Eugene,
My email keeps bouncing;
From: Paul Diamond [mailto:pauldiam...@btconnect.com]
Sent: 09 March 2012 15:08
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for
their actions
With great hesitation, I enter
Steve writes that religious motivation matters, for purposes
of making an action taken with religious motivation illegal when the same
action taken with secular motivation is legal. I see no basis for that in
antidiscrimination law, which generally bans discrimination against
.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:01 PM
To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: Re: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for their
actions
Might I suggest
Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for their
actions
I hope it comes as no surprise to anyone on this list that there are
irreconcilable doctrinal problems with religious liberty no matter how one
looks at it. Religious motivation
I have to say that I find Steve's analysis more sound and based on common
sense.
Marci
On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I think the analysis below is mistaken: Whether or not cabbies’ refusal to
carry alcohol should be barred by some general
Yes, Eugene, I think you are missing the essential point that common carriers
are not the same as other employers and when it comes to choice as to serve or
not serve, they are more limited in what they can and cannot do. They are
bound by more than non-discrimination laws. Or that is how I
PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for their
actions
Yes, Eugene, I think you are missing the essential point that common carriers
are not the same as other employers and when it comes to choice as to serve
I think the analysis below is mistaken: Whether or not cabbies' refusal to
carry alcohol should be barred by some general common-carriage requirement, it
shouldn't be treated as religious discrimination. What's more, I think the
argument that such a refusal is religious discrimination itself
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:39 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for
their actions
I
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for their
actions
I have to say that I find Steve's analysis more sound and based on common sense.
Marci
On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
: Discrimination against people with religious motivations for their
actions
I have to say that I find Steve's analysis more sound and based on common sense.
Marci
On Mar 7, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Volokh, Eugene
vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
I think the analysis below is mistaken
I hope it comes as no surprise to anyone on this list that there are
irreconcilable doctrinal problems with religious liberty no matter how one
looks at it. Religious motivation matters. Particular facts matter. Details
matter. Eugene's hypothetical restaurant is not analogous to the
12 matches
Mail list logo
