I just read the amicus brief in the Arlene's Flowers case. What struck me, in
addition to the points already raised, was that the brief did not distinguish
between religious opposition to the wedding and religious opposition to the
marriage.
Oftentimes, religious opposition to same-sex
Agreed on all fronts, Marty.
I would just add this regarding the observation that Stutzman "purportedly
doesn't care about what Robert Ingersoll's sexual orientation is, or
whether he has sex with Curt Freed."
Whatever may the source of opposition to same-sex marriage in specific
cases, the
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 5:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Responding to Eugene's question
bern...@gmu.edu>; Law & Religion issues for Law
> Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
>
>
>
> Mitch Berman's good question asks in general terms about how much
> &quo
Thanks, Jim. I'd be *very *surprised if the Washington Supreme Court
decides otherwise. But even apart from the absence of any prospect of
success, what's so striking about the scholars' amicus brief is that it
doesn't even try to contend with this Colorado decision, or with most of
the Supreme
In case it's of interest, I believe the most extensive judicial discussion
of this issue to date comes from the Colorado Court of Appeals in the
Masterpiece Caskeshop case:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opini
on/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf (pages 12-23).
In concluding that a
Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Outside of this context (in the context of licensing) and before these kinds of
issues arose, I argued that flower arranging, even by a grocery store employee,
is speech for 1st
enn.edu>
Cc: David Bernstein <dbern...@gmu.edu>; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Mitch Berman's good question asks in general terms abo
nstein <dbern...@gmu.edu>; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Mitch Berman's good question asks in general terms about how much "solicitude"
<mitch...@law.upenn.edu<mailto:mitch...@law.upenn.edu>>;
conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
I am receptive to trying to draw lines between commercial activities that are
inherently expr
ber 12, 2016 11:44 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Cc: David Bernstein <dbern...@gmu.edu>; Mitchell Berman
<mitch...@law.upenn.edu>; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
I am r
es for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Unlike Marty, I not only don't find the argument in question shocking, I thin
it's right. I blogged about this at Volokh a couple of years
)
>
>
>
> Mitch Berman
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces@
> lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *David Bernstein
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:00 AM
> *To:* Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com>; con
The argument that the definition of marriage centers on the sex of the spouses
and not their sexual orientation was a point that was in fact noticed and
discussed by the Court.
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, I'm -- I'm not sure it's necessary to get into
sexual orientation to resolve the
;hd...@virginia.edu>
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>;
conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
Doug, I think you make a good argument. I have two quibbles. The statement that
a wedding is an "
From: Eric J Segall [eseg...@gsu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:09 PM
To: Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
I fail to understand
:conlawprof-bounces@
> lists.ucla.edu <conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Samuel
> Bagenstos
> *Sent:* Monday, October 10, 2016 5:15 PM
> *To:* John Q. Barrett <barre...@stjohns.edu>
> *Cc:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.u
: Monday, October 10, 2016 5:15 PM
To: John Q. Barrett <barre...@stjohns.edu>
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>;
conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
In other words, if Ollie sells BBQ to
[The following is a hypothetical only, as I don’t pretend to know everything
about the parties and their views.]
Suppose that you are a solo law practitioner in the town where Arlene’s Flowers
is located. You have long known that Barronelle Stutzman has strong
traditionalist religious views,
19 matches
Mail list logo
