Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:43 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Contraception Mandate
I do indeed think so. The government doesn’t have to extend a
government-mandated benefit to everyone; Title VII protections, for instance,
aren’t extende
too far.
Alan Brownstein
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:52 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Con
ovember 26, 2013 3:59 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Contraception Mandate
Obviously, I'm not degrading the interest in contraception; I just think saying
"this isn't lunch" is a weird thing to say given the importance of food.
On Tue, Nov 26, 201
Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Contraception Mandate
The answer has to lie somewhere in between these two stark alternatives,
doesn't it? It can't be that the cost to the government (the public) in
mitigating or avoiding the harm caused by granting an exemption can ne
26, 2013 4:20 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Contraception Mandate
But the government is under no obligation to provide contraceptive coverage for
women even if it loses these two cases in the Supreme Court. And if it loses
them, the female employees and fami
Right, but we're discussing constitutionality, so what Title VII doesn't
say doesn't constrain my question:
Were Title VII amended to require private, for-profit schools to give food,
would that be a higher "compelling interest" than the interest in
contraception?
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:13 PM
t;
> *From:* religionlaw-bounces+volokh=law.ucla@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-bounces+volokh=law.ucla@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *
> hamilto...@aol.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:29 PM
> *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Contraception Mand
There is nothing in title VII that governs all of the companies involved here
that involves food, lunch, or children. These issues are about adult women
employees who are protected by Title VII from employers who make religion a
prerequisite to employment or who, in my view, craft benefits a
Obviously, I'm not degrading the interest in contraception; I just think
saying "this isn't lunch" is a weird thing to say given the importance of
food.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Michael Worley wrote:
> Marci--
>
> Would you think that a mandate that all (private, for-profit) schools buy
Marci--
Would you think that a mandate that all (private, for-profit) schools buy
lunch for their students be more compelling than this case? In both cases,
the third parties can buy food or contraception outside of the
employer/school relationship?
You say "This isn't lunch-- it is medical treat
they go too far.
Alan Brownstein
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:52 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Contraception Mandate
I don’t
This isn't lunch-- it is medical treatment for women. (Contraceptive meds may
work against some Catholics' beliefs but they are often taken for
non-contraceptive reasons, so the contraception label for this is
religio-centric).
And women have a civil right against these employers not to be
That seems to me to be precisely the issue that the Court faced
in United States v. Lee, and that lower courts have faced with regard to
similar objectors -- granting such exemptions, especially given that they are
sure to proliferate, would indeed substantially undermine the com
Interesting piece. I think there have been and should be Establishment Clause
constraints on the burdens religious accommodations can impose on third
parties, but determining how and where this line should be drawn is no easy
task.
I think there are three other distinctions or questions one mig
I don’t see that at all. Say the government requires employers
to buy lunch for their employees, and a religiously vegetarian employer orders
only vegetarian food. I don’t think that somehow constitutes the employer
discriminating based on religion against people who don’t shar
lto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 4:04 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Contraception Mandate
Brad-Is it your view that for-profit companies over 50 employees (those
affected here), who are subject to Title VII, and may
@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces+volokh=law.ucla@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:29 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Contraception Mandate
I'll wait for others to weigh in on the first, but with respect to the secon
Message-
From: Berg, Thomas C.
To: religionlaw
Sent: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 5:27 pm
Subject: RE: Contraception Mandate
Thanks, Nelson. This is an interesting piece, and I respect the arguments on
both sides. But I have a couple of critical reactions:
1. I wonder whether it's really he
of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 5:21 pm
Subject: RE: Contraception Mandate
I’m not Brad, but I
Thanks, Nelson. This is an interesting piece, and I respect the arguments on
both sides. But I have a couple of critical reactions:
1. I wonder whether it's really helpful or effective to start by dismissing an
argument as something "off the wall" that somehow, inexplicably, has gone
mains
I'm not Brad, but I thought I'd put my two cents' worth in:
Brad-Is it your view that for-profit companies over 50 employees (those
affected here), who are subject to Title VII, and may not discriminate on the
basis of religion or gender,
can tailor their salary and benefit plans a
) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Brad Pardee
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Sent: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 4:57 pm
Subject: RE: Contraception Mandate
There is a problem with using, as the article does, the quote from Justice
Learn
There is a problem with using, as the article does, the quote from Justice
Learned Hand that "[t]he First Amendment gives no one the right to insist
that in pursuit of their own interests others must conform their conduct to
his own religious necessities." If Hobby Lobby was stating that, because
Chip and I are not that far apart.
I agree that both Braunfeld and Lee asserted that regulation of their
business affairs burdened their own, personal religious liberty. The
Greens make the same claim in Hobby Lobby. And thus they would surely have
standing to sue on their own behalf . . . if th
Braunfeld and Lee were men engaged in business, and both were asserting
that regulation of their business affairs (Sunday Closing law in Braunfeld;
FICA contributions in Lee) burdened their religious exercise. Those are
business claims of free exercise infringement. I don't see any way around
that
Perhaps it's a minor point, and I'm very reluctant ever to disagree with
Chip!, but neither Braunfeld nor Lee involved free exercise claims by
businesses, let alone corporations. The free exercise claims in each case
were brought by and on behalf of the individuals who owned the businesses,
allegi
RFRA is designed to codify the pre-Smith free exercise law. That law
includes Braunfeld and Lee, both of which involve free exercise claims by
for-profit businesses. Neither opinion even hints at the idea that such
enterprises cannot raise claims under the free exercise clause. That is far
more p
That strikes me as a perfectly fine argument, but one that goes to the
question of whether there actually were any relevant common understandings
of the language in 1997, not the question of whether the 1997 legislative
history would be irrelevant even if such understandings actually existed.
Of c
Here are some unassailable facts about RFRAs enactment that make 1997 too late
to bring for profit corps under RFRAs intended reach
1. The vast majority of RFRA's Legis history is not about its actual content
but rather testimony critical of Smith and the Supreme Court.
2. The Coalition had
My point yesterday is that the Coalition am the ACLU are not both sides. Far
from it
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Aug 2, 2013, at 12:09 PM, James Oleske wrote:
> Marci - I agree that if one side or the ot
Marci - I agree that if one side or the other in the 1997 debate was
attempting to make after-the-fact legislative history for RFRA, that
history would be of marginal value. But that's not the theory of relevance
that Doug offers in his article and that I asked about yesterday. Doug
offered the the
ent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 10:02 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
>
> I know I'm not the listmod, but could we please keep the posts on topic for
> the lists
: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
I know I'm not the listmod, but could we please keep the posts on topic for the
listserv?
David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Gould Scho
In poking around further in the legislative history of RLPA, I think there
is evidence that there might *not *have been a common understanding about
the applicability of RLPA and RFRA to for-profit *corporations* as opposed
to individual landlords:
"The question of whether a corporate employer or
; earlier supported RFRA.
> Marc
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 09:30 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ;
> hamilto...@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
>
>
; ** **
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
> mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> *On Behalf Of *hamilto...@aol.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 01, 2013 5:20 PM
> *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Contraception mandate
>
> ** **
>
PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
I was not particularly interested in solely Doug's statements at the time, but
rather his reasoning in his new piece. Marc and now Eugene have personalized
this.
_
.@aol.com
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
RLUIPA does not apply to fair housing laws because it applies only to land use
regulation and institutionalized persons, and it exprssly defines land use
regulation as zoning and landmarking. Period. No mystery to explain.
My recollection is that that d
Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003
>(212) 790-0215
>http://sol-reform.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Volokh, Eugene
>To: Law & Religion issues for L
No, Marci. You personalized this.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 5:20 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
I was not
: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 7:56 pm
Subject: RE: Contraception mandate
Indeed, Marci didn’t say Doug was “lying,” but when one says of
a first-hand witness that the “history, as I knew it, was distinctive from his
account,” and “Not su
Dear colleagues,
"Religious liberty" is, of course, a fundamental human right, and so it is not
clear to me why it should be troubling or surprising that legal regimes would
be embraced by human-rights advocates (like Marc, Doug, etc.) that respect that
right by insisting, e.g., that majority-
at we should discuss facts on the listserv without stooping to
namecalling.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 4:41 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Contraception ma
amin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Marc Stern
To: religionlaw
Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
Saw it. In the next post, she accuses d
.
Marc Stern
From: Marci Hamilton [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 07:01 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
As I understand the process, Doug reassured folks on
un...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 3:24 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Contra
ligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 3:24 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Contraception mandate
Sup
ilton [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 07:01 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
As I understand the process, Doug reassured folks on the left that RLPA as
applied to land use
ilton [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 07:01 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
As I understand the process, Doug reassured folks on the left that RLPA as
applied to land use
>> 434-243-8546
>>
>>
>>
>> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
>> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 3:24 PM
>> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academ
As I understand the process, Doug reassured folks on the left that RLPA as
applied to land use law would not apply to the civil rights laws, particularly
the fair housing laws. Not sure how to square that w Doug's current
statements.
I also find the in pari materia argument disingenuous at be
ie Road
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>
> 434-243-8546
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Laycock
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 01, 2013 3:24 PM
> *To:* &
6
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 3:24 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Contraception mandate
Supporters of RLPA said that civil rights cla
: Thursday, August 01, 2013 2:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
A few comments and one question upon an initial read of Professor Laycock
and Professor Dane's pieces.
First, with respect to Professor Laycock's piece, I think it is di
A few comments and one question upon an initial read of Professor Laycock
and Professor Dane's pieces.
First, with respect to Professor Laycock's piece, I think it is difficult
to overstate the importance of one of the nation's most prominent and
respected advocates for a broad conception of relig
013 9:53 AM
To: d...@crab.rutgers.edu; 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Contraception mandate
By coincidence, I just posted a related piece, broader than Perry’s in some
ways, narrower in others:
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2304427
The piece is framed in ter
By coincidence, I just posted a related piece, broader than Perry’s in some
ways, narrower in others:
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2304427
The piece is framed in terms of the larger culture wars, and does not offer a
full doctrinal analysis of the contraception litigation. But buried i
57 matches
Mail list logo
