I’m basically with Eugene on this matter. Note, however, that in the Oklahoma
city example, as Eugene describes it, the government caused the damage, by
putting bloody bodies on the church’s carpet and hammering tent pegs into the
church parking lot. The government was compensating the church
I suppose there's a baseline question here, along with an unconstitutional
conditions issue and probably other issues. Could a synagogue be required to
allow a wedding to be held on its property between a Jew and a non-Jew, as a
condition of receiving protection of its property by a fire
Could eminent domain be used to take an entire religious facility absent the
Pillar of Fire facts and assuming other suitable facilities could be found by
the religious group? I suppose so.
Could the government take a room within a religious facility and use it for
purposes thought sinful by
I agree with David that it is not right for us to require these men to break
the law in order to use the men's restrooms, even if there is no other
consequence for breaking the law. I do think we need to allow proprietors of
public accommodations to have men's rooms and women's rooms, and that
My apologies. I intended this response to Paul to be off-list. I don't think
there is anything in it that is inappropriate for the list.
Mark
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 31, 2016, at 8:01 PM, Scarberry, Mark
<mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu<mailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>> wr
Thanks, Paul, for the tone of your response.
As Will noted in a later post, and as the text of the amended code sections
shows, there now is no exemption for showers (or restrooms etc.).
I think Will said that there is no enforcement mechanism. It seems likely that
the proprietor simply is
was not carried over into section 12-58. It’s possible
that Will knows whether there was an unsuccessful attempt before the City
Council to have such an exception included in the amended section 12-58.
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: Scarberry, Mark
I was about to send this post in response to Paul. Jim’s post that arrived a
moment ago suggests that the Charlotte ordinance may not in fact prohibit
proprietors of public accommodations from having men’s and women’s restrooms,
showers, etc. So part of the premise of the following post may not
I also wonder how Marty thinks Smith itself should have been decided under
pre-Smith law. Under that law, did the Native Americans have the right to
engage in their religious ritual? Or perhaps Justice O'Connor was right that
there was a compelling interest in preventing them from doing so? A
Doug writes:
"The cases of the sort Michael describes (and that Chris Lund has described in
public work) are still out there; they still happen. And the cases Paul
Finkelman imagines, in which state RFRAs justify all kinds of discrimination
against gays, are not out there. They have not
Marty,
You posit two potential requirements: the government requires the employer to
provide the information or the government requires the employee to provide the
information. Those raise different issues, don't they?
I haven't had time to follow these most recent list exchanges in detail but
What about Seminole Tribe?
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 Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:39 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law
The petition for cert says the grant could only be used to pay for scrap rubber
and delivery costs-- not even for site prep or any kind of labor. There is no
need to audit the church's finances but only to trace these particular funds.
It would be easy to structure this as a draft payable to
For those of us who haven't been following the case closely yet:
Why wouldn't this best be described as a grant of scrap rubber rather than as a
grant of funds/money? Should that characterization matter?
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
P.S. Condolences to Green Bay
Haven't had time to review it. Here's Carl Esbeck's take:
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2015/12/carl-esbeck-on-a-north-carolina-case-involving-religious-accommodations-after-obergefell.html.
This isn't quite responsive to Marty's request; Carl doesn't think the suit has
I failed to include Richard's email address:
richard.alb...@bc.edu<mailto:richard.alb...@bc.edu>.
Mark
From: Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 4:42 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Request for submission of items for AALS Law & Religion Secti
Friends,
I am sending this on behalf of Prof. Richard Albert, who is the chair-elect of
the AALS Law & Religion section. Some of you will already have gotten the
message via the section announcement-only list. His message is addressed to
section members, but it makes sense to have this go out
forwarded message:
From: "Scarberry, Mark"
<mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu<mailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>>
Date: September 9, 2015 at 8:43:19 AM PDT
To: "conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu>"
<conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:con
p; Int'l Affairs
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 8, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Scarberry, Mark
<mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu<mailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>> wrote:
If Davis interprets current Kentucky law to provide that a license not
specifically authorized by the county clerk is invalid,
If Davis interprets current Kentucky law to provide that a license not
specifically authorized by the county clerk is invalid, would she be in
violation of the release order if she so informs others within the Kentucky
government, or so informs persons seeking licenses? There may be interesting
Sent again with prior posts trimmed to conform to list size limits.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my iPad
But then it's bigotry to oppose religious exemptions with regard to federal law
per the federal RFRA, and, if you are a Kentuckian, to oppose religious
edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 9:29 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Scarberry, Mark
Subject: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties
If state law requires her to personally authorize the marriage, she should be
able to get an exemption under
A very quick response to Brian, and then I will subside.
The law invalidated in Hunter v. Underwood had a "racially discriminatory
impact," which seemed to be the reason or at least a key reason that the Court
did not follow Palmer v. Thompson. (Also, it was intended to have that
disparate
post and I overlooked it.
-David
David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.
From:
<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>>
on behalf of "Scarberry, Mark"
<m
In response to Eugene:
As I’ve said, it’s certainly true that the KY RFRA cannot affect determinations
of US Constitutional law. And because the district court did decide against her
on the US constitutional right-to-marry issue and did issue an injunction, she
is obligated to obey the
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 4:32 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties
In response to Eugene:
As I’ve said, it’s certainly true that th
on
a sincerely held good-faith religious belief (if the majority opinion in
Obergefell is to be taken seriously) and attempting to avoid violation of her
conscience.
Mark
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent
I think Howard's point cuts the other way, as I'll note in a moment.
A few quick thoughts:
It seems at the very least odd to me that a federal judge would decide what
Kentucky thinks is a compelling interest for purposes of the Kentucky RFRA. If
Kentucky thinks that having every clerk in every
Section 402.100 appears to require that the license include “[a]n authorization
statement of the county clerk issuing the license.” The section allows the
license to be signed by the clerk or deputy clerk (which shows that the
legislature knew how to include the deputies where it wanted to
I haven't been following this carefully, so I have a basic question. Why is a
federal court ordering her to comply with state law? She is not at this point
treating same-sex couples differently, and apparently all couples still can get
licenses by going to a different county. I would assume
A little perspective may be in order. On the one side we have people denied the
ability to engage in a common calling without having to violate sincerely held
religious beliefs. On the other we have an inability of a patron to buy a
lottery ticket without going a short distance to another
There is also the question of the meaning of common carrier. If we think it's
particularly important for common carriers to serve all comers but then think
that a business is a common carrier simply because the law currently requires
it to take all comers, we're engaged in a circular argument.
Marty makes a good but not dispositive point. In any event we have to be sure
this doesn't turn into a principle that bars people who belong to a certain
religion from some professions. There are analogous and very disturbing
historical prohibitions, not limited to those the mention of which
I used the term common carrier. I think those of us who've used that term
meant to say public accommodation or place of public accommodation. (I did.)
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe
The linked PDF of the cert petition (in 15-119) doesn't include the Appendix,
which reproduces the self-certification form. Can anyone provide an image
(front and back, if double-sided) of the current form?
Are petitioners right that in some cases they would have to locate and enter
into a
. In the cases currently being litigated, the objection of the employers
is not to this identification requirement -- each and every one of the
employers has, as far as I know, already identified the insurer or the TPA in
the body of its complaint.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Scarberry
rationally be extended by 17 years or more.
Signing off for now.
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: Eric J Segall [mailto:eseg...@gsu.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 10:33 AM
To: Michael Worley; Scarberry, Mark
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
I have other commitments today and over the next several days, have only been
able to skim the first part of Marty's post, and will likely not be able to
participate further for several days.
With that caveat, let me point out that the view of several justices is that a
new substantive due
always make it easy to see who a post is from. Please
append your name at the end of your post.
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: Michael Worley [mailto:mwor...@byulaw.net]
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 11:15 AM
To: Eric J Segall
Cc: Scarberry, Mark; Law Religion
Cross-posted to conlawprof list:
There's an excellent (and free!) program that will be held at Georgetown Law
Center on June 25, 4-5:30 pm:
In their new book Secular Government, Religious People, Ira Lupu and Robert
Tuttle break through what they call an unproductive American debate over
the invitation that Jim and I have now proffered to
discuss the non-profit situation. The commercial vendor context is just too
loaded with polarized views and quick triggers to anger, at least for me, so
I'm out of it unless you insult me further.
Chip
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Scarberry, Mark
In line with Mark's suggestion, let me apologize to Chip for using such strong
language to describe what I believe is an error in his analysis. I think I
adequately explained why reliance on O'Brien is, in my opinion, clearly wrong
in this case. List members can reach their own conclusions.
? These are not merely speculative questions -- see the
Indiana RFRA fix, and see
http://www.irfalliance.org/hidden-restriction-on-faith-based-organizations-in-vawa-reauthorization/
.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:04 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights
Let's see what Chip and I seem to agree on, and then I'll express my strong
include
making the wedding look authentic and beautiful, not ugly or false. So the
compelled speech concern seems much weaker to me than in Barnette.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
Apart from the other points
PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
I also think the florist and baker examples are weaker for the religious
claimant, especially where the flowers and cakes are generic. But what if
custom floral arrangements involve artistic choices
such a sign. Away from the business site (on line
or physical), the photographer of course is free to express her views on same
sex marriage.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
I don’t have time right now to respond
I also think the florist and baker examples are weaker for the religious
claimant, especially where the flowers and cakes are generic. But what if
custom floral arrangements involve artistic choices by the florist? What if the
cake is (as some are) a truly creative work of art? And do only
Under the Indiana RFRA, the question is whether the government has a compelling
interest, not whether a particular level of government has such an interest. So
long as the local government is competent absent a state RFRA to enact such
laws, the analysis of the application of the state RFRA
If I recall correctly, several years ago there was a suit against a church in
San Francisco for firing an organist (who helps lead a congregation in worship
as he or she plays sacred music), an organist who was, as I recall, a sexually
active gay man. What about the small Christian bookstore
Chip,
I’m with Doug on this: I also think Smith was wrongly decided, so you have put
me in the wrong group; even on your view of the matter, I’m not a clinger.
And I *haven’t* seconded any argument about political accountability. In fact,
I very much worry that there will be too little room
In response to Chip:
Perhaps I should let Eugene speak for himself, but I think he for the most part
thinks the Court got it right in Smith but also thinks a RFRA approach makes
sense. I suppose, though, that he (and others who take the same view) do not
agree with Justice Scalia that the
I was about to send this post when Eugene's came in. To some degree it makes
similar points. And it makes some points that are similar to Steve's helpful
post.
With regard to whether there should be a creative expression exception to
antidiscrimination laws, as Alan frames the issue:
Of
No time to say more now. It’s Valentine’ Day! (A good day to think about
celebratory art and romantic relationships.)
Consider:
A Stalinist group that wants to rent a hall owned by a Ukrainian immigrant to
celebrate Stalin and the Holodomor (and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine).
A group that
Univ. School of Law
From: Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:03 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Can someone be legally obligated to have sex with people she's
unwilling to have sex with?
It should go without saying (but I will say it) that I am
is not so different, even setting
aside legal analysis.
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:58 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Can someone be legally obligated to have sex
In response to Paul:
Elaine Huguenin's cert petition says that artistic expression pervades her
work.
She also says that her work is expressive photojournalism that tells a story.
More later, perhaps, but I couldn't leave your claim unanswered that she didn't
claim to be an artist. She
Following up on Eugene’s point:
Marty and Sandy are basically right, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t become
an issue.
If I’m not mistaken, the Obama administration opposed recognition of the
ministerial exception (and not just as applied on the facts in Hosanna-Tabor).
Some states have
If I might beg Eugene’s indulgence, I thought that this was sufficiently
related to the list’s purpose that it would be appropriate to forward a brief
announcement. Religion provides a source for much of the “wisdom” that will be
discussed. The relation of that “wisdom” to the law may raise
Legislators and others might also think that people have rights beyond those
set out in the Constitution or provided for even on a fair reading of the
Constitution – rights that ought to be respected by government even though the
Constitution does not require that they be respected. Cf. the
It seems that Bishop John Hughes in New York endorsed political candidates.
Apparently he opposed public funding of schools that taught Protestantism
unless funds were also provided for Catholic schools, as he requested. When
the request was denied, he endorsed political candidates who took
The PBS series God in America -- opinions on its accuracy and quality of
commentary? Interesting portrayal of George Whitfield (and others) in the first
episode.
I wonder how John Leland will be treated (if at all). [Shameless self-promotion
alert -- John Leland and James Madison: Religious
Perhaps I’m missing something. Does it really matter whether a judge or
governmental official finds that the proponents misstated or even intentionally
misrepresented the effect of the proposition? The government is refusing to
count petitions because a proponent engaged in core political
If we think the jury instructions were incorrect, then I would have trouble
with a decision upholding the convictions.
I have always been uncomfortable with the notion of harmless error in jury
instructions in criminal cases. The result is somewhat like granting summary
judgment in favor of
I don't know exactly how this works, but if you can't in some way be part of a
negotiated rate group, medical costs would be very high. I'll get a $300 bill
for lab work that Anthem cuts down to $20. We've all seen the stories about the
outrageous sticker prices charged by hospitals to
Here's a test case. A religious organization only allows members of one race to
be members, based on its view that God rejects all others. It then hires only
co-religionists. Does that fall within the exemption under Title VII? Under
the EO?
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School
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
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
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote
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
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
eseg...@gsu.edumailto:eseg...@gsu.edu wrote:
Mark says: To
Perhaps an initial question is the scope of the proposed regulations. The
government has pushed “harassment” and “hostile work environment” definitions
pretty hard. If a manager of a religiously-affiliated charity that had a
federal contract to provide social services, let’s say food for the
I noted in a prior post that the govt's position (that the required
contraception coverage was cost neutral or would save insurance companies
money) was based on a very flawed report. The govt argued that employers
wouldn't be paying for it, because there would be no higher premiums due to the
that people can use religion to discriminate
against anyone who they think is immoral. How far are you going to take that?
Paul Finkelman
From: Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
)?
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2014, at 4:14 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
And then we would have massive resistance that would make our largely voluntary
tax system unworkable and create civil division at extreme levels
I noted before the possibility that there may be new rules that would make it
very difficult for employers to drop insurance coverage. Marty said that he
didn't know of any such initiative. He may be right. Here is the development
that I had heard of.
There is an IRS QA from this year
Perhaps I misunderstood Marty's brief response, to the effect that I should
read his post. I took that to mean that all would be clear if I just bothered
to read again the post to which I was responding. Perhaps instead he meant that
I should read a post he made on the Balkinization blog; if
of complicity being offered by the
plaintiffs' lawyers -- which the Court has invited with its capacious
understanding of what constitutes a religious question beyond the ken of
civil authorities to evaluate.
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe
Maybe this is a constitutional fact, like NY Times actual malice. We need to
be careful that a trier of fact does not conclude that a party isn't sincere
just because the trier of fact thinks the belief is so obviously wrong that a
reasonable person couldn't believe it.
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
One problem is that the text of the HHS required notification form appears to
instruct the administrator to obtain the coverage or at least to tell the
administrator that it has an obligation to obtain the coverage. Thus, the S.
Ct. allowed the Little Sisters to give notice without using the
With regard to Sandy’s comment that there isn’t a chance in hell of getting
funding from Congress to cover these methods of contraception:
Do we agree that a less restrictive means is available for purposes of RFRA and
(where applicable) constitutional analysis, even if the government
Prof. Greenwood overstates the protection corporation law gives to officers and
directors from civil liability, whether or not they are shareholders. Apart
from cases in which the law makes them directly responsible for the
corporation's obligations (e.g., responsible person liability for
Jon,
I think you don't understand, or are ignoring, the point of view of the Hobby
Lobby parties. They don't object to employees buying what the Hobby Lobby
parties consider to be abortifacient drugs. I don't think they monitor what
their employees do with wages or would take any action
, that's exactly what I've argued the case is about, rather than being
about corporate free exercise or shareholder rights:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/hobby-lobby-part-v-whose-religious.html
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe
More later, perhaps, but here is an initial reaction.
I think Arkes is saying that all persons, not just religious ones, have the
right not to be forced by the government to take innocent human life. The
government may not justly require compliance with its demands, over an
objection that
This does not seem to me to be an issue that is limited to same-sex marriage
ceremonies. Any religious ceremony by which a minister solemnizes a marriage
for which a North Carolina license hasn't been issued is prohibited, with the
exception mentioned by Doug. The issue could be much broader,
from my iPad
On Apr 5, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
An interesting development.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/world/middleeast/conservative-saudi-cleric-salman-al-awda.html?from=global.home
Mark Scarberry
on an issue like this one.
Best wishes,
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 10:05 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Mississippi RFRA enacted; Wash Post apparently links to wrong version
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 1:46 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Mississippi RFRA enacted; Wash Post apparently links to wrong
version
I’m not sure my earlier email on this subject
An interesting development.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/world/middleeast/conservative-saudi-cleric-salman-al-awda.html?from=global.home
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
___
To
Yesterday I posted links to my Kansas testimony and that of other witnesses.
For some reason, when it came to me from the list, it went into my spam folder.
If you didn't get it but want the links, check your spam folder or contact me
directly.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of
Here is the link to my written witness statement for the March 6 Kansas State
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/committees/ctte_s_jud_1/documents/testimony/20140306_16.pdf.
You can find links to all the witnesses' statements here:
Cross posted to conlawprof list.
A random thought:
If four Justices continue to believe that the ACA is unconstitutional (with the
individual mandate being beyond Congress's power to impose under the Commerce
Clause and with the rest of the ACA not being severable):
Would it only take one
I'm not sure what Greg means, but if the government can override such positions
held by politically powerful groups, then what chance will minority religions
have?
It's also important to see that the Protestants who object do so not because
HHS is requiring them to provide contraception, but
, March 11, 2014 11:44 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA
We've been through this a million times before, so I won't belabor it, but no
one is being required to provide any drugs to anyone.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Scarberry, Mark
This is much more difficult than Sandy suggests.
The skyscraper builder doesn't accomplish its purpose through the death of a
worker; that is, the worker's death does not advance the building of the
skyscraper. In fact, the death is likely to hinder the work. It is an
unintended and unwanted
nor rust doth corrupt, and where
thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will
your heart be also.
Matthew 6:19-21
On Mar 11, 2014, at 8:18 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
This is much more
Religious and moral obligations aren't bounded by what the state allows. We are
bound to feed the hungry even if the state prohibits it, and some of us are
bound not to eat certain foods or to engage in other conduct even if commanded
by the state. A view that we aren't religiously or morally
So that those on the list will be satisfied who want us all to disclose our
public statements, here is a news report of the testimony I gave
(telephonically) before the Kansas State Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday:
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
Thank you for this courtesy, Mark.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 10, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
So that those on the list
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
1 - 100 of 349 matches
Mail list logo
