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
Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original 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
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
Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original 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
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 for-profit
businesses
Marci's
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
: 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 Lobby wins, Walmart will have an
argument to get around
, 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 bill, is simply wrong
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
statutes protecting for-profit
businesses
That is my understanding, Hillel. If Doug, Rick, Tom, or others know of
counterexamples, I'm sure they will bring them forward to the list.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Hillel Y. Levin hillelle...@gmail.com
wrote:
Chip:
Thanks
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 exemptions for religious organizations. Some are broad; some are
narrow. Some are well drafted; some
[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
: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting
for-profit businesses
“He needs to change jobs.” As I said, what you really want is for these people
to go out of business. Barring religious minorities from professions is a very
traditional form of religious persecution. Reviving
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
statutes protecting
for-profit businesses
That is my understanding, Hillel. If Doug, Rick, Tom, or others know
of counterexamples, I'm sure they will bring them forward to the list.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Hillel Y. Levin
hillelle...@gmail.com mailto:hillelle...@gmail.com wrote
[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
@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses
Not only are religious believers [] inherently beneficial to society,
but that public opinion on same-sex couples is evolving so rapidly that
most people will not discriminate
Doug is correct that the Arizona bill is not like the Kansas bill. But it
would be blind and foolish to not see the timing of the Arizona effort as
being driven by the winds blowing a constitutional right to same sex
marriage towards Arizona and other red states (Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia,
statutes protecting for-profit businesses
You're not missing anything; you're failing to join in the hysteria. The
Arizona
bill leaves to the courts the questions whether assisting with a wedding you
find sinful is a substantial burden and whether there is a compelling interest
in making you do
...@virginia.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu;
Penalver, Eduardo penal...@uchicago.edu
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 10:14 am
Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses
You're not missing anything; you're failing to join in the hysteria
, Feb 22, 2014 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses
The famous cases (Elane, etc.) which prompted this all involve same-sex
ceremonies, not that parade of horribles Marci said.
I hope all can agree opposition to same-sex marriage is not hatred
...@byulaw.net
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses
The famous cases (Elane, etc.) which prompted this all involve same-sex
ceremonies, not that parade
Message-
From: Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.net
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses
Not only are religious believers [] inherently beneficial to society
And a story out of Arizona . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/us/religious-right-in-arizona-cheers-bill-allowing-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-gays.html?hpwrref=politics
Here's the bill (likely to be vetoed):
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at
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
What's interesting about the Az bill is that it does not facially target same
sex couples - it seems to just extend the state RFRA to disputes among private
parties. I don't think Romer would really apply. On the other hand, it's not
clear that it would accomplish what its proponents want.
52 matches
Mail list logo
