Do we know of any social science or criminal statistics that supports a
notion that jurisdictions with RFRA or upheld constitutional defenses to
employer liability have a higher incidence of child sexual abuse (or, for that
matter, that incidents of child sexual abuse are higher in
Marci - I don't believe you've stated the facts of a single case. I'd say
the same thing if you were a man.
Art
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Marci Hamilton hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
I'm not sure why stating the facts in these cases is rhetoric I
sincerely hope it is not because a woman is
There are actual cases of it being used as a defense. Abuse of RFRA is not in
itself enough to not have such laws, but it is also something not to be ignored
in considering the wisdom of and form of a RFRA. Nor should its use to permit
or even encourage discrimination against groups be
I was talking about the facts of how these cases are litigated. I represent
many victims in numerous cases around the country on the First Am and RFRA
issues. The RCC and LDS on particular push the religious freedom claims hard
in such cases. Sometimes together
Gibson v Brewer out of
Gibson v. Brewer is an outlier, giving the church more protection than most
states provide. And the protection Gibson provides is roughly equivalent to
what state and federal law provides the public schools in similar
circumstances. No state has even considered giving religious liberty
Doug-- your downplaying of rfras' effect is inaccurate and misleading. The
rfras can apply and they are invoked in these casesJust because a case
comes down on common law theory doesn't mean rfras don't apply.
I think you have sidestepped the issues. Obviously, rfras can be invoked
Actually, my criticism of Marci was not because she was a woman
(surprise!), but because it seemed to me that for whatever reason her argument
was framed in a way that was as unsubstantive and as lacking in concreteness as
possible. As I noted in the e-mail to which Marci
Anecdotal evidence and surmise is all we have for most laws –
it’s all we have for the proposition that, for instance, having RFRAs actually
increases religious freedom; it’s not like we have social science or criminal
statistics to support that. And social science and criminal
Marci, has any church ever won any form of sexual abuse case on a RFRA theory?
I will not assert that the number of such cases is zero, because I do not claim
to have read every case. I am confident that the number of such cases is very
small. As Eugene has already noted, the churches that have
I've just read *Gibson v Brewer*, 952 SW.2d 23 (Mo.1997). If that's the
poster child for why RFRAs are bad, it's not much of a poster. In the
first place, it didn't involve a RFRA at all, just the First Amendment,
with which we're stuck for better or for worse.
First, motions to dismiss claims
I think someone needs to raise a word in defense of Marci here. The
perspective of someone who actively litigates these cases has to be
different from that of someone who sits in an office reading the decisions
and synthesizing the rationales of the cases.
The fact that religious-institution
This straight out of C.S. Lewis' Bulverism essay, where young
Ezekiel Bulver hears his father argue that the angles of a triangle
add up to 180, and his mother retort You say that because you are a MAN!
At 09:31 AM 6/14/2012, you wrote:
Marci - I don't believe you've stated the facts of a
Obviously the man lives in flatland and the woman in sphereland.
:)
On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Will Linden wrote:
This straight out of C.S. Lewis' Bulverism essay, where young Ezekiel
Bulver hears his father argue that the angles of a triangle add up to 180,
and his mother retort You say
I posted something briefly from my droid that was short, but now raise it more
completely. Is there any evidence that the defeat in ND was at least in part
about Indian religious freedom. There is some serious tension between Indians
and non-Indians in ND and since the whole issue of RFRA
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
I don't think there is much of a litigation burden from RFRA defenses in
sexual abuse cases. The principal news about state RFRAs is that they are
seriously underutilized and seriously underenforced when utilized. Chris
Lund documents this at 55 S.D. L. Rev. 466 (2010). This is not a good thing,
There is a significant federal RFRA litigation burden in the diocesan
bankruptcies. Marty and I have been on opposite sides litigating it. I
currently represent the victims in the Milwaukee Archdiocesan bankruptcy on the
RFRA and First Amendment issues.
I have seen state rfras pled in many
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
Eric,
Glad to see you focusing on the claims made with respect to Measure 3. I've been
counseling a nontheistic North Dakota group for over a year on Measure 3 and its
predecessor. My primary concern has been the potential use of Measure 3 to
legalize discrimination against atheists, members of
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
The Supreme Court of the United states would have had nothing to say about the
meaning of Measure 3. It would have been a state law issue.
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
b...@jmcenter.org b...@jmcenter.org wrote:
Eric,
Glad to see you focusing on the claims made with respect to
Presumably the federal Establishment Clause would limit the reach of Measure 3.
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
I don't know that all bets would need to be off in any case, since other state
RFRAs have long used burden rather than substantial burden, e.g.
Connecticut's.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of
Other than Conn and Alabama, I'm not aware of another state that eliminated
substantial from the formulation.
Are there others?
I don't know that all bets would need to be off in any case, since other state
RFRAs have long used burden rather than substantial burden, e.g.
Connecticut's.
I believe that New Mexico's speaks in terms of restrict[ing] a person's
free exercise of religion.
Roman
Storzer Greene, P.L.L.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest
Suite One Thousand
Washington, D.C. 20011
Tel: (202) 857-9766
Fax: (202) 315-3996
110 Wall Street
Eleventh Floor
New York,
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
Folks: Again, perhaps it might be good to avoid the rhetoric
and focus on the serious issues involved. American law has long valued both
equality and accommodation of religious beliefs. For many decades, it has
valued equality in treatment by many nongovernmental actors (and
Very well stated, Eugene. My compliments.
Alan
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:24 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Thanks - I much appreciate the kind words!
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:07 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND
OK, sorry, that wasn't meant for the whole list D'oh!
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:11 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religious
Connecticut and Alabama use burden instead of substantial burden in
their state RFRAs. Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Missouri speak of
restrictions on religious liberty. But I really don't know how much the
difference in language ends up mattering. Connecticut is a burden
state, like North
31 matches
Mail list logo
