I am receptive to trying to draw lines between commercial activities that are
inherently expressive and those that are not (knowing there will be quite grey
areas). But I think there is a serious difference in the real world between a
seller of flowers whose objection to same-sex marriage at bot
ent created by God for men and women.” How
are courts to tell whose understanding of the proper theological interpretation
is right?
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
w-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric J Segall
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 12:10 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Eugene asks tough questions but of course our
lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric J Segall
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Hostility vs. feeling that certain people shouldn't marry each
other
Ira wrote that “I have no idea how to parse such distinctions among religious
objections to various types of marriage, and I agree that courts should not try
to evaluate the respect that one deserves compared to the other (nor label some
of them as prejudice and others as properly religion-based
I respectfully object to the term "committed originalist," (self-promoting
articles omitted).
Kind of hoping you were being 100% saracastic.
e
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 22, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Ira Lupu
mailto:icl...@law.gwu.edu>> wrote:
No apologies necessary except for using Ira instead of C
Beautifully said Doug. I would just add that the kind of potential abuse you
are talking about is maybe inevitable when this kind of law becomes part of the
culture wars, and RFRA certainly has become that. Even Justice Alito has given
speeches saying the potential non-enforcement of RFRA has be
lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric J Segall
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 3:47 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>; Marty Lederman
mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: Re-upping:
I don't think there was a claim for damages (and it would be barred by 11th
Amendment anyway) so I agree with Marty that the plaintiff has received all the
relief it sought. The State is saying that from now on, the church's requests
for funding under the program will be treated like all other r
Doug, is the complaint seeking money as damages for wrongful denial? That seems
to run into the 11th. I assumed plaintiffs can only ask for prospective relief
in this case.
Best,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrot
Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.ed
dies.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla
Eleventh Amendment
cases subsequent to Edelman, nor the additional legislative history or
arguments set forth in Mr. Justice BRENNAN's concurring opinion, justify a
conclusion different from that which we reached in Edelman.
- Jim
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Eric J Segall
ma
Well said Chip, and if there was a true originalist on the Court, there isn't,
they'd know the only true original meaning of Article III that we are sure
about is there must be two adverse parties. In this case, there aren't.
Best,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 21, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Ira Lup
The first sentence of Mark's email is partly why many of us keep writing over
and over that there is no longer a real difference between Originalists and
non-Originalists...
e
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 22, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Mark Scarberry
mailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>> wrote:
Origi
Give Trump two more picks to go with Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch and you never
know,
e
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 23, 2017, at 11:27 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
One could teach a constitutional Bible course in public schools. The odds that
they are teaching
When I worked for DOJ in the late 80's and litigated a major Chapter (now I
think Title) 2 funding case in San Francisco, the main plaintiff's lawyer was a
devout 7th Day Adventist who strongly feared government grants to religious
schools would ultimately dissipate religious freedom. Many relig
Depends entirely on whether Justice Alito gets his way.
e
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
on behalf of David Cruz
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 11:12:19 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.
(This) one would
I am new to this issue so pardon what might be an ignorant question. The
government says to most non-profits if you want special tax treatment, you must
give up certain rights to political speech. If that is constitutional, it seems
like the government could say to churches if you want special t
ligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
on behalf of Eric J Segall [eseg...@gsu.edu<mailto:eseg...@gsu.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 9:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: John
21 matches
Mail list logo
