Interesting political intervention from a group of list members who
describe themselves as:
*"Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are
religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of
us support it. Nine of the eleven signers of this letter be
Let’s think about how this law would operate. A gay person walks into the
store and is denied service. Now, this gay person needs to sue to prove the
store improperly refused him service because he is gay. So he needs to hire a
lawyer, pay the lawyer, and spend a lot of time and effort to sho
On Feb 28, 2014, at Fri, Feb 28, 7:11 PM, Sisk, Gregory C.
wrote:
> Now what these two evangelical Christians experienced was plainly
> “discrimination.”
I’m not sure it was. While I’m not an attorney of any stripe or ilk, I’d say
that what those evangelists experienced was (verbal) antago
A sad and disturbing story. I'd say that, yes, it was "discrimination" from
the outset and virulently so. "Verbal antagonism" is a form of discrimination,
when it is based on a person's identity, as it obviously was here (and in my
hypothetical as well). Whether what Jean experienced was or s
Greg's posting strikes me as a little of the mark in a few ways.
The Friday night sale is not at issue. You can close your business whenever you
want (it is the opposite of the forced Sunday closing). However, the Florist
who refused to provide flowers for a same sex commitment ceremony (and th
Yes, a sad and disturbing story that Jean tells (perhaps a threat of
assault, or some other crime). Likewise, a sad story about the evangelists
that Greg S. tells (rudeness and worse). But neither story is about
discrimination as the law understands it, because passersby had no legal
duty to enga
The same way they know someone is homosexual, of coruse.
I have been waiting for explanations of how the alleged horde of bigots who
are itching for an excuse to "refuse service to gays" propose to identify
people who presumably do not begin every business transaction by
announcing "I'm gay!"
Maybe I’ve been wrong about the complicity theory after all. Those who are
condemning homosexuality know that at least some people are prone to act in a
violent way against gays and so by condemning homosexuality they are complicit
in incidents (and far, far worse) of violence against gays. So
Ira, unless I missed an earlier post, aren't Greg "evangelists" merely
hypothetical? It may be sad, but it is only a "story" as opposed to Jean's
retelling of a history or the facts of the florist who would not serve gay
customers.
I think Ira is absolutely right that we have to be very carefu
So the answer to discrimination against gays & lesbians is for them to go
back into closet! All of these queers mincing around looking for a lawsuit
- you've busted us.
I suppose I could play the rhetorical games and have you replace gay with
christian or explain how heterosexuals "flaunt" their s
Excellent article in the Guardian about a huge row that has erupted in
Ireland over homophobia that addresses some of the same concerns raised on
this list - who gets to decide what constitutes homophobia, how did the
focus shifted away from the harm done to gay people by discrimination to
the feel
I assume you are excluding anything to do with a wedding. And the fact that
my wife and I may enter a restaurant holding hands, followed by my son and
his partner holding hands, doesn't count - right. That would be
flaunting. And does it matter if the person is really gay? I have a friend
who
Will, the answer is of course they do not always know. But the case in New
Mexico which got this started was one where they did know. But, I would turn
the question back on you. If you cannot tell, then why do you need the law
like the one in Arizona? Obviously people in Arizona think they ca
Creative artists/non-creative is a trap, and courts are scarcely more
competent to parse the difference between true art and mere commerce than
they are the details of what "Christian principles" are. A chef-owner at
any fine dining establishment is is total creative and expressive control
over the
So let me turn Mr. Sogol's "turn-around" around A storekeeper tells
someone "You are frightening the other customers, leave the premises."
The party retorts "That's what you SAY, but I KNOW it's really becausee
I'm gay"-- although sexuality had not previously come up. Does he have to
prove
Wow! So now all list members who engage in advocacy -- or in the case of the
letter mostly providing information to a public official to remedy public
misinformation -- without informing the list, lack candor and professional
courtesy? Even if public disclosure was somehow required, the letter w
Chip, I have posted very little to the list this week, and I have felt no
obligation to post anything. The letter we sent to Gov. Brewer was hardly a
secret; I got press calls about it from DC to Los Angeles.
It was a busy week, and the list has become pointless, at least on the current
topic.
I agree with Paul’s comments about most of Greg S's hypotheticals. And to put a
finer point on my post from yesterday – my bakery would be required to serve
the evangelicals even if they were going to serve my baked goods at a church
service featuring worship at odds with my own religious belief
I think the larger sadness of my account is that it and much worse are so very
common.
I still think that discrimination has to be described in terms of a denial of
my rights, and that the vulgarity shouted at me in fact didn't deny me anything
tangible. I suppose an argument could be made th
No, the story I told about the abuse directed at Christian evangelists was not
just a hypothetical. It was an observed event. And I venture that multiple
participants on the list have observed similar responses to street ministers of
various kinds over the years. (The extension of the discuss
No one has made the argument that people should be forced into exclusion or
required to deny their essential identity -- quite the opposite -- nor has
anyone downplayed the pain of discrimination. To be skeptical about resort to
law and government is not at all to the contrary. The most impor
I take the last sentence of Mark's post as a compliment. Thank you.
As to disclosure -- in the ordinary course, I would not have such an
expectation. Doug Laycock and others consistently write public letters in
support of RFRA's, and in support of wedding vendor exemptions from
non-discriminatio
In most of the country, none of your fevered speculation would matter
because conservatives, including several "academics" on this list, have
opposed extending non-discrimination laws to include sexuality, much less
gender identity (or if they would so cobble such protections with large
carve outs
Further posts from Mr. Green will be deleted unread.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options
So you delete me but not Mr. Linden...why should I expect anything else
from you Mark...
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Scarberry, Mark <
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote:
> Further posts from Mr. Green will be deleted unread.
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of Law
>
>
It must be nice to live in Professor's Laycock's world where anti-gay
discrimination has been eclipsed by "anti-religious" bigotry but as a gay
man, I don't have the that luxury. I won't waste the lists time by
pointing out the blinding privilege it takes to make such a comparison but
it happens q
Tznkai said: "If we're going to avoid conscripting artists into doing art they
don't want to do, the artists themselves need to stop holding themselves out to
the public as a business serving the general public."
I can offer another perspective from beyond the ivory walls of academia. I am
an
Folks: I think we've been departing in recent days from the
politeness and thoughtfulness that has generally made this discussion list
especially valuable. Personal attacks are unlikely to persuade anyone -- even
bystanders -- and are just likely to poison the well for future d
I think the saddest thing on the list is that most of us are closer to one
another than we think, if we can still reason together and extend good faith to
one another. I understand that strongly held views and difficult experiences
make such a dialogue difficult. And I do not that my own clums
Why so people think this is? It seems to me that if this topic is
difficult, it indicates a deeper problem about the two sides not crossing
in their reasoning, which means the Arizona bill goes back to fundamental
questions about the role of religion, which is hard to debate.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014
Thanks, Eugene! I think your advice is well taken. I certainly intend to spend
more time breathing deeply over the next few days since I don't think I can
contribute anything thoughtful or useful to the list given the current tenor of
the discussion.
Alan
Fro
A belated response to Alan's typically thoughtful and though-provoking post:
I think Alan is right that an absolute non-profit/for-profit distinction
will not be sufficient to solve all cases. But I don't think the close
cases Alan posits would require a change to the two paradigm categories at
th
Ditto
- Original Message -
From: "Scarberry, Mark"
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 12:37:43 -0800
Subject: RE: Discrimination and divination
> Further posts from Mr. Green will be deleted unread.
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of
I think it is entirely possible that some religious businesses might have
problems with certain possible businesses. Consider this:
Same sex couple is married in a Reform Temple or a Conservative Synagogue. I
am not sure where the Conservative movement stands on this, but I know many
conser
34 matches
Mail list logo
