Wouldn't such a policy be constitutionally valid under the ruling in Lehman
v. Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) (holding that advertising space on
city buses is not a public forum, and upholding the city's rule forbidding
political advertising, while allowing commercial advertising, on the
It would be good to know the exact policy. If the city allows commercial
ads but no political or religious ads, I think the policy is
constitutionally OK. If the city allows political ads but not religious
ads, the policy is indeed highly questionable under Rosenberger, etc.
On Mon, Dec 20,
in a public forum -- even
though such speech presumably is at the core of most any concept of what
the First Amendment protects, cf. Citizens United -- speech about religious
matters may not be.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
It would be good to know the exact
If Marci is correct about the scope of the Boerne decision, it is quite odd
that not a single Justice mentioned this, even in a footnote, in the O
Centro case, in which RFRA was successfully applied to create an exemption
from the federal law of controlled substances. That loud silence suggests
As some of you perhaps know, Bob Tuttle and I have written a piece about
state laws and policy proposals designed to reconcile same-sex marriage with
religious liberty.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njlsp/v5/n2/4/4Lupu.pdf
The NY law, as I read it, is just like the other state laws we
Whatever the current law in NY is, this doesn't change it. So if a
religious organization owns and operates an assisted living facility, and it
excludes occupants on religious grounds, and it preaches against same-sex
intimacy, it probably would be free to exclude same-sex partners. Their
orientation, etc.) merely because
such discrimination is religiously motivated -- it only permits
discrimination in favor of coreligionists.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ira Lupu
mailto:icl...@law.gwu.eduicl...@law.gwu.edu
icl...@law.gwu.edumailto:icl...@law.gwu.edu icl...@law.gwu.edu
May members of the church group join in prayer during the picnic/barbecue?
It's hard to see why baptism would be different (from the state's point of
view re: devoting public resources to worship), unless Marty is correct that
the body of water is not open for swimming or wading (and no one on the
The student organizers (from the GW chapter of the J. Reuben Clark Law
Society), Bob Tuttle, and I want to call your attention to the details of
this year's National Religious Freedom Moot Court Competition:
The 6th Annual National Religious Freedom Moot Court Competition will be
held at George
Does the line of cases that allow sexual harassment claims for damages by
clergy against their religious employers (e.g., Bollard v. Cal. Province of
Society of Jesus, 196 F. 3d 940 (9th Cir, 1999)) survive Hosanna-Tabor? Is
that just another employment discrimination suit, or is it more like an
on employer-based health insurance coverage? Or would coverage
of similar services by Medicaid that is supported by taxpayers more broadly
an equal problem?
Howard Friedman
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Ira Lupu
Sent: Mon 2/13/2012 8:49 AM
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2012 5:50 AM
*To:* Marc DeGirolami
*Cc:* Zietlow, Rebecca E.; Walsh, Kevin; Law Religion issues for Law
Academics; Con Law Prof list
*Subject:* Re: Contraceptives and gender discrimination
On the burden question -- Religious entities may limit hiring to
co-religionists, and then make their best efforts to enforce religious
norms against employees. Doesn't that option make the burden of the HHS
policy far less substantial?
I think a common reaction to the religious liberty claim
Having processed this rich conversation, I find myself convinced that a)
the objecting religious institutions see themselves as burdened by these
rules, and that government should not second-guess that determination, but
b) the question of substantiality has to be for the government under some
Is this outcome surprising in any way? Does anyone on the list believe
that the court got this wrong? (I certainly don't).
If Congress overrode HHS and eliminated pregnancy prevention services from
mandatory coverage by employers under the Affordable Care Act, wouldn't the
analysis be just the
...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:32 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment
Clause challenge
** **
Is this outcome surprising in any way? Does anyone on the list
for human consumption (as
it did in 1998), so it should be free to ban the sale of pork - not that
I'd ever endorse that as a policy matter!
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edureligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
We are making this so much more complicated than it has to be. I cannot
speak to the particulars of the case in Germany, so I won't try. But in
the U.S, we have a longstanding tradition, initially at common law and
ultimately in constitutional law (Pierce, Meyer, etc.) of parental control
over
?
** **
Eugene
** **
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Thursday, July 05, 2012 7:38 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: German circumcision decision
** **
We
.
Is there dispositive caselaw I'm missing here?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edureligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 7:38 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject
religious liberty.
--
*From:*
religionlaw-bounces+aebrownstein=ucdavis@lists.ucla.edu[religionlaw-bounces+aebrownstein=
ucdavis@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:50 AM
.
Is there dispositive caselaw I'm missing here?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 7:38 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
If Smith's hybrid rights explanation of Yoder is all there is against my
argument that religious motivation should add or subtract nothing from
parental rights to engage in particular child-rearing practices, I'll
happily rest my case. All I'm suggesting is that once we have a general
set of
harm to a child.
Marci
On Jul 5, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
Our ordinary, wide-spread, and long-standing presumption is that
parents/guardians act in the best interests of their minor children. The
state may intervene -- overcome that presumption -- when parents
** **
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:* Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:45 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law
...@lists.ucla.edureligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu?]
*On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:10 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
The formal findings
suggesting that it has evolved into a different standard?
Marci
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-
From: Ira Lupu icl
Re: Chris Lund's question about Lee -- The Amish take care of their own who
are disabled or no longer able to work. They didn't want to pay twice --
once for FICA contributions, and again in their own community. And the
FICA contributions were earmarked for just that use.
Employers objecting to
In these cases about landlord or employer liability or criminal complicity,
the landlord or employer is denying complicity, and the law imposes
objective standards to adjudicate the question. It would never be the case
that the law would allow the landlord or employer to escape liability by
Re: Marty's post below -- wouldn't an RLUIPA-based right for some
religiously motivated prisoners to obtain conjugal visits discriminate in
the allocation of a constitutionally protected activity -- i.e., the right
of intimate association?
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Marty Lederman
I have a suspicious mind. This case smells of immigration fraud. Ashok
and Bakula are American citizens. How did it come to pass that this baby
was born to them in India? Did they present evidence of the mother's
pregnancy, or of delivery to her in a hospital in India? (What is the
source of
The difference between the college scenario that Greg raises and the health
insurance scenario may be the universal entitlement to the latter that the
ACA creates. As others have said, the Missouri plaintiff is not obligated
to have a family health insurance policy, nor is he obligated to include
?
Eugene
FROM: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] ON BEHALF OF Ira Lupu
SENT: Friday, August 16, 2013 2:18 PM
TO: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
SUBJECT: Re: New Twist On Challenge to ACA Contraceptive Mandate
The difference
[
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edureligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
*On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Friday, August 16, 2013 6:07 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: New Twist On Challenge to ACA Contraceptive Mandate
** **
Eugene and I agree
This academic year's National Religious Freedom Moot Court Competition will
be held at George Washington University Law School on February 7-8, 2014.
This year's problem considers a hypothetical federal program that provides
funding for houses of worship, along with other community facilities, to
But the government is under no obligation to provide contraceptive coverage
for women even if it loses these two cases in the Supreme Court. And if it
loses them, the female employees and family members who lose this coverage
will suffer (in full) the third party harms that Nelson, Micah, Fred
I don't know why the relevant time frame is post-Sherbert and pre-Smith.
Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) is just two years prior to Sherberrt, and all of
the Justices take quite seriously (though only Brennan, the author of
Sherbert, and Stewart, actually accept) the free exercise claims of Mr.
Tom, Nelson, and Micah have very artfully and rigorously framed the
relevant questions re: the role of third party harms and Establishment
Clause concerns in the contraceptive mandate litigation. Paul's question
was addressed to Nelson, but I would like to suggest an answer --
Hosanna-Tabor can
All of Marci's hypotheticals are loaded up, because they involve direct
imposition on women's behavior (wear head scarves, don't use certain
medicines or drugs) rather than just refusing to pay for the relevant
goods. And Marci's claim that Hobby Lobby and others are engaging in
religious
Eugene:
1. I strongly suggest that you read the Gedicks and Van Tassell article,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2328516, RFRA Exemptions
from the Contraception Mandate: An Unconstitutional Accommodation of
Religion, for a fully developed answer to your questions.
2. Your
But there were also exemptions for graduate students in all fields of
health sciences (medicine, dentistry, optometry, etc.). So the divinity
student exemption is more like the property tax exemption upheld in Walz --
it is part of a larger set of exemptions in which many/most are secular
(and
The reason not to construe RFRA to apply to all secular philosophical
objectors is that it's just plain crazy as a matter of policy. RFRA (which
we would have to rename FRA after such a construction) applies to all of
federal law. So this construction would give the holder of every crackpot
suddenly cause
much bigger problems?
Eugene
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 03, 2013 7:45 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: RFRA
And the clergy-penitent privilege is one of many such privileges --
doctor-patient, lawyer-client, spousal privilege, etc. They are designed
to encourage communication within relationships the law values. So this
example is like Walz -- it does not involve special treatment for religion.
It is
Why don't all these religious nonprofits choose Christian Brothers Services as
their health insurer? That way, certification or not, the employees will not
receive the services to which the employer objects? Something is missing from
this narrative.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2014, at
I too found Alan Brownstein's post, which Rick put up at MOJ and linked in
his post here, quite thoughtful and provocative. I am not a Catholic, so I
do not feel like I have a basis for judgment about Notre Dame's arguments
that rest on ideas of both complicity and scandal (as I understand the
No apologies necessary, Alan. All of the points in your recent post --
that the Town of Greece prayer policy raises structural issues as well as
coercion/liberty issues , and that many on (and off) this list are quite
selective in the religious liberty concerns with which they sympathize --
are
Greg Sisk's post quite stunningly asks for mutual respect for the
contending concerns in the contraceptive mandate cases, and then (just as
Greg Lipper wrote) minimizes the concern for women's health and well-being
that explains the contraceptive mandate. The safest and most effective
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your
questions):
1. Other rights contexts (like free speech) where third party costs are
present -- Religion is different. The Establishment Clause is a limit on
the government's power to authorize one party to act on religious
. 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:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:44 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re
Even in red states, it's incredible how fast hearts and minds are
changing . . .
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edumailto:
icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
Look at the new Kansas law on the right of individuals and religious
entities to discriminate against those
The Kansas bill is very sex/gender specific, and it is not limited to
weddings in any way. The rights it creates appear absolute -- no interest
balancing. It would authorize all sincere religious objectors (persons and
entities, including businesses) to treat same sex marriages/domestic
in this context?
Many thanks.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
The Kansas bill is very sex/gender specific, and it is not limited to
weddings in any way. The rights it creates appear absolute -- no interest
balancing. It would authorize all sincere religious
: are you asserting that *none* have adopted the
broader exceptions (wedding vendors, etc)?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
Hillel:
The same sex marriage laws to which you refer do have exceptions, for
clergy, houses of worship, and (sometimes
For purposes of a state RFRA or a state constitution, I do not understand
why defenses to a private right of action for discrimination (e.g., a
merchant refused to serve me because of my race, religion, etc.; merchant
defends on religious freedom grounds) are any different from defenses to a
I think that the politics of the moment, and the conversations we have been
having (including the reference to Jim Oleske's provocative article about
religious objections to inter-racial marriage compared to religious
objections to same sex marriage, *Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages:
Similar
/marci_hamilton
-Original Message-
From: Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 9:20 am
Subject: Re: Protecting Religious Conscience from Private Suits -- How far
do we go under the Const and under RFRAs
(and
that of David Green) is not following his conscience, but seeking full
coverage under aegis of state laws without any compromise.
-Kevin Chen
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
I think that the politics of the moment, and the conversations we have
been having (including
Greg Sisk's post re: how to think about the wedding photographer is just
the compelled speech argument one more time. In the case of a
photographer, a First A claim of compelled speech is plausible, though not
entirely persuasive. In the case of a baker, florist, wine vendor, or
caterer, the
--
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Ira Lupu [
icl...@law.gwu.edu]
*Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 6:45 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* bigotry and sincere religious belief
I think
Yes, a sad and disturbing story that Jean tells (perhaps a threat of
assault, or some other crime). Likewise, a sad story about the evangelists
that Greg S. tells (rudeness and worse). But neither story is about
discrimination as the law understands it, because passersby had no legal
duty to
School of Law
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 1, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
Yes, a sad and disturbing story that Jean tells (perhaps a threat of
assault, or some other crime). Likewise, a sad story about the evangelists
that Greg S. tells (rudeness and worse). But neither
Thank you for this courtesy, Mark.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 10, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
So that those on the list will be satisfied who want us all to disclose our
public statements, here is a news report of the testimony I gave
A group of ten legal academics, including myself and a number of others who
post on this list, have prepared a letter urging the legislative defeat of
a proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Mississippi. The letter
has recently been delivered and made publicly available. It can be found
...@lists.ucla.edureligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
*On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:21 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* letter opposing Mississippi RFRA
A group of ten legal academics, including myself and a number of others
who post on this list, have prepared
Braunfeld did not sell meat. From the opinion: Appellants are merchants
in Philadelphia who engage in the retail sale of clothing and home
furnishings within the proscription of the statute in issue.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
slevin...@law.utexas.edu wrote:
With
Has there been any discussion from either side of what is meant by
arrangements? It might be limited to wedding receptions/parties, etc.,
but one can imagine broader interpretations that go to the full range of
human activities involved in operating a household as a married couple.
On Fri, May
It is worth recalling that federal RFRA itself was anything but divisive.
Au contraire. It passed with overwhelming support from both parties, and
wide support among civil rights and civil liberties groups (with Hobby
Lobby under advisement, some of these groups are now running from RFRA like
it
to
bestow immense policy-making power on those same courts through RFRA.
There's a legislative process lesson in there somewhere.
On Monday, June 9, 2014, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
It is worth recalling that federal RFRA itself was anything but divisive.
Au contraire. It passed
exceptions points in this direction.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
It's a very old lesson. Legislators support vague delegations aimed at
some general good (clean air, workplace safety, endangered species), and
claim political credit for doing so
yields. This abdication of
policy-making responsibility by legislators is indefensible.
Eugene can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think his proposed common-law
approach to religious exceptions points in this direction.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu
...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Friday, July 04, 2014 2:13 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Underinclusion Arguments Going Forward [Was Hobby Lobby
Question]
I'm sure that Hobby Lobby (and Notre Dame, etc.) wanted a decision that
said
have relied on that very heavily
in O Centro.
I’m saying this without the Hobby Lobby opinions in front of me.
Best,
Chris
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Friday, July 04, 2014 2:13 PM
*To:* Law
Nothing in federal statutory law now forbids LGBT discrimination by any
private party. And religious organizations would in any event be free to
discriminate against openly gay employees under Section 702 of the '64
Civil Rights Act. That is, such a decision could be defended as being on
the
This piece has additional insight:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/three-reasons-lgbt-groups-are-fighting-over-a-bill-that-isnt
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
The Times reports that the administration is getting heavy pressure from
both
for enactment. A combination of the intransigent
Republican resistance and the new RFRA concern raised by Hobby Lobby
therefore made it virtually inevitable that LGBT supporters would now
withdraw their support for the ENDA religious exemption.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Ira Lupu icl
Because of the amount of interest in Hobby Lobby on both of these lists, I
am taking the liberty to let list-members know that I have just posted on
SSRN a paper entitled Hobby Lobby and the Dubious Enterprise of Religious
Exemptions. The paper is forthcoming in a Symposium on Religious
I'm not sure that Marty and Nelson are disagreeing with Eric at the bottom
line. Eric writes that religious employers should be prepared to
demonstrate that they have applied behavioral standards evenhandedly. For
example, the court in *Boyd* might well have upheld the pregnant teacher’s
sex and
Certainly the state has no business dictating to an organization the
criteria for being a Jew (matrilineal; degree of observance; appropriate
beliefs; etc) or being of any other faith. The reasoning behind the
ministerial exception would preclude such a determination by the state,
would it not?
] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:55 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Question about the President's executive order on sexual
orientation discrimination
I'm not sure that Marty and Nelson are disagreeing with Eric at the bottom
line. Eric
Thanks, Tom. I cannot get either link to work. Have others been able to
access these documents?
May I ask if the expansion of the accommodation to for-profits is a
proposal put out for notice and comment over a prescribed number of days?
Chip
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Berg, Thomas C.
Here are responses to my own questions:
*Interim Final Rule for Non-profits*
The administration is issuing interim final regulations that lay out an
additional way for organizations eligible for an accommodation to provide
notice of their religious objection to providing coverage for
George Washington University will once again host the National Religious
Freedom Moot Court Competition, presented by the J. Reuben Clark Law
Society. The registration period is open from now until Nov. 15, 2014. The
problem will be released on Nov. 17, 2014. The competition will be held at
GW
Many states do not have a RFRA. Discrimination by vendors cannot violate
Title VII, because it protects only those in the employment relationship.
Some states outlaw discrimination by vendors against LGBT people, but there
are very few states that do that and also have a RFRA. So these questions
The federal law of nondiscrimination in public accommodations covers hotels
and restaurants (which may be wedding vendors), but it does not outlaw
discrimination based on LGBT status, or even discrimination based on sex
(it is limited to race, color, religion, and national origin).
I believe that
I'm a bit bewildered by Scalia's comment and the substantive reactions to
it. Why in the world is a Justice telling us what he would have voted for
as a Member of Congress, when that's not his role in the government?
Perhaps he would not have voted for the NLRA or the APA either; should that
of simply saying my job is to enforce its commands even if I
consider them stupid or even pernicious? Scalia should get a pass on this
one.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 19, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu wrote:
I'm a bit bewildered by Scalia's comment
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,
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
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
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
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
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
://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
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
, 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
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
-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
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
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;
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
