the 501(c)(3) non-profit framework altogether, wouldn't the tax
exemption of churches survive separately under pre-existing American
notions of church-state separation?
Michael Peabody
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Berg, Thomas C. <tcb...@stthomas.edu> wrote:
> I personally
xisting wedding services
cases involving small businesses, it would seem that churches ought to be
wary of what is lurking on the horizon if Trinity wins.
Thank you for the very informative and thoughtful points and discussion.
Michael Peabody, Esq.
President,
Founders First Freedom
On Apr 21,
manner really present itself on an equal
footing with secular non-profits when applying for state grants, or does
the religious institution's discriminatory bent need to be taken into
account when a state is dispensing limited state grants funds?
Michael Peabody, Esq
President,
Founders First
be treated the same as other non-profits and be required
to open their facilities to all, or will they then be able to assert the
protection of church-state separation?
Michael Peabody, Esq.
President,
Founders First Freedom
foundersfirstfreedom.org
___
To
udges.
We will be posting a PDF "flyer" suitable for printing and distribution in
the next couple of days.
Michael Peabody, Esq.
President
Founders First Freedom
FoundersFirstFreedom.org
*2017 Founders First Freedom Law Student Writing Competition*
Founders First Freedom is pleased to a
with that exemption?
Thanks!
Michael Peabody, Esq.
ReligiousLiberty.TV
___
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
Pleas
oughts on the long-term effect on this
decision on future Title VII cases.
Michael Peabody, Esq.
http://www.religiousliberty.tv
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucl
arties grace to give it one more chance. Maybe I'm overly optimistic,
but I am hopeful that both sides will seriously consider this an
opportunity for working together rather than a hindrance to a complete
binary "victory."
Michael Peabody, Esq.
ReligiousLiberty.TV
(My blog on to
ches, but churches may discriminate in the use of the same
funding."
I don't think the churches have thought this out very well in advance
- like the Biblical Esau they could be selling control of their facilities for a
bowl of porridge.
Michael Peabody, Esq.
ReligiousLiberty.TV
_
t be made to
attempt to to try to accommodate them. These kinds of situations
normally won't make the headlines, but it is at the heart of why RFRA
matters.
Michael Peabody, Esq.
Editor
ReligiousLiberty.TV
http://www.religiousliberty.tv
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...
atement
regarding issue X is incorrect because of Y."
Michael Peabody, Esq.
Editor
ReligiousLiberty.TV <--- Not a non-profit
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Friedman, Howard M.
<howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote:
> Some of Donald Trump's anti-Muslim statements and some of his stateme
he greater political realities of what will happen next - that
winning this battle could lead to losing the war.
That's why I am trying to come up with a hypothetical that could
explore the farthest contours of a potential ruling in favor of the
petitioners in Zubik.
Michael Peabody
Reli
aul.finkel...@yahoo.com <paul.finkel...@yahoo.com>c) 518.605.0296
> <518.605.0296>*
> and
> *Senior Fellow*
>
> *Democracy, Citizenship and Constitutionalism Program*
> *University of Pennsylvania*
>
>
>
>
>
> Call
> Send SMS
> Ca
a finding for the petitioners in these cases permit this and
similar scenarios? Is there a better hypothetical?
Thanks!
Michael Peabody, Esq.
ReligiousLiberty.TV
http://www.religiousliberty.tv
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To
One other question/concern:
If churches claim they are bring discriminated against in distribution of
state funds, are those churches free to facilities procured or enhanced by
those funds in a discriminatory manner by blocking access to others they
disagree with for purely religious reasons?
In
stablishment Clause violation)? Or are there "low level"
religious practices like having a playground "ministry" that don't
quite violate the Establishment Clause but do significantly affect the
Free Exercise of Religion?
Michael Peabody, Esq.
ReligiousLiberty.TV
(For what i
ich is more akin to what
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore attempted to do when he
refused to allow a Ten Commandments monument to be removed from the
Alabama State Judiciary despite the imposition of a Federal order
rather than a simple individual request of a count
to public officials who force their offices to comply
with their own religious directives as an expression of their faith.
Michael Peabody
ReligiousLiberty.TV
http://www.religiousliberty.tv
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Michael Peabody
<mich...@californialaw.org> wrote:
> In reviewing
analysis to free
exercise cases nationwide or is Abercrombie a fluke?
Michael Peabody, Esq.
Editor
http://www.ReligiousLiberty.TV
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http
and those of the rest of
us mortals.
Michael Peabody, Esq.
http://www.religiousliberty.tv
___
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
likewise disappear?
Michael Peabody, Esq.
ReligiousLiberty.TV
___
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
Greetings,
Please forgive me if this has been addressed before, but I have been
wondering if the Supreme Court could be working to protect both the
emerging right of same-sex couples to marry and the rights of wedding
vendors who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. On one
hand, this
), and I'm wondering if Hobby Lobby will be used the same way.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Michael Peabody, Esq.
Editor
ReligiousLiberty.TV
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options
Thanks Jean - I was trying to avoid getting into a discussion as to
the particulars of the contraception (which is the vehicle for this
particular case) by relying on Justice Alito's statement on page 9,
footnote 7, which dismissed the dispute over what the drugs actually
do (distinguishing
(and the clergy who want to marry them) the right to participate fully in
the sacraments of their religion.
Is there any way that NC's Amendment One can survive this litigation? What
arguments could possibly be used to defeat UCC that aren't completely
frightening?
Michael Peabody
Editor
http
exercise rights which are protected under the existing
state RFRAs. In many ways, RFRAs for individuals (not businesses) are the
guardians of individual rights to free exercise of religion.
Michael Peabody, Esq.
ReligiousLiberty.TV
___
To post, send
After reading the legislation, it's amazing how broadly it is drafted. It
would seem to not only include permitting discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation or marital status, but also on the basis of religion.
It would make it very easy for any business with a religious inkling to
wondering if
you'd be willing to look into your crystal ball and predict the fate of the
ministerial tax-free housing allowance.
Thanks!
Michael Peabody, Esq.
Editor - ReligiousLiberty.TV
http://www.religiousliberty.tv
___
To post, send message
28 matches
Mail list logo
