Marci, you write that "[a]ccommodation should be
measured according to whether the accommodation goes beyond fitting the
designated religious conduct, and moves into giving benefits to the religious to
get around the law even when not for religious purposes." But surely, in
the cases where
Bobby: Agreed!
I would note in this regard, however, that however the difficult cases
might be decided, even as eloquent a proponent of permissive accommdation as
Michael McConnell conceded (60 G.W. L. Rev. 685) that certain tangible "harms"
to third parties could render an exemption
I was just looking back to the "good ol' days," seven years ago, when
then-Professor McConnell was able to participate with us in discussing
these same issues. For those interested, here are links to what I thought
was an especially valuable and revealing exchange prompted by Jim Dwyer's
Although I thought the "falsely balleyhooed" characterization adds nothing to the discussion, I appreciated the link over to the New Yorker article. It reminded me, once again, how very different a world it is in the New York state of mind:
Q: "Why is it important to religion advocates to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The remark calls back to my mind the
brief filed by the State of New York in the Lamb's Chapel case (arguing
that religious uses did not fall within a "catch-all" provision
allowing uses of school that offered a public benefit; contending that
religion was of benefit
Lamb's Chapel was a Free Speech Clause case. It was
outside the scope of the Equal Access Act, because it involved a community
group, not a student group.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
Yes. Community group claims are always based
on the Constitution. The ninth Circuit has applied constitutional analysis to
student claims not governed by the Equal Access Act as in the case of access to
a forum during the school day.
Marc Stern
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes. It's only students, only without outside
leaders, only in secondary schools.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed
In a message dated 3/18/2005 11:17:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have I been laboring under a misconception all this time?
Yes. The principles are, I think, the same under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
In a message dated 3/18/2005 9:19:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why was that even a relevant argument to begin with? The Equal Access Act doesn't require that a given use have a public benefit, it only says that if the school is going to be made available to community
Would Marty (or anyone else) argue that a significant third-party harm is
sufficient in itself to invalidate a legislative accommodation of religion?
If so, why should it be sufficient, given that the government adjusts and
shifts burdens like this all the time to accommodate secular interests?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/18/2005 9:19:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why was that even a relevant argument to begin with? The
Equal Access Act doesn't require that a given use have a public
benefit, it only says that if the school is
James,
OK, let me amend: There are no *valid* reasons (or arguments) against
same-sex marriage.
Consider the fallacious argument against same-sex marriage that gays
are prone to higher suicide rates than heterosexuals. While that is
statistically true, it doesn't consider *why* --which
I am new to this listserv and a graduate student studying the separation of
church and state.
In regards to the Cupertino School Controversy and the New Yorker article,
Peter Boyer states that because Stephen Williams believes that "there are
'holes' in the regular curriculum", he decided
Ervin Murga wrote:
I am new to this listserv and a graduate student studying the
separation of church and state.
In regards to the Cupertino School Controversy and the New
Yorker article, Peter Boyer states that because Stephen Williams
believes that "there are 'holes' in
The Pew Forum on Religion
Public Life has just published a background paper which very thoroughly
presents the issues in Cutter v. Wilkinson, the pending Supreme Court case on
the constitutionality of the institutionalized persons section of
RLUIPA. Cutter is being argued on Monday,
16 matches
Mail list logo
