Re: No substantial burden on you -- you just can't go into this line of business
Is this hypothetical analagous to the issue we are trying to get at? To be analagous, we would not be talking about someone who does not want to sell lottery tickets because of their religous beliefsTo be analagous, we would need to be talking about someone who doesn't want to sell lottery tickets to certain customers of such tickets because of their religious beliefs Don Clark General Counsel United Church of Christ 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 216-736-2121 cla...@ucc.org div Original message /divdivFrom: Scarberry, Mark mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu /divdivDate:08/16/2015 9:21 PM (GMT-06:00) /divdivTo: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu /divdivSubject: Re: No substantial burden on you -- you just can't go into this lineof business /divdiv /divA little perspective may be in order. On the one side we have people denied the ability to engage in a common calling without having to violate sincerely held religious beliefs. On the other we have an inability of a patron to buy a lottery ticket without going a short distance to another store, or perhaps a slight reduction in govt revenue from people who decide not to gamble because it isn't quite as convenient. I suppose then that if the govt decides everyone should be able to buy pork at every store -- the pork industry is big in our state and people need their protein -- or that stores must be open Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays -- think of the increased economic activity, sales taxes, etc. -- well, if you won't abide by the law then just get into another line of business. And if being shut out of a common calling -- because the govt is unwilling to respect your religious conscience -- isn't really a burden, then what about not getting the photographer or even the cake-baker of your choice? Be shut out of a line of work, or have to pick another of the readily available photographers or bakers. Think about it. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Sent from my iPad On Aug 16, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote: As many on the list know, my view of what Eugene calls the Sherbert-Yoder model is that the whole idea of a general regime of religious exemptions -- federal or state, constitutional or statutory -- under the terms we are using is a grand mistake. For an extended argument to this effect, see http://harvardjlg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Hobby-Lobby-and-the-Dubious-Enterprise-of-Religious-Exemptions.pdf But If I'm going to play, I need to know which iteration of the model is in play -- is it federal free exercise law on the eve of Smith? Betty loses (the others probably do likewise). See U.S. v. Lee -- you enter commerce, you have to play by the same rules as others, and you can't bring your religion in to trump those rules. Maybe the hypo is different, because not selling lottery tickets does not produce any competitive advantage, but I still think Betty would lose (maybe on Marty's suggestion of no reliance interests -- lots of ways to lose, not many ways to win between 1963 and 1989.) Are we operating under RFRA, pre- Hobby Lobby? Same result as above. RFRA restores pre-Smith principles. RFRA, post Hobby Lobby? I'm guessing that in the lower courts, same result as above (see the cited article about the judicial urge to hold exemptions in close check). At SCOTUS? Who knows? The Sherbert-Yoder model, which of course does not exist in the real world of law because it never did in these precise terms, is endlessly inconsistent and unprincipled. On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote: I think we’ve now clearly stated the area of disagreement here, and I’d love to hear what others think. Recall that the hypo is this: Imagine a state requires all convenience stores to sell lottery tickets. Betty has just bought such a store, unaware of the lottery ticket sale requirement, and believes it would be wrong for her to sell lottery tickets, since that would involve them in gambling, which she believes is sinful (I believe United Methodists, some Mormons, and some Muslims have religious objections to gambling). The state has stepped up enforcement, and Betty now wants an exemption under a Sherbert/Yoder-type accommodation regime. My view is that having to forgo a private-sector occupation or business is itself a substantial burden. (When the government is acting as employer, and is only imposing the requirement on government jobs, the analysis may be different, just as the government-as-employer analysis is different from the government-as-sovereign analysis for the Free Speech Clause.) Of course, the government may be able to justify that burden under strict scrutiny, but under a Sherbert/Yoder-type accommodation regime, the government would indeed have to justify the burden (if it wants to deny the
Associate General Counsel - United Church of Christ
I am pleased to advise you that the United Church of Christ has posted the position of Associate General Counsel. You can view the position description here: _https://www.appone.com/MainInfoReq.asp?R_ID=679973_ (https://www.appone.com/MainInfoReq.asp?R_ID=679973) I would appreciate it if you would circulate this position to your school's career placement/counseling office and individuals/students you think might be interested. Applications for the position should be made via the link above. Thanks! -Don Clark ___ 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: Religious exemptions in ND
Giving religious groups more power to endanger children Wow To be charitable, I will chalk that one up to the lateness of the hour in which it was written. -Don Clark Nationwide Special Counsel United Church of Christ Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marci Hamilton hamilto...@aol.com Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:08:48 To: Law Religion issues for Law Academicsreligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academicsreligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND ___ 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: Religious exemptions in ND
Agreed --Don Clark In a message dated 6/15/2012 1:03:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time, vol...@law.ucla.edu writes: In any case, it seems to me that these concrete discussions of what the law does and does not authorize, and which law does so, are more helpful than snippy one-liners from either side. 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: Religious exemptions and child sexual abuse
Do we know of any social science or criminal statistics that supports a notion that jurisdictions with RFRA or upheld constitutional defenses to employer liability have a higher incidence of child sexual abuse (or, for that matter, that incidents of child sexual abuse are higher in religious settings than settings, such as public schools, where these legal arguments regarding employer liability are inapplicable)...or are we left with anecdotal evidence, if not surmise? --Don Clark Nationwide Special Counsel United Church of Christ In a message dated 6/13/2012 11:14:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, vol...@law.ucla.edu writes: Folks: I think that, if we soften the rhetoric and get more concrete, we could arrive at the following: 1. There’s been a debate about whether religious freedom protections insulate churches from lawsuits for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and negligent retention in child sex abuse cases (I’ll call this “employer negligence” for short, though some courts have treated the different theories differently). 2. Many church lawyers, faced with a lawsuit trying to hold a church liable for crimes by some of its clergy, have indeed asserted such defenses. 3. In some cases, those defenses have been successful, not because religious freedom is seen a defense to a sex abuse charge as such, but because it’ s seen as a defense to an employer negligence claim. 4. These defenses have generally been based on constitutional non-entanglement arguments, on the theory that secular courts shouldn’t be in the business of deciding whether a decision to hire or not hire a minister is “ reasonable,” but they might in principle also be strengthened by a Sherbert/Yoder regime, such as that created by RFRAs or similar constitutional amendments. This having been said, lots of courts in states with such Sherbert/Yoder regimes have indeed accepted liability for employer negligence notwithstanding those regimes, so it seems quite likely that implementing a RFRA would not thwart such negligence – but only quite likely, not certain. 5. Liability for employer negligence may help encourage churches to more closely police their clergy, based on standard tort-law-as-deterrence theory. 6. Conversely, disallowing such liability may, by comparison, diminish the incentive for churches to closely police their clergy, and may thus yield somewhat more sex abuse by clergy. 7. Therefore, depending on the magnitude of the effects described in item 4 (RFRA strengthening the no-employer-negligence-liability position) and item 6 (absence of liability diminishing the incentive to police clergy, and absence of policing increasing abuse), enacting a RFRA might in some measure yield somewhat more sex abuse by clergy. This of course doesn’t meaning that enacting a RFRA (even one without an exception for employer negligence) is necessarily bad. I favor state RFRA statutes, though I also favor Smith as a constitutional model. But it does suggest one possible cost of a RFRA. 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: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota
RFRA opens the door to child sex abuse or medical neglect? Really?! --Don Clark Nationwide Special Counsel United Church of Christ In a message dated 6/13/2012 3:55:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, hamilto...@aol.com writes: The truth is that gay rights and child protection communities went all out in North Dakota. Most Americans when they understand that a RFRA opens the door to discrimination or child sex abuse or medical neglect quickly cool on the extremism of a RFRA. The difference is public education Marci On Jun 13, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Douglas Laycock _dlaycock@virginia.edu_ (mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu) wrote: NARAL and Planned Parenthood spent a lot of money in a small market to defeat this. They did not spend that kind of money in Alabama, so far as I know. There have been shrill opponents in of state RFRAs in various legislatures, but I am not aware of this kind of effort by NARAL or Planned Parenthood. Why now and not before? The polarization over sexual morality is the larger cause, and the pending religious liberty claims specifically about contraception and emergency contraception are the most immediate and obvious cause. NARAL and Planned Parenthood now view religious liberty as a bad thing, because it empowers the enemy and puts outside limits on their agenda. Shameless plug: I wrote about this in general terms, pre North Dakota, in Sex, Atheism, and the Free Exercise of Religion, 88 U. Detroit Mercy L. Rev. 407 (2011): _http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/udetmr88id=417collect ion=usjournalsindex=journals/udetmr_ (http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/udetmr88id=417collection=usjournalsindex=journals/udetmr) 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.edu] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:23 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota Behind NARAL's many inaccuracies lies a hint of what I believe may be the sociological basis for answering Eugene's question. What follows is purely speculative on my part, so just treat it as a hypothesis. The initial RFRA push was, speaking broadly, in line with a sense by evangelical Christians that their agendas, of various types, were threatened by secularists ascendant in Washington and among other political elites.That was then and this is now. Apart from liberal Connecticut and Catholic-dominated Rhode Island, most of the state RFRA enactments were in fairly conservative, heartland states. Since a lot of other states have achieved the same effect by judicial decision or existing constitutional provisions, the leftovers have to be looked at as a discrete grouping. The cross-hatched states, with the exception of New Hampshire, are all liberal, secularist places where you would expect Smith to be popular among policy-makers and not totally anathema to voters. The remaining states without any RFRA-like policies but that haven't firmly declared themselves as following Smith, with the exceptions of California, Hawaii and Vermont, are also mostly conservative heartland states, but they now have a different actuating fear, which I think is the fear (rational or not) of Islamic demands for religious-cultural exceptions from generally applicable laws. This fear directly offsets the fears of evangelical Christians, and is probably shared by a good number of them. NARAL's reference to domestic violence and child abuse look, in that context, like code words for the domestic-relations aspects of Sharia. Obviously, no RFRA statute immunizes domestic violence, but if NARAL said in so many words what it thought the voters really wanted to hear, its anti-Islamic thrust would be too obvious. ___ To post, send message to _religion...@lists.ucla.edu_ (mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see _http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw_ (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
Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota
The sweeping generalities of these statements are breathtaking -Don Clark Nationwide Special Counsel United Church of Christ In a message dated 6/13/2012 8:30:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, hamilto...@aol.com writes: It opens the door to churches using RFRA as a defense to discovery, liability, and penalties in chid sex abuse cases. And that means less deterrence. Their lawyers embrace the First Amendment and RFRAs to avoid responsiblity for child sex abuse all the time. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 _hamilton02@aol.com_ (mailto:hamilto...@aol.com) -Original Message- From: Lawyer2974 lawyer2...@aol.com To: religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 5:21 pm Subject: Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota RFRA opens the door to child sex abuse or medical neglect? Really?! --Don Clark Nationwide Special Counsel United Church of Christ In a message dated 6/13/2012 3:55:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, _hamilton02@aol.com_ (mailto:hamilto...@aol.com) writes: The truth is that gay rights and child protection communities went all out in North Dakota. Most Americans when they understand that a RFRA opens the door to discrimination or child sex abuse or medical neglect quickly cool on the extremism of a RFRA. The difference is public education Marci On Jun 13, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Douglas Laycock _dlaycock@virginia.edu_ (mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu) wrote: NARAL and Planned Parenthood spent a lot of money in a small market to defeat this. They did not spend that kind of money in Alabama, so far as I know. There have been shrill opponents in of state RFRAs in various legislatures, but I am not aware of this kind of effort by NARAL or Planned Parenthood. Why now and not before? The polarization over sexual morality is the larger cause, and the pending religious liberty claims specifically about contraception and emergency contraception are the most immediate and obvious cause. NARAL and Planned Parenthood now view religious liberty as a bad thing, because it empowers the enemy and puts outside limits on their agenda. Shameless plug: I wrote about this in general terms, pre North Dakota, in Sex, Atheism, and the Free Exercise of Religion, 88 U. Detroit Mercy L. Rev. 407 (2011): _http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/udetmr88id=417collect ion=usjournalsindex=journals/udetmr_ (http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/udetmr88id=417collection=usjournalsindex=journals/udetmr) 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.edu_ (mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu?) ] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:23 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota Behind NARAL's many inaccuracies lies a hint of what I believe may be the sociological basis for answering Eugene's question. What follows is purely speculative on my part, so just treat it as a hypothesis. The initial RFRA push was, speaking broadly, in line with a sense by evangelical Christians that their agendas, of various types, were threatened by secularists ascendant in Washington and among other political elites.That was then and this is now. Apart from liberal Connecticut and Catholic-dominated Rhode Island, most of the state RFRA enactments were in fairly conservative, heartland states. Since a lot of other states have achieved the same effect by judicial decision or existing constitutional provisions, the leftovers have to be looked at as a discrete grouping. The cross-hatched states, with the exception of New Hampshire, are all liberal, secularist places where you would expect Smith to be popular among policy-makers and not totally anathema to voters. The remaining states without any RFRA-like policies but that haven't firmly declared themselves as following Smith, with the exceptions of California, Hawaii and Vermont, are also mostly conservative heartland states, but they now have a different actuating fear, which I think is the fear (rational or not) of Islamic demands for religious-cultural exceptions from generally applicable laws. This fear directly offsets the fears of evangelical Christians, and is probably shared by a good number of them. NARAL's reference to domestic violence and child abuse look, in that context, like code words for the domestic-relations aspects of Sharia. Obviously, no RFRA statute immunizes domestic violence
Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota
Well, now we are getting somewhere Assuming the representation of the data is correct: A majority of states have rejected a constitutional argument that opens the door to child sex abuse, and only three have embraced it. And North Dakota's proposed RFRA - which we can be certain could be more problematic in child sex abuse cases (and was defeated at the polls mind you) - was different than other state RFRA I suppose it may now be fair to venture that churches and their lawyers are not making these arguments all the time in the majority of states that have already rejected them, either in court or at the ballot box.and that the mere existence of these constitutional provisions and legislation do not necessarily mean less deterrence. --Don Clark Nationwide Special Counsel United Church of Christ In a message dated 6/13/2012 10:04:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time, hamilto...@aol.com writes: In 3 states, the courts continue to give religious groups First Amendment protection from abuse claims. Missouri, Wisconsin, and Utah. A majority of states have rejected such arguments. A number have not yet ruled. The three states to embrace such a theory have misread the First Amendment, as I discuss in (shameless plug) my article on The Licentiousness in Religious Organizations... RFRA, as we all know, does not mirror the First Amendment, and the North Dakota RFRA would have triggered strict scrutiny even without a showing that the burden was substantial -- so we can be certain that it could be more problematic in child sex abuse and medical neglect cases. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 _hamilton02@aol.com_ (mailto:hamilto...@aol.com) -Original Message- From: Arthur Spitzer artspit...@gmail.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 10:40 pm Subject: Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota Their lawyers embrace the First Amendment ... to avoid responsiblity for child sex abuse all the time. So should we repeal the First Amendment? Do courts accept these arguments? Art Spitzer On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM, _hamilton02@aol.com_ (mailto:hamilto...@aol.com) wrote: It opens the door to churches using RFRA as a defense to discovery, liability, and penalties in chid sex abuse cases. And that means less deterrence. Their lawyers embrace the First Amendment and RFRAs to avoid responsiblity for child sex abuse all the time. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 _hamilton02@aol.com_ (mailto:hamilto...@aol.com) -Original Message- From: Lawyer2974 _Lawyer2974@aol.com_ (mailto:lawyer2...@aol.com) To: religionlaw _religion...@lists.ucla.edu_ (mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) Sent: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 5:21 pm Subject: Re: Defeat of RFRA constitutional amendment in North Dakota RFRA opens the door to child sex abuse or medical neglect? Really?! --Don Clark Nationwide Special Counsel United Church of Christ In a message dated 6/13/2012 3:55:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, _hamilton02@aol.com_ (mailto:hamilto...@aol.com) writes: The truth is that gay rights and child protection communities went all out in North Dakota. Most Americans when they understand that a RFRA opens the door to discrimination or child sex abuse or medical neglect quickly cool on the extremism of a RFRA. The difference is public education Marci On Jun 13, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Douglas Laycock _dlaycock@virginia.edu_ (mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu) wrote: NARAL and Planned Parenthood spent a lot of money in a small market to defeat this. They did not spend that kind of money in Alabama, so far as I know. There have been shrill opponents in of state RFRAs in various legislatures, but I am not aware of this kind of effort by NARAL or Planned Parenthood. Why now and not before? The polarization over sexual morality is the larger cause, and the pending religious liberty claims specifically about contraception and emergency contraception are the most immediate and obvious cause. NARAL and Planned Parenthood now view religious liberty as a bad thing, because it empowers the enemy and puts outside limits on their agenda. Shameless plug: I wrote about this in general terms, pre North Dakota, in Sex, Atheism, and the Free Exercise of Religion, 88 U. Detroit Mercy L. Rev. 407 (2011): _http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/udetmr88id=417collect ion=usjournalsindex=journals/udetmr_ (http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/udetmr88id=417collection=usjournalsindex=journals/udetmr) Douglas Laycock Robert E
Re: Quotas for tax exemption?
There is no such requirement for federal income tax exemptiondo not listen to him -Don Clark Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Will Linden wlin...@panix.com Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:48:58 To: Law Religion issues for Law Academicsreligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Quotas for tax exemption? ___ 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: Illinois RFRA
Doug: Wondering if there is any word on the Michigan rule regarding witness/party attire (veiled muslim incident)? Also, do you have readily available a cite to Illinois' RFRA and a thought on whether it is properly invoked as a defense in a civil lawsuit which asks the court to find and employment or other supervisory relationship between a minister and a religious judicatory (in effect, declaring what the faith's polity or governance structure is as opposed to what the faith says it is) and thereby awarding monetary damages to plaintiff from the judicatory for wrongful acts by the minister? I have the same question as far as Texas RFRA is concerned --Don Clark **Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your fingertips. (http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown0004) ___ 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: NY Religious Corporations Law
Why would being an unincorporated association have any effect on tax status of a church? In a message dated 03/11/09 15:55:44 Central Daylight Time, smkrie...@verizon.net writes: Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we elevating form over substance?? Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold Sabbath sevices on Sunday ?? I would submit not -Davis v Scher , 97 N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership opposition.? see,. Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960). Two additional notes- 1.Many of the cases in this area have courts straining to find a property interest and thereby granting jurisdiction to a secular court .. See PARK SLOPE JEWISH CENTER, ,v.CONGREGATION B'NAI JACOB, 90 NY2d 517, 686 N.E.2d 1330 (1997) . (fascinating procedural history) 2. Retaining unincorporated status may result in making the benefits of IRC Section 501 (c) (3) unavailable to the congregation. SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-2900 Fax: (212) 363-2999 - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: NY Religious Corporations Law So that's the escape route. Makes sense that there had to be one. Quoting Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org: In New York, a religious institution is generally permitted to register under the secular not for profit corporation law. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:54 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Connecticut bill To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ 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
Cert denied in Petruska
By order today Donald C. Clark, Jr. Counselor at Law Bannockburn Lake Office Plaza I 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 (847) 236-0900 (telephone) (847) 236-0909 (facsimiles) This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ** ** IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ___ 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: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
In a message dated 1/26/2007 1:11:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will defer to those who know this area of the law better than I do, but, isn't it the case that secular courts will impose secular notions of procedural due process on adjudications by religious bodies? No, indeed quite to the contrary and appropriately so If that is so, then this case may be but so important, if it turns out that the Episcopal Bishop transgressed those secular due process norms. And if that be the case, then isn't the appropriate judicial remedy a judgment directing the Episcopal Bishop to give Moyer a fair trial? One more thought that may be even more important: if the Episcopal Church's own rules contain due process protections and the Episcopal Bishop has failed to follow them, then isn't it appropriate for a secular court at least to order the religious organization to follow its own rules, quite apart from any notions of constitutional (i.e. secular) due process? No, the state has no constitutionally permissible role in ensuring that ecclesiastical process either meets secular notions of due process or in enforcing what it interprets to be the process selected at any given point in time by an ecclesiastical body While I have not read any opinion that may have accompanied this judge's order, the press report, if accurate, suggests that this judge has strayed beyond both federal and state constitutional boundaries...I have obtained the exact opposite outcome in a case raising similar issues from another judge in Montgomery County Donald C. Clark, Jr. 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 847-236-0900 847-236-0909 (fax) This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ** ** IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein. ___ 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: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
In a message dated 1/26/2007 4:20:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will be the first to admit that I may have misread Jones v. Wolf, but “ neutral principles of law” is a rather capacious concept, and don’t forget Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila and the insistence there of the right of the Court to provide a remedy where there was “fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness” in the proceedings before the religious tribunal. Jones v. Wolf sets forth one means by which a state may constitutionally chose to resolve property disputes..it does not stand ofr a general proposition applicable to the ministerial exception or other aspects of ecclesial life.case law has specifically held that the arbitrariness referred to in Gonzalez does not give a court the jurisdiction to interpret an ecclesiaastical organization's ecclesiastical process Donald C. Clark, Jr. 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 847-236-0900 847-236-0909 (fax) This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ** ** IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein. ___ 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: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
In a message dated 1/26/2007 5:26:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is all well and good, but I have the sense that the Court nonetheless applied secular norms in some post-Wolf cases, indeed perhaps going so far as to constitutionalize a Congregationalist polity even in hierarchical churches (be they Episcopalian or Presbyterian in their polity). If this isn't the application of secular norms, then what is it? As to the post-Wolf cases, it is difficult to argue that they can be easily reconciled, there being a real difference on the precise question of secular norms. I think that the law is anything but clear, post-Wolf. One more point, the property dispute cases involving Eastern Orthodox Churches certainly reflect secular norms -- a dislike of communism, for openers. Even Justice Scalia expressly carved out the Ministerial Exception in Employment Div. v. Smith (neutral laws of general applicability analysis)...it is a little dfifficult to respond to your sense that the Court applied secular norms without you referring to specific cases from which you derive that sense Donald C. Clark, Jr. 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 847-236-0900 847-236-0909 (fax) This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ** ** IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein. ___ 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: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
In a message dated 1/26/2007 5:53:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the hybrid rights section, Scalia wrote, And it is easy to envision a case in which a challenge on freedom of association grounds would likewise be reinforced by Free Exercise Clause concerns. I wouldn't exactly call this express, but it does seem designed to leave open room precisely for the ministerial exception. Eugene Unfortunately I am working form memory at the moment but that memory is that it was precisely in this section that footnotes included some of the ministerial exception case(s) Donald C. Clark, Jr. 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 847-236-0900 847-236-0909 (fax) This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ** ** IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein. ___ 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: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
At least three Circuits have concluded the ministerial exception survives Smith. The D.C. Circuit first considered this question in EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455 (D.C.Cir.1996). The Fifth Circuit has also held that the ministerial exception to Title VII survives Smith. In Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conf. of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1999), The Eleventh Circuit agreed in Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, (We agree with the Fifth and D.C. Circuits and hold that the ministerial exception created in McClure has not been overruled by the Supreme Court's decision in Smith) Donald C. Clark, Jr. 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 847-236-0900 847-236-0909 (fax) This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ** ** IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein. ___ 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.
Amicus Brief in Connecticut Marriage Equality Case
Friends: Here is one of the amicus briefs in the Kerrigan - Marriage Equality case pending before the CT Supreme Court http://glad.org/marriage/Kerrigan-Mock/Amici%20Briefs/Religion.pdf Donald C. Clark, Jr. 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 847-236-0900 847-236-0909 (fax) This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ** ** IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein. ___ 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.
State Subsidy of Denominational Meeting
The United Church of Christ was scheduled to hold its biannual gathering at the new Hartford Convention Center...due to a labor dispute, the UCC was going to move the location of the gathering. The Governor of Connecticut is seeking to keep the meeting which will generate dollars for the local economy. The state may pick up the tab of renting a new location in Hartford, the old Hartford Civic Center. Thoughts anyone on the constitutionality of a state subsidizing the cost of the venue for a religous denomination gathering?. The United Church of Christ will keep its 2007 national convention in Hartford, but it won't be held at the year-old Connecticut Convention Center as all had hoped.Instead, following a last-minute intervention by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the church will hold its event at the decades-old Civic Center, keeping its people, and their money, in Hartford."They told me that the governor wants very much to make this work, and that they will be taking care of the $100,000 fee for the Civic Center," said Edith A. Guffey, associate general minister of the United Church of Christ. "It's a very generous assistance, and we're very appreciative of it." Donald C. Clark, Jr.2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015847-236-0900847-236-0909 (fax) This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachmentsare a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential orprotected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you arehereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of theinformation contained in or attached to this message is strictlyprohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying tothis message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by theIRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein(including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is notintended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i)avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matterherein. ___ 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: Missouri declares Christianity its official religion.
Not that I agree with the resolution, but it does not say half of the things attributed to it in the summary circulated by Jean...we all need to be much more precise Donald C. Clark, Jr.Counselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015(847) 236-0900 (telephone)(847) 236-0909 (facsimiles) ___ 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: Breaking news in federal RFRA case
Can anything be read into the unanimous nature of the opinion and Roberts being its author...Is this some indication that Roberts is going to be a consensus builder on at least certain issues? Donald C. Clark, Jr.Counselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015(847) 236-0900 (telephone)(847) 236-0909 (facsimiles) ___ 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.
MA Financail Reporting law fails in House
The Massachusetts House just defeated the bill that would have required thefiling of financial information by churches on a vote of 147 against and 3in favor of the bill. Don ClarkCounselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015-1541847-236-0900847-236-0909 (fax) ___ 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: Dover Case
In a message dated 12/21/2005 1:11:00 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Assuming (as I would) that holding a doctorate gives one more credibility thansimply being a professor at some college or university, is this consistent useof titles an indication of a bias on Judge Jones' part? Or am I reading toomuch into this? Is there some more innocent explanation? Probably a good thing for them that the judge was not on their tenure committee... Donald C. Clark, Jr.Counselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015(847) 236-0900 (telephone)(847) 236-0909 (facsimiles) ___ 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: Dover Intelligent-Design Case
In a message dated 12/20/2005 3:14:45 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would an award of punitive damages against them have been an appropriate remedy? Unless the award is against them individually, all you would be doing is taking money from kids who need a good education...and from the tax dollars of citizens who obviously did not support the Board's actions as reflected in the subsequent election Don ClarkCounselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015-1541847-236-0900847-236-0909 (fax) ___ 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.
Political Activity:All Saintsw Church Pasadena
Also potentially relevant is Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 849 (10th Cir. 1972) Donald C. Clark, Jr.Counselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015(847) 236-0900 (telephone)(847) 236-0909 (facsimiles) ___ 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.
Political Speech
In case you missed it on NPR this afternoon, here’s the segment on the sermon at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5000672 You’ll need Windows Media to listen. Donald C. Clark, Jr.Counselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015(847) 236-0900 (telephone)(847) 236-0909 (facsimiles) ___ 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.
Wedding Ceremony Disclosures:Viable Claim or Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A couple completes pre marital counseling with a minister in which they reveal personal history, including on going psycho therapy. During the wedding ceremony, the minister, for God only knows what reason, reveals this information to those assembled to witness the wedding. The couple files suit for invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, n egligent infliction of emotional distress, and countless other causes of action. No matter how you lable it, isn't the gravamen of the complaint "clergy malpractice", and if so, is not the court precluded from adjudicating this subject matter? Aren't all of plainitffs claims constitutionally precluded, or is there a viable cause of action for the disclosure of personal information during the course of a relgious service and ceremony? Donald C. Clark, Jr.2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015847-236-0900847-236-0909 (fax) ___ 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.
Proposed Massachusetts Financial Disclosure Law
1. Isn't Marci's defense of this proposal, that it is a neutral law of general applicability, less than dispositive for the statute will have to pass state consitutional muster as well as federal and the Massachusetts constitutiion has been interpreted to require a more stringent standard with respect to government action that infringes on religious practice. 2. Even if the federal standard is applied, the purpose of the ordinance struck down in Watchtower was to prevent fraud, the same justificiation propeling the Massachuseets legislative initiative, yet the Supreme's found that justification insufficiently compelling. Don ClarkCounselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015-1541847-236-0900847-236-0909 (fax) ___ 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.
United Church of Christ T.V. ads rejected by networks
I am the Nationwide Special Counsel for the United Church of Christ...I would be interested in your reactions and insights to the refusal by CBS and NBC to run television commercials produced by the denomination because they are "too controversial" are "advocacy" pieces and supposedly touch on the issue of gay rights and/or gay marriage...the message of the ad is "Jesus didn't turn people away, and neither do we" I would be particularly interested in your insights on whether the broadcast airways are a government designated or controlled forum wherein viewpoint or content discrimination may be implicated by these decisions CBS has previously aired commercials form other faiths (Methodist)...and both networks have said they will run a United Church of Christ ad that they find to be less controversial I am obviously in the middle of all this right now...direct reposnses to my email would be appreciated Thanks Donald C. Clark, Jr.Bannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015(847) 236-0900 (telephone)(847) 236-0909 (facsimilies) ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Defamation: Jews For Jesus
Yesterday, June 4, plaintiff Edith Rapp issued an amended complaint in her lawsuit against Jews for Jesus. The amended complaint still constains a defamation count, this time asserting that while itwould not necessarily be defamatoryto depicta Christian asbelonging to a particular Christian denomination, it is defamatory for a Jew to be portrayed as a member of a Christian denomination when she is not Christian. Don ClarkCounselor at LawBannockburn Lake Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015-1541847-236-0900847-236-0909 (fax) ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision
Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decidedthe United Church of Christs'appeal arguing issues of church autonomy under the federal and state constitutions. The Court has ordered the dismissal of all claims against all defendants for the constitutional subject matter jurisdiction reasonsI argued, with the exception of defamation claims against defendant Robert Clark, a member of the First Congregational Church of Haverhill, based upon his alleged statements to Jean Roshon, a member of another UCC congregation, that Rev. Callahan was engaged in an "inappropriate relationship" with a seminarian and that Rev. Callahan engaged in bizarre behavior, threw a child's bicycle against a wall, and breached another's confidence. This does not mean that the defamation claim against Mr. Clark will win; it only means that the court has jurisdiction to hear this claim, unlike all the other claims against Mr. Clark and the other defendants. The case has significance for all faiths, especially those with a congregational polity. Justice Spina, writing fora unanimousMassachusetts Supreme Court, stated in part: "Today we hold that constitutional rights of religious freedom apply equally to congregational and hierarchical churches" "Today we hold that congregational as well as hierarchical churches are entitled to autonomy "over church disputes touching on matters of doctrine, canon law, polity, discipline, and ministerial relationships ... To conclude otherwise would violate fundamental precepts of the First Amendment and the Massachusetts Constituion, including art. 46, section 1, of the Amendments, guaranteeing free exercise of religion, and art. 11 of the Amendments, which provides: "[A]ll religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizxens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be establishedby law." Any language suggesting the contrary in (our decision in) AntiochTemple, Inc. v. Parekh ... is overruled." "[W]e do not interpret (United States Supreme Court) cases to authorize secular intrusion into matters of congregational church discipline." "In deciding that our State constitutional protection extended to Judaism as well as Christianity, this Court declared in Glaser v. Congregation Kehillath Israel, 263 Mass. 435 (1928): "These great guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law of all religions are not confined to asherents of the Christian religion or to societies and corporations organized for the promotion of Christianity."..By the same toke, those "great guarantees" are not confined to adherents of hierarchically structured churches." The case is Callhan v. First Congregational Church of Haverhill, SJC-09190 May 18, 2004 Donald C. Clark, Jr.2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015(847)-236-0900(847)-236-0909 (fax) ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Fwd: Fw: 05/19/04 Daily Alert from Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
Donald C. Clark, Jr.2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015(847)-236-0900(847)-236-0909 (fax) ---BeginMessage--- Title: Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Daily Alert Don: Great job, great decision. See the link below. Dick Richard B. Osterberg, Esq.Weston, Patrick, Willard Redding, P. A.84 State Street, 11th FloorBoston, MA 02109(617) 742-9310(617) 742-5734 (Facsimile) This message is a PRIVATE communication. If you arenot the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, oruse it, and do not disclose it to others. Please notify thesender of the delivery error by replying to this message,and then delete it from your system. Thank you. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 8:32 AM Subject: 05/19/04 Daily Alert from Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004 TODAY'S IMPORTANT OPINIONS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Constitutional - Religious Freedom - Jurisdiction Over Church Dispute An order denying a defendant church's motion to dismiss a plaintiff pastor's claims should be reversed, as "constitutional rights of religious freedom apply equally to congregational and hierarchical churches" and these rights prohibit the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the claims at issue, the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled. - Callahan v. First Congregational Church of Haverhill, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-093-04) (28 pages) Click here to read the full opinion, or to order an immediate copy of this opinion from our Automated Opinion Service, call (800) 933-5594. Click here to discuss these issues on the Lawyers Weekly Online Forum OTHER LEGAL NEWS Man Wrongly Convicted Of Rape Files Civil Suit A Dorchester man who was wrongly convicted of raping three women in December 1980 filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against the City of Boston and the officers and state prosecutors who helped send him to prison for 19 years, reports the Boston Herald. Click here to read the full text of the article. Cape Cod Businesses Sue To Bring In More Foreign Summer Workers Eight Cape Cod businesses, in an effort to meet their looming summer employment needs, have filed suit in U.S. District Court against federal and state agencies in an effort to increase the number of visas granted for temporary foreign workers, the Associated Press reports. Click here to read the full text of the article. Click here to discuss these issues on the Lawyers Weekly Online Forum LAWYERS WEEKLY FORUM Landlord/Tenant Referral A lawyer on the Lawyers Weekly Online Forum wants to refer a case to a tenants' attorney in the Westboro area. Click here to join the Forum! VISIT OUR WEBSITE masslawyersweekly.com To comment on this service, e-mail us at:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To request not to be contacted with future alerts, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and type REMOVE in the subject box. For complete coverage of these and other cases, be sure to read the upcoming issues of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. The information in this e-mail is the copyrighted property of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and is intended for the sole use of individual Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly subscribers. It is a VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW to photocopy or otherwise distribute the information in this e-mail mail without the prior written permission of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. For further information, consult the User Agreement by clicking here. Please visit our website at www.masslawyersweekly.com ---End Message--- ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
