Quick Correction: the final letter referenced in my message below went to legislators in Illinois, not Wisconsin. Sorry about that. - Jim
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:28 PM, James Oleske <jole...@lclark.edu> wrote: > The text of the bill, which was announced on Thursday and formally > introduced yesterday, is here: > > > https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?version=latest&session=ls89&session_number=0&session_year=2015&number=sf2158 > > As compared to many of the legislative proposals we've seen recently, the > Minnesota bill more closely resembles the proposal that a group of scholars > suggested to policymakers in 12 states (including Minnesota) between 2009 > and 2013: > > > http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/08/memosletters-on-religious-liberty-and-samesex-marriage.html > > Like the academic proposal, the Minnesota bill (1) is focused specifically > on accommodating religious objections to marriages, (2) would extend those > accommodations into the for-profit commercial realm, but limited to > individuals, sole proprietorships, and small businesses, and (3) would > preclude an accommodation if it would cause a substantial hardship for the > couple seeking service. > > Unlike the academic proposal, the Minnesota bill (1) defines a "small > business" as one that has 20 or fewer employees, rather than one that has 5 > or fewer employees, (2) does not include a unit-size limit for landlords, > (3) specifically defines "substantial hardship" as being unable to obtain > the same services within 30 miles, and (4) is explicitly limited to beliefs > "regarding whether marriage is only the union of one man and one woman"; > thus, it could not be invoked to deny services or benefits to interracial > couples, interfaith couples, or couples in which one or both of the > partners is divorced (this explicit limitation would likely make the > Minnesota bill more vulnerable to both Establishment Clause and Equal > Protection Clause challenges than the academic proposal). > > Note: Although the academic proposal did receive considerable support > within the academy (a total of 15 scholars, with a variety of views on > same-sex marriage, signed on to supportive letters or testimony at one time > or another), there was also considerable opposition, including this 2013 > letter from 5 scholars to Wisconsin legislators: > > > http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/files/five-law-professors-against-changing-sb-10.pdf > > - Jim >
_______________________________________________ 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.
