SSM ceremonies. A complaint of discrimination is filed. What result? Marc Stern
From: Richard Dougherty [mailto:dou...@udallas.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:51 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses The ship that has clearly sailed on this list is respect. That scholars and professional educators cannot refrain from calling their colleagues "bigots" for holding a position that the President of the United States himself held publicly (until being politically forced into "evolving") less than two years ago is frankly insulting. The more one shouts "bigot," though, the more one thinks there is no argument there. And of course innocent people are being harmed; ask the children who have gone unadopted because their prospective parents have been told they aren't worthy as parents because they are bigots. Richard Dougherty University of Dallas On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu<mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>> wrote: “They need to adjust [which here clearly means give up their religious commitments] or move on.” As I said. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546<tel:434-243-8546> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:43 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
