AG Cooper will not defend--he'll argue that it's unconstitutional: http://www.wral.com/ag-cooper-hb2-a-national-embarassment-/15606882/
He says that the governor, legislature, etc., can hire outside counsel to defend. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) < hd...@virginia.edu> wrote: > The North Carolina bill is here: > > http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf > > It is not in any sense a religious freedom bill. None of its provisions > are tied in any way to religious objections. It prohibits discrimination in > public accommodations on the basis of race, color, religion, national > origin, and biological sex, omitting sexual orientation and gender > identity, and explicitly preempts any local ordinances on discrimination in > public accommodations. It requires that multiple occupancy bathrooms and > changing rooms be designated for a single biological sex, and requires that > all persons use the rooms designated for their biological sex, without > regard to the sex they identify with. It preempts all local ordinances > regulating any aspect of compensation of employees. > > None of these provisions depends in any way on conscientious objection or > burdens on the exercise of religion. This is an anti-gay law, not a > religious liberty law. This actually does what people have falsely accused > state RFRAs of doing -- it prevents the enforcement of local laws on sexual > orientation discrimination. > > > Douglas Laycock > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > University of Virginia > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > ------------------------------ > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Paul Finkelman [ > paul.finkel...@yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2016 12:56 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Arizona, Indiana . . . and now Georgia > > Doug: > > I defer to your knowledge of RFRA law. So, tell me if this is wrong: > The proposed NC law will make it a crime for a man to use a public men's > room even if he has full ID as a man; a social security number tied to him > as a man, and is legally male where he lives; or a woman to use a woman's > room. The cases are not "out there" yet because the law has not been > implemented. Other parts of the proposed law would allow businesses to > refuse to serve people on the basis of gender, gender presentation, or > sexual preference. > > Am I wrong about this reading of the law? > > If I am not wrong, then the only issue is whether this law is being passed > under a RFRA rubric. If it is then you are right in saying that the cases > are not there, but clearly the cases can and will be there. > > If I am wrong about this, then I defer to your more skilled reading of the > proposed NC law. > > > ****************** > Paul Finkelman > *Ariel F. Sallows Visiting Professor of Human Rights Law* > *College of Law* > *University of Saskatchewan* > *15 Campus Drive* > *Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A6 * > *CANADA* > > > *paul.finkel...@yahoo.com > <http://redir.aspx?REF=k0qtoOe6OGlwkROQIlu9VEgOyIqTG8sfGbegGVwvLWElsz9U3VfTCAFtYWlsdG86cGF1bC5maW5rZWxtYW5AeWFob28uY29t> > c) 518.605.0296 <518.605.0296> * > and > *Senior Fellow* > > *Democracy, Citizenship and Constitutionalism Program * > *University of Pennsylvania* > > > > > > Call <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> > Send SMS <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> > Call from mobile <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> > Add to Skype <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> > You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)" <hd...@virginia.edu> > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > > *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 8:32 PM > *Subject:* RE: Arizona, Indiana . . . and now Georgia > > The cases of the sort Michael describes (and that Chris Lund has described > in public work) are still out there; they still happen. And the cases Paul > Finkelman imagines, in which state RFRAs justify all kinds of > discrimination against gays, are not out there. They have not happened. > > But gay rights and contraception are getting all the political and press > attention. Both sides are to blame. Republican legislators who are only now > getting around to enacting RFRAs didn't care about the generally small > religious minorities in the cases that don't raise culture war issues. They > and their predecessors weren't motivated to pass a RFRA back when all the > other states were. They don't talk about those cases now, not because they > aren't happening, but because they don't know about them and apparently > wouldn't care if they knew. So they promise their base things about > marriage equality that they can't possibly deliver. At the Republican > debate in Houston, a reporter asked a long series of questions about > religious liberty, and all he got from the candidates was gays and > contraception. That's the only religious liberty issue they know about it. > > And then the other side plays off this rhetoric, and imagines horror > stories with no basis in experience, and some that are beyond imagining. > Emergency med techs could refuse to treat gays! The Indiana RFRA "feels > very much like a prelude to another Kristallnacht." Both real "arguments" > that got reported in the press as though they were serious. > > If anyone needs a narrative about why RFRAs are still needed, just > consider the Kansas woman who died for her faith for lack of a state RFRA. > She was Jehovah's Witness, She needed a bloodless liver transplant. It was > available in Omaha. It was even cheaper than a Kansas transplant with blood > transfusions. But Kansas Medicaid doesn't pay for out of state medical > care. Neutral and generally applicable rule. Kansas argued that the state > constitution should be interpreted to mean Smith. By the time she won that > lawsuit on appeal, her medical condition had deteriorated to where she was > no longer eligible for a transplant. Stinemetz v. Kansas Health Policy > Authority, 252 P.3d 141 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). > > Douglas Laycock > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > University of Virginia > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > > ________________________________________ > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <http://redir.aspx?REF=RNwehtjx1OyZPKyfICfUJ4fstioL4SzBMFrQnTRmyoElsz9U3VfTCAFtYWlsdG86cmVsaWdpb25sYXctYm91bmNlc0BsaXN0cy51Y2xhLmVkdQ..> > [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <http://redir.aspx?REF=RNwehtjx1OyZPKyfICfUJ4fstioL4SzBMFrQnTRmyoElsz9U3VfTCAFtYWlsdG86cmVsaWdpb25sYXctYm91bmNlc0BsaXN0cy51Y2xhLmVkdQ..>] > on behalf of Michael Peabody [mich...@californialaw.org > <http://redir.aspx?REF=7w_KIj9P3_vaKeeaSo_FS8Oln6X03sVltVrjlJIIRI4lsz9U3VfTCAFtYWlsdG86bWljaGFlbEBjYWxpZm9ybmlhbGF3Lm9yZw..> > ] > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:01 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Arizona, Indiana . . . and now Georgia > > Unfortunately, for many, the entire spectrum of "religious liberty" in > the United States appears to revolve around LGBT rights. That may, in > fact, be the case for religious "majorities" who are not otherwise > adversely affected by facially neutral state laws that infringe upon > their religious practices and who cry "persecution!" at the slightest > provocation. > > But going back to the original Smith case where members of a native > American group were denied their unemployment benefits because of > peyote use, the people who could really benefit from state RFRAs > aren't just visible on the surface but are the minorities whose > situations need to be "teased out" from between the social cracks. > > Certainly Antonin Scalia, lauded for his "conservative" credentials, > is often forgotten in his role of drafting the Smith decision in the > first place, although now it is the conservatives who are on the > losing end of the latest social/legal developments and who now claim > to be most in need of RFRA's protections. Nor is it lost that the > original proponents of RFRA often came from the left, and as Professor > Brownstein notes, the California RFRA was vetoed by a Republican in > 1998. > > RFRA exists for religious minorities such as a Sikh teacher in a > public school who wears religious garb as part of who she is, not to > proselytize. It is to protect an Orthodox Jewish person who is forced > by state law to take an exam on Saturday. And yes, it is to protect a > native American who may lose employment benefits because he uses > peyote as part of a religious ritual. > > To understand the full value of RFRA, one must look to members of > religious minorities and observe when they are unintentionally > adversely affected by neutral laws. Then an effort must be made to > attempt to to try to accommodate them. These kinds of situations > normally won't make the headlines, but it is at the heart of why RFRA > matters. > > Michael Peabody, Esq. > Editor > ReligiousLiberty.TV > http://www.religiousliberty.tv > <http://redir.aspx?REF=qfxfI4lCqJnK9K7iWi9RgjdQFl5Ed_0p3ouVupqeg7Elsz9U3VfTCAFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnJlbGlnaW91c2xpYmVydHkudHYv> > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > <http://redir.aspx?REF=KXJzlrVusJ_GR8b2aULLoYv7Sx1i41HAKsG35ehF38Alsz9U3VfTCAFtYWlsdG86UmVsaWdpb25sYXdAbGlzdHMudWNsYS5lZHU.> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > <http://redir.aspx?REF=7AKDMZLLKJl9ncaEiDd9ILieVGeUoTsTKLq9JlvsvNslsz9U3VfTCAFodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMudWNsYS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3JlbGlnaW9ubGF3> > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
