issues for Law Academics
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 1:00 pm
Subject: Re: Accommodation vs. the complicity theory
I really have a hard time listening to a claim that RFRA supporters think that
"being required to not abuse children [is] an invasion of religious liberty."
Mark
Mark S.
So do I Mark, so do I. Draw me the principled line, please. The state cannot
stop anyone from believing whatever they want, but the people can limit the
exercise of those beliefs for public good purposes — including most strongly,
surely, public health reasons. And, when it comes to such atte
I really have a hard time listening to a claim that RFRA supporters think that
"being required to not abuse children [is] an invasion of religious liberty."
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:46 PM, "Steven Jamar"
mailto:stevenja
kh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:17 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Accommodation
My apology for bringing this up again, but I'd like to hear what people
think about it, and I thought it might be a relevant analogy.
In
Marc
- Original Message -
From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 09:43 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ; Marty
Lederman
Subject: Re: Accommodation and pork
I agree that imposing significant costs on third parties generally does an
un...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:12 AM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: Accommodation
>
> Ellis West and I have discussed our posts off list, and I may have been
> attacking a
>
I agree that imposing significant costs on third parties generally does and
should change the answer. Viewpoint discrimination with respect to speech
changes the answer. For the most part, the Court does not appear to have been
concerned about differentially treating religious and secular activi
Ellis West and I have discussed our posts off list, and I may have been
attacking a bit of a straw man. He says he did not mean to suggest that
religious exemptions are generally suspect under the Establishment Clause; he
was still writing in the context of the no-pork policy for the prison menu
the Court’s Establishment Clause
actual application of the “primary effect” prong.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of West, Ellis
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:11 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject
Just a slight emendation to Doug's post, with which I think he'll agree:
Yes, virtually every Justice has concluded that religious accommodations
*can be* constitutional, at least if they alleviate significant
state-imposed burdens on religious exercise, as the Ohio prison
accommodation would appea
Marie, I certainly have no objections to exemptions in general just as I have
no objections to laws in general from which persons are often exempted—provided
the laws (and exemptions?) are secular in purpose and effect, which is what is
required by the religion clauses, as originally understood
Ellis, you are right that I didn't respond directly to your question of
what "secular" means. And, I agree that "religious entities and persons
should get everything that non-religious entities and persons do" is too
broad a brush to explain what the issue is here.
I guess my answer sort of i
Ellis says that religious exemptions violate a requirement that laws be
"secular in purpose and effect, which is what is required by the religion
clauses, as originally understood and as interpretetd by the court."
Both the original understanding half of this claim, and the "as interpreted by
gion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Accommodation and fairness to others
Doug Laycock writes:
> If the student with the 24-hour flu gets an exception, the Sabbatarian
> probably has a free exercise claim and not just a RFRA claim.
(1) Is this quite right on the facts? A 2
(phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 4:52 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Accommodation and fairness to others
* * * *
(4) I had tho
Doug Laycock writes:
> If the student with the 24-hour flu gets an exception, the
> Sabbatarian probably has a free exercise claim and not just a
> RFRA claim.
(1) Is this quite right on the facts? A 24-hour flu will
likely make the sufferer *less* productive in the days that follow
c
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Accommodation and fairness to others
Prof. Lon Fuller used to say, "so long as you have judges, you cannot
stop them from using their judgment." And I think that is the case here.
I assume that if an in-class exam were scheduled for Saturday,
rescheduling it for
Prof. Lon Fuller used to say, "so long as you have judges, you cannot
stop them from using their judgment." And I think that is the case here.
I assume that if an in-class exam were scheduled for Saturday,
rescheduling it for a Sabbatarian would likely be required. On the
other hand, if students a
18 matches
Mail list logo
