Re: Making sense of Hosanna-Tabor (and the absurd nursing-worshipper hypo)

Hosanna-Tabor is an easy case once you decide that the person is within the category of minister and the unanimity is not surprising on those facts. Contrary to the assertions of some, liberals do not respond in knee-jerk pavlovian fashion in favor of government regulation of any and all sorts n

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

sively > ecclesiastical questions. See generally Lupu & Tuttle, The Mystery of > Unanimity in [Hosanna-Tabor], 20 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1265 > (2017),https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/23330-204lupu-tuttlearticle7pdf > <https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/23330-204l

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

sts.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:13 AM > To: Law Religion & Law List > Subject: Re: Church excl

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:49 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: C

Church excludes nursing woman

If RFRA applied to the state, or if Virginia had a state RFRA that copied the federal RFRA, would this state law be legal? Virginia law provides that a woman can breast feed uncovered anywhere she has a legal right to be. Can a church then exclude her because breast feeding uncovered might make

Re: Bible classes in elementary schools

I do an informal raise your hand sort of survey of those students in my con law class who had in-public-school instruction in Christianity in elementary school. It ranges from a low of 15% to around 50% each year. Once a student asked me if Catholicism counted as Christian. In that case it was i

HS bb player wearing hajib

Strikes me as an unconstitutional requirement that a person provide “documentation” that wearing the headgear is required by one’s religion. Under Islam the person, indeed the only person, who can decide whether it is required by her religion, is the adherent. In this regard Islam is extremely f

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

n...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:20 PM > To: Law Religion & Law List > Subject: Re: Scalia's views of RFRA? > > I never read Smit

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

I never read Smith that way — it was a straight up carte blanche to the legislative and executive branches provided the law was neutral and generally applicable — no weighing of competing interests involved. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Assoc. Dir. of International Program

Re: Successful RFRA defense in EEOC case against funeral home that fired a male-to-female transgender employee for insisting on wearing a skirt suit to work

I supported RFRA for years. I am becoming a supporter of Smith. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Assoc. Dir. of International Programs Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org http://sdjlaw.org "Politics hates a vacuum. If it isn't filled with hope, so

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

Does motive for treating people differently on the basis of sex matter? Surely. Separate bathrooms, changing rooms, and sports teams, for example. Those three examples are justified on the basis of other interests such as cultural norms of privacy and “decency” and on genuine gender-linked, p

Re: speech and religion hypothetical

-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>> on behalf of Steven Jamar > mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 4:47:01 AM > To: Law Religion & Law List > Subject: Re: speech and religion hypothetic

Re: speech and religion hypothetical

Oh oh. Eugene and I agree completely on something! Protesters in a limited designated public forum are not engaging in protected activity. There is no constitutional right to disrupt another’s speech in such a setting. If the school refused to give the protesters a forum at all, that would be

FSM not recognized as a religion for 1st Amendment purposes

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pastafarianism-is-still-not-a-legally-recognized-religion-in-the-united-statesyet?utm_medium=email&utm_source=digg

California seal cross

I assume this is correct under the facts here — but if it were on the seal continuously from 100+ years ago, I assume it would be ok. But here, with it being off, then being put back on, it gets the feel religious motivation/intent/purpose, running afoul of Lemon. Thoughts? http://www.latimes

Re: The Charlotte City Ordinance and Religious Freedom

I think it is wrong to treat enforcement mechanisms as the sine qua non of whether something is law. > On Mar 31, 2016, at 11:28 PM, Finkelman, Paul > wrote: > > I think David has it exactly right. If the law says you cannot use the mens > room with a birth certificate saying you are male t

State RFRAs and Breyer's balancing test

Have any state RFRA sought to use a non-strict scrutiny balancing approach under which the weight of the interest of the religious exceptionalist, the state’s interest, and the employers/public accomodations/etc. interest are weighed to assess the proper outcome? -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar

namaste and yoga banned

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/24/ga-parents-offended-by-the-far-east-religion-of-yoga-get-namaste-banned-from-school/ -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Assoc. Dir. of International Programs Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj

Re: In re Tam and CLS

lt;mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 4:27 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <mailto:religionlaw@lis

In re Tam and CLS

Not really wanting to restart this issue, but in re-reading CLS v. Martinez, I came across this gem: "The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization’s expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be. But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state s

Re: The Establishment Clause question in the Trinity Lutheran case

("Religious accommodations ... need not 'come packaged >> with benefits to secular entities'"). >> >> >> >> - Jim >> >> >> >> > ___ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.

Re: help wanted

com/> > > Championing Religious Freedom and Human Rights > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar &

Re: help wanted

sting question, but like the computer said in War Games, perhaps "the > only way to win is not to play." > > Ed Darrell > Dallas > > > From: Steven Jamar > To: Law Religion & Law List > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 10:38 AM > Subject: help wa

help wanted

How might Congress draft a federal law that requires states to accommodate religious beliefs so that state employees are free to refuse to perform tasks that are contrary to their religious beliefs? We have the Boerne problems of making a record and RFRA being held to be too much of a bludgeon.

Texas Cheerleaders display Bible Verses on banners

Seems to me there is an establishment problem here. Cheerleaders are sponsored by the school and are displaying religious messages to a captive audience who could choose to forego attending the game or else putting up with the religious banners. Has the free speech approach become so dominant

Re: The Establishment Clause question in the Trinity Lutheran case

t; The problem is that it is awkward for well-paid law professors to teach their > students that law often comes down to the idiosyncratic views of the median > justices and that it is basically foolish to believe there are true doctrinal > rationales that can predict future decisions. > >

Re: The Establishment Clause question in the Trinity Lutheran case

It seems to me that the play-in-the-joints theory and providing accommodations between exercise and establishment shoiuld win out in this instance thereby upholding the Missouri Constitutional ban on direct and indirect financial support for religious organizations. A ruling that pushes the ne

Re: Research Queries

I didn’t think we had respect within our discipline or influence within our discipline through law reviews generally! :) > On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Conkle, Daniel O. wrote: > > A colleague of mine, who is working on an interdisciplinary book, has asked > me for ideas on the following: >

Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.

I think too much is made about the difficulty of deciding who is or who is not a member of a religion. First, self-identification would handle most cases. Second, a simple questionaire of just a few key points would be sufficient to identify a Muslim — unless the person was lying, but pretty m

Satanists take the field

cross posted con law profs and law and religion listserves 1. Does assistant coach Kennedy have the right to lead prayers after football games? 2. Does assistant coach Kennedy have the right to personally publicly pray at midfield after football games? 3. Do the Satanists and othe

Re: Civil determination of a religious question in Rowan County?

The underlying theory is exactly the same — complicity with evil. Once the naked assertion is made, it is, after Hobby Lobby, uncontestable by the government or courts. Analogizing and distinguishing are tricky, manipulable rhetorical devices. But you can’t dodge the similarities just because

Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case

I didn’t think the complicity argument was plausible until Hobby Lobby said otherwise. > On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Michael Masinter > wrote: > > What plausible reading of religious freedom empowers Ms. Davis to prohibit > her deputies from issuing marriage licenses because of her religious

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

re free to do based on their religious > judgment. > >Eugene > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.ed

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

bLH> >>> >>> You can view my papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at >>> the following >>> URL: http://ssrn.com/author=345249 <http://ssrn.com/author=345249> >>> >>> >>> From: religionlaw-boun...

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

@law.utexas.edu>] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 3:36 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene > > I think Steve gets it exactly right. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On

Re: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties

I think Eugene’s careful dissecting out the EP aspect is misguided, especially after Olbergefell’s careful consideration of both EP and SDP in this sort of same-sex marriage context. I agree that the denial of the right to marry is sufficient to support the injunction — Davis is denying that ri

Re: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties

Mark and I disagree about the nature of animus and bias in the violation of constitutional rights. I think the source of her bias is not relevant to the 14th Amendment analysis; he thinks it is. She is treating all couples the same only because she thinks that insulates her from liability unde

Re: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties

Thank you for posting the extended exerpt, Eugene. I disagree with you on one point in particular — if the state has chosen to use counties, then it has chosen to use counties, not regional offices. It could choose to use another method — regional offices — and the district court did not addre

Re: What's happening in KY? -- wrong case, wrong parties

Mark, are you claiming that her religious-based bias against same sex couples is ok under the 14th Amendment? This sort of bias has been repeatedly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as inherently unreasonable. Again, see Cleburne. If her original position had been as nuanced as yo

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

I don’t know that anyone can really know the extent of their biases influencing their thinking. Deep things like being a trained historian vs. an engineer can infect how we view the law. Life experiences — poor or rich, elite or marginal, black, white or other, etc. surely impact how we view t

Re: Kay Davis and Title VII

I still dislike Smith. I think the ability of the court to allow play in the joints under Sherbert/Yoder was superior to both Smith and RFRA especially given how the court applied RFRA in Hobby Lobby. If the choice is between Hobby Lobby and any claim of complicity being treated as cognizable

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

Even if she is acting in accordance with her understanding of state law, she cannot violate the federal constitution in doing so, and any state law that is violation of the federal constitution is not, well, constitutional. State RFRA cannot override the United States Constitution. Period. Full

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

She is motivated by prejudice against same sex couples. Her motivation for that is not relevant under what I thought to be well settled and noncontroversial equal protection jurisprudence. She has no rational reason to treat same sex couples differently from opposite sex couples under the law. O

Re: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some claimants abortifacient) Mandate

And so back to attenuation, proximate cause (remember Palsgraf?), and complicity with evil and metaphysical triggers like telling someone that you want to opt out being equated to being forced to physically distribute contraceptives. No sale. Steve > On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:07 PM, Michael Worl

Re: law suit on behalf of Jesus

irit, alas, has been forgotten as always. > > Kevin Chen > > Sent on my mobile device. Please Excuse my brevity and typographic errors. > > On May 6, 2015 2:12 PM, "Steven Jamar" <mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Ah yes. And so the emissary from God

Re: law suit on behalf of Jesus

Ah yes. And so the emissary from God cannot be recognized as such by the court because it is a political question to be decided in the first instance by the executive. Layers and layers in this. > On May 6, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > >But what about the Ambassa

Re: law suit on behalf of Jesus

Everyone knows that God’s domicile for jurisdictional purpose is Minnesota, aka, God’s country. Steve > On May 6, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Jeremy Mallory wrote: > > Hmm. I wonder if this means that God is now subject to personal jurisdiction > in Nebraska. Ernest Chambers will be happy to hear that.

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

Religious beliefs do not need to be rational to be protected. Of course many religious beliefs are irrational — some even to believers themselves, not to mention how they appear to outsiders — and indeed how they in fact are — they are in fact irrational when measured by any measure of reason o

Re: Gordon College v. Bob Jones Redux v. Conflicts Actually Likely to Arise

There is a serious asymmetry here, it seems to me. Many expressions of concern about the religious being persecuted by the new norm of respect for those with same-sex orientation with little recognition of the decades/centuries of those self same religious adherents persecuting those with a sex

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

If I understand the question correctly, the question is whether standards will change and whether new demands will be made at some time in the future? The answer is “of course.” Of course people will agitate for more. And others will ask will ask for more. Witness the religious claims of som

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

Is there an IRS provision that would require the loss of tax exempt status as in Bob Jones? > On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:39 PM, Brad Pardee wrote: > > In an article from the Weekly Standard, the question was raised about the > implications for religious organizations losing their tax-exempt status

Re: Colorado bakery case - No violation of non-discimination laws for refusal to bake cake with anti-gay message

If the state requires you to bake a cake, bake two. Matthew 5:41 It is verses like this that make it hard for me to credit the complicity with evil argument underlying all of these religious objections. But I know the first amendment does not protect actual Christianity because there is no suc

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

The benefits of clarity in regulation are that it obviates the need for litigation and it allows for compromise among disparate and often competing interests as well as allowing for compromise of competing values. If a law specifically exempts a well-defined business or entity, then the very re

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

Interesting articles in the Washington Post on the Indiana brouhaha. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-pence-defends-religious-freedom-bill-amid-continued-criticism/2015/03/29/c8174cbe-d63a-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html Gov. Pence points out that there are many misunderstandings and

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

I know there are those who think the Indiana RFRA only protects religious adherents through an exemption or exception-based regime. But that is not how everyone will understand it. Some will think of it as a license to discriminate: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/28/3640221/indiana-bus

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

“No one”? Well, maybe not its more sensible advocates. On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Ryan T. Anderson wrote: > What you call "discriminate" I call freedom to operate in public square in > accordance with well-founded beliefs about marriage. As Doug pointed out, no > one is talking about discr

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

There is a big difference between a regime where the law says you cannot or should not and a law that says its ok in the way people respond. Most people do not sue most of the time every time their rights are infringed, so the “show me the cases” standard seems a bit off to me. Nonetheless, I t

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

Paul’s point is supported by those Christians who interpret “shall not be unevenly yoked” broadly as requiring separation — including discrimination against others of other beliefs. I have relatives who (formerly) were of exactly this belief and know some Christians who still adhere to them. O

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

Interesting that you think that people who want to use this legislationl to discrimiate will wait until July to do so. On Mar 27, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Kniffin, Eric N. wrote: > I would caution against reading too much into a reactionary statement from > the NCAA’s Director of Public and Media Rel

Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought

If the Hobby Lobby decision that complicity with evil simpliciter, no matter how attenuated, is a substantial burden is followed, then the fears about state RFRAs will be realized. If however, the (in my judgment vain) attempt by Justice Alito to tie the substantiality of the burden to the fina

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

I thought Smith was wrong at the time. I now think it is mostly right albeit with an unworkable, even naive standard of “neutral and generally applicable” — which was and is meaningless in a regime of accommodations (how are such laws neutral or generally applicable?). But the idea that religio

Re: Wedding photographers as creators of art

Not all bases of discrimination are the same and not all businesses are the same. Discrimination based on the target’s immutable characteristics (race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) is not the same as one based on a difference in beliefs — political, religious, moral. A

Re: Oklahoma bill would protect clergy who won't perform gay marriages

I think one will see all sorts of errors — like those going the other way in Alabama right now. And like those teachers and administrators who wrongly prohibit kids from private prayer before lunch or from reading the Bible in free reading time. And ironically some of the mistakes will be mad

Re: Homeschooling, vaccinations, and Yoder

Penn & Teller illustrate the value of vaccinations. http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/01/watch-2-magicians-destroy-anti-vaccine-movement-90-seconds.html -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Howard University School of Law vox: 202-806-8017 fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org

Re: [Ipprofs] Souix Falls Jesus Christ snow plows

Sorry to cloud the issue with facts, but since the first posting, I've learned that there are a number of snowplow blades with various messages on them — not all Christian evangelism. http://siouxfalls.org/active-projects/special-projects/paint-the-plows/Gallery/havey-dunn.aspx So, does this

Souix Falls Jesus Christ snow plows

The seems to be a pretty clear case of violating the establishment clause AND the trademark rights of Coca Cola. http://godsnotdeadthemovie.com/blog/gods-dead-sioux-falls/ -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellect

Re: "I would not have enacted this statute" - Justice Scalia on RLUIPA

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” Abraham Lincoln On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Ira Lupu wrote: > I appreciate the comments of others to the effect of "I would not have > enacted . . " = "stupid" or "silly." Note that the Supreme Court must take > state law

Re: Is it possible that rights of both same-sex couples and vendors who object on religious grounds could be protected?

Don’t some public accomodations laws reach vendors — even though employment discrimination laws don’t? I don’t know that the federal law does, but surely some states’ laws do. On Oct 9, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Michael Peabody wrote: > Greetings, > > Please forgive me if this has been addressed be

Re: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument

On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote: > And of course a fair number of questions about how to reconcile deference > with compelling interest and least restrictive means. That is a genuine > puzzle. I’m shocked that anyone could have trouble with this after Kennedy cleared it al

Re: science professor lecture

How would it not be constitutional? What possible theory? On Sep 28, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Marc Stern wrote: > > Today's NY Times Review section has an article by a professor of evolutionary > biology at a public university describing a lecture he gives annually > explaining how that body of scie

athiest prevented from reenlisting in the air force

Surely this is an easy case? http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/atheist_who_wouldnt_take_so_help_me_god_oath_isnt_allowed_to_reenlist_group/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International

Re: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"?

Cardozo wrote that sometimes he had trouble deciding cases then the answer would just come to him while walking down the street - -and then he had to put that insight into the legal framework we accept as proper. Surely the same is true today on major cases and even in cases where the result is

Justices as historians, social scientists, or advocates

The justices are woeful historians — but this is understandable given that our discipline is rhetorical, not truth-based. We are trained to find support for our positions and to push that support and the inferences from it as far as we can to support our conclusions. The justices, in their opi

Re: Untangling the confusion of the Wheaton College order

I was using accommodation as distinguished from separation or coercion or neutrality as guiding principles. I think that is somewhat different from Sandy’s point. I think Sandy’s point about the decline of the understanding of government and civil society as being (largely) based on reason, at

Re: Untangling the confusion of the Wheaton College order

Yes. We are not only deep into an accommodationist regime, but the complicity theory immunizes religious claims from examination except for sincerity. Attenuation could be adopted in a later case, but if it is not attenuated in HL, then it is hard to see where it would be. And as we all know,

Re: Attenuation

How about owning stock in companies that make and sell contraceptives? They had to sign a contract to do that. The distance between doing the improper thing — selling, paying for, using contraceptives — and buying general health insurance with coverages mandated by the government is attenuat

Re: Hobby Lobby Question

Art Spitzer > PS - My questions should not be taken to imply that I necessarily agree with > the majority opinion (not that anyone cares), and they certainly do not > represent the views of my employer. > > > > Warning: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA. >

Re: Hobby Lobby Question

f > a burden, especially considering that the Court did evaluate that question, > as an empirical matter, in this case. > > Art Spitzer > > > Warning: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA. > > > >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Steven Jamar

Re: Hobby Lobby Question

Brown eliminated the constitutional doctrine of separate but equal — in the Brown decision just for education, but it was applied to all racial classifications. The 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished much more, of course, but the Brown decision matters a lot. So it is with numerous decisions.

Re: Hobby Lobby Question

Hobby Lobby interpretation — quick take: 1. It seems to have lowered the threshold for substantial burden to something lower than most lower courts had been using and adopts both the complicity with evil theory and says it cannot second guess a complicity with evil claim of burden or substanti

Re: Simple Hobby Lobby question

Religion-in-employment cases should not be one-sided or even two sided — there are at least three parties with serious interests that come into play–the employer’s religious exercise; the employees’ interest in employment, in the benefits required by law, in the employee’s (singularly or collect

Re: "Divisiveness"

“nones”? Huh. I knew that was a thing, but didn’t really expect to see it here. Steve On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:49 PM, mallamud wrote: > I agree with Alan's statement below, stated better than I did. I would add > that we now do/should include the nones within the system. > >

Re: Does UVA have its own Regnerus scandal?

treating it seriously. Steven Jamar -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org “There are

Re: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage

nal avoidance? > > Eugene > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 3:33 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: States prohibiti

Re: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage

red by law to be delivered to the person; indeed, no license is legally > possible. So I don’t see any basis for invalidating the statute on free > speech or free exercise grounds as to same-sex marriages, though, as I said, > it would be just fine to make clear that the statute indeed

Re: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage

eligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:36 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage > > Isn’t this an easy case of free exercise violation? A

States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage

Isn’t this an easy case of free exercise violation? Assuming that states do not need to recognize same sex marriages as a matter of federal equal protection law, and do not need recognize church-recognized same sex marriages as vaild for state purposes (though the state would still recognize ch

Re: Supreme Court Decides Town of Greece

e boundary of the Establishment Clause where history shows that the >> specific practice is permittedA test that would sweep away what has so >> long been settled would create new controversy and begin anew the very >> divisions along religious lines that the Establishment

Re: Supreme Court Decides Town of Greece

Are we to read Scalia's and Thomas’s refusal to sign unto part II B as meaning they would allow coercion and still not find an establishment violation? -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and

Re: Supreme Court Decides Town of Greece

I wonder if empirical evidence about the incredible ineffectiveness of the prayers in accomplishing the purposes articulated by Justice Kennedy would be sufficient to overcome the “history and tradition” test. "As practiced by Congress since the framing of the Constitution, legislative prayer l

Re: Supreme Court Decides Town of Greece

“The prayer was intended to … invoke divine guidenc in town affairs….” And it wasn’t even a longstanding tradition in that town — started in 1999. An indefensible opinion on these facts unless one really accepts that only coercion violates the establishment clause -- endorsement is fine. --

Re: Supreme Court Decides Town of Greece

As I said, continuing doctrinal chaos. I find it curious that anyone could treat “tradition and history” as truly meaningful, substantive guidelines. International Shoe “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”, right to bear arms, incorporation, defining the line between stat

Re: Supreme Court Decides Town of Greece

Doesn’t do much to clarify the topic, does it. So, cannot coerce. Sectarian is ok. Should not be seen as endorsing because we’ve done it for so long. It isn’t really that important anyway. And besides the Town tries to spread it around–it’s just that the only religious folk in town are Chri

Re: Hobby Lobby transcript

I think Mary is dead-on on this point and would love to see the court interpret RFRA as inherently and unavoidably including some sort of balancing test that takes into account not just whether the burden is substantial, but just how substantial or intrusive it is, as well as recognizing that th

Re: Fired Buddhist Employee Sues Claiming Failure To Accommodate Religious Beliefs

The employer's duty to accommodate is notoriously anemic. Forcing an employee to violate his beliefs concerning right speech seems wrong as a matter of morality and policy, but not law. If someone else can put the offensive words on the communications, then there might be an accommodation case,

Re: Fired Buddhist Employee Sues Claiming Failure To Accommodate Religious Beliefs

An employer's duty to accommodate is notoriously anemic. Here the Buddhist is likely claiming the requirement forces the employee Sent from Steve's iPhone > On Mar 25, 2014, at 9:34 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" wrote: > > An interesting lawsuit that Howard Friedman blogged about, >

Re: Hobby Lobby transcript

Where is the complicity burden? The financial burden can’t be a burden. If the alternative removes the complicity, and that alternative is available to them, then where is the substantial burden on religion? It was plaintiff’s complicity theory that was the driving force. They had the burden

RFRA claims for exemption from spousal share laws under state will and trust law

Have there been any cases where someone has asserted that a spousal election to take against the will has been challenged as violating a state RFRA? -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social

Re: Any limits on bar associations' advising lawyers how to draft discriminatory wills?

When I wrote a will for a Muslim client I had to have it enforceable in Saudi Arabia (but not under the Wahabi school of jurisprudence — my client was Shafi’i), and enforceable under Minnesota law — he spent 6 months a year at the Saudi hospital in Riyad and 6 months at the University of Minneso

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Marty’s last point seems telling. If the object were to reduce abortions, then one should favor contraception being readily and inexpensively available. If one wants to avoid complicity in abortions, then one should support contraception. But, where the complicity includes something one has r

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >