Are those purported instances based on religious beliefs against serving people
of other religions? (Or, Gordelpus, a specific religion, as you seem to be
implying?) Or on the "perception" that They are all evial terrorists, which is
not a tenet of any religion I can call to mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Finkelman <paul.finkel...@yahoo.com>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:02:24 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
> We have all sorts of stories where business will not serve Muslims in the
> news.
> Â
> ******************
> Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
> Senior Fellow
> Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism
> University of Pennsylvania
> andÂ
> Scholar-in-Residence Â
> National Constitution CenterÂ
> Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaÂ
> 518-439-7296Â (w)
> 518-605-0296 (c)Â
> paul.finkel...@yahoo.comÂ
> www.paulfinkelman.com
> From: Doug Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:54 PM
> Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
>
> #yiv7506987746 #yiv7506987746 -- _filtered #yiv7506987746 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5
> 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7506987746 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2
> 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7506987746 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3
> 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv7506987746 #yiv7506987746 p.yiv7506987746MsoNormal,
> #yiv7506987746 li.yiv7506987746MsoNormal, #yiv7506987746
> div.yiv7506987746MsoNormal
> {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv7506987746 a:link,
> #yiv7506987746 span.yiv7506987746MsoHyperlink
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7506987746 a:visited,
> #yiv7506987746 span.yiv7506987746MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7506987746
> span.yiv7506987746EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7506987746
> .yiv7506987746MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv7506987746
> {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7506987746 div.yiv7506987746WordSection1
> {}#yiv7506987746 Show me a case. It just hasnât happened. We have a woman
> dead in Kansas for lack of a state RFRA; thatâs a real case. These wild
> discrimination hypotheticals are so far just that â wild hypotheticals. And
> probably thatâs all they will be for the future too. Â Discrimination
> against gay customers is entirely legal in Indiana except in Indianapolis and
> Bloomington. That doesnât mean that itâs happening, much less that
> businesses are discriminating and then offering religious justifications. The
> various Indiana reporters who have called me had not heard any reports of
> that kind of discrimination. Â Douglas LaycockRobert E. Scott Distinguished
> Professor of LawUniversity of Virginia Law School580 Massie
> RoadCharlottesville, VAÂ 22903Â Â Â Â 434-243-8546 Â
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:44 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought  But does this mean that
> "religion is not protected? Â Will we see claims that members of certain
> faiths do not want to hire (or even serve) members of other faiths? Â I think
> the language of the Indiana law and some of these other laws might allow
> this. Â Â Â *************************************************
> Paul FinkelmanSenior FellowPenn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and
> ConstitutionalismUniversity of PennsylvaniaandScholar-in-Residence National
> Constitution CenterPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 518-439-7296 (p)518-605-0296
> (c)Â
> paul.finkel...@albanylaw.eduwww.paulfinkelman.com*************************************************From:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on
> behalf of Marty Lederman [lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:34 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wroughtor, imagine if Justice Alito
> had not included the references to "race" and "racial" in this sentence: Â
> "The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity
> to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on
> racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal."
> Â 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). Â The converse point works, too: Â 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). Â 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
> Â 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. Â Of course, the market will ultimately undo the
> damage: Â In order to preserve states' economic competitiveness, their RFRAs
> will either be repealed or construed to recreate the pre-Smith FEC regime. Â
> The more interesting question is what Justice Alito's initiative augurs for
> the future of religious accommodations more broadly. Â
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> Â
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> Â
> Â
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
