Marci, has any church ever won any form of sexual abuse case on a RFRA theory?
I will not assert that the number of such cases is zero, because I do not claim
to have read every case. I am confident that the number of such cases is very
small. As Eugene has already noted, the churches that have won negligent
supervision or negligent hiring cases on religious liberty theories have won
them on the ground that liability would interfere with the relationship between
the church and its ministers. And that theory was never based in RFRA or
Sherbert-Yoder. It was and is based in Watson v. Jones and the line of cases
that also led to the ministerial exception.
We can all agree that the underlying conduct in the sex abuse cases is
indefensible. Every judge has agreed with that too. You use them like a
three-year old with a newly discovered hammer, to beat on any religious liberty
issue no matter how remote or irrelevant. At the AALS in January, you dragged
the sex abuse cases into a panel on the land use provisions of RLUIPA. You
combine the worst sort of ad hominem with the worst sort of guilt by
association – some religious folks have done bad things, so all religious folks
should have their liberty constrained in all domains.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:12 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Religious exemptions and child sexual abuse
Doug-- your downplaying of rfras' effect is inaccurate and misleading. The
rfras can apply and they are invoked in these cases Just because a case
comes down on common law theory doesn't mean rfras don't apply.
I think you have sidestepped the issues. Obviously, rfras can be invoked in
these cases Are you opposed to exempting child safety from the RFRAs?
And what is your view on a RFRA without substantial modifying burden?
Marci
On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:01 AM, "Douglas Laycock" <dlayc...@virginia.edu> wrote:
Gibson v. Brewer is an outlier, giving the church more protection than most
states provide. And the protection Gibson provides is roughly equivalent to
what state and federal law provides the public schools in similar
circumstances. No state has even considered giving religious liberty protection
to abusers. The only dispute is with respect to entities who weren’t there and
didn’t do it, but might have been able to prevent it. And most of those cases
are decided under common law rules uninfluenced by RFRAs or free exercise
clauses.
I have written about Gibson v. Brewer in Michigan in 2007.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:02 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Religious exemptions and child sexual abuse
I was talking about the facts of how these cases are litigated. I represent
many victims in numerous cases around the country on the First Am and RFRA
issues. The RCC and LDS on particular push the religious freedom claims hard
in such cases. Sometimes together
Gibson v Brewer out of Missouri Is a good case to start with
Marci
On Jun 14, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Arthur Spitzer <artspit...@gmail.com> wrote:
Marci - I don't believe you've stated the facts of a single case. I'd say the
same thing if you were a man.
Art
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote:
I'm not sure why stating the facts in these cases is "rhetoric" I sincerely
hope it is not because a woman is pointing out the facts rather than a man.
This last statement also is not rhetoric but an honest observation.
_______________________________________________
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.
