RE: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case
Got it, thanks very much! Two questions: 1. Isn't the response arguing that plaintiffs were dishonest in the petition itself, not just in public statements about the ordinance? 2. Under the ordinance, would employers indeed be able to exclude people who are biologically male but who self-identify as female from women's restrooms? I haven't thought about this question in the past, and I'd love to hear what people know about how such bans on gender identity discrimination have been interpreted (or how plaintiffs or activists have sought to have them be interpreted). Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Allen Asch Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:29 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Prof Volokh, You piqued my interest, so I checked out the City of Houston's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for a Temporary Injunction at http://lexpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20140814-Response-in-Oppo.pdf I notice one of the arguments the City makes is that Plaintiffs have unclean hands because their petition signatures were gained by dishonest scare tactics about the equal rights ordinance (Plaintiffs and their associates appear intentionally to have used falsehoods and taken wild liberties with the truth as they sought to frighten people into supporting and signing their referendum petition). The argument alleges scare tactics about men being allowed in women's restrooms. Without supporting the use of those subpoenas myself, that argument about the scare tactics sounds like the likely source of the subpoena request for those sermons. I hope that helps, Allen Asch -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 7:59 pm Subject: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Colleagues: Does anyone know the theory on which the subpoenaed information is relevant here? http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/City-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-in-equal-rights-5822403.php Houston's embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city. Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldmanhttp://www.chron.com/search/?action=searchchannel=news%2Fpolitics%2FhoustoninlineLink=1searchindex=propertyquery=%22David+Feldman%22 wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case's discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parkerhttp://www.chron.com/search/?action=searchchannel=news%2Fpolitics%2FhoustoninlineLink=1searchindex=propertyquery=%22Annise+Parker%22, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession. The subpoenas were issued to several high-profile pastors and religious leaders who have been vocal in opposing the ordinance. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion on behalf of the pastors seeking to quash the subpoenas. The motion to quash is at http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillQuashMotion.pdf . Thanks, Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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.
Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case
Regarding your second question, I can tell you from my work as an ACLU activist helping pass/implement the California law allowing equal access to sex segregated activities/facilities in schools, AB 1266, that I heard repeatedly that AB 1266 clarified but did not change existing California law, Cal Educ Code 220, which has similar language to the proposed Houston ordinance. You can see the author of AB 1266, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, make this claim when he talked in committee about AB 1266, saying Although current California law already protects students from discrimination in education based on sex and gender identity, many school districts are not in compliance with these requirements. AB 1266 clarifies existing law… See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA7r9bVpayQ Allen -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:29 pm Subject: RE: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Got it, thanks very much! Two questions: 1. Isn’t the response arguing that plaintiffs were dishonest in the petition itself, not just in public statements about the ordinance? 2. Under the ordinance, would employers indeed be able to exclude people who are biologically male but who self-identify as female from women’s restrooms? I haven’t thought about this question in the past, and I’d love to hear what people know about how such bans on gender identity discrimination have been interpreted (or how plaintiffs or activists have sought to have them be interpreted). Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Allen Asch Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:29 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Prof Volokh, You piqued my interest, so I checked out the City of Houston's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for a Temporary Injunction at http://lexpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20140814-Response-in-Oppo.pdf I notice one of the arguments the City makes is that Plaintiffs have unclean hands because their petition signatures were gained by dishonest scare tactics about the equal rights ordinance (Plaintiffs and their associates appear intentionally to have used falsehoods and taken wild liberties with the truth as they sought to frighten people into supporting and signing their referendum petition). The argument alleges scare tactics about men being allowed in women's restrooms. Without supporting the use of those subpoenas myself, that argument about the scare tactics sounds like the likely source of the subpoena request for those sermons. I hope that helps, Allen Asch -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 7:59 pm Subject: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Colleagues: Does anyone know the theory on which the subpoenaed information is relevant here? http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/City-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-in-equal-rights-5822403.php Houston's embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city. Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldman wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case's discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession. The subpoenas were issued to several high-profile pastors and religious leaders who have been vocal in opposing the ordinance. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion on behalf of the pastors seeking to quash the subpoenas. The motion to quash is at http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillQuashMotion.pdf . Thanks, Eugene ___ 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
RE: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case
I did a bit of looking, and saw that a Colorado Civil Rights Division panel interpreted a ban on “transgender status” discrimination to indeed conclude that people (in that case, children) who are biologically male but who self-identify as female are legally entitled to use women’s restrooms. It thus seems that the claims that the Houston ordinance would have such an effect were at least defensible and possibly quite correct, unless I’m missing something here. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Allen Asch Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 7:29 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Regarding your second question, I can tell you from my work as an ACLU activist helping pass/implement the California law allowing equal access to sex segregated activities/facilities in schools, AB 1266, that I heard repeatedly that AB 1266 clarified but did not change existing California law, Cal Educ Code 220, which has similar language to the proposed Houston ordinance. You can see the author of AB 1266, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, make this claim when he talked in committee about AB 1266, saying Although current California law already protects students from discrimination in education based on sex and gender identity, many school districts are not in compliance with these requirements. AB 1266 clarifies existing law… See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA7r9bVpayQ Allen -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:29 pm Subject: RE: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Got it, thanks very much! Two questions: 1. Isn’t the response arguing that plaintiffs were dishonest in the petition itself, not just in public statements about the ordinance? 2. Under the ordinance, would employers indeed be able to exclude people who are biologically male but who self-identify as female from women’s restrooms? I haven’t thought about this question in the past, and I’d love to hear what people know about how such bans on gender identity discrimination have been interpreted (or how plaintiffs or activists have sought to have them be interpreted). Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu?] On Behalf Of Allen Asch Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:29 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Prof Volokh, You piqued my interest, so I checked out the City of Houston's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for a Temporary Injunction at http://lexpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20140814-Response-in-Oppo.pdf I notice one of the arguments the City makes is that Plaintiffs have unclean hands because their petition signatures were gained by dishonest scare tactics about the equal rights ordinance (Plaintiffs and their associates appear intentionally to have used falsehoods and taken wild liberties with the truth as they sought to frighten people into supporting and signing their referendum petition). The argument alleges scare tactics about men being allowed in women's restrooms. Without supporting the use of those subpoenas myself, that argument about the scare tactics sounds like the likely source of the subpoena request for those sermons. I hope that helps, Allen Asch -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 7:59 pm Subject: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Colleagues: Does anyone know the theory on which the subpoenaed information is relevant here? http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/City-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-in-equal-rights-5822403.php Houston's embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city. Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldmanhttp://www.chron.com/search/?action=searchchannel=news%2Fpolitics%2FhoustoninlineLink=1searchindex=propertyquery=%22David+Feldman%22 wrongly determined they
Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case
Yes, the Trans community definitely believes that people should be able to use the restroom they believe is appropriate for themselves. E.g., http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/transgender/restroom-faq Art Spitzer *Warning* *: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA.* On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote: I did a bit of looking, and saw that a Colorado Civil Rights Division panel interpreted a ban on “transgender status” discrimination to indeed conclude that people (in that case, children) who are biologically male but who self-identify as female are legally entitled to use women’s restrooms. It thus seems that the claims that the Houston ordinance would have such an effect were at least defensible and possibly quite correct, unless I’m missing something here. Eugene *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Allen Asch *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 7:29 AM *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu *Subject:* Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Regarding your second question, I can tell you from my work as an ACLU activist helping pass/implement the California law allowing equal access to sex segregated activities/facilities in schools, AB 1266, that I heard repeatedly that AB 1266 clarified but did not change existing California law, Cal Educ Code 220, which has similar language to the proposed Houston ordinance. You can see the author of AB 1266, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, make this claim when he talked in committee about AB 1266, saying Although current California law already protects students from discrimination in education based on sex and gender identity, many school districts are not in compliance with these requirements. AB 1266 clarifies existing law… See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA7r9bVpayQ Allen -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:29 pm Subject: RE: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Got it, thanks very much! Two questions: 1. Isn’t the response arguing that plaintiffs were dishonest in the petition itself, not just in public statements about the ordinance? 2. Under the ordinance, would employers indeed be able to exclude people who are biologically male but who self-identify as female from women’s restrooms? I haven’t thought about this question in the past, and I’d love to hear what people know about how such bans on gender identity discrimination have been interpreted (or how plaintiffs or activists have sought to have them be interpreted). Eugene *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu?] *On Behalf Of *Allen Asch *Sent:* Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:29 PM *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu *Subject:* Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Prof Volokh, You piqued my interest, so I checked out the City of Houston's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for a Temporary Injunction at http://lexpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20140814-Response-in-Oppo.pdf I notice one of the arguments the City makes is that Plaintiffs have unclean hands because their petition signatures were gained by dishonest scare tactics about the equal rights ordinance (Plaintiffs and their associates appear intentionally to have used falsehoods and taken wild liberties with the truth as they sought to frighten people into supporting and signing their referendum petition). The argument alleges scare tactics about men being allowed in women's restrooms. Without supporting the use of those subpoenas myself, that argument about the scare tactics sounds like the likely source of the subpoena request for those sermons. I hope that helps, Allen Asch -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 7:59 pm Subject: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Colleagues: Does anyone know the theory on which the subpoenaed information is relevant here? http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/City-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-in-equal-rights-5822403.php Houston's embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city. Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when
RE: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case
Perhaps I’m missing something. Does it really matter whether a judge or governmental official finds that the proponents misstated or even intentionally misrepresented the effect of the proposition? The government is refusing to count petitions because a proponent engaged in core political speech to persuade people to exercise their political right – a kind of legislative power – to sign the petitions? This does not seem to be a case in which the text of the proposition on the petitions was misstated, so that the signers were not in effect signing the right petition. Will we now refuse to count votes cast in favor of a candidate who misled voters about his or her positions or the effect of legislation that the legislator voted for? Will we refuse to count votes of a legislator who voted in favor of a bill after being given an incorrect explanation of what the bill would accomplish? We all know that legislators often don’t read bills. What member of Congress actually read the Affordable Care Act? This all seems absurd. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law From: religionlaw-bounces+mark.scarberry=pepperdine@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces+mark.scarberry=pepperdine@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Arthur Spitzer Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:36 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Yes, the Trans community definitely believes that people should be able to use the restroom they believe is appropriate for themselves. E.g., http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/transgender/restroom-faq Art Spitzer Warning: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA. On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote: I did a bit of looking, and saw that a Colorado Civil Rights Division panel interpreted a ban on “transgender status” discrimination to indeed conclude that people (in that case, children) who are biologically male but who self-identify as female are legally entitled to use women’s restrooms. It thus seems that the claims that the Houston ordinance would have such an effect were at least defensible and possibly quite correct, unless I’m missing something here. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Allen Asch Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 7:29 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Regarding your second question, I can tell you from my work as an ACLU activist helping pass/implement the California law allowing equal access to sex segregated activities/facilities in schools, AB 1266, that I heard repeatedly that AB 1266 clarified but did not change existing California law, Cal Educ Code 220, which has similar language to the proposed Houston ordinance. You can see the author of AB 1266, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, make this claim when he talked in committee about AB 1266, saying Although current California law already protects students from discrimination in education based on sex and gender identity, many school districts are not in compliance with these requirements. AB 1266 clarifies existing law… See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA7r9bVpayQ Allen -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:29 pm Subject: RE: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Got it, thanks very much! Two questions: 1. Isn’t the response arguing that plaintiffs were dishonest in the petition itself, not just in public statements about the ordinance? 2. Under the ordinance, would employers indeed be able to exclude people who are biologically male but who self-identify as female from women’s restrooms? I haven’t thought about this question in the past, and I’d love to hear what people know about how such bans on gender identity discrimination have been interpreted (or how plaintiffs or activists have sought to have them be interpreted). Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu?] On Behalf Of Allen Asch Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 8:29 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case Prof Volokh, You piqued my interest, so I checked out the City of Houston's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for
Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case
The accuracy of the ostensible scare claims depends, I suppose, on what they actually said, and whether men-using-women’s-restrooms, as it was characterized by Allen Asch, is the same as people who were assigned one sex at birth based usually on genitalia using restrooms in conformity with their gender identity. Even if there are meaningful differences, we’re talking about political discourse here, so one (read, I) would hope that the City would have more to hang its defenses on than just that distinction. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. From: Volokh, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 at 8:03 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case I did a bit of looking, and saw that a Colorado Civil Rights Division panel interpreted a ban on “transgender status” discrimination to indeed conclude that people (in that case, children) who are biologically male but who self-identify as female are legally entitled to use women’s restrooms. It thus seems that the claims that the Houston ordinance would have such an effect were at least defensible and possibly quite correct, unless I’m missing something here. Eugene ___ 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.
Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case
men-using-women’s-restrooms, as it was characterized by Allen Asch To be clear, I was paraphrasing a statement on the anti-transgender rights plaintiffs' petition claiming that Biological males ARE IN FACT allowed to enter women's restrooms quoted on page 28 of the City of Houston's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for a Temporary Injunction at http://lexpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20140814-Response-in-Oppo.pdf I didn't mean to associate myself with this anti-transgender rights characterization and I agree with Prof Cruz that this bipolar characterization of the more complex reality of assigned gender, gender identity, and gender expression is not accurate. Allen Asch -Original Message- From: David Cruz dc...@law.usc.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 11:11 am Subject: Re: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case The accuracy of the ostensible scare claims depends, I suppose, on what they actually said, and whether men-using-women’s-restrooms, as it was characterized by Allen Asch, is the same as people who were assigned one sex at birth based usually on genitalia using restrooms in conformity with their gender identity. Even if there are meaningful differences, we’re talking about political discourse here, so one (read, I) would hope that the City would have more to hang its defenses on than just that distinction. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. From: Volokh, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 at 8:03 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: City subpoenas pastors' sermons in equal rights ordinance case I did a bit of looking, and saw that a Colorado Civil Rights Division panel interpreted a ban on “transgender status” discrimination to indeed conclude that people (in that case, children) who are biologically male but who self-identify as female are legally entitled to use women’s restrooms. It thus seems that the claims that the Houston ordinance would have such an effect were at least defensible and possibly quite correct, unless I’m missing something here. Eugene ___ 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.
Atheist jailed for denying 'higher power' in Calif. drug rehab gets $2M
Atheist jailed for denying 'higher power' in Calif. drug rehab gets $2M Barry Hazle Jr. sued state and treatment center for violating his religious liberty October 15, 2014 9:10AM ET by Marisa Taylor @marisahtaylor An atheist in Northern California has been awarded nearly $2 million in a settlement with the state and a nonprofit drug rehab organization for violating his religious liberty by sending him to jail for refusing to submit to a higher power as part of a treatment program, local news outlets reported. After serving a year behind bars for methamphetamine possession, 46-year-old Barry Hazle Jr. of Shasta County was ordered to participate in a residential drug treatment program. When he arrived at the Empire Recovery Center in Redding, Calif., the atheist was told that the center's 12-step program, which was modeled on Alcoholics Anonymous, involved submitting to a higher power through prayer, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Tuesday. When Hazle balked and asked about secular drug rehab, he was told that Empire was the only state-approved facility in Shasta County - and that it wasn't picky about whom that higher power should be - the Chronicle said. They told me, 'anything can be your higher power. Fake it till you make it,' he told the newspaper. But when Hazle still objected - the program included prayer and references to God, according to the Redding Record Searchlight - he was sent to jail at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco for more than 100 days. Probation officials said they did so because Hazle was allegedly being disruptive, though in a congenial way, to the staff as well as other students ... sort of passive-aggressive, the Searchlight said. In 2007, Hazle sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and WestCare California, a Fresno-based substance abuse treatment organization contracted by CDCR to coordinate rehab for parolees, according to the Sacramento Bee. Six weeks later the CDCR, citing federal case law, issued a directive saying that parole agents can't compel a parolee to participate in religious-oriented programs, and that they must offer a nonreligious alternative if they object, the Bee reported. A U.S. district court judge ruled in 2010 that that Hazle's constitutional right for religious freedom had been violated, but the jury declined to award damages, the Chronicle said. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2013 that he was entitled to compensation and ordered a retrial, and on Tuesday he and his lawyers announced a $1.95 million settlement that he will receive from the state and WestCare California, the newspaper said. I'm thrilled to finally have this case settled, Hazle told the Record Searchlight. It sends a clear message to people in a position of authority, like my parole agent, for example, that they not mandate religious programming for their parolees, and for anyone else, for that matter. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/15/atheist-drug-treatmentsettl ement.html Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. ___ 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.
