Only to religionlaw -- Re: Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, etc.

I refuse to accept the notion that a less restrictive means is unavailable because the govt refuses to use it. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Sent from my iPad On Jul 18, 2014, at 1:58 PM, "Eric J Segall" mailto:eseg...@gsu.edu>> wrote: Mark says: "To the extent

Re: Letter on the Expected Executive Order

Reports are that there will not be a new exemption: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/us/politics/obama-to-extend-protections-for-gay-workers-with-no-religious-exemption.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 On M

Separate the list threads: Re: Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, etc.

A few posts ago this thread started being addressed to both the conlawprof and religionlaw lists. I couldn't tell which list the posts were coming from, so I'm splitting the thread. This post is only going to religionlaw. In a minute I'll send one only to conlawprof. Please don't put both lists

Re: Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the disputed issues in the upcoming cases challenging the government's religious accommodation

As for the first point, if the burden ends up costing the issuers (e.g., Aetna, Blue Cross) anything more than they would otherwise have spent, they can certainly complain to the government. (I don't believe they have done so.) In any event, I included that point parenthetically, as did Alito, si

Re: Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the disputed issues in the upcoming cases challenging the government's religious accommodation

Sorry. My post was sent to both the conlawprof and religionlaw lists. I should have made clear that I'm only moderator of the conlawprof list, not of Eugene's religionlaw list. Mark Sent from my iPad > On Jul 18, 2014, at 1:44 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" > wrote: > > As usual, Marty provides a ve

Re: Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the disputed issues in the upcoming cases challenging the government's religious accommodation

As usual, Marty provides a very helpful explanation of the big picture and the details. I have to take issue, though with two of his points (and need to think more about some of his other points. First, he says that the Court in Hobby Lobby accepted the govt's claim that provision of the object

Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the disputed issues in the upcoming cases challenging the government's religious accommodation

For those of you who have nothing better to do this weekend, allow me to offer a rather dry and detailed effort to explain what the issues will be in the cases going forward: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/07/unpacking-forthcoming-rfra-challenges.html _

Hobby Lobby and the Dubious Enterprise of Religious Exemptions

Because of the amount of interest in Hobby Lobby on both of these lists, I am taking the liberty to let list-members know that I have just posted on SSRN a paper entitled "Hobby Lobby and the Dubious Enterprise of Religious Exemptions." The paper is forthcoming in a Symposium on "Religious Accommo