Mark-- does the AZ bill permit discrimination on gender and race by private businesses?
The RFRAs say explicitly they are good against the govt. expanding to private parties is a huge leap. Remember RFRAs are supposedly the "return" to constitutional protections. The Constitution requires state action but the RFRAs are explicit in the need for a govt defendant. It's not NYT v Sullivan Marci Sent from my iPhone On Feb 26, 2014, at 9:45 AM, "Scarberry, Mark" <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: > Marci's view of the rights of a Walmart under tha AZ bill, and likely even > the Kansas bill, is simply wrong. > > The application in the AZ bill to private enforcement by way of lawsuit > simply prevents the state from doing indirectly what it can't do directly, > cf. NY Times v. Sullivan, and makes clear something that already should be > the case under RFRAs, properly interpreted. > > It also is the case that the AZ bill is much more moderate/sweeping than the > Kansas bill. > > Mark S. Scarberry > Pepperdine University School of Law > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Marci Hamilton > Date:02/26/2014 5:09 AM (GMT-08:00) > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit > businesses > > They are similar in that both involve believers demanding a right to > discriminate due to their religion. If Hobby Lobby wins, Walmart will have an > argument to get around prohibitions based on race, gender, religion, > alienage, and disability. > All they need is one owner or board member and they are good to go. > > But here is the critical difference: The state amendment proposals are not > moderate or almost identical. Rfra applies only against the govt. These > bills bring private vs private disputes under its misguided, concocted > standard. It's ugly. > > Marci > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 25, 2014, at 11:58 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > >> I have. My point is your condemnation is not compelling to me when we >> disagree on a either more moderate or almost identical bill (depending on >> how Hobby Lobby comes out). >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: >>> Have you read anything I've written for the last 20 years? >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> http://sol-reform.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> >>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >>> Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 8:47 pm >>> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit >>> businesses >>> >>> Would you say the Federal RFRA is egregious, Marci? >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: >>>> I have read them and both are egregious. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:15 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" >>>> <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Arizona bill and the Kansas bill are very different. I don’t have >>>>> time right now to discuss this further, but all you have to do is to read >>>>> the bills. If you do, you will see that the arguments equating the two >>>>> are simply and egregiously wrong. I hope no one will comment in any >>>>> strong way without actually reading them. >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>> 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 Greg Hamilton >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:55 PM >>>>> To: mich...@californialaw.org; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>>>> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit >>>>> businesses >>>>> >>>>> …and Alan has been championing this bill on the spot at the Arizona >>>>> capitol. Sigh. I have fought him over it when he tried to push me into >>>>> supporting the Idaho bill which was just as egregious as the Arizona >>>>> bill, but perhaps more targeted. >>>>> >>>>> Gregory W. Hamilton, President >>>>> Northwest Religious Liberty Association >>>>> 5709 N. 20th Street >>>>> Ridgefield, WA 98642 >>>>> Office: (360) 857-7040 >>>>> Website: www.nrla.com >>>>> >>>>> <image001.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> Championing Religious Freedom and Human Rights for All People of Faith >>>>> >>>>> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>>>> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Peabody >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:38 PM >>>>> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>>>> Subject: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit >>>>> businesses >>>>> >>>>> After reading the legislation, it's amazing how broadly it is drafted. It >>>>> would seem to not only include permitting discrimination on the basis of >>>>> sexual orientation or marital status, but also on the basis of religion. >>>>> It would make it very easy for any business with a religious inkling to >>>>> refuse to accommodate the religious exercise of employees, or even >>>>> terminate them on the basis of religious differences. >>>>> >>>>> The Hobby Lobby case may go a long way in showing what rights employers >>>>> have, and it seems to be part of a general strike against the application >>>>> of the Bill of Rights to the states (14th Amendment). >>>>> >>>>> Any time the principle argument in favor of a potentially dangerous law >>>>> is, "What's the worse that can happen?" I think there's reason to get >>>>> really nervous. >>>>> >>>>> There is probably an answer for those who don't want to violate their >>>>> religious conscience by accommodating those members of protected classes >>>>> that disagree with them, but this legislation is not it. >>>>> >>>>> Michael D. Peabody, Esq. >>>>> Editor >>>>> ReligiousLiberty.TV >>>>> http://www.religiousliberty.tv >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> To post, sen > _______________________________________________ > 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.
