I think I got confused by Marci's pronouns and misunderstood. Please delete the post below.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:18:59 -0500 "Douglas Laycock" <dlayc...@virginia.edu> wrote: >Now New York Times is not a speech case. Will wonders never cease. > >On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:51:14 -0500 > Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: >>These are not speech cases -- they are conduct cases. RFRA explicitly says >>against the govt. it was never intended in text or meaning to apply between >>private parties and I do not understand why anyone would want to foment such >>discord. What RLUIPA has done to residential neighborhoods on that score is >>enough >> >>Marci >> >>Marci A. Hamilton >>Verkuil Chair in Public Law >>Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School >>Yeshiva University >>@Marci_Hamilton >> >> >> >>> On Feb 26, 2014, at 4:52 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" >>> <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: >>> >>> So is it wrong that the constitutional malice standard from NY Times v. >>> Sullivan applies not just when the government is a party, and not even just >>> when there is a government official who is a party, but even where the >>> plaintiff is a public figure who is not a government official? Under >>> current doctrine, the 1st Am applies when a non-government party is trying >>> to use the state judicial system to enforce state law against a >>> non-government party by suing that person for engaging in offensive speech. >>> >>> On a related note, how about use of the IIED tort to recover for >>> “blasphemy” that is outrageous under current norms of religious tolerance >>> and that causes and is intended to cause serious emotional distress to the >>> believer? >>> >>> The state shouldn’t be able to do indirectly, by way of creation of a >>> private cause of action, what it can’t do directly. >>> >>> Mark S. Scarberry >>> Professor of Law >>> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law >>> >>> >>> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:48 PM >>> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> Subject: Re: The Arizona bill and Hobby Lobby >>> >>> The difference is that in the Hobby Lobby cases, the Defendant is the >>> government. In the AZ cases, both parties would be private, with the >>> business being able to raise RFRA against >>> the private actor. >>> 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: Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> >>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >>> Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 3:35 pm >>> Subject: The Arizona bill and Hobby Lobby >>> >>> Apologies in advance if someone has already made this connection: >>> >>> If I'm understanding it correctly, the effect of the Arizona bill would be >>> to establish or confirm that the Arizona RFRA does exactly what Hobby Lobby >>> and its amici are arguing the federal RFRA already does -- namely, extend >>> protections to for-profit commercial operations. >>> >>> And the Republican establishment, including not only both Senator Flake and >>> Newt Gingrich, but also John McCain, an amicus in Hobby Lobby, are strongly >>> lobbying against it. And they are doing so, presumably, because the >>> Arizona bill -- like the plaintiffs' argument in Hobby Lobby -- would pave >>> the way for claims of entitlement to religious exemptions from >>> anti-discrimination norms in the commercial setting. >>> >>> I say this not to accuse those Republican officials of hypocrisy -- I'm >>> sure they have not made the association -- but merely to point out that if >>> Hobby Lobby did not involve the incendiary combination of contraception and >>> Obama, it's very unlikely that so many would be arrayed in support of the >>> rule they are asking the Court to announce about RFRA. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. > >Douglas Laycock >Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law >University of Virginia Law School >580 Massie Road >Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 >_______________________________________________ >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. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 _______________________________________________ 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.
