I think it means that no amount of coercive pressure could count. Only legal penalties.
Scalia has said that before, and the Town said it in the principal brief. They backed far away from it in their reply brief. On Mon, 5 May 2014 19:51:35 -0400 Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Are we to read Scalia's and Thomas’s refusal to sign unto part II B as meaning >they would allow coercion and still not find an establishment violation? > > > > >-- >Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 >Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and >Social Justice http://iipsj.org >Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 >http://sdjlaw.org > >"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a >day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, >equality and freedom for their spirits." > >Martin Luther King, Jr., (1964, on accepting the Nobel Peace Prize) > > > > > Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 _______________________________________________ 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.
