Re: The Charlotte City Ordinance and Religious Freedom

acy concerns) are not real and legitimate concerns? Will Will Esser ____ From: Greg Lipper <lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>> To: Will Esser <willes...@yahoo.com<mailto:willes...@yahoo.com>> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <re

Re: The Charlotte City Ordinance and Religious Freedom

e you will clarify. Because I certainly understand that the NC legislative bill affirmatively bars local municipalities from passing non-discrimination laws which are broader than the state bill. The point is that is how the Dillon Rule works. Will Esser ________ From

Re: The Charlotte City Ordinance and Religious Freedom

NC legislature's bill unconstitutional? That seems to play right into Prof. Wallace's point about empowering a single locality in NC to forever bind the NC General Assembly if the locality acted first. Will Esser ____ From: Greg Lipper <lip...@au.org<ma

Re: The Charlotte City Ordinance and Religious Freedom

o, what your saying is that the US Constitution empowers a single locality in NC to bind the NC General Assembly from passing a statewide nondiscrimination law if it’s inconsistent with what that locality has adopted? From: Greg Lipper <lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>> Reply-T

Re: The Charlotte City Ordinance and Religious Freedom

legislative session, a proposed amendment to include SOGI is introduced, but fails. Has the legislature “targeted” a discrete group in violation of Romer? What if Congress defeats proposed amendments to add SOGI to Titles VII and IX. Same result? From: Greg Lipper <lip...@au.org<mailto:lip

Re: The Charlotte City Ordinance and Religious Freedom

If so, what other protected classes also must be included? From: Greg Lipper <lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM To:

Re: The Charlotte City Ordinance and Religious Freedom

I don’t have time to respond to all of this, but on the latter few paragraphs: there is a difference between a state (1) not providing statewide protection for members of a particular group, and (2) affirmatively preventing all local governments from protecting members of that group. The latter

Re: New order in Zubik

I have a couple of preliminary thoughts about this order: http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2016/03/29/about-that-order-for-supplemental-briefing-in-zubik-v-burwell/ On Mar 29, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) > wrote: The Court

Re: Zubik preview series

Here is the sixth and final post of my Zubik series on the Bill of Health blog: http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2016/03/22/zubik-v-burwell-part-6-the-accommodation-is-the-least-restrictive-option/ Hope to see some of you at SCOTUS on Wednesday. Greg On Mar 22, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Greg

Zubik preview series

If anyone’s looking for yet more stuff to read about Zubik and the contraception cases, I’m working on a six-part series over at Harvard Law School’s Bill of Health blog. Parts 1 through 5 are below; part 6 will be up later tonight.

Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

Beyond the question of commerce/non-commerce, there is a broader distinction between accommodations that harm others and accommodations that do not. This distinction was reflected in the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. Lee (among other pre-Smith cases), Cutter v. Wilkinson

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

Ryan’s candor is refreshing: he very much wants businesses to be able to discriminate against same-sex couples, and he thinks that state RFRAs are important to that goal. That’s precisely why sports leagues, pharmaceutical companies, technology companies, and even certain houses of worship are

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

The Supreme Court hadn’t decided Hobby Lobby yet, but several federal appeals courts (including the 10th Circuit in the Hobby Lobby case) had already ruled in favor of corporations wanting to exclude contraceptive coverage from their insurance policies, and in the process adopting extremely

Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question

The question isn’t only whether Hobby Lobby (and other for-profit corporations that sell secular goods/services) are persons, but rather whether they are persons that “exercise religion.” If they are not exercising religion, then RFRA is not triggered, no matter how much personhood they have.

Hobby Lobby strained efforts to avoid the parade of horribles

Michael McConnell has a post on Volokh Conspiracy addressing some of the issues that came up at the Hobby Lobby oral argument: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/27/prof-michael-mcconnell-stanford-on-the-hobby-lobby-arguments/ There’s a lot to discuss in his post,

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to cover. (IUD is both more effective and more expensive than

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)? Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

A contraceptive method with an upfront cost of up to $1000 is by no means relatively cheap, especially for someone with a low income (that is, someone least able to afford an unplanned pregnancy/birth). On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Stuart Buck stuartb...@msn.commailto:stuartb...@msn.com wrote:

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

I don't know how you are quantifying dramatic, but 10 percent of women of child bearing age (that is, 10 percent of 62 million women) is a pretty big number. If even a small fraction of those women avoid the need for an abortion as a result, that is tens or hundreds of thousands of abortions

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

So we should not try to reduce unplanned pregnancies based on logical understanding of human psychology, economics, and biology — and based on solid empirical data about IUD effectiveness and patient behavior in response to its cost — even when a randomized study would be impractical and

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

I should add that the rigidity of this position is especially remarkable in light of the absence of any demonstrable evidence that any IUD has ever itself acted on even a single fertilized egg, let alone a significant number… On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Stuart Buck

Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA

Yes, indeed. And whatever “substantial burden” means, it most certainly does not mean – and could not be applied by courts, with a straight face, to mean – burdens with respect to “long held and clearly stated teaching of two of the largest religious groups in the country.” On Mar 11, 2014,

Re: The pain of discrimination and the role of government

, as well as the danger of allowing government to pressure people into proper and decent behavior, do not disappear when we reach the door to a business. Greg Sisk From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Greg

Re: The pain of discrimination and the role of government

But if those evangelicals walked into the corner bakery afterwards, the law would require that they be served – even if the owner hated their religious beliefs. And that’s how it should be, I think. On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Sisk, Gregory C. gcs...@stthomas.edumailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu

Re: bigotry and sincere religious belief

I would also add that Greg Sisk’s syllogism only works if (1) you are also willing to allow photographers, florists, caterers, bakers, etc. to refuse to work at mixed-race weddings, or (2) you conclude that refusal to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies is somehow more worthy of

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,

Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage

-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto: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

Re: Statistics on believers and same-sex marriage

://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.htmlhttp://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Lipper Sent: Wednesday, February 26

Re: recommended Hobby Lobby posts

I agree with Chip about the political realities of a public option. Even if that option were politically viable, I don’t see how the public option can be considered a less restrictive alternative in cases dealing with exemptions from regulations. Employers have previously brought free exercise

Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity

Notre Dame's lawyer mentioned these remarks briefly during last week's oral argument, but it was not entirely clear to me whether he (the lawyer) was citing them for (1) the general point that Notre Dame has an obligation to adhere to Catholic doctrine, or (2) the more specific point that Notre

Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity

Professor Sisk’s post epitomizes many of the inaccurate assumptions that led to the enactment of the women’s health provisions in the first place. Let me try to address a few of the most important points: 1. The distinction between “medically-indicated” (non-contraceptive) uses of

Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit participation? Sincerity

for the government to recognize the religious nature of this portion of its citizenry and achieve its desired policy ends in a way that doesn't subject these citizens to crippling fines for seeking to live their lives in accord with their faith? Grace and peace to you, Derek From: Greg Lipper Sent: Monday

final thoughts on the importance/availability of contraception

One closing note about the exchange of the last few hours: Many people, including and especially many males, are unlikely to be aware of all of the relevant factors affecting the cost and availability of contraception. As a result, it is unfortunate that (other than in the Notre Dame case),

Re: final thoughts on the importance/availability of contraception

I’ll address Mark’s points below. On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:21 AM, Scarberry, Mark mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote: I wonder if others (especially other males) have the same negative reaction I do to the terminology Greg (Lipper, not Sisk) uses here. Men are described as males. Women

Re: final thoughts on the importance/availability of contraception

and get some sleep…) On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:08 AM, Arthur Spitzer artspit...@gmail.commailto:artspit...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if there's any use in trying to get agreement on what Notre Dame's (and Little Sisters') argument is? Greg Lipper characterizes it this way, as do many others: In all

Re: The nonprofit contraception services cases

beneficial position at the expense of employees or others. The question is whether courts will hold them to their previous statements and positions. Marci A. Hamilton On Jan 6, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Greg Lipper lip...@au.orgmailto:lip...@au.org [5] wrote: One further note, related

Re: The nonprofit contraception services cases

One further note, related to Marci’s question, and detailed in our intervention papers: Notre Dame has emphasized the secular nature of its benefits when in its legal interests to do so. In Laskowski v. Spellings, 546 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2008), an Establishment Clause challenge to public