In Smith v Jefferson County Bd. of School Comm'rs, 13-5957,decided yesterday by
the Sixth Circuit,, the concurring judge(Judge Batchelder) said flat out that
We do not grant monetary damages for violations of the Establishment Clause.
No authority is cited for that proposition ,other than a
Academics
Reply To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: GW National Religious Freedom Moot Court Competition
Dear Chip,
Thanks for this. I'm hoping that Notre Dame will send a team again. All the
best,
Rick
Richard W. Garnett
Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor
al Message-
From: Sisk, Gregory C. gcs...@stthomas.edu
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 4:16 pm
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses
Every sorry episode in the long Americ
-
From: Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.net
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Would you say the Federal RFRA is egregious, Marci?
On Tue
message
From: Marci Hamilton
Date:02/26/2014 5:09 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
They are similar in that both involve believers demanding
Academics
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Marci's view of the rights of a Walmart under tha AZ bill, and likely even the
Kansas bill, is simply wrong.
The application in the AZ bill to private enforcement by way of lawsuit simply
prevents the state
:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
They are similar in that both involve believers demanding a right to
discriminate due to their religion. If Hobby
. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of y
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Scarberry, Mark
Date:02/26/2014 6:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting
Original message
From: Scarberry, Mark
Date:02/26/2014 6:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Marci's view of the rights of a Walmart under tha AZ bill, and likely even
the Kansas
/2014 6:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Marci's view of the rights of a Walmart under tha AZ bill, and likely
even the Kansas bill, is simply wrong.
The application in the AZ bill
=1055context=njlsp.
There is plenty of other literature on the subject.
What has happened in other states since we wrote that piece is quite
consistent with the pattern we described. These laws do NOT contain
exceptions for wedding vendors (bakers, caterers, etc.) or public employees
like marriage
on the subject.
What has happened in other states since we wrote that piece is quite
consistent with the pattern we described. These laws do NOT contain
exceptions for wedding vendors (bakers, caterers, etc.) or public employees
like marriage license clerks. Those are the efforts that have
) for religious charities and
social services. Bob Tuttle and I analyze and collect some of that here:
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055context=njlsp.
There is plenty of other literature on the subject.
What has happened in other states since we wrote
to sexual-orientation
discrimination claims and that its protection was absolute, not subject to
balancing.
Dan Conkle
Daniel O. Conkle
Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law
Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Bloomington, Indiana 47405
(812) 855-4331
10003
(212) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Hillel Y. Levin hillelle...@gmail.com
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 11:14 am
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Whether or not the bills are similar in political motivation or in potential
impact, the media coverage of the Arizona bill – at least what I’ve seen – has
been woeful. Until reading the actual Kansas bill, I certainly
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:34 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
That is my understanding, Hillel
...@virginia.edu
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 2:24 pm
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Many state laws on sexual-orientation discrimination, and most laws on same-sex
marriage, have
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:34 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona
22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:32 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Hillel Y. Levin
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:49 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Doug:
What do you mean by the following: Apart from
...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *hamilto...@aol.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:32 PM
*To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
*Subject:* Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Doug--What does such an exemption look like if it is available to anyone
other than
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hillel Y. Levin
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:49 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 2:56 pm
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protectingfor-profit
businesses
It would protect only very small businesses that are personal extensions of the
owner, and where the owner must necessarily be involved
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Doug:
What do you mean by the following: Apart from marriage, there is no reason
to have religious exemptions for businesses from laws on sexual-orientation
discrimination.
There certainly are some
speech.
Mark Scarberry
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Hillel Y. Levin
Date:02/26/2014 12:18 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Mark
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:19 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Would you suggest this if it were based
of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 3:31 pm
Subject: RE
From: Salamanca, Paul E
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:28 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Dear friends,
The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to do much more than
protect
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:43 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
I don't have any desire for them to go out
Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
*From:*religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:34 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of William B. Kelley
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 4:22 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Prof. Laycock makes interesting points, as usual
*To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
*Subject:* Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
I don't have any desire for them to go out of business, but if they are
going to be in business, they need to operate in the marketplace without
discrimination. If the business
: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:51 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
The ship that has clearly sailed on this list is respect. That scholars and
professional educators cannot
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Assume neither bill becomes law. A wedding photographer hangs a sign in his
shop saying SSM is immoral but state civil rights require us to photograph SSM
ceremonies. A complaint
of discrimination is
filed. What result?
Marc Stern
From: Richard Dougherty [mailto:dou...@udallas.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:51 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting
for-profit
Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Following up on this: gays and lesbians have been told (wrongly) for years to
change their orientation or just act on it in private, disregarding their
interest in living lives
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
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Peabody
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:38 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses
After reading the legislation, it's amazing how broadly it is drafted. It would
seem
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
...and Alan has been championing this bill on the spot at the Arizona capitol.
Sigh. I have fought him over it when he tried to push me into supporting the
Idaho bill which was just
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Hamilton
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:55 PM
To: mich...@californialaw.org; Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
*To:* mich...@californialaw.org; Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
...and Alan has been championing this bill on the spot at the Arizona
capitol. Sigh. I have fought him over it when he tried to push
mwor...@byulaw.net
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Would you say the Federal RFRA is egregious, Marci?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM
-Original Message-
From: Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.net
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
Would you say the Federal RFRA is egregious, Marci
Today the National Archives, with a large assist from the University of
Virginia, put up 119,000 documents from the collected papers of George
Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander
Hamilton, and James Madison. The documents are searchable and they include
I'm not sure I quite understand Eric's point. If the contract
says that Muslim arbitrators are to be chosen, but there's a dispute about
who's a Muslim, and the result is that the court can't act, then that's
another way of saying that the contract is not enforceable by the
Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:36 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: Religious harassment claim against a religious hospital?
*
Prof. Howard Friedman's excellent Religion Clause
blog pointed to Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine's
Great! Next time do it when I tell you to do it.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Ratio Juris
, Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_
(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/)
Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief
presenters.
It seems reasonable enough that the teacher’s right to control guests is not
subject to much challenge, but I had emphasized to the volunteer and the
teacher that the minister wasn’t going to engage in any proselytizing, but was
going to discuss the functional aspects of her job. I
Very often that's the real problem. Then the lawyers on both sides
go to work making up arguments.
Quoting Richard James [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Of course, as a non-lawyer, I think that what the school has done
is
dumb, mostly.
* * *
Richard James
Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar
that it is more complicated than that.
Richard Dougherty-Original Message-From: "Richard James" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent 4/4/2007 11:30:11 AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: (no subject) Clergy at career daysInteresting responses, thanks. In this case, the situation was much more
In response to the March 26 posting below (although it’s not really a response,
because I was the ‘correspondent’) it might also be the case that Church of
Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 508 U.S. 520, 530 (1993) has more
bearing on the issue, as the decision holds that: The first
I don't know the Peck case. But there are cases holding that
religious viewpoints cannot be excluded from genuine free speech
opportunities. Widmar v. Vincent (1981); Lamb's Chapel v. Center
Moriches Union Free School District (1993); Rosenberger v. Rector of
Univ. of Virginia (1995);
- even when
their decisions are viewpoint discriminatory.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:18 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: (no subject)
I
when
their decisions are viewpoint discriminatory.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas
Laycock
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:18 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: (no subject)
I don't
It seems to me that the problem would arise with the parent or
grandparent priest who would preach rather than talk about the job as
a career. Can't that be controlled? Is the fear of it enough to
make a distinction? What if the fear is based on past experience in
the particular
From The Guardian for Tuesday, March 21, 2006:
Archbishop: stop
teaching creationism
Williams backs science over Bible
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, has stepped into the controversy between religious fundamentalists
and scientists by saying that he does not believe
Folks: My general approach to this list has been to allow all
viewpoints, though to insist that the viewpoints be framed in as polite
a way as possible given the nature of those viewpoints. This includes
anti-Semitism, anti-Protestantism, anti-evangelical-Christianity,
anti-Catholicism,
judicating this subject matter? Aren't all of plainitffs claims constitutionally precluded, or is there a viable cause of action for the disclosure of personal information during the course of a relgious service and ceremony?
Donald C. Clark, Jr.2333 Waukegan RoadSuite 160Bannockburn, Illinois 60015847-2
of fiduciary duty claim was the functional equivalent of a
claim for clergy malpractice which it had already rejected. There was a dissent
which notes the split of authority on the subject.
Marc Stern
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Apologies to the List. I
did not intend my post to Steve Jamar to be sent to the List.
Bobby
Robert Justin
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of
LawDelaware
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe,
Anonymous students left pamphlets calling on students to accept Jesus on the
desks of Jewish public high school students and no other students. I have
been asked whether a school could ban religiously targeted distribution of
any pamphlet. Any responses?
Marc Stern
If possible, Eugene, Alan, and Chip are all correct. The school need
not allow such activity in the classroom (distributions generally) and
should be concerned about intimidating material (in the classroom or
outside). Conversely, students have the right to target follow
students of
and corrected the translation I have
e-mailed.
Bob O'Brien
- Original Message -
From:
marc
stern
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:28
PM
Subject: (no subject)
A decision of the European Court of Human Rights
upholding a rule banning
64 matches
Mail list logo
