Paul's Prawfsblawg post is, I think, fairly described as trying to suggest that the Corbin/Griffin amicus brief (which he praises) does not fairly reflect the view of most professors who teach Law and Religion, and that, instead, there is "a very different and *nearly unanimous consensus* about this case . . . among those who spend most of their time working on these issues from a law and religion perspective."
Hmmm . . . I wonder, is that true? Is there a nearly unanimous consensus among law & religion scholars that a religious school should have complete immunity from employment law rules, including anti-retaliation rules, even in cases where (i) the position in question involves secular functions in a commercial setting; (ii) the school has not demonstrated a right to an exemption under *Boy Scouts v. Dale* (either because there's no substantial impact on its expression or because the state interest outweighs that impact, or both); and (iii) the school has not demonstrated a right to an exemption under RFRA (either because there's no significant burden on religious exercise or because the state interest outweighs the burden, or both)? I'm not aware of anything like a consensus on that question. Not even sure what the majority view would be among such scholars. On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Paul Horwitz <phorw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I have a brief and basically non-substantive post up on Prawfsblawg today > about the "Law and Religion Professors" brief. Also, the Northwestern > University Law Review Colloquy will be running several pieces on the case; > they should be up on the web site by around the start of Term. I have read > some but not all of the briefs (and I haven't read Marci's yet; my > apologies). I certainly think Caroline Corbin and Leslie Griffin, the > writers of the "Law and Religion Professors" brief, do an excellent job of > giving the best case against the ministerial exception from a doctrinal > position, although I also think their position is both too closely focused > on the doctrine and not focused enough on broader history (and even within > the doctrine I think they misread Jones v. Wolf), and too consequentialist. > Again, though, I certainly applaud them for putting their best arguments > forward -- although they haven't changed my mind. > > Paul Horwitz > > ------------------------------ > From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:53:06 -0400 > Subject: Hosanna-Tabor and the "Ministerial Exception" > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > > Now that all the briefs are in except Doug's reply -- see > http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/10-553.html -- I was > wondering if anyone has any reactions, in particular whether anyone's views > have changed by virtue of the briefs. I haven't seen much discussion online > lately. > > > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to > Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or > get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note > that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone > can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read > the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > messages to others. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
