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
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
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
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
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 exemption or exception-based regime.
But that is not how everyone will understand it. Some will think of it as a
license
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 exemption or exception-based regime.
But that is not how everyone will understand it. Some will think of it as a
license to discriminate
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:
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
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 strikes me as similar to Arizona. Arizona took
place well before Hobby Lobby ruling. So the causal
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 Academics
*Subject:* Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has
for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
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
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 strikes me as similar to Arizona. Arizona
took
place well before Hobby Lobby ruling. So the causal
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
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
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, imagine
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
] *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 included the references to race
and racial in this sentence:
The Government has
that have nothing
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
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
“No one”? Well, maybe not its more sensible advocates.
On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Ryan T. Anderson ryantimothyander...@gmail.com
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
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
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. eknif...@lrrlaw.com wrote:
I would caution against reading too much into a reactionary statement from
the NCAA’s Director of
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.
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
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 Hobby Lobby has wrought
Message -
From: Paul Finkelman paul.finkel...@yahoo.com
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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
...@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 victim of the most absurd propaganda
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
lederman.ma...@gmail.commailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
or, imagine if Justice Alito had not included
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 lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
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
[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
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 lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
or, imagine if Justice Alito had not included the references to race
and racial in this sentence
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.
Sexual orientation is not the same as race.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
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
...@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 marriage to be an inherently religious
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
-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 strikes me
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
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 to
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 and
...@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 limit private
action
: 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) members
of other faiths? I think
] On Behalf 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
[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 and a law that says its ok in the way people
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 an equal opportunity to
participate in the workforce without regard to race
, 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 is religious exercise that the elites
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 parties:
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has
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 parties:
Sec. 9
:
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 strikes me as similar to Arizona. Arizona took
place well before
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 lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/statement-indiana-religious-freedom-bill
51 matches
Mail list logo
