"The fact remains that such cases are not arising (I know of only one,
thirty years ago in Minnesota)"
Regrettably, incidents of businesses discriminating against gay and lesbian
people for religious reasons are still arising and are not limited to
wedding services. *See, e.g.*, Salemi v. Gloria's
Maggie Gallagher asks an interesting question-- namely, which GOP nominees,
if any, will defend the Indiana law?
http://thepulse2016.com/maggie-gallagher/2015/03/30/will-any-gop-candidates-step-up-to-the-plate-for-religious-liberty/:
For that matter, how long --and after the threat of how many b
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
used those opinions as evidence that the “other side” just
> doesn’t get what’s at stake.
>
>
>
> sandy
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Steven Jamar
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 28, 2015 1:1
ts.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Law Religion & Law List
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
I know there are those who think the Indiana RFRA only protects religious
adherents thr
ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Law Religion & Law List
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
I know there are those who think the Indiana RFRA only protects religious
adherents through an
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
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 lik
will accomplish what its supporters are
> seeking.
> >> >
> >> >- Jim
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Doug Laycock
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Right. The wid
obby* did may be
>> >> adding fuel to the fire. But this propaganda began before *Hobby
>> Lobby*,
>> >> and it worked, so it continues. This is really the Big Lie in action.
>> And a
>> >> lot of people who know better feel compelled to go alo
FRA claims for
> clients;
> >> I obviously have no way to know, but it may well be
> >>
> >> true of Hillary Clinton.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Douglas Laycock
> >>
> >> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
> >>
t;>
>> University of Virginia Law School
>>
>> 580 Massie Road
>>
>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>
>> 434-243-8546
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On B
Of course those quotes are real. Part of the problem here is conservative
legislators and activists pandering to the base and promising things they can't
deliver.
The fact remains that such cases are not arising (I know of only one, thirty
years ago in Minnesota) and that no one has ever won a
"no one is talking about discrimination against gay and lesbian people as
such"
That assertion is simply incorrect.
In opposing ENDA, the Family Research Council complained that, under it,
"[y]ou can’t decline to hire a homosexual for religious reasons."
Similarly, in opposing the recent Utah leg
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/politics/indiana-law-denounced-as-invitation-to-discriminate-against-gays.html
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Marty Lederman
wrote:
>
> http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/statement-indiana-religious-freedom-bill
>
> If the new Indiana RFR
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>
> 434-243-8546
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ryan T. Anderson
> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 2:16 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law A
f Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 11:35 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
or, imagine if Justice Alito had not included the references to "race" and
"racial" in this sentence:
"The G
..@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Gaubatz, Derek [dgaub...@imb.org]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 5:53 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
And I don’t think we want to create a society where we the only exercise of
religion we protect i
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Reply To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
The Indiana law is not the same as the federal RFRA. This section of the new
Indiana RFRA makes it applicable in suits between private partie
5 11:35 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
or, imagine if Justice Alito had not included the references to "race" and
"racial" in this sentence:
"The Government has a compelling interest in providing
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 4:29 PM
To: Law Religion & Law List
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
There is a big difference between a regime where the law says you cannot or
should not
“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
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
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
ll to mind.
- Original Message -
From: Paul Finkelman
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:02:24 + (UTC)
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
> We have all sorts of stories where business will not serve Muslims in the
> news.
> Â
>
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
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
>> discriminate from its coverage. It is important to remember that there are
>> circumstances in which religious exemptions are justified that have nothing
>> to do with discrimination.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>&g
e that the characteristic must be immutable and not vaguely defined.
Alan
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ryan T. Anderson
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 12:07 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Amazing what H
posed on employers to accommodate the needs of religious employees by
>> essentially excluding a duty to accommodate a religious obligation to
>> discriminate from its coverage. It is important to remember that there are
>> circumstances in which religious exemptions are justified that have
.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 11:35 AM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
>
>
>
> or, imagine if Justice Alito had not in
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 discrimination against gay and lesbian people as
such. No religion teaches that, and no case is about a blanket policy of
refu
to do with discrimination.
Alan
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 11:35 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
or, imagin
Ryan’s candor is refreshing: he very much wants businesses to be able to
discriminate against same-sex couples, and he thinks that state RFRAs are
important to that goal. That’s precisely why sports leagues, pharmaceutical
companies, technology companies, and even certain houses of worship are
ionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Ryan T. Anderson [
> ryantimothyander...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 2:42 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrough
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
518-439-7296 (w)
518-605-0296 (c)
paul.finkel...@yahoo.com
www.paulfinkelman.com
From: Doug Laycock
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:48 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
I surely hope Doug is right that the warnings about the possible impact of
RFRAs in
ug Laycock [dlayc...@virginia.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:46 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
The wedding cases are special (although not in the view of courts so far),
because many religious folks understand marriag
f Of Finkelman, Paul
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:44 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
But does this mean that "religion is not protected? Will we see claims
that members of certain faiths do not want to hire (or even serve)
ent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:42 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
Sexual orientation is not the same as race.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Marty Lederman
mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
or, imagine if Justice
Exactly my point: Justice Alito basically went out of his way to signal
that the Court would treat them differently when it came to exemptions from
antidiscrimination laws. Small wonder, then, that Indiana legislators were
eager to enact the state RFRA -- and that supporters of gay rights are now
onlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:27 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
Doug:
I appreciate your analysis of the cases. Case law will not
The Green family not paying for an employee's abortifacients, and a 70-year
old grandmother not making floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding
is "becoming
the political equivalent of a state adopting the confederate flag, or
refusing to recognize MLK Day." Good to know.
The reactions to AZ an
com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:34 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
or, imagine if Justice Alito had not included the references to "race" and
"racial" in this sentence:
"The Government has a compelling
Sexual orientation is not the same as race.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Marty Lederman
wrote:
> or, imagine if Justice Alito had not included the references to "race" and
> "racial" in this sentence:
>
> "The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal
> opportunity to partic
or, imagine if Justice Alito had not included the references to "race" and
"racial" in this sentence:
"The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity
to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on
racial discrimination are precisely tailored
Before the ruling -- but not before the lower court decisions and the slew
of briefs --including by many Catholic groups that were insistent upon
reading RFRA narrowly back in 1993 -- urging the Court to do at least as
much as it did (indeed, more so).
The converse point works, too: If the Court
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Doug Laycock [dlayc...@virginia.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:07 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
The NCAA is the vi
The Supreme Court hadn’t decided Hobby Lobby yet, but several federal appeals
courts (including the 10th Circuit in the Hobby Lobby case) had already ruled
in favor of corporations wanting to exclude contraceptive coverage from their
insurance policies, and in the process adopting extremely broa
-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ryan T. Anderson
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:16 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
The reaction to Indiana strike
Exactly my point: If this is what the NCAA concluded it had to do to
counter the p.r. debacle with respect to a law *that has not even gone into
effect yet*, imagine how it, and other large organizations, will treat the
prospect of holding large events/conventions in Indiana going forward.
Anothe
The reaction to Indiana strikes me as similar to Arizona. Arizona took
place well before Hobby Lobby ruling. So the causal relationship you
suggest here seems off. Something else explains this.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Marty Lederman
wrote:
>
> http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-
The NCAA is the victim of the most absurd propaganda. There is no conceivable
way that the Indiana RFRA would affect any athletes next week. There are no
cases of religious believers simply refusing to serve gays; the only cases
involve weddings, and the religious objectors have lost every weddi
I would caution against reading too much into a reactionary statement from the
NCAA’s Director of Public and Media Relations.
Note that the NCAA’s press release says that it will be “work[ing] diligently
to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week’s
Men’s Final Fo
54 matches
Mail list logo
