>
>>
>>
>> Douglas Laycock
>>
>> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>>
>> University of Virginia Law School
>>
>> 580 Massie Road
>>
>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>
>> 434-243-8546
>>
>>
>>
&g
4-243-8546
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Kniffin, Eric N.
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:19 AM
> *To:* 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' <
> religionlaw@lists.ucla
n...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Kniffin, Eric N.
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:19 AM
> *To:* 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' <
> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a
> hypothetical
>
>
>
a.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Laycock, H Douglas
(hdl5c)
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:26 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
I
half Of Laycock, H Douglas
(hdl5c)
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:26 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
I think their argument that courts simply cannot question any claim that
religious exercise is sub
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
We cite four federal district court decisions at pp. 228-229 in the book --
Luke v. Williams (Oregon); Sayed v. Proffitt (Colorado);
-8546
From: Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:26 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
I think their argument that courts simply cannot question any claim that
religious exercis
for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
Doug--That's a helpful clarification. It seems to me, then, that your position
that the Little Sisters' claim poses a serious threat to religious liberty is
based on your view that the gover
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
We cite four federal district court decisions at pp. 228-229 in the book --
Luke v. Williams (Oregon); Sayed v. Proffitt (Colorado);
PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
Doug--I understand that's the line you think Congress should have adopted, but
that seems to be more a conclusion rather th
, March 22, 2016 3:54 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
Doug--I understand that's the line you think Congress should have adopted, but
that seems to be more a conclusion rather than a test. If the pe
egentLaw> | SSRN
> <http://www.ssrn.com/author=519370>
>
> [image: cid:image001.jpg@01D0F61B.F29F9940]
> <http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@li
Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
We cite four federal district court decisions at pp. 228-229 in the book --
Luke v. W
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw>
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Peabody
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:22 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sister
22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
We cit
> Douglas Laycock
>
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>
> University of Virginia Law School
>
> 580 Massie Road
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>
> 434-243-8546
>
>
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...
Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
We cite four federal district court decisions at pp. 228-229 in the book --
Luke v. Williams (Oregon); Sayed v. Prof
Flegal.org
>> Not Licensed in DC
>> Practice Limited to Federal Court
>>
>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:25 AM
>> *To:* Law & Reli
eligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:25 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Siste
l.org
> ADFlegal.org
> Not Licensed in DC
> Practice Limited to Federal Court
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:25 AM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues fo
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:25 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
Eric Kniffin writes that ". . . whether there is a subst
the
> claim of substantial burden on religion, according to the *Zubik*
> petitioners.
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Virginia
> 580 Massie Road
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> 434-243-8546
>
..@californialaw.org<mailto:mich...@californialaw.org>]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:27 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Paul Finkelman
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
I am asserting this only insofar as the degree of accommodatio
Religion issues for Law Academics; Paul Finkelman
Subject: Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
I am asserting this only insofar as the degree of accommodation is considered
insufficient by the individual hypothetical Adventist. (Which is highly
hypothetical as the vast
I am asserting this only insofar as the degree of accommodation is
considered insufficient by the individual hypothetical Adventist. (Which
is highly hypothetical as the vast majority gladly accept the EEOC
accommodation.)
An ideal hypothetical would simply involve a federal regulation that
unint
I think this employee would lose under existing Title VII law, for rejecting a
reasonable accommodation. And the RFRA committee reports say that RFRA does not
affect Title VII claims, although that is not in the statutory text.
But if RFRA applied, I think the logic of petitioners' claim is that
Traditionally, Seventh-day Adventists have been very willing to accept
the scope of EEOC accommodations, but Seventh-day Adventists do
believe that the 10 Commandments are universal in application, but
they must be voluntarily accepted in an environment free of coercion.
In its strictest reading, t
Normally, I hesitate to opine on matters in which I am not thoroughly versed
and I must confess that I am not up to speed on these cases. That said, I am
an observant Jew and I do not travel or work on Shabbat (which also begins
Friday night). In the traditional Jewish community, such swaps ar
28 matches
Mail list logo
