These are not speech cases -- they are conduct cases. RFRA explicitly says
against the govt. it was never intended in text or meaning to apply between
private parties and I do not understand why anyone would want to foment such
discord. What RLUIPA has done to residential neighborhoods on t
uch more moderate/sweeping than the
> Kansas bill.
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of Law
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>
>
> Original message
> From: Marci Hamilton
> Date:02/26/2014 5:09 AM (GMT-0
under RFRAs, properly interpreted.
>
> It also is the case that the AZ bill is much more moderate/sweeping than the
> Kansas bill.
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of Law
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>
>
> --
statutes protecting for-profit
>> businesses
>>
>> Would you say the Federal RFRA is egregious, Marci?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>>> I have read them and both are egregious.
>>>
>>> Sent
I have read them and both are egregious.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:15 PM, "Scarberry, Mark"
wrote:
> The Arizona bill and the Kansas bill are very different. I don’t have time
> right now to discuss this further, but all you have to do is to read the
> bills. If you do, y
It is unconstitutional under Romer v Evans. If they override the veto they
are asking to underwrite federal litigation
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
> On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:14 PM, Marty Lederman wrote:
>
>
closer to United States v.
> Lee. The case on "all fours" with Hobby Lobby would be if the developer was
> required to build multi-family (or single-family) housing (as opposed to
> leaving the property vacant) with government funding.
>
>
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 a
ert 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] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
> Se
kids in that case
>>>>> were being forced to proclaim their allegiance, which they treated as an
>>>>> act of idolatry. And, for what it is worth, the Court was crystal clear
>>>>> in viewing it as a Free Speech, not a freedom of religion, case.
>
As someone who was involved in RLPA in Congress from day one through many
hearings, only a tortured reading of history supports the notion that Congress
believed that its proponents believed RFRA should apply to for-profit
organizations let alone that they intended it to.
Given current deadli
Just to clarify for the latecomers and then I will not be returning to this --
My point was not that believers who have failed to live up to their beliefs are
vulnerable to a sincerity attack. My point, which is based on multiple polls
and my own direct, personal knowledge of many American Ca
There is a doubt however about what American Catholics believe. They
overwhelmingly reject the church teaching against contraception. They don't
think they are sinners as Mark suggested. They reject it.
Every poll supports that as does the fact that it is rare to find a Catholic
family w 10
didn’t have to use?
>
> Mark
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Professor of Law
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>
>
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc DeGirolami
> Sent: Friday, January 24,
It looks like the Court told them to do what they said they didn't want to do.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
> On Jan 24, 2014, at 5:28 PM, "Friedman, Howard M."
> wrote:
>
> The Supreme Court today ext
To follow up on Marty's last point --In the Milwaukee Archdiocese bankruptcy,
the AD is arguing that the religious exemptions in the federal bankruptcy code
trigger strict scrutiny. I agree w Marty's implicit point -- that makes
little sense.
Our opening briefs to the 7 th Cir are due on We
s
> fair to say that there can be secular expenses (as opposed to inherently
> religious) under Establishment Clause jurisprudence that still involve the
> exercise of religious beliefs by a religious entity.
>
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religion
at
> Part A, § 3, para 10.
>
> So whatever else Notre Dame may or may not do to create a religious
> educational environment, presumably it can’t have it both ways – health
> insurance is either a secular expense or involves religious exercise, but it
> can’t be both at the s
>>> to a meaningfully Catholic character?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard W. Garnett
>>>
>>> Professor of Law and Concurrent
rnett
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 3:08 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>
> P.O. Box 780
> Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0780
> 574-631-6981 (w)
> 574-276-2252 (cell)
> rgarn...@nd.edu
>
> To download my scholarly papers, please visit my SSRN page
>
> Blogs:
>
> Prawfsblawg
> Mirror of Justice
>
> Twitter: @RickGarnett
>
>
ious !
and not based on religion. This this takes me off list and this is really
beyond the scope of religion law, I just want to say that I would not judge the
wisdom of the decision in Yoder by the fact that one can find abusive practices
in Amish communities.
>
>
rls to leave the community.
>
> Judy Baer
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 5, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Michael-- My answers are interlineated below
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 1. Congress never debated the co
children.I am
> not nearly as sanguine about Yoder as others, because my focus is on the
> needs of each and every child.
Marci
>
>
>> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>> Well-said! The irony w RFRA is that it is a majoritarian statute par
hts are
> political, which they are, but need respect because of their minority nature
> in a democratic country. Thus, I think we do a disservice to the development
> of rights when we overemphasize their political nature and give the public
> the impression that the Supreme Court d
Marty-- I apologize for missing this because I think it raises an important
distinction. Thanks for raising it.
I am saying in part that Smith supports a reading of beyond the judicial ken,
but I was basing my argument more on the Court's structural jurisprudence
(which Boerne fits squarely
Marty-- could you please elaborate on your response? I am not following this
exchange
Thanks--
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Marty Lederman wrote:
> They will -- the govern
rom clear, given that
> “minorities” includes religious minorities) doesn’t make it constitutionally
> impermissible.
>
> Eugene
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
> Sent: Saturday
eking to ignore RFRA by enlisting religious believers to assist
> them by doing what the government was already doing without free exercise
> issues.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>> There needs to be more precision in the use of the t
tz [phorw...@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:45 PM
>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>> Subject: RE: courts and lawmaking
>>
>> ____
>> Subject: Re: courts and lawmaking
>> From: phorw...@hotmail.com
&
Eugene- I take it you would not have overturned the Lochner line of cases?
Your defense of unaccountable, robust policy making by judges would revive the
federal court's role in those cases and reverse the reasoning of, eg,
Williamson v lee optical.You have also failed to articulate any mean
p. The Law Review article by James D.
> Gordon III "Free exercise on the Mountaintop" illustrates well the problems
> with the theory that Smith was right
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>> This reasoning is based on the mythology crea
protect rights!
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>> This exchange, which shows both Marty and Eugene's high qualifications for
>> public service, underscores how RFRA (and RLUIPA) turn federal courts into
>&g
This exchange, which shows both Marty and Eugene's high qualifications for
public service, underscores how RFRA (and RLUIPA) turn federal courts into
super legislatures and violate the separation of powers -- as Boerne ruled. No
court in my view is institutionally competent to make these assess
sequent abuse --
> the most important consequence -- it would have the side effect of calling
> Catholics to abide by their own beliefs.
>
> Richard Dougherty
> University of Dallas
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>> Richard's point
Richard's point is fair so let me provide some more context that perhaps would
be helpful.
Privileges are concoctions of positive law dealing w what information can be
excluded in the judicial process. The confessional privilege is no different
than the attorney client privilege or the spo
Try telling a rape victim that these medications are just "trivial" and,
therefore, she can't get coverage, or that whether she uses emergency
contraception is any business of her large, corporate employer.
The " trivial " burden in fact is the burden on a for-profit employer who is
governe
It depends on the state actually. But generally the "confession" must be for
spiritual/salvation purposes
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Paul Horwitz wrote:
> Is that accurate? It
, and the argument that such preference for
> religion makes the statute unconstitutional, the Court can’t read RFRA the
> same way, but is instead compelled to read it in a way that makes it
> unconstitutional?
>
> Eugene
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:r
Chip has cut to the chase (thank you)
i would add that Eugene's reasoning further underscores how RFRA is in fact a
non-ratified amendment to the First Amendment, as the Court pointed out in a
footnote in Boerne. Advocates for it like Eugene cannot build in all the
rules they like by borrow
I find it interesting that Doug concedes in this thread that results in RFRA
cases turn on the judge's predilections on religious liberty regardless of the
law's language. I have witnessed this lack of neutrality in several cases,
most notably the ruling by Judge Randa in the Milwaukee bankrupt
nside power players, to that end? Does anything turn on
> describing religious groups as having lobbyists and an agenda, and implying
> that other groups are wholly selfless and decent? Or is that just semantic
> advocacy?
>
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:45 PM, "Marci Hamilton" wro
ng--"burden," "substantial burden," or
> "restriction on religious liberty,"--would matter in deciding cases?
>
> Again I may be wrong about this and I really would like to be corrected if I
> am. But I have seen no evidence that these differences have pra
from the cases I've read. But it may be wrong,
>> and I'd like to know if it is.
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> Chris-- As I mentioned, CT's has been amended through interpretation You
>>> are right a
The Texas municipal league and civil rights groups -- especially those
protecting children's and women's and gay rights -- would disagree w the notion
"substantial" is irrelevant. And the TX legislature had no interest,
or so I am told by those groups on the ground in Texas. I don't want the
Chris-- As I mentioned, CT's has been amended through interpretation You are
right about Alabama.
I actually think these terms matter and removal of substantial violates the
Establishment Clause but it also shows the endless push by religious entities
to overcome all laws. I assume the
Few quick observations and then my work through of the Title VII and RFRA
factors.
These employers oppose sterilization, not just medicines. Does that affect
Eugene's analysis? Also--Is there a sincerity point to be raised given they
are religiously opposed to all contraception but basing t
t; From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:32 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Discrimination under
Tom-- they are not opposed to the Pill?
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:16 PM, "Berg, Thomas C." wrote:
> In response to Chip,
>
> As to the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, the
I certainly hope they will rely on these statutes which are evidence of (1) the
ingrained and ongoing persistence of gender discrimination across society and
in private institutions; (2) the need to be vigilant as these hard-fought
rights can be compromised at any time; and (3) this religious li
Marty- one addition --women will also have to pay for oral contraceptives to
stop excessive bleeding, cramps, and hormone- triggered acne. I think this
discussion needs to factor in the medical uses beyond contraception for
millions of women over the course of their lives.
Marci
Marci A. Ham
Chip-- it might be a standing issue regarding the religious discrimination but
I still think it has legs because, eg, a Presbyterian is having her job
benefits limited solely according to religion that she doesn't share, in
contravention of both economics and health standards. Shaping a compen
, which is more essential-- free food or free contraception?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>>> This isn't lunch-- it is medical treatment for women. (Contraceptive meds
>>> may wor
This isn't lunch-- it is medical treatment for women. (Contraceptive meds may
work against some Catholics' beliefs but they are often taken for
non-contraceptive reasons, so the contraception label for this is
religio-centric).
And women have a civil right against these employers not to be
> objection is to having to write things that I think it’s wrong for me to
> write.
>
> Eugene
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 10:
Point of law-- Most freelancers are subject to work for hire agreements that
divest copyright and make the purchaser the "owner" of the speech for all
purposes.
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Aug 24, 2013
Let me clarify: the issue in New Mexico is a conflict between the civil rights
of same sex couples and for-profit photographers who hold themselves out as a
public accommodation.The govt does not have civil rights.
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Where is the potential civil rights violation in this hypothetical?
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Aug 23, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Michael Worley wrote:
> Are people who support the decision in New Mexico also will
And if the NYT refused to include same- sex couples in its wedding section, it
would be sued. Or mixed race couples. Or to sell to same-sex couples.
Except for the narrow issue in Hosanna Tabor, First Amendment rights do not
immunize you from the civil rights laws.
Marci A. Hamilton
Verk
Wedding photography is speech for money, and a lot of it. The photographer
who depicts the wedding in a non- joyous manner is not going to get paid, is
going to receive terrible reviews online, and even be boycotted. She or he
will find themselves with no wedding jobs. The photographer who
That's right, Brad, if you want to have a for-profit company in a free market
economy, you shouldn't be able to choose your customers based on race, gender,
sexual orientation, or religion. Isn't that how the market works best-- being
fueled by products and price, rather than purchaser's or se
egree by the Constitution, even under
> the highly-restrictive post-Smith regime).
>
> Mark
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Professor of Law
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@l
Reread the entirety of the memorial.
Madison was very concerned about the abusive power of the clergy.
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Aug 18, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Richard Dougherty wrote:
> I would think that th
But if you take the "restoration" part of RFRA seriously, Lee and Bowen are the
lead cases in these scenarios. I don't think you can have it both ways that
RFRA restores the prior case law and it requires radical new ways of reasoning
w respect to large federal or state administrative programs.
Thanks, Ellis, for your valuable post. Let's also add that the framing
generation understood and articulated a distinction between liberty and
licentiousness, as I have written before. And set a boundary on religious
liberty of safety and the public good. Indeed, pastors preached abiding by
with abortion, government
> does not need to fund it--the compelling interest is in not making it illegal.
> Jon
>
> On 2013-08-17 10:57, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>> I agree w Chip and Jim on the baseline issue, but also the previ
I was not suggesting only the burden on taxpayers, though when it comes to a
national scheme of healthcare, I think the compelling interest standard is met
by women's reproductive health.
I was also suggesting the govt has a compelling interest in (1)ensuring women
have reasonable means of obta
I agree w Chip and Jim on the baseline issue, but also the previous point about
the point of the Religion Clauses is not just rights for the believer but also
the path to peace in a diverse religious culture. Lee and Bowen v Roy stand
for the proposition that if one chooses to employ or to tak
a product translates to the state's compelling
>> interest in providing a product is not supported by case law. Personal
>> interests provide governmental rational basis, of course, but not a
>> governmental compelling interest.
>>
>> Just my 2¢,
>>
>
I assume they were serious and hope they were.
If you are a woman with unstoppable bleeding as part of your periods, or
excruciating cramps,
this is medication and treatment that is indeed compelling. If you cannot go
to work for 5 days every month because of the severity of your periods, the
rofit corporations, but there may
> have been a common understanding about RFRA protecting individuals engaged in
> commercial activity.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>> Except that 1997 itself is an irrelevant date. The relevant dates are
>&
tanding about RFRA protecting individuals engaged in
> commercial activity.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>> Except that 1997 itself is an irrelevant date. The relevant dates are
>> 1990-93, during the enactment of RFRA.
>>
>&
Except that 1997 itself is an irrelevant date. The relevant dates are 1990-93,
during the enactment of RFRA.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Aug 2, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Marc Stern wrote:
> IS it possibl
There is no "all" in the legislative process. There are only competing
interests and conflicting sides. I am not going to belabor this for this
exchange, but as someone who was as intimately involved in this as Doug, but on
the opposite side, his description encompasses some but not all of wha
I think it is critically important to remember that RLPA was rejected
categorically by the members as much too broad. The history w respect to
anything other than land use and prisons are the only histories that have any
reliable content to them for future interpretation.
Post-enactment legisl
As I understand the process, Doug reassured folks on the left that RLPA as
applied to land use law would not apply to the civil rights laws, particularly
the fair housing laws. Not sure how to square that w Doug's current
statements.
I also find the in pari materia argument disingenuous at be
Michael-- how do you read Cutter's several statements that require deference
to prison officials on safety?
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Jul 27, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Michael Masinter wrote:
> The ele
gherty
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Marci Hamilton
> wrote:
>> At this stage in history, Alito's view is in fact decisively sectarian. The
>> vast majority of opposition is theological w theological sources. That is
>> the political reality. And
Title: An Email from Zoosk
Marci Hamilton has added you as a friend on Zoosk.
Is Marci Hamilton your friend?
Yes
No
This message was sent by a Zoosk
As long as it is a case-by-case analysis, I am on board. But I think the
presumption of religion as good is folly for the vulnerable.
Marci
On Jul 10, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Andrew M M Koppelman
wrote:
> I said that the value of religion sometimes outweighs other considerations.
> I didn't say
ch you are
> referring?
>
> Now I have to go watch the Nationals and drink some beer with my younger son
> -- he'll be 22 in a few weeks. I have a 13 year old grandson coming to visit
> tomorrow, and I'll have to think twice about offering him a bottle.
>
> On Th
Now I have to go watch the Nationals and drink some beer with my younger son
> -- he'll be 22 in a few weeks. I have a 13 year old grandson coming to visit
> tomorrow, and I'll have to think twice about offering him a bottle.
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Marci Hamilton
be abuse or neglect,
> but the standard for state intervention would be the same for both parents.
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Marci Hamilton wrote:
> I would like some clarification from those relying on purported "parental
> rights." The use of the term
I would like some clarification from those relying on purported "parental
rights." The use of the term "parental right" is freighted w social and
cultural value but very little legal value.
Pierce v Society of Sisters is balanced by Prince. So the use of "right" in
this context is a dead
I have been away and apologize if I am repeating what others already have said.
The legal standard that should be applied in all circumstances involving
children is the best interest of the child.
Regardless of the involvement of religion or conviction or thoughtlessness.
Barbara Woodhouse ha
a...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 2:05 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Providing public school credits for release-time religious
> classes
>
> Unless, like Niemeyer, you think tha
Marty is undoubtedly correct under current doctrine. The release time program
exists I assume to avoid Establishment Cl problems. To now argue entanglement
is a problem is a constitutional sleight of hand to avoid a violation.
The entanglement argument is particularly weak given the descrip
t; > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>
> > Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND
>
> >
>
> > "Giving religious groups more power to endanger children...."
>
> >
>
> > Wow
>
> >
>
> > To be charitabl
Public schools should also be held to the same standard as any private
institution and it should be child-protective
Marci
On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:04 AM, "Douglas Laycock" wrote:
> It is not just other constitutional interests that limit liability for harm
> to children. It is also other publi
ns LLP and may not be copied or distributed without
> this disclaimer.
>
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Virginia Law School
> 580 Massie Road
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> 434-243-8546
>
> From: reli
The Sherbert/Yoder test was never treated by the
Supreme Court as a test available across the
board. So NARAL's concerns and CHILD 's
Issues would not have been controlled by it
The concern is not over enforcement but rather enforcement
Giving religious groups more power to endanger children i
There is a significant federal RFRA litigation burden in the diocesan
bankruptcies. Marty and I have been on opposite sides litigating it. I
currently represent the victims in the Milwaukee Archdiocesan bankruptcy on the
RFRA and First Amendment issues.
I have seen state rfras pled in many c
.
>
> 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] On B
Missouri Is a good case to start with
Marci
On Jun 14, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Arthur Spitzer wrote:
> Marci - I don't believe you've stated the facts of a single case. I'd say the
> same thing if you were a man.
> Art
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Marci Hamilton
I'm not sure why stating the facts in these cases is "rhetoric" I sincerely
hope it is not because a woman is pointing out the facts rather than a man.
This last statement also is not rhetoric but an honest observation.
Eugene's analysis is correct to a point. Even though slightly more than
You would be incorrect
On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:23 PM, lawyer2...@aol.com wrote:
> 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 o
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
oing to be as effective as
> suppression (plus those alternatives). Brandenburg, I think, is a judgment
> that speech restriction is just not a permissible means of serving the
> compelling interests, see generally
> http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/scrutiny.htm pts. II.B & III
Eugene-what about strict scrutiny?
I think there is a compelling interest in protecting children from being hit
with wooden dowels
Given the hidden nature of most such abuse, there is unlikely to be a lesser
restrictive method to ensure children are not harmed.
Marci
On May 13, 2012, at 7:
I don't think it is a difficult question but disagree that the rule is sound.
The standard should be the best interest of the child. Stability in an
extremist religion is often not in the child's best interest, especially if the
child is a girl.
For example, the FLDS. The best interest of
A litigation might not be.
>
> Eugene
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 1:33 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Cc: Law
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
