In short,any accommodation of religion is a violation of the equal protection clause. This would certainly be a rather sharp departure from the "best" of the American tradition. And I guess I have been misinformed all these years in thinking religious freedom was a basic american value. Bob's message does illustrate the sharp divide between an egalitarian understanding of the constitution and a liberty based one-a divide highlighted today when the aclu sent the senate a letter calling for a very narrow religious exemption from ENDA. There was a time the aclu valued religious liberty. Apparently no longer for conservative faiths. Marc
From: b...@jmcenter.org [mailto:b...@jmcenter.org] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 09:12 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND Eugene, Just to follow up on your point that some discrimination in the name of religion would possibly be tolerated under Measure 3 such as . . . 1. A pharmacist refusing to dispense Plan B. 2. A taxi cab driver refusing to transport a person with the smell of alcohol on his breath. 3. A professional photographer refusing to photograph an LGBT civil ceremony. 4. A landlord refusing to rent to an atheist. Seems to me this is precisely why Measure 3 was defeated and RFRAs should be repealed -- because equality is a core American value. Bob Ritter On June 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: Thanks for the pointer. Out of this list at the ndagainst3.com site, the only item that seems at all plausible is that “people could break” certain “laws on non-discrimination,” though almost certainly not employment discrimination laws. The other claims would either be almost certainly rejected under strict scrutiny, or (in some circumstances) would prevail even without a RFRA, for instance if a church employer is firing an unmarried pregnant minister or teacher of religion. A man could be allowed to marry girls, as young as 12, in the name of religion.1 An employer could fire an unmarried pregnant woman simply because of the employer’s religious beliefs.2 A man could claim domestic violence laws don’t apply to him because his religion teaches that a husband has the right to discipline his family, including his wife and children as he sees fit.3 A parent who believes in faith healing could to deny critical medical treatment to a seriously ill child.4 Simply put, people could break our laws in the name of religious freedom, including laws on non-discrimination, domestic violence and child abuse.5 Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 1:42 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND > > > These appear to be some of the main arguments against passing the RFRA: > > http://ndagainst3.com/get-the-facts/ > > As an example, this TV ad said that the RFRA would allow men to marry girls > aged 12 and to beat their spouses: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ngnqGR6e8 > > There was also quite a bit of blog chatter about sharia law being enforced in > North Dakota as a result of passing the RFRA. > > I did not see anything about Native Americans.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
