I don't know that all bets would need to be off in any case, since other state RFRAs have long used "burden" rather than "substantial burden," e.g. Connecticut's.
________________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [dlayc...@virginia.edu] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:15 PM To: b...@jmcenter.org; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Religious exemptions in ND The Supreme Court of the United states would have had nothing to say about the meaning of Measure 3. It would have been a state law issue. On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:50:43 -0400 (EDT) "b...@jmcenter.org" <b...@jmcenter.org> wrote: >Eric, > >Glad to see you focusing on the claims made with respect to Measure 3. I've >been >counseling a nontheistic North Dakota group for over a year on Measure 3 and >its >predecessor. My primary concern has been the potential use of Measure 3 to >legalize discrimination against atheists, members of minority religions and >LGBT. Considering the fact that Justice Scalia doesn't believe the >Establishment >Clause protects atheists, Justice Thomas doesn't believe in incorporation and >six of nine justices self-identify themselves as Catholic, all bets are off >what >would have benn protected by mere burden in Measure 3. > >Bob Ritter >Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty >A Project of the Law Office of Robert V. Ritter >Falls Church, VA >703-533-0236 > > >On June 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM Eric Rassbach <erassb...@becketfund.org> wrote: > >> >> These appear to be some of the main arguments against passing the RFRA: >> >> http://ndagainst3.com/get-the-facts/ >> >> As an example, this TV ad said that the RFRA would allow men to marry girls >> aged 12 and to beat their spouses: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ngnqGR6e8 >> >> There was also quite a bit of blog chatter about sharia law being enforced in >> North Dakota as a result of passing the RFRA. >> >> I did not see anything about Native Americans. >> >> >> Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 _______________________________________________ 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.
