Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
True, the racist regime was pretty well entwined with religious institutions and believers, as were their chief opponents. "Cooperation" undersells the relationship between racists and the Jim Crow states. It was an outright takeover of the state apparatus by a faction to the direct detriment of everyone else and the polity as a whole. (And, as I'm sure Dr. King would have rushed to point out, to the detriment of the racists themselves). The issue isn't whether discrimination because of same sex marriage (or orientation, or transgender identity) is better or worse than any other kind of discrimination but the sheer scale of Jim Crow compared to RFRA on steroids. Maybe they're both the sorts of bigotry at which good men and women recoil - but as an issue of policy, they are rather different. On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:39 PM, wrote: > Racism was supported and encouraged by believers. Religion and clergy > played a critical role in making the Jim Crow south what it was. It wasn't > just the state. > It was the cooperation of racist believers and the government. > > > 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 > http://sol-reform.com > <https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts> > <https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton> > > -Original Message- > From: tznkai > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 6:37 pm > Subject: Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage > > Racial segregation in America wasn't a simple matter of state > governments enabling racists through carve outs or even a broad grant of > rights. Racial segregation under Jim Crow involved the state forcing racist > ideology. There is a colorable difference between allowing a minister or > justice of the peace to opt out of marrying a couple and making it illegal > to do so. > > If there is any danger (and I'm not convinced) in returning to > segregation, it does not lie in the religious exemption, but granting that > exemption to employers, which allows them to enforce that belief onto their > employees, who will be left with the same out that Prof. Laycock finds so > disturbing for small business owners: leave and find another. > > -Kevin Chen > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. wrote: > >> No such logic exists. Your inference omits my express reference to the >> requirement of a substantial burden and the omission of a compelling public >> interest. A return to racial segregation and inability to receive services >> on the basis of race would easily qualify as a compelling public interest. >> The narrow question presented in these cases is whether a religious >> minority may decline to participate in a ceremonial message with which they >> disagree, especially when alternative venues and services are readily >> available and thus no actual burden is imposed on anyone. >> >> Gregory Sisk >> Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law >> University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) >> MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue >> Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 >> 651-962-4923 >> gcs...@stthomas.edu >> http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> >> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Greg Lipper >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:55 PM >> >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Subject:* Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage >> >> I appreciate your consistency - and your acknowledgement that the logic >> underlying the Arizona legislation would enable a return to racial >> discrimination and segregation (at least when motivated by religious >> beliefs). >> >> >> On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. >> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, I do support religious liberty claims for religious minorities, >> when a substantial burden on exercise of faith is shown and a compelling >> government interest is missing. I do not limit my support for religious >> liberty to those exercises of religion that correspond to my own views, for >> that is not freedom at all. I've consistently defended claims by multiple >> religious minorities, from Muslims to American Indian groups and on to >> Orthodox Jews, as well as evangelical Christians and Catholics. Nor is my >> plea to accommodate the small business owner l
Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
Racism was supported and encouraged by believers. Religion and clergy played a critical role in making the Jim Crow south what it was. It wasn't just the state. It was the cooperation of racist believers and the government. 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 http://sol-reform.com -Original Message- From: tznkai To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 6:37 pm Subject: Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage Racial segregation in America wasn't a simple matter of state governments enabling racists through carve outs or even a broad grant of rights. Racial segregation under Jim Crow involved the state forcing racist ideology. There is a colorable difference between allowing a minister or justice of the peace to opt out of marrying a couple and making it illegal to do so. If there is any danger (and I'm not convinced) in returning to segregation, it does not lie in the religious exemption, but granting that exemption to employers, which allows them to enforce that belief onto their employees, who will be left with the same out that Prof. Laycock finds so disturbing for small business owners: leave and find another. -Kevin Chen On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. wrote: No such logic exists. Your inference omits my express reference to the requirement of a substantial burden and the omission of a compelling public interest. A return to racial segregation and inability to receive services on the basis of race would easily qualify as a compelling public interest. The narrow question presented in these cases is whether a religious minority may decline to participate in a ceremonial message with which they disagree, especially when alternative venues and services are readily available and thus no actual burden is imposed on anyone. Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Lipper Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:55 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage I appreciate your consistency – and your acknowledgement that the logic underlying the Arizona legislation would enable a return to racial discrimination and segregation (at least when motivated by religious beliefs). On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. wrote: Yes, I do support religious liberty claims for religious minorities, when a substantial burden on exercise of faith is shown and a compelling government interest is missing. I do not limit my support for religious liberty to those exercises of religion that correspond to my own views, for that is not freedom at all. I’ve consistently defended claims by multiple religious minorities, from Muslims to American Indian groups and on to Orthodox Jews, as well as evangelical Christians and Catholics. Nor is my plea to accommodate the small business owner limited to a particular type of objection. An events photographer should be free, as a matter of both free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, to decline to photograph events that communicate a message with which she disagrees, whether that be a military deployment send-off event (because she is a pacifist) or a same-sex marriage ceremony (because she adheres to traditional religious perspectives on sexual morality) or, for that matter, a Catholic First Communion (because she regards the Catholic Church as oppressive). Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 ___ 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
Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
The argument is the same for race and homosexual persons. For most of America at this point, discrimination based on sexual orientation is as ugly and wrong as discrimination based on race. Greg is correct-- the reasoning cannot be divorced. Also--your depiction of "alternatives" is in fact the very Balkanization I've been warning about. When the marketplace becomes segregated by faith, we all lose.The next step is intolerance and severe discord. 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 http://sol-reform.com -Original Message- From: Sisk, Gregory C. To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 4:19 pm Subject: RE: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage No such logic exists. Your inference omits my express reference to the requirement of a substantial burden and the omission of a compelling public interest. A return to racial segregation and inability to receive services on the basis of race would easily qualify as a compelling public interest. The narrow question presented in these cases is whether a religious minority may decline to participate in a ceremonial message with which they disagree, especially when alternative venues and services are readily available and thus no actual burden is imposed on anyone. Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Lipper Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:55 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage I appreciate your consistency – and your acknowledgement that the logic underlying the Arizona legislation would enable a return to racial discrimination and segregation (at least when motivated by religious beliefs). On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. wrote: Yes, I do support religious liberty claims for religious minorities, when a substantial burden on exercise of faith is shown and a compelling government interest is missing. I do not limit my support for religious liberty to those exercises of religion that correspond to my own views, for that is not freedom at all. I’ve consistently defended claims by multiple religious minorities, from Muslims to American Indian groups and on to Orthodox Jews, as well as evangelical Christians and Catholics. Nor is my plea to accommodate the small business owner limited to a particular type of objection. An events photographer should be free, as a matter of both free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, to decline to photograph events that communicate a message with which she disagrees, whether that be a military deployment send-off event (because she is a pacifist) or a same-sex marriage ceremony (because she adheres to traditional religious perspectives on sexual morality) or, for that matter, a Catholic First Communion (because she regards the Catholic Church as oppressive). Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 ___ 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: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
I’m glad that you agree that avoiding racial segregation is a compelling interest (although that concession seems inconsistent with your prior post, in which you claim that we as a society can’t really know much of anything). But I still haven’t seen any good explanation for why discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (or objection to same-sex ceremonies) is materially less harmful than discrimination on the basis of race (or objection to interracial ceremonies). There are more religious objections to the latter than to the former – but there used to be a great many religious objections to even the former. At the end of the day, an argument that same-sex discrimination is “better” than race discrimination can’t just be asserted, and it can’t be bootstrapped on the basis of vocal religious objections to the same-sex relationships or ceremonies. On Feb 26, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu>> wrote: No such logic exists. Your inference omits my express reference to the requirement of a substantial burden and the omission of a compelling public interest. A return to racial segregation and inability to receive services on the basis of race would easily qualify as a compelling public interest. The narrow question presented in these cases is whether a religious minority may decline to participate in a ceremonial message with which they disagree, especially when alternative venues and services are readily available and thus no actual burden is imposed on anyone. Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu<mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu> http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Lipper Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:55 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage I appreciate your consistency – and your acknowledgement that the logic underlying the Arizona legislation would enable a return to racial discrimination and segregation (at least when motivated by religious beliefs). On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu>> wrote: Yes, I do support religious liberty claims for religious minorities, when a substantial burden on exercise of faith is shown and a compelling government interest is missing. I do not limit my support for religious liberty to those exercises of religion that correspond to my own views, for that is not freedom at all. I’ve consistently defended claims by multiple religious minorities, from Muslims to American Indian groups and on to Orthodox Jews, as well as evangelical Christians and Catholics. Nor is my plea to accommodate the small business owner limited to a particular type of objection. An events photographer should be free, as a matter of both free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, to decline to photograph events that communicate a message with which she disagrees, whether that be a military deployment send-off event (because she is a pacifist) or a same-sex marriage ceremony (because she adheres to traditional religious perspectives on sexual morality) or, for that matter, a Catholic First Communion (because she regards the Catholic Church as oppressive). Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu<mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu> http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@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 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: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
Racial segregation in America wasn't a simple matter of state governments enabling racists through carve outs or even a broad grant of rights. Racial segregation under Jim Crow involved the state forcing racist ideology. There is a colorable difference between allowing a minister or justice of the peace to opt out of marrying a couple and making it illegal to do so. If there is any danger (and I'm not convinced) in returning to segregation, it does not lie in the religious exemption, but granting that exemption to employers, which allows them to enforce that belief onto their employees, who will be left with the same out that Prof. Laycock finds so disturbing for small business owners: leave and find another. -Kevin Chen On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. wrote: > No such logic exists. Your inference omits my express reference to the > requirement of a substantial burden and the omission of a compelling public > interest. A return to racial segregation and inability to receive services > on the basis of race would easily qualify as a compelling public interest. > The narrow question presented in these cases is whether a religious > minority may decline to participate in a ceremonial message with which they > disagree, especially when alternative venues and services are readily > available and thus no actual burden is imposed on anyone. > > > > Gregory Sisk > > Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law > > University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) > > MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue > > Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 > > 651-962-4923 > > gcs...@stthomas.edu > > http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> > > Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Greg Lipper > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:55 PM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage > > > > I appreciate your consistency - and your acknowledgement that the logic > underlying the Arizona legislation would enable a return to racial > discrimination and segregation (at least when motivated by religious > beliefs). > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. wrote: > > > > Yes, I do support religious liberty claims for religious minorities, > when a substantial burden on exercise of faith is shown and a compelling > government interest is missing. I do not limit my support for religious > liberty to those exercises of religion that correspond to my own views, for > that is not freedom at all. I've consistently defended claims by multiple > religious minorities, from Muslims to American Indian groups and on to > Orthodox Jews, as well as evangelical Christians and Catholics. Nor is my > plea to accommodate the small business owner limited to a particular type > of objection. An events photographer should be free, as a matter of both > free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, to decline to photograph > events that communicate a message with which she disagrees, whether that be > a military deployment send-off event (because she is a pacifist) or a > same-sex marriage ceremony (because she adheres to traditional religious > perspectives on sexual morality) or, for that matter, a Catholic First > Communion (because she regards the Catholic Church as oppressive). > > > > Gregory Sisk > > Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law > > University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) > > MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue > > Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 > > 651-962-4923 > > gcs...@stthomas.edu > > http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> > > Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 > > > > > ___ > 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: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
No such logic exists. Your inference omits my express reference to the requirement of a substantial burden and the omission of a compelling public interest. A return to racial segregation and inability to receive services on the basis of race would easily qualify as a compelling public interest. The narrow question presented in these cases is whether a religious minority may decline to participate in a ceremonial message with which they disagree, especially when alternative venues and services are readily available and thus no actual burden is imposed on anyone. Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Lipper Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:55 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage I appreciate your consistency - and your acknowledgement that the logic underlying the Arizona legislation would enable a return to racial discrimination and segregation (at least when motivated by religious beliefs). On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu>> wrote: Yes, I do support religious liberty claims for religious minorities, when a substantial burden on exercise of faith is shown and a compelling government interest is missing. I do not limit my support for religious liberty to those exercises of religion that correspond to my own views, for that is not freedom at all. I've consistently defended claims by multiple religious minorities, from Muslims to American Indian groups and on to Orthodox Jews, as well as evangelical Christians and Catholics. Nor is my plea to accommodate the small business owner limited to a particular type of objection. An events photographer should be free, as a matter of both free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, to decline to photograph events that communicate a message with which she disagrees, whether that be a military deployment send-off event (because she is a pacifist) or a same-sex marriage ceremony (because she adheres to traditional religious perspectives on sexual morality) or, for that matter, a Catholic First Communion (because she regards the Catholic Church as oppressive). Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu<mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu> http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 ___ 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: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
I appreciate your consistency – and your acknowledgement that the logic underlying the Arizona legislation would enable a return to racial discrimination and segregation (at least when motivated by religious beliefs). On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu>> wrote: Yes, I do support religious liberty claims for religious minorities, when a substantial burden on exercise of faith is shown and a compelling government interest is missing. I do not limit my support for religious liberty to those exercises of religion that correspond to my own views, for that is not freedom at all. I’ve consistently defended claims by multiple religious minorities, from Muslims to American Indian groups and on to Orthodox Jews, as well as evangelical Christians and Catholics. Nor is my plea to accommodate the small business owner limited to a particular type of objection. An events photographer should be free, as a matter of both free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, to decline to photograph events that communicate a message with which she disagrees, whether that be a military deployment send-off event (because she is a pacifist) or a same-sex marriage ceremony (because she adheres to traditional religious perspectives on sexual morality) or, for that matter, a Catholic First Communion (because she regards the Catholic Church as oppressive). Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu<mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu> http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Lipper Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:30 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage Replace “same-sex marriage” with “interracial marriage” and I can’t imagine you’d be making the same arguments – or suggest that business-owning opponents of interracial marriage were being “suffocated by an orthodox majority that is impatient or disdainful of accommodation.” On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu>> wrote: Don’t the statistics that Marci cites make the argument for robust religious freedom protection more rather than less compelling for those now or future religious minorities who do not wish to be forced to participate in or contribute business services to same-sex marriage ceremonies? Haven’t we transgressed rather far on to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech if the majority’s anti-discrimination laws can be used to require a person in the minority, at the price of losing a business license and surrendering her livelihood, to participate in a ceremony that offends his or her religious views? The events photographer acts not a journalist but a member of the team and thus must participate in a ceremony, whether it be a wedding, military banquet, or religious occasion. The baker who is asked not merely to sell a generic cake but to create a message by designing a special cake is necessarily becoming a part of the program and being asked to communicate a message. The proprietor of a bed-and-breakfast who is asked to dedicate a portion of her property to host a ceremony or program of any kind, whether a same-sex marriage or a religious ordination ceremony or a bachelor party, is being asked to join in the celebration and cannot holds it at arm’s length. Those whose religious views comfortably track the majority opinions on matters need not fear oppression, either intentionally or inadvertently. It was not surprising, for example, in my empirical studies of religious liberty cases that Episcopalians bring fewer claims for accommodation than Muslims. The primary purpose of religious liberty is to protect the religious minority from being intentionally suppressed by a hostile majority or inadvertently suffocated by an orthodox majority that is impatient or disdainful of accommodation and leaves no meaningful room for alternative views or lifestyles. We should expect better of a society that calls itself free or that claims to genuinely value diversity. Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu<mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu> http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.
RE: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
Yes, I do support religious liberty claims for religious minorities, when a substantial burden on exercise of faith is shown and a compelling government interest is missing. I do not limit my support for religious liberty to those exercises of religion that correspond to my own views, for that is not freedom at all. I've consistently defended claims by multiple religious minorities, from Muslims to American Indian groups and on to Orthodox Jews, as well as evangelical Christians and Catholics. Nor is my plea to accommodate the small business owner limited to a particular type of objection. An events photographer should be free, as a matter of both free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, to decline to photograph events that communicate a message with which she disagrees, whether that be a military deployment send-off event (because she is a pacifist) or a same-sex marriage ceremony (because she adheres to traditional religious perspectives on sexual morality) or, for that matter, a Catholic First Communion (because she regards the Catholic Church as oppressive). Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Lipper Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:30 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage Replace "same-sex marriage" with "interracial marriage" and I can't imagine you'd be making the same arguments - or suggest that business-owning opponents of interracial marriage were being "suffocated by an orthodox majority that is impatient or disdainful of accommodation." On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu>> wrote: Don't the statistics that Marci cites make the argument for robust religious freedom protection more rather than less compelling for those now or future religious minorities who do not wish to be forced to participate in or contribute business services to same-sex marriage ceremonies? Haven't we transgressed rather far on to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech if the majority's anti-discrimination laws can be used to require a person in the minority, at the price of losing a business license and surrendering her livelihood, to participate in a ceremony that offends his or her religious views? The events photographer acts not a journalist but a member of the team and thus must participate in a ceremony, whether it be a wedding, military banquet, or religious occasion. The baker who is asked not merely to sell a generic cake but to create a message by designing a special cake is necessarily becoming a part of the program and being asked to communicate a message. The proprietor of a bed-and-breakfast who is asked to dedicate a portion of her property to host a ceremony or program of any kind, whether a same-sex marriage or a religious ordination ceremony or a bachelor party, is being asked to join in the celebration and cannot holds it at arm's length. Those whose religious views comfortably track the majority opinions on matters need not fear oppression, either intentionally or inadvertently. It was not surprising, for example, in my empirical studies of religious liberty cases that Episcopalians bring fewer claims for accommodation than Muslims. The primary purpose of religious liberty is to protect the religious minority from being intentionally suppressed by a hostile majority or inadvertently suffocated by an orthodox majority that is impatient or disdainful of accommodation and leaves no meaningful room for alternative views or lifestyles. We should expect better of a society that calls itself free or that claims to genuinely value diversity. Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu<mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu> http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:52 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage I thought list participants would find the statistics below interesting. This is what I m
Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
Replace “same-sex marriage” with “interracial marriage” and I can’t imagine you’d be making the same arguments – or suggest that business-owning opponents of interracial marriage were being “suffocated by an orthodox majority that is impatient or disdainful of accommodation.” On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu>> wrote: Don’t the statistics that Marci cites make the argument for robust religious freedom protection more rather than less compelling for those now or future religious minorities who do not wish to be forced to participate in or contribute business services to same-sex marriage ceremonies? Haven’t we transgressed rather far on to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech if the majority’s anti-discrimination laws can be used to require a person in the minority, at the price of losing a business license and surrendering her livelihood, to participate in a ceremony that offends his or her religious views? The events photographer acts not a journalist but a member of the team and thus must participate in a ceremony, whether it be a wedding, military banquet, or religious occasion. The baker who is asked not merely to sell a generic cake but to create a message by designing a special cake is necessarily becoming a part of the program and being asked to communicate a message. The proprietor of a bed-and-breakfast who is asked to dedicate a portion of her property to host a ceremony or program of any kind, whether a same-sex marriage or a religious ordination ceremony or a bachelor party, is being asked to join in the celebration and cannot holds it at arm’s length. Those whose religious views comfortably track the majority opinions on matters need not fear oppression, either intentionally or inadvertently. It was not surprising, for example, in my empirical studies of religious liberty cases that Episcopalians bring fewer claims for accommodation than Muslims. The primary purpose of religious liberty is to protect the religious minority from being intentionally suppressed by a hostile majority or inadvertently suffocated by an orthodox majority that is impatient or disdainful of accommodation and leaves no meaningful room for alternative views or lifestyles. We should expect better of a society that calls itself free or that claims to genuinely value diversity. Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu<mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu> http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:52 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage I thought list participants would find the statistics below interesting. This is what I meant when I said that opposition to same-sex marriage among believers is declining. It is even more stark when one asks only the younger generation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/millennials-gay-unaffiliated-church-religion_n_4856094.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg0055 . <~WRD000.jpg> ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@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 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: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
Don't the statistics that Marci cites make the argument for robust religious freedom protection more rather than less compelling for those now or future religious minorities who do not wish to be forced to participate in or contribute business services to same-sex marriage ceremonies? Haven't we transgressed rather far on to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech if the majority's anti-discrimination laws can be used to require a person in the minority, at the price of losing a business license and surrendering her livelihood, to participate in a ceremony that offends his or her religious views? The events photographer acts not a journalist but a member of the team and thus must participate in a ceremony, whether it be a wedding, military banquet, or religious occasion. The baker who is asked not merely to sell a generic cake but to create a message by designing a special cake is necessarily becoming a part of the program and being asked to communicate a message. The proprietor of a bed-and-breakfast who is asked to dedicate a portion of her property to host a ceremony or program of any kind, whether a same-sex marriage or a religious ordination ceremony or a bachelor party, is being asked to join in the celebration and cannot holds it at arm's length. Those whose religious views comfortably track the majority opinions on matters need not fear oppression, either intentionally or inadvertently. It was not surprising, for example, in my empirical studies of religious liberty cases that Episcopalians bring fewer claims for accommodation than Muslims. The primary purpose of religious liberty is to protect the religious minority from being intentionally suppressed by a hostile majority or inadvertently suffocated by an orthodox majority that is impatient or disdainful of accommodation and leaves no meaningful room for alternative views or lifestyles. We should expect better of a society that calls itself free or that claims to genuinely value diversity. Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:52 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage I thought list participants would find the statistics below interesting. This is what I meant when I said that opposition to same-sex marriage among believers is declining. It is even more stark when one asks only the younger generation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/millennials-gay-unaffiliated-church-religion_n_4856094.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg0055 . [Image removed by sender.] <>___ 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.
Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage
I thought list participants would find the statistics below interesting. This is what I meant when I said that opposition to same-sex marriage among believers is declining. It is even more stark when one asks only the younger generation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/millennials-gay-unaffiliated-church-religion_n_4856094.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg0055 . ___ 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.
