Re: Recommentations of course materials for teaching "Muslim ban" case?

Mary Anne, this amicus brief filed in the 4th Circuit Muslim ban litigation will suggest many good possibilities: http://www.robbinsrussell.com/sites/default/files/appellate_pdf/FILED%20CA4%20AMICUS%20BRIEF%20-%20IRAP%20v%20Trump.pdf You might consider assigning the brief itself. On Thu, May 11,

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

I am wondering how far Tom's notion of privilege for sermons (compared with all other communications by leaders of non-profit groups or entities) can be carried. Does anyone think that a clergyman, speaking in a sermon, has a privilege to defame a third party who is not a member of, or in any

Re: Making sense of Hosanna-Tabor (and the absurd nursing-worshipper hypo)

tions (in the same way that the Court in effect > accepted the fact that the Oregon peyote law would prevent the NAC from > engaging in its sacramental ceremonies). > > What I still don't quite understand, in Bob and Chip's argument, is why > some but not all of the four cl

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

ver political questions, (2) notions that > political questions are committed to other branches. And again there, (2) > becomes a reason for (1). But maybe I should leave well enough alone… > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists.ucla.e

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

t; > Detroit, MI 48202 > > l...@wayne.edu > > (313) 577-4046 (phone) > > Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/ > > Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=36340 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:re

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

Neither Eugene not Steven has made any attempt to state the principle for which Hosanna-Tabor stands. It certainly does not stand for a broad and free floating principle of church autonomy, subject to some balancing test. It does not assert that broad principle, and it explicitly eschews any

Re: Trinity Lutheran and the ERISA cases - Do Churches Want Special Treatment or Not?

So is it correct to conclude that the struggle over LGBT rights explains 100% of any change in public attitudes -- left and right-- about funding and regulation of houses of worship? If not, what else explains the change? The end of the fight between Protestants and Catholics about public funding

Re: Trinity Lutheran and the ERISA cases - Do Churches Want Special Treatment or Not?

rsity of Virginia > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > -- > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-bounces@lists. > ucla.edu] on behalf of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu] > *Sent:* Saturday, April 22, 2017 11:44 AM &g

Re: Trinity Lutheran and the ERISA cases - Do Churches Want Special Treatment or Not?

; > 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-bounces@lists. > ucla.edu] on

Re: Trinity Lutheran and the ERISA cases - Do Churches Want Special Treatment or Not?

ing of secular functions carried >> out by religious organizations in religious contexts. Now the principles of >> no discrimination and no funding squarely conflict, and we have to choose >> between them. And the founding generation did not make that choice. >> >> >&g

Re: Trinity Lutheran and the ERISA cases - Do Churches Want Special Treatment or Not?

I have been struck this week by how almost all of the pro-state discussion of Trinity Lutheran has focused on the problem of discrimination by state funded churches (i.e., why should taxpayers fund activities from which some are invidiously excluded?). It's as if we (academics as well as informed

Re: State-sanctioned church "police force"

un...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:19 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject:* Re: State-sanctioned church "police force

Re: State-sanctioned church "police force"

Why would a large, predominantly white suburban congregation near Birmingham need its own police force? For a related religion clause case, see State v. Celmer, http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1979/80-n-j-405-0.html (invalidating on First A grounds "a statutory scheme which

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

, not secular) Gorsuch is dismissive. When pro se plaintiff > Ali objects to being forced to include the name he was convicted under on > all mail, despite a religiously motivated name change, Gorsuch says he has > not articulated a substantial burden on a sincere religious exercise

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

Thanks to Jim Oleske for the kind words. Here is a thought about the general landscape of inquiry into burdens on religion, and a related thought about the way Texas has argued in these various matters: 1) The proposition that RFRA's "substantial burden" inquiry includes both a "secular cost" and

Re: Standing Rock

I appreciate Doug's bringing to our attention this material about RFRA and the Standing Rock litigation. In addition to the question of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's interest in the property under Lake Oahe (the Tribe argues that this presents an important distinction from Lyng, which involved

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

n...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:11 PM > > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Scalia's views of RFRA? > > > > There was no compelling interest test

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu < > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Ira Lupu < > icl...@law.gwu.edu> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:37:05 PM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Scali

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

here I discuss this in detail, On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:02 PM Case, Mary Anne <mac...@law.uchicago.edu> wrote: > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:37 PM > &g

Re: New Jersey RLUIPA lawsuit

I wonder if Eric Rassbach (and others at The Becket Fund, which has commendably and energetically pursued RLUIPA cases on behalf of mosques and Muslim prison inmates) expects such lawsuits, by the DOJ on behalf of those building a mosque, to continue in the next Administration. On Tue, Nov 22,

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

The Scalia opinion in Smith of course did not anticipate a law like RFRA; instead, he was referencing practice-specific accommodations (like a peyote prohibition that exempted Native American Church members who used peyote in sacraments.) Mary Anne, your comment has an excluded middle -- RFRA, as

Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers

> >Eugene > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:29 AM > *To:* Mitchell Berman <mitch...@law.upenn.edu> > *Cc:* David Bernstein <d

Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers

Mitch Berman's good question asks in general terms about how much "solicitude" Fred's claim deserves. But we cannot answer intelligently unless we know the forum and the grounds advanced for Fred. Is he asking the state legislature to exempt religious objectors from public accommodations law?

Re: Article on Hosanna-Tabor

Thanks very much, Mark, for calling the Hosanna-Tabor article to the attention of the list. It appears that the links you included from Reva Siegel's Law and Humanities SSRN journal won't get you to the paper. But these links will: http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1224/

Re: The Bedford pool exemption--a collection of reactions

Some national attention now -- http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3259421f36124a34be17b68654a7bf4e/no-men-allowed-women-only-pool-hours-draw-complaints-nyc . Note the references to Seattle and a Minneapolis suburb, and the ambiguous position of city wide authorities in NYC (relevant in light of

Re: The Bedford pool exemption--a collection of reactions

A few more thoughts: 1. Are there any women participating on this listserv? It seems remarkable that we have talking about this gender based policy for days and (unless I missed something, and please forgive me if that is the case) all the participants are men. 2. The Kiryas Joel problem is

Re: Jewish law, women's bodies, and accommodations

I agree that it's not for the state to arbitrate between Hillel's and Meir's view about what is embedded in Jewish law with respect to women's bodies. But I want to go back to Eugene's earlier argument that 3rd party harms are not relevant to the Establishment Clause problem because the

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

basketball tournament because they asked > for an accommodation so they would not have play on the Sabbath. > > If their games could be scheduled to avoid playing on the Sabbath at > minimal cost to others, why shouldn't their religious beliefs be > accommodated? The fact that there is

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

on in this kind of a case. > Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 2, 2016, at 7:49 PM, "Ira Lupu" <icl...@law.gwu.edu > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','icl...@law.gwu.edu');>> wrote: > > Paul is raising, among other questions, an entirely appropriate bas

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

Paul is raising, among other questions, an entirely appropriate baseline question -- how do sexually integrated public pools burden anyone's religious freedom? No one is coerced to use them. The pools are a constitutionally gratuitous benefit, offered on conventional conditions of no sex

Re: Trinity Lutheran Church - will churches have to extend "equal protection" to all when it comes to use?

The EITC is no more a "salary supplement" than Food Stamps. These are transfers to people based on need, and sometimes triggered by work, or conditioned on work. They are not given in exchange for work, and the giver (the U.S.) has no control over the work done or the employee. So that is no

Re: Trinity Lutheran Church - will churches have to extend "equal protection" to all when it comes to use?

Equality cannot be the only prism for measuring Religion Clause norms. Non-establishment does at times mandate different treatment -- favorable to religion in the context of the ministerial exception, and unfavorable in the context of public school sponsored speech. A public school may sponsor a

Marty Lederman on understanding the supplemental briefs in Zubik

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/04/making-sense-of- supplemental-filings-in.html -- Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular

Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical

estimony, actually not that big of a > deal? What cases have been decided on this basis? > > Eric > > On Mar 22, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > > Bob Tuttle and I have written a book ("Secular Government, Religious > People") that central

Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical

Fax) > gbay...@adflegal.org > ADFlegal.org > Not Licensed in DC > Practice Limited to Federal Court > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:25 AM > *To:* Law &am

Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical

Eric Kniffin writes that ". . . whether there is a substantial burden on a sincere religious belief is something courts can determine by looking at the force of the government’s compulsion." That's correct, but it's only half the story. Look at Yoder (on which RFRA declares it is modeled), in

Re: help wanted

Try the spending power. But why would Congress want to do this, rather than leave it to each state? And if Congress did, why not include a provision that would specify that the law does not apply to exemptions that would cause significant harm to third parties? On Monday, February 22, 2016,

Re: Texas Cheerleaders display Bible Verses on banners

Steve Jamar is absolutely right, and the Texas Supreme Court is quite wrong. Cheers uttered, and banners carried, by cheerleaders during a public high school football game are school sponsored speech. Does anyone on the list think the First Amendment would bar the school from ordering

Re: Texas Cheerleaders display Bible Verses on banners

One more thought -- I am really hoping that somewhere in the great state of Texas there are a few brave and impish cheerleaders who will bring banners to the next game that read "Good without God -- beat Austin HS!" Under this Texas Supreme Court ruling, school officials would just be begging for

Re: Texas Cheerleaders display Bible Verses on banners

constitutionally repulsive to me, and it's very sad if fear chases away all the potential plaintiffs. On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > Steve Jamar is absolutely right, and the Texas Supreme Court is quite > wrong. Cheers uttered, and ban

Re: The Establishment Clause question in the Trinity Lutheran case

An equal treatment theory also does not fit the "ministerial exception" constitutionally mandated in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church v. EEOC. I wonder if Eugene, and others who question the Trinity Lutheran Church outcome, think that unanimous decision is incorrect. Sent from my iPhone > On

Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits

Neither Eugene's or Alan's questions invite quick or easy answers, but here's a start: 1. Eugene's examples all involve health and safety. None can be diverted to religious use; all make religious use, and all other uses of the property, healthier or safer. Compare Mitchell v. Helms -- in-kind

Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits

efore be equally free to say that “play in the joints” lets it deny > all those safety grants (otherwise generally available to all other > institutions) to religious institutions? > > Eugene > > Chip writes: > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [m

Re: Cert Granted in Blaine Amendment case

According to the 8th Circuit opinion, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/trinity-op-below.pdf, the Missouri Constitution (Article I, Section 7) specifically provides that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section

Re: Cert Granted in Blaine Amendment case

--a holding that the EC > does not categorically prohibit direct funding to churches--would be fairly > momentous, no? (even if we've all been expecting it since SOC left the > Court) > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > &g

Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.

>> wrote: >> >>> I missed Chip's great post before I asked my question. >>> >>> I agree completely with what Chip says here. It seems like a clear >>> violation of EC limitations on National power. The clearest command of the >>> EC forbids denom

Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.

gt;>> who are not part of the American political community, could one colorably >>> argue that the denominational-discrimiantion rule -- as currently >>> understood by the Court -- does not apply? >>> >>> - Jim >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Rick Duncan <nebraskalawp...@yahoo.

Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.

hoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> I missed Chip's great post before I asked my question. >>>> >>>> I agree completely with what Chip says here. It seems like a clear >>>> violation of EC limitations on National power. The clearest comma

the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.

There has been much discussion in the press and on blog posts re: the constitutionality of of Trump's proposal to bar (non-citizen?) Muslims from entering the U.S. Several commentators have suggested the "plenary power" doctrine, governing Congressional power over immigration, would insulate such

Re: State RFRAs and their equivalents

Kara Loewentheil also collects these sources (RFRA's and state constitutional provisions so construed) is her "The Satanic Temple, Scott Walker . . . " piece here: http://harvardlpr.com/2015/04/14/1762/ On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Douglas Laycock wrote: > I collect

Re: Post-Obergefell, post-Indiana state initiatives for religious exemptions

disagree." > https://campaignforamericanprinciples.com/first-amendment-defense-act/ > > Family Research Council on FADAs (which it calls GNDAs): "Like the First > Amendment Defense Act at the federal level, states need to pass legislation > now to protect individuals and entit

Re: Post-Obergefell, post-Indiana state initiatives for religious exemptions

As I understand it, many state legislatures meet only in the first few months of the year, and have not been in session since the Obergefell decision. I have heard from several reliable sources that Georgia legislators will re-introduce a RFRA in January 2016. In spring 2015, it appeared that

Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport

Is this any different than creating chapels or worship/reflection spaces on a state university campus, in a county hospital, or on a military base? What holds these examples (including the airport) together is the desire to accommodate the worship needs of patrons/participants who have no ready

Re: Is Kim Davis complying with the injunction?

I wonder if any County official or member of the public (one of the new licensees) has asked for a formal opinion of the Kentucky AG re: the validity of the licenses issued under these circumstances: http://ag.ky.gov/civil/opinions/Pages/default.aspx Such an opinion (which may take a while to

Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case

he ground have overtaken all of this. > Still worth thinking about to figure out how better to deal with similar > events in the future. For responsive points, see comments below in > brackets. The gist is that if “Davis to Mason” is constitutional, then > “Davis to Mason with authorizati

Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case

us grounds. In County C, the clerk > opposes marriages by previously divorced individuals on religious grounds. > Does our commitment to reasonable religious accommodations require us to > accept a system in which same-sex couples living in County A have to have > their marriage licenses authorized

Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case

Correction to my message from a few minutes ago -- it was Michael Masinter (not Marty Lederman) who invoked, on a related thread on this list, the quotation "l'etat c'est moi" in reference to Kim Davis. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: &

Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case

I think Jim Oleske's analysis is spot on, and completely of a piece with Doug Laycock's point, offered early in this discussion, that Rowan County cannot assert a religious identity. Accommodations can be made for Davis personally, but not for the County. The 6th Circuit might wisely put an end

Re: Kim Davis released, given that her Deputies are issuing licenses BUT ARE THEY VALID?

When you study or teach family law, you quickly realize that the validity of a marriage is never adjudicated at the time a license is issued, or when the ceremony is taking place. The validity of a marriage will only be questioned some time later, in a matter of divorce, inheritance, or some

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

A few questions, and forgive me if they have been asked and answered on this or related threads on this listserv: 1) Why did Ms. Davis stop issuing all marriage licenses? God did not tell her that issuing licenses for different-sex couples was sinful or wrong. Was this full closure on advice of

Re: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some claimants abortifacient) Mandate

We're discussing the nonprofits, but, as Nelson pointed out, these regs accommodate some objecting for-profits, including Hobby Lobby itself. I know we have Becket Fund lawyers on the list, and I do not expect them to disclose information about their clients' plans. But I have been wondering

Re: N. Carolina religious exemption for officials w/r/t performing and licensing marriages

I believe (and I may be mistaken on this) that Utah considered but did not enact this kind of perform marriages for all or for none rule for public officials with this kind of authority. I think Utah wound up with a right of selective opt-out for these officials. The North Carolina rule (all or

Re: 8th Cir. upholds exclusion of religious schools from playground safety funds

:43 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote: I'm not at all convinced that the current law includes any categorical bar on aid to houses of worship. What SCOTUS decision (on its facts) ever involves direct grants to houses of worship, for use in worship functions? In any event, Trinity Church

Re: 8th Cir. upholds exclusion of religious schools from playground safety funds

I'm not at all convinced that the current law includes any categorical bar on aid to houses of worship. What SCOTUS decision (on its facts) ever involves direct grants to houses of worship, for use in worship functions? In any event, Trinity Church applied for this grant in connection with its

Re: 8th Cir. upholds exclusion of religious schools from playground safety funds

Posner's opinion in FFRF v. McCallum ignores SOC's Mitchell opinion on the question of whether indirect (beneficiary choice) aid must pass through the hands of a beneficiary (as a voucher would). He argues that such a requirement is unnecessary. But McCallum is an indirect aid case, and so does

Re: Question on Establishment Clause and Same-Sex Marriage

On May 7, there was a lengthy discussion on this list of the issues Howard raises, under the subject line, By the power vested in me . . . ? The discussion did not include the Establishment Clause question, on which my view is that a general nondiscrimination rule for solemnizers, while

Re: By the power vested in me . . . ?

Several points: 1. DC (and, I expect, most states) does not license clergy or anyone else to confer marital status. The DC Code authorizes civil celebrants (many categories) to solemnize a marriage. http://dccode.org/simple/sections/46-406.html 2. Jim, thanks for the plug to the work that Bob

Re: By the power vested in me . . . ?

commitments. The possibility of third-party harms seems to draw the two issues together, not separate them. Jeremy On May 7, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote: Several points: 1. DC (and, I expect, most states) does not license clergy or anyone else to confer

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

Last night, Michael Worley wrote, some colleges forbid same-sex dating. This made me genuinely curious. These rules can't possibly forbid two men, or two women, from going to dinner and a movie; or forming a close bond of trust and friendship; or even expressing affection in the form of a hug.

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled. 3. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled. 4. Students who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University's dating rules and regulations will be expelled. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Ira Lupu icl

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

The Methodist pavilion story that Luke invokes is constantly being under-described, in a misleading way. For a more complete account, you might want to look at pp. 279-80 of this: scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055context=njlsp On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:18 PM,

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

Is there information about Gordon College more recent than this: http://www.worldmag.com/2015/03/review_board_gordon_college_accreditation_not_at_risk The IRS is already under tremendous political pressure over treatment of political advocacy groups. The idea that it will choose now to go after

Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex marriage

. And if the issue did arise, and the SG consulted with IRS, I'd be shocked if the IRS was willing to lock itself in with respect to what it might do 15-20 years from now, in cases with facts that are hard to foresee. On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote: Verrilli

Re: RFRAs, Non-profits and Abortion / Contraceptive services for Refugee Children

Thanks very much for posting this, Will. One of the big questions lurking here involves the extent to which the reasoning in the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel memo (World Vision), cited in note 2 of the letter from USCCB (and others) to which you linked, applies to treatment of social service

Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

of Law *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu *Sent:* Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:58 PM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights Mark: O'Brien

Re: FW: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

I accept Mark's apology. His point about RFRA critics overstating the potential downside is precisely met by commenting about how RFRA's friends tend to understate the potential harmful effects, which include encouraging discrimination as much as actually legalizing it.. We all know that it is

Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu *Sent:* Sunday, April 05, 2015 10:51 AM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* Re: Eugene's

Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

of discretion given to officials who would police the photographer's use of her First Amendment rights. Mark Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Sent from my iPad On Apr 1, 2015, at 6:03 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote: No, I don't think that's OK. But that's a real

Re: Dignitary Injury as an argument against religious exemptions to non-discrimination laws

understanding the dignitary injury argument as anything other than a position that people should not have to hear certain viewpoints with which they disagree, even if goods and services are otherwise being provided. Will Will Esser Charlotte, North Carolina From: Ira Lupu icl

Re: Report on Draft Language of Indiana Fix

That is not an adequate fix. What if an employer in Indianapolis, relying on RFRA, refuses to provide spousal benefits for a same sex spouse? What if a vendor in Indianapolis refuses on religious grounds to serve a Muslim or an atheist? If the state legislature wants to assure everyone that the

Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

I think the compelled speech issues, re: communicative work like photography, are interesting and sometimes difficult. I address those in an article I will post later this month. All I want to say now is that religious motivation is irrelevant to the compelled speech argument. (See W Va Bd of

Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2015 4:22 PM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject

Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

that the emperor isn’t really a god? Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2015 5:32 PM *To:* Law Religion

Re: Eugene's Blog Post on Liberals and Exemption Rights

instead simply discarded the Lee language wholesale by saying RFRA went further than the pre-Smith law. - Jim On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote: I do not think most liberals oppose exemptions for businesses per se -- imagine a law that compelled a butcher

Re: civil rights carve out from state RFRAs

Alan asks very good questions. I think the answer about civil rights carve-outs has to start with 1) justifications and 2) political costs. Once upon a time, the political costs of RFRA's were very low; they were abstract and obscure to most voters. It was Hobby Lobby, coupled with the rise of

state RFRA's and local anti-discrimination laws

One very important question I have never seen discussed is the relationship between a state RFRA (say, Texas or Indiana) and a local anti-discrimination ordinance (say, San Antonio or Indianapolis) that covers public accommodations and protects the LGBT population. This is a common configuration;

Re: Utah bills

Most states have a co-religionist hiring exemption for organizations with religious purposes, akin to section 702 of Title VII. A few have narrower co-religionist exemptions, limited to jobs with religious duties of some kind. From my reading of Utah law when this story arose last week (I

Utah Bill re: LGBT discrimination, with religious exemptions

Many stories on-line about the new proposal, e.g., http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/mormon-church-backs-utah-anti-discrimination-bill/ Does anyone have a link to the text of the Bill? Thanks in advance. Chip -- Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus George

Re: Utah Bill re: LGBT discrimination, with religious exemptions

] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:15 PM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* Utah Bill re: LGBT discrimination, with religious exemptions Many stories on-line about the new proposal, e.g., http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/mormon-church

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=342235 Blogs: Prawfsblawg http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/ Mirror of Justice http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/ Twitter: @RickGarnett https://twitter.com/RickGarnett On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:12 PM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George Dear Rick: Yes, I think you are just echoing Mark and Eugene when you emphasize

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

my tune about whether we should provide conduct exemptions from general, neutral laws that burden religious activity. Professor Ira Lupu, whom Oleske thanks in a note for helping with the review, circulated a link to it, touting it as “rigorously argued.” But a review cannot be rigorously argued

Re: Can someone be legally obligated to have sex with people she's unwilling to have sex with?

Look at the Nevada law of public accommodations, https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-651.html#NRS651Sec060. It is focused on places open to the general public, not on particular kinds of work. It covers any bar or restaurant, or any establishment that includes a bar or restaurant. And it

Re: Homeschooling, vaccinations, and Yoder

The idea that state legislators, faced with home schooling questions, are reflecting on the best reading of Pierce, Yoder, or the Constitution (and which parts of that would they be reading?) strikes me as spectacularly fanciful. If they cared about what legal research disclosed (rather than what

Re: Homeschooling, vaccinations, and Yoder

I've gotten a little bit lost re: whether we are discussing the right to home school or the right to not have your children vaccinated against contagious disease. But I must add that the legislative support, now quite widespread, for home schooling is not limited to or focused on those who home

Re: Homeschooling, vaccinations, and Yoder

I did very similar research for a piece I wrote in the B.U. L. Rev. in 1987, and found exactly the same thing -- courts very much resisted extending Yoder into a general right to home school. They distinguished Yoder based on age of the children and character of the relevant religious community

Re: letter re: proposed Georgia RFRA

if I have been wrong in thinking that there is no political appetite in the current climate for bipartisan state RFRAs targeted at the type of noncontroversial exemptions discussed during the debates over the original RFRA. - Jim On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu

letter re: proposed Georgia RFRA

The Georgia General Assembly is considering RFRA-type legislation. The proposed Bill is here: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/29. ​ A group of legal scholars, including myself and others who post on this list, have written a letter to Georgia political leaders,

Re: letter re: proposed Georgia RFRA

, and if the bill passes, it would seem to be a major development in the debate over state RFRAs (and a development that I, quite frankly, would not have anticipated in the current political environment). - Jim On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote: The Georgia General

Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

I want to call the list's attention to Jim Oleske's rigorously argued, just published review of Robert George, Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism (2013). The web link is here, http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/01/the-born-again-champion-of-conscience/, and the

  1   2   >