)
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:28 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Divisiveness
I think there’s much to what
: Monday, June 09, 2014 8:10 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Divisiveness
I appreciate Alan's attempt to cabin the divisiveness concept,
but I wonder whether it works. Nothing is beyond the scope of political
decision-making -- there is always
Jon,
I think you don't understand, or are ignoring, the point of view of the Hobby
Lobby parties. They don't object to employees buying what the Hobby Lobby
parties consider to be abortifacient drugs. I don't think they monitor what
their employees do with wages or would take any action
...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Hillel Y. Levin
*Sent:* Monday, June 09, 2014 12:59 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Divisiveness
Chip:
I am in total agreement of your analysis, except that I think there is a
third way. That would be for legislatures
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Arthur Spitzer [artspit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:33 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Divisiveness
Marty-
Like you, I had thought
My understanding is that that IRS reg is not about the option of declining
to offer a plan at all -- something that I'd think the statute guarantees
and that the executive cannot change -- but instead about whether certain
employer-employee arrangements for health care costs are excludable from
I didn't say that the Greens are not potentially burden as company
directors -- indeed, that's exactly what I've argued the case is about,
rather than being about corporate free exercise or shareholder rights:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/hobby-lobby-part-v-whose-religious.html
On Tue,
of Arthur Spitzer [
artspit...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:33 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Divisiveness
Marty-
Like you, I had thought that the law doesn't require HL to offer an
employee health insurance plan at all
But are they the beneficial owners of the shares as beneficiaries of the trust?
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 10, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Marty Lederman
lederman.ma...@gmail.commailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say that the Greens are not potentially burden as company directors --
indeed,
I think there's much to what Alan says, but I think the
relationship between national and local politics is complex. For instance,
while choosing U.S. Supreme Court Justices is a matter for national politics,
many groups that organize to influence that will also have local
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Divisiveness
I agree with Mark's correction that the complaint of the Greens is not that
their employees' use of contraceptive burdens their religion.
But it's also not that they have to buy insurance that specifically covers the
drugs
[mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:05 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Divisiveness
I agree with Mark's correction that the complaint of the Greens is not
that their employees' use of contraceptive burdens their religion.
But it's also
issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Divisiveness
If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive decision than
Eugene
is clearly correct. I have always thought the issue was whether a decision was
one that provoked political divisions along religious lines in the sense
issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Divisiveness
If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive decision
than Eugene
is clearly correct. I have always thought the issue was whether a
decision was
one that provoked political divisions along religious lines in the sense
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 7:37 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Divisiveness
If divisive means
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 7:37 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Divisiveness
If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive decision
than Eugene
is clearly correct. I have always thought the issue
: Sunday, June 08, 2014 7:37 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Divisiveness
If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive
decision than Eugene
is clearly correct. I have always thought the issue was whether a
decision was
one that provoked
Academics
Subject: RE: Divisiveness
If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive decision than
Eugene
is clearly correct. I have always thought the issue was whether a decision was
one that provoked political divisions along religious lines in the sense that
if
government
Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 7:37 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Divisiveness
If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive
decision than Eugene
is clearly correct. I have always thought the issue was whether a
decision
09, 2014 12:59 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Divisiveness
Chip:
I am in total agreement of your analysis, except that I think there is a third
way. That would be for legislatures to consider religious exemptions when they
enact individual laws (as they did
:* Monday, June 09, 2014 12:59 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Divisiveness
Chip:
I am in total agreement of your analysis, except that I think there is a
third way. That would be for legislatures to consider religious exemptions
when they enact individual laws
I agree with Alan's statement below, stated better than I did. I would
add that we now do/should include the nones within the system.
Jon
On 2014-06-08 22:36, Alan Brownstein wrote:
If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive decision
than Eugene is
“nones”?
Huh. I knew that was a thing, but didn’t really expect to see it here.
Steve
On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:49 PM, mallamud malla...@camden.rutgers.edu wrote:
I agree with Alan's statement below, stated better than I did. I would add
that we now do/should include the nones within the
There is some authority for not preferring religion over non-religion.
I do not think religious people should get exemptions reasons not
connected to the practice of their religion (church services, prayer,
lighting candles, sacrificing chickens etc.) To me many requests sound
like I think it
Whoops, hit enter too early -- please disregard the Of course,.
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 4:55 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
I am not suggesting that divisiveness should be a rule of decision.
Rather the purpose of the religion clauses is to allow people with
strong, differing views live together in reasonable harmony. Thus in
interpreting religious exemptions the Court needs to keep that principle
in mind.
If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive decision than
Eugene is clearly correct. I have always thought the issue was whether a
decision was one that provoked political divisions along religious lines in the
sense that if government could promote religion (or interfere with
Got it. And in addition to being speculative, maybe it's also
incommensurable in the sense that the sort of division created by the
no-religious-speech rule is different in kind than (and not easily
measured against) the sort of division that would be created by allowing
religious speech. But I
28 matches
Mail list logo
