And I don't think we want to create a society where we the only exercise of religion we protect is religious exercise that the elites are comfortable with. Perhaps I'm misreading them, but it seems that many contributors to this list are only fans of protecting religious liberty in the milquetoast scenarios where it doesn't much matter to most people if the religious adherent gets to practice his or her faith. I guess that's a nice start, but it doesn't exactly merit inclusion in the next edition of Profiles in Courage. The reality is that we live in a pluralistic society. People who believe strongly in same sex marriage aren't going away in our society and people who hold to strong religious beliefs that require them to act in certain ways consistent with their faith when asked to participate in some aspect of a same sex marriage aren't going away either. Instead of just trying to drum one group into submission, I'd submit that there really are ways to accommodate both through a sensible legal regime that accommodates religious exercise without leading to open season against gay people. Doug and Eugene have offered thoughts along these lines in the wedding vendor context that draw the line in different places. It would be encouraging to see more engagement with those sorts of ideas that recognize the reality of our pluralistic society and the need of a legal regime that can find ways to respect the diverse consciences of its citizens. The lesson that Hobby Lobby should have wrought is that it is really is possible to accommodate both the government interest and the conscience of the religious adherent in ways that respect the pluralistic nature of our society.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 4:29 PM To: Law Religion & Law List Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought There is a big difference between a regime where the law says you cannot or should not and a law that says its ok in the way people respond. Most people do not sue most of the time every time their rights are infringed, so the "show me the cases" standard seems a bit off to me. Nonetheless, I think most people will not take advantage of the anti-gay animus of the present impetus behind the law. But that does not mean that that is the society we want to create - where people can legally exclude on the basis of such beliefs. Steve On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Doug Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu<mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>> wrote: Show me a case. It just hasn't happened. We have a woman dead in Kansas for lack of a state RFRA; that's a real case. These wild discrimination hypotheticals are so far just that - wild hypotheticals. And probably that's all they will be for the future too. Discrimination against gay customers is entirely legal in Indiana except in Indianapolis and Bloomington. That doesn't mean that it's 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. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Howard University School of Law vox: 202-806-8017 fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org "There are no wrong notes in jazz: only notes in the wrong places." Miles Davis
_______________________________________________ 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.
