Doesn't Runyon v. McRary's resolution of the freedom of association
claim, understood to be derived from the first amendment's protection
of the freedom of speech, suggest the answer? The photographer has a
first amendment right of expression that would protect the display of
the sign, but no affirmative constitutional right to engage in
statutorily forbidden discrimination. Complaint dismissed.
Mike
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
masin...@nova.edu 954.262.3835 (fax)
Quoting Marc Stern <ste...@ajc.org>:
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.
