Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh." On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to > carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to > love thy neighbor." > > Sigh. > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. < > howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote: > >> Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will >> not appeal Judge Reeves' decision >> >> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Masinter [ >> masin...@nova.edu] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Subject:* RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act >> >> Agreed. Any language that might have extended protection to all >> religious beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs >> specific to Islam, and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA >> supporters and a large percentage of the republican caucus in the House. >> Isn’t the entire exercise just political chumming? >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> > >> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act >> >> >> >> Agreed. >> >> >> >> That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523 >> went beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50 >> ("Some Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith >> prevents them from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith >> marriage.... Why should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed >> to recuse from issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while >> her coworkers have the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address >> Judge Reeves's concerns, I think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand >> protection to all religious beliefs about marriage. So extended, however, >> the bill would likely lose any chance it previously may have had of passing >> in the House. >> >> >> >> The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the >> priorities of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though >> exemption bills and (2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's >> statement indicates that there will be reluctance among some FADA >> supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve #1. >> >> >> >> - Jim >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter <masin...@nova.edu> >> wrote: >> >> The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction >> against enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523. Judge Reeves enjoined >> enforcement of HB 1523 in part because, in his view, it created a >> discriminatory religious preference, protecting those who for religious >> reasons opposed same sex marriage but not those who for religious reasons >> favored it. Although the state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay >> of his injunction pending appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought >> it wise to account for it lest it fail in the House even before facing >> certain death in the Senate. >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> Michael R. Masinter >> >> Professor of Law >> >> Nova Southeastern University >> >> 3305 College Avenue >> >> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 >> >> 954.262.6151 >> >> masin...@nova.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> > >> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act >> >> >> >> Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due >> to the change described below. >> >> >> >> https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession >> >> >> >> It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform >> Committee endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting >> messages from its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides" >> aspect of the revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has >> led FRC to withdraw its support of the bill). >> >> >> >> - Jim >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske <jole...@lclark.edu> wrote: >> >> In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment >> Defense Act (FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has >> been some confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of >> this confusion is the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was >> neither (1) the introduced version of the bill, which is the only version >> available on Congress.gov nor (2) the revised version of the bill posted by >> Senator Lee last September, which limited the definition of protected >> "persons" to exclude federal employees working within the scope of >> employment, for-profit federal contractors operating within the scope of >> their contract, and medical providers with respect to issues of visitation >> and provision of care. >> >> >> >> The version discussed at the hearing is available here: >> >> >> >> >> https://labrador.house.gov/uploads/First%20Amendment%20Defense%20Act%20-%20H.R.%202802%20-%20Revised%20ANS%20-%207-7-16.pdf >> >> >> >> In addition to including the modifications proposed by Senator Lee last >> September, the newest proposal appears designed to address concerns about >> viewpoint discrimination and equal protection by making the following >> modification to the first paragraph of the bill's operative section (new >> provision in all caps): >> >> >> >> "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall >> not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on >> the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a >> sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that (1) marriage is or >> should be recognized as the union of (A) two individuals of the opposite >> sex; or (B) TWO INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SEX; or (2) extramarital relations >> are improper." >> >> >> >> As previously discussed on the list, "discriminatory action" is defined >> to include, among other things, "caus[ing] any tax, penalty, or payment to >> be assessed against." >> >> >> >> Under this latest modification to FADA, those with religious objections >> to facilitating opposite sex marriage (if any such individuals or entities >> exist) would have the same protection as those with religious objections to >> facilitating same-sex marriage. >> >> >> >> The bill's findings (Section 2) remain focused on religious objections to >> same-sex marriage. >> >> >> >> - Jim >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Michael Worley J.D., Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________ 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.
