What you call "discriminate" I call freedom to operate in public square in accordance with well-founded beliefs about marriage. As Doug pointed out, no one is talking about discrimination against gay and lesbian people as such. No religion teaches that, and no case is about a blanket policy of refusing to serve gays and lesbians. The religious liberty concerns are about helping to celebrating a same-sex wedding. The candor that is truly remarkable is that you think it an appropriate use of government coercion to force a 70 year old florist to do this. Here I thought you embraced liberty for all.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Greg Lipper <lip...@au.org> wrote: > Ryan's candor is refreshing: he very much wants businesses to be able to > discriminate against same-sex couples, and he thinks that state RFRAs are > important to that goal. That's precisely why sports leagues, pharmaceutical > companies, technology companies, and even certain houses of worship are > reacting so strongly to the Indiana RFRA. > > > On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Ryan T. Anderson < > ryantimothyander...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The Green family not paying for an employee's abortifacients, and a > 70-year old grandmother not making floral arrangements for a same-sex > wedding is "becoming the political equivalent of a state adopting the > confederate flag, or refusing to recognize MLK Day." Good to know. > > The reactions to AZ and IN RFRAs strike me much more about the political > left wanting to impose its values on Americans than anything to do with > religious liberty itself. Strikes me much more about those who favor > government coercion to impose comprehensive liberalism no longer mouthing > the platitudes of Rawlsian political liberalism. So, yes, you're right, > there has been a major shift. > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Before the ruling -- but not before the lower court decisions and the >> slew of briefs --including by many Catholic groups that were insistent upon >> reading RFRA narrowly back in 1993 -- urging the Court to do at least as >> much as it did (indeed, more so). >> >> The converse point works, too: If the Court had issued a * Lee*-like >> 9-0 decision, there wouldn't now be much of an opposition to state RFRAs >> (but not nearly the same impetus to enact them, either). >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Ryan T. Anderson < >> ryantimothyander...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The reaction to Indiana strikes me as similar to Arizona. Arizona took >>> place well before Hobby Lobby ruling. So the causal relationship you >>> suggest here seems off. Something else explains this. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Marty Lederman < >>> lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/statement-indiana-religious-freedom-bill >>>> >>>> If the new Indiana RFRA had been enacted last year, I think it's fair >>>> to say, the NCAA would have pulled the Final Four out of Indianapolis; and >>>> I think it's safe to predict that the NCAA tourney won't be coming back to >>>> Indiana anytime soon. Think about that -- a basketball boycott *in >>>> Indiana! *How far we've come . . . >>>> >>>> RFRA has gone from being benign, milquetoast legislation that >>>> garnered support across the political spectrum 20 years ago -- like >>>> Chevrolet and apple pie -- to becoming the political equivalent of a state >>>> adopting the confederate flag, or refusing to recognize MLK Day. I doubt >>>> this would have happened if the * Hobby Lobby* Court, like the Court >>>> in *Lee*, *Jimmy Swaggart*, *Tony & Susan Alamo*, etc., would have >>>> rejected the accommodation claim 9-0. >>>> >>>> Of course, the market will ultimately undo the damage: In order to >>>> preserve states' economic competitiveness, their RFRAs will either be >>>> repealed or construed to recreate the pre-Smith FEC regime. >>>> >>>> The more interesting question is what Justice Alito's initiative >>>> augurs for the future of religious accommodations more broadly. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
