je:
http://seymaoktug.com/1z2a3s4e5c6f7d8t9b0hq.php Persuasion is often more effectual than force. Mireya Schmierer ___ 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
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.
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 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: Ban on Feeding Homeless
There is also a Pennsylvania RFRA claim. The ACLU's complaint is at http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Chosen300Complaint.pdf I hope that helps, Allen Asch -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 9:01 am Subject: RE: Ban on Feeding Homeless Jim, is this only a First Amendment claim? Or is there also a Pennsylvania RFRA claim? 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] On Behalf Of James Edward Maule Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:35 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Ban on Feeding Homeless For those not picking up on Philadelphia area stories, this might be of interest, perhaps especially to those researching and writing in the area. For some time, religious and other organizations have been feeding homeless people at outdoor sites in Philadelphia. Citing public health and other concerns, the city banned the practice. The religious organizations have challenged the ban, claiming that it violates their (and their members’) First Amendment free exercise rights (“What they will not compromise on, however, is what they described as a God-directed mission to minister to the needs of homeless people where they live - on the parkway.”) Yesterday testimony concluded, and oral argument will now take place. Enforcement of the ban has been stayed pending the litigation. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120710_Nutter__Ban_on_feeding_part_of_plan_to_end_homelessness.html Jim Maule Professor of Law Villanova University School of Law ma...@law.villanova.edu http://vls.law.villanova.edu/prof/maule ___ 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.
Re: Ban on Feeding Homeless
OOPS, ACLU complaint at http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Chosen300Complaint.pdf -Original Message- From: Allen Asch aa...@aol.com To: religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 9:17 am Subject: Re: Ban on Feeding Homeless There is also a Pennsylvania RFRA claim. The ACLU's complaint is at http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Chosen300Complaint.pdf I hope that helps, Allen Asch -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 9:01 am Subject: RE: Ban on Feeding Homeless Jim, is this only a First Amendment claim? Or is there also a Pennsylvania RFRA claim? 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] On Behalf Of James Edward Maule Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:35 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Ban on Feeding Homeless For those not picking up on Philadelphia area stories, this might be of interest, perhaps especially to those researching and writing in the area. For some time, religious and other organizations have been feeding homeless people at outdoor sites in Philadelphia. Citing public health and other concerns, the city banned the practice. The religious organizations have challenged the ban, claiming that it violates their (and their members’) First Amendment free exercise rights (“What they will not compromise on, however, is what they described as a God-directed mission to minister to the needs of homeless people where they live - on the parkway.”) Yesterday testimony concluded, and oral argument will now take place. Enforcement of the ban has been stayed pending the litigation. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120710_Nutter__Ban_on_feeding_part_of_plan_to_end_homelessness.html Jim Maule Professor of Law Villanova University School of Law ma...@law.villanova.edu http://vls.law.villanova.edu/prof/maule ___ 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.
Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case
Just to clarify the somewhat angry tone of my response to the ADF press release, that anger was a response to parts of that release like the one I quoted about the ACLU’s long-term record of fear, intimidation, and disinformation. As a long time ACLU volunteer, I found that accusation frankly offensive. I was not offended in any way, however, by Prof. Duncan posting the item and I have no expectation that only unbiased items will be posted here. From what I know of the esteemed membership of this list, you are all probably better qualified than I am to deconstruct an ADF press release and need no protection from bias. I just happened to have the time and the righteous indignation this morning to do the deconstruction. And, I think these past facts are important to an analysis of this current incident given that past Establishment Clause violations can turn what looks like student initiated activity into something else a la Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in these discussions Allen Asch -Original Message- From: Rick Duncan nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:45 am Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case I too appreciate getting a more complete account of the facts. I forwarded the ADF press release because it contained links to the complaint and to the pictures before and after the censorship. It is wonderful to be able to show the actual pictures--both before and after the restriction--when discussing these issues in class. But I certainly agree that religious groups should have no more and no less access to public schools than other groups advertising meetings and events. Equal access means equal access. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.--Ben Franklin (perhaps misattributed, but still worthy of Franklin) It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence. --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst. -- Id. --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Ira (Chip) Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote: From: Ira (Chip) Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 8:29 AM I appreciate Rick's calling our attention to this case, and I deeply appreciate Allen's amplification of the historical record. I forwarded Rick's post yesterday to several students who are writing papers for me on issues related to this case, but I warned them not to t ake the ADF release at face value. I of course forwarded Allen's post to those students this morning. Chip Original message Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:46:42 EST From: aa...@aol.com Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Although I'm not claiming the school was correct in this instance, there is a context to the case that the ADF press release completely leaves out. I used to be surprised at the dishonesty of these ADF press releases, but now I see them as puzzles where the challenge is to find the actual facts. From this press release, for example, you'd never know that the ACLU successfully challenged several practices in this school district that violated the Establishment Clause. The closest the press release comes to revealing that information is the two sentence paragraph: The American Civil Liberties Union previously sued the school to stop it from recognizing such events, including “See You at the Pole” and the National Day of Prayer. In May 2008, a federal judge refused to grant the ACLU’s request. Now, if you follow that link, it leads to an ADF page that, again, never mentions the school's Establishment Clause violations and describes the May 2008 result like this: “This is a win for religious freedom and, if not a total loss for the ACLU, certainly a hollow, shallow victory. Even worse, that ADF page provides a link to the ACLU complaint that starts on page 19, again cutting out the most pertinent facts. Similarly, the link to the judge's decision on that page leads to another ADF page that includes only the order, cutting out the memorandum describing in detail the school's Establishment Clause violations. The full judge's decision is included in the May 30, 2008, ACLU press release on the Wilson County case at: http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/35742prs20080530
